Search

Purpose: This phase 1b/2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of capmatinib plus nazartinib in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In phase 1b, patients with progression on first-/second-generation EGFR-TKIs received escalating doses of capmatinib 200-400 mg bid plus nazartinib 50-150 mg qd. Once the MTD/RP2D was declared, phase 2 commenced with patient enrollment into groups according to mutation status and prior lines of treatment: group 1 (fasted; EGFR-TKI resistant; 1-3 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET); group 2 (fasted; EGFR-TKI naïve; 0-2 prior lines; de novo T790M+; any MET); group 3 (fasted; treatment-naïve; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; T790M-; any MET); group 4 (with food; 0-2 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET). Primary endpoints in phase 2 were investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 (groups 1-3), safety, and tolerability of the combination with food (group 4). Efficacy was assessed by T790M and MET status for a subgroup of patients., Results: The RP2D was capmatinib 400 mg bid plus nazartinib 100 mg qd. In phase 2 (n = 144), the ORR was 28.8 %, 33.3 %, 61.7 %, and 42.9 % in groups 1 (n = 52), 2 (n = 3), 3 (n = 47), and 4 (n = 42), respectively. In group 1 +phase 1b RP2D, the ORR was 45.8 %, 26.2 %, 37.9 %, and 32.4 % in MET+ (n = 24), MET- (n = 42), T790M+ (n = 29), and T790M- (n = 34) patients. Most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25 %; n = 144) were peripheral edema (54.9 %), nausea (41.7 %), diarrhea (34.0 %), and maculopapular rash (25.0 %)., Conclusion: Capmatinib plus nazartinib showed antitumor activity in patients with EGFR-TKI-resistant, EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The overall safety profile was acceptable., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02335944., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Enriqueta Felip: Consulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo. Speakers' Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peervoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Touch Oncology. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche. Other Relationship: Grifols. Uncompensated Relationships: Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí , SEOM (Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica), President from 2021–2023, “ETOP IBCSG Partners” Member of the Scientific Committee. Giulio Metro: Consultants fee from Amgen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. Ross A. Soo: Advisory Board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lily, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan. Research grant: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. Jürgen Wolf: Advisory boards and lecture fees: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; Research Support (to institution): BMS, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Pfizer. Benjamin J. Solomon: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Roche/Genentech, Pfizer (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Amgen, Lilly, BeiGene, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline. Research Funding: Sanofi (Inst). Daniel SW Tan: Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Merck, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, C4 Therapeutics. Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. Andrea Ardizzoni: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Abbvie, Roche. Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Roche, Sanofi. Dae Ho Lee: Honoraria: Abbvie; AstraZeneca/MedImmune; BC World Pharm; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; ChongKeunDang Healthcare; Lilly; Menarini; MSD; Novartis; Ono Pharmaceutical; Pfizer; Roche/Genentech; Samyang; ST Cube; Takeda; Yuhan. Consulting or Advisory Role: ST Cube. Lecia V. Sequist: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca; Genentech/Roche; Takeda. Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Delfi Diagnostics (Inst); Novartis (Inst). Fabrice Barlesi: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Eisai Europe (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst). Research Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Innate Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Takeda (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech. Santiago Ponce-Aix: No conflicts of interest. Delvys Rodriguez Abreu: Consulting/advisory role from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca Spain, Novartis; Speaker fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; Travel expense from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Novartis. Maria Rosario Garcia Campelo: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Oncology. Speakers' Bureau: Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD Oncology, Sanofi/Aventis, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, Lilly. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, Pfizer. Mette Sprauten: No conflicts of interest. Leslie O’Sullivan Djentuh: Employee of Novartis. Nathalie Smith: Employee of Novartis. Aline Jary: Employee of Novartis. Riccardo Belli: Employee of Novartis. Sabine Glaser: Employee of Novartis and stockholder of Novartis, Alcon, Sandoz. Mike Zou: Employee of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Xiaoming Cui: Employee and stockholder - Novartis. Monica Giovannini: Employee of Novartis. James Chih-Hsin Yang: Honoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Celgene, Bayer, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Yuhan, Hansoh, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, AbbVie, Takeda, Amgen, Incyte, Merck Serono (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nearly 1% to 2% of NSCLCs harbor RET fusions. Characterization of this rare population is still incomplete., Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included patients with any-stage RET positive (RET+) NSCLC from 31 cancer centers. Molecular profiling included DNA/RNA sequencing or fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses. Clinicobiological features and treatment outcomes (per investigator) with surgery, chemotherapy (CT), immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs), CT-ICB, multityrosine kinase inhibitors, and RET inhibitors (RETis) were evaluated., Results: For 218 patients included between February 2012 and April 2022, median age was 63 years, 56% were females, 93% had adenocarcinoma, and 41% were smokers. The most frequent fusion partner was KIF5B (72%). Median tumor mutational burden was 2.5 (range: 1-4) mutations per megabase, and median programmed death-ligand 1 expression was 10% (range: 0%-55%). The most common metastatic sites were the lung (50%), bone (43%), and pleura (40%). Central nervous system metastases were found at diagnosis of advanced NSCLC in 21% of the patients and at last follow-up or death in 31%. Overall response rate and median progression-free survival were 55% and 8.7 months with platinum doublet, 26% and 3.6 months with single-agent CT, 46% and 9.6 months with CT-ICB, 23% and 3.1 months with ICB, 37% and 3 months with multityrosine kinase inhibitor, and 76% and 16.2 months with RETi, respectively. Median overall survival was longer in patients treated with RETi versus no RETi (50.6 mo [37.7-72.1] versus 16.3 mo [12.7-28.8], p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Patients with RET+ NSCLC have mainly thoracic and bone disease and low tumor mutational burden and programmed death-ligand 1 expression. RETi markedly improved survival, whereas ICB may be active in selected patients., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nazartinib, a novel third-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, previously demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received ≤ 3 prior lines of systemic therapy. Herein, we report phase 2 efficacy and safety of first-line nazartinib., Methods: This single-arm, open-label, global study enrolled treatment-naive adult patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR-activating mutations (eg, L858R and/or ex19del). Patients with neurologically stable and controlled brain metastases were also eligible. Patients received oral nazartinib 150 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1., Results: Forty-five patients received ≥ 1 dose of nazartinib. The median follow-up time from enrollment to data cutoff (November 1, 2019) was 30 months (range: 25-34). The BIRC-assessed ORR was 69% (95% CI, 53-82). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18 months (95% CI, 15-not estimable [NE]). The median overall survival was NE. In patients with baseline brain metastases (n = 18), the ORR and median PFS (95% CIs) were 67% (41-87) and 17 months (11-21). Seventeen of 18 patients had brain metastases as non-target lesions; the CNS lesions were absent/normalized in 9 of 17 (53%). Only 2 of 27 patients without baseline brain metastases developed new brain metastases postbaseline. Most frequent adverse events (≥ 25%, any grade, all-causality) were diarrhea (47%), maculopapular rash (38%), pyrexia (29%), cough, and stomatitis (27% each)., Conclusions: First-line nazartinib demonstrated promising efficacy, including clinically meaningful antitumor activity in the brain, and manageable safety in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02108964., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Tan reports consulting or advisory role for Novartis, Merck, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, and Janssen; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer; and research funding (institution) from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, and AstraZeneca. Dr. S–W Kim reports advisory role for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novartis; research funding from AstraZeneca and Novartis; and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. PonceAix reports consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche; speakers' bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, expenses from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Sequist reports consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Janssen Oncology, and Takeda; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Guardant Health, Johnson & Johnson, Loxo, Merck, Merrimack, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Smit reports consulting or advisory role (institution) for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Yang reports personal fees (advisory board) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Yuhan, and Daiichi Sankyo; grants to conduct investigator initiated study from AstraZeneca; and institutional fees (advisory board) from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Bayer, Yuhan, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Hida reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Kissei Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; and research funding (institution) from Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Ignyta, Janssen, Kissei Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. Dr. Toyozawa reports honoraria from Chugai Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; and research funding (institution) from Abbvie, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda. Dr. Felip reports consulting or advisory role for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CME outfitters, Eli Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Springer, Takeda, and touchIME; research funding (institution) from EMD Serono and Merck; and other relationship from GRÍFOLS. Dr. Wolf reports consulting or advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; research funding (institution) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda. Dr. Grohé reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and MSD Oncology; research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca; and travel, accommodations, expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche. Dr. Leighl reports honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting or advisory role for Xcovery; research funding (institution) from EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Roche Canada; and travel, accommodations, expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Riely reports research funding (institution) from GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; patents, royalties, other intellectual property (institution): patent application submitted covering pulsatile use of erlotinib to treat or prevent brain metastases; travel, accommodations, expenses from MSD; and other relationship from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda. Dr. Cui and Dr. Belli report employment at Novartis and own Novartis stock. Dr. Zou is a former employee at Novartis and owns Novartis stock. Dr. Ghebremariam reports employment at Novartis, owns Novartis stock, and reports travel, accommodation, and expenses from Novartis. Leslie O'Sullivan-Djentuh and Dr. Giovannini report employment at Novartis. Dr. D-W Kim reports research funding (institution) from Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Hanmi, Janssen, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Xcovery, and Yuhan; and travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a recently proposed predictive biomarker for immunotherapy in solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Available assays for TMB determination differ in horizontal coverage, gene content and algorithms, leading to discrepancies in results, impacting patient selection. A harmonization study of TMB assessment with available assays in a cohort of patients with NSCLC is urgently needed., Methods: We evaluated the TMB assessment obtained with two marketed next generation sequencing panels: TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) and Oncomine Tumor Mutation Load (OTML) versus a reference assay (Foundation One, FO) in 96 NSCLC samples. Additionally, we studied the level of agreement among the three methods with respect to PD-L1 expression in tumors, checked the level of different immune infiltrates versus TMB, and performed an inter-laboratory reproducibility study. Finally, adjusted cut-off values were determined., Results: Both panels showed strong agreement with FO, with concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) of 0.933 (95% CI 0.908 to 0.959) for TSO500 and 0.881 (95% CI 0.840 to 0.922) for OTML. The corresponding CCCs were 0.951 (TSO500-FO) and 0.919 (OTML-FO) in tumors with <1% of cells expressing PD-L1 (PD-L1<1%; N = 55), and 0.861 (TSO500-FO) and 0.722 (OTML-FO) in tumors with PD-L1≥1% (N=41). Inter-laboratory reproducibility analyses showed higher reproducibility with TSO500. No significant differences were found in terms of immune infiltration versus TMB. Adjusted cut-off values corresponding to 10 muts/Mb with FO needed to be lowered to 7.847 muts/Mb (TSO500) and 8.380 muts/Mb (OTML) to ensure a sensitivity >88%. With these cut-offs, the positive predictive value was 78.57% (95% CI 67.82 to 89.32) and the negative predictive value was 87.50% (95% CI 77.25 to 97.75) for TSO500, while for OTML they were 73.33% (95% CI 62.14 to 84.52) and 86.11% (95% CI 74.81 to 97.41), respectively., Conclusions: Both panels exhibited robust analytical performances for TMB assessment, with stronger concordances in patients with negative PD-L1 expression. TSO500 showed a higher inter-laboratory reproducibility. The cut-offs for each assay were lowered to optimal overlap with FO., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LP-A has received honoraria for scientific advice and speaker fees from Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, PharmaMar, Merck, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Servier, Sysmex, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Ipsen, Adacap, Sanofi, Bayer and Blueprint, and participates as external member of the board of Genómica. He is founder and board member of Altum sequencing and has received institutional support for contracted research from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer. EMG-M has received honoraria for scientific advice from Bristol-Myers Squibb and speaker fees from Illumina Inc and Pfizer and she is currently employee of PharmaMar. PG has received consultant and advisory fees from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Abbvie, Guardant Health, Novartis, Lilly, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Sysmex, Blueprint Medicines and Takeda. She has been the recipient of speaker fees from Takeda, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead and Rovi, and institutional support for clinical trials from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, PharmaMar, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Theradex Oncology and BluePrint Medicines. She has also received funding for contracted research from Guardant Health and Sysmex. FL-R. has received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Abbvie, Bayer, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Thermo Fisher, and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche and Thermo Fisher. SPA has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astra-Zeneca and Targovax, is a board member of Oncosur, and has received direct research funding as project lead from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Lilly. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests. SHP has received honoraria from Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb. ES has received grants from Thermo Fisher Scientific and Bristol-Myers Squibb., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Based on the high incidence of thromboembolic events (TEs) observed in lung adenocarcinomas with ALK translocations and taking into account the biological proximity of ROS1 and ALK, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with advanced lung carcinoma carrying rearrangements in ROS1 from 23 centres in Spain and one centre in Portugal., Methods: The main objective of the study was to analyse the incidence of TE in this population, looking for predictive risk factors, and its impact on overall survival., Results: A total of 58 patients were included. The incidence of TEs throughout the disease was 46.6% (n = 27) with a median follow-up of 19 months (range: 1-78 months) and a median overall survival of 52 months in the total population and 50 months for the patients presenting TEs, with a hazards ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.47-2.65) p = 0.78. The majority of the events were venous (n = 24; 89%) and occurred in the ambulatory setting (n = 18; 67%). Almost half of the patients (n = 13; 48%) presented the TE in the peri-diagnostic period., Conclusions: The high incidence of thrombosis, especially during the cancer diagnosis process, requires special attention from a clinician. Despite the limitations of such a small descriptive study, its results are in accordance with previously reported data. It would be important to design prospective studies of antithrombotic prophylaxis in this population because of their possible impact in reducing the risk of TEs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Dr. Muñoz reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Sanofi and Celgene; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche and Amgen; grants and personal fees from Leo Pharma; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Servier, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Halozyme, Rovi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Lilly; and non-financial support from Merck Serono. Dr. Aguado reports personal fees and non-financial support from ROCHE; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS; and non-financial support from Novartis. Dr. Oliveira reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Roche, Pierre Fabre, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Zugazagoitia reports personal fees from Guardant Health, NanoString, Roche, and Pfizer. Dr. Ortega reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, Amgen, and Leo Pharma and non-financial support from Roche. Dr. Carmona reports personal fees from Rovi and Leo Pharma. Dr. Domine reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Biosca reports personal fees and other from Leo Pharma, Sanofi, and Rovi. Dr. Juan-Vidal reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genetech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Abbvie, and Takkeda. Dr. Paz-Ares reports grants and personal fees from BMS and AstraZeneca and personal fees from MSD, Roche, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Angem, Incyte, Takeda, Blueprint, and Bayer. Dr. Ponce-Aix reports personal fees and others from MSD, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pharmamar, Roche, Boehringer, Lilly, and Merck. Dr. Calvo reports honoraria as the speaker and consultant on advisory boards from Roche, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer, Novartis, and Takeda. The rest of the authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In the phase 3 RELAY trial, ramucirumab/erlotinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) over placebo/erlotinib in patients with EGFR -mutated metastatic NSCLC (median PFS 19.4 versus 12.4 months; HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46-0.76; p  < .0001). Safety was consistent with established profiles for ramucirumab and erlotinib in NSCLC. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes., Methods: Patients received oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus intravenous ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo Q2W until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D questionnaires at baseline and every other cycle. Analyses included time to deterioration (TtD) for LCSS via Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models and changes from baseline using mixed-model repeated-measures regression analysis., Results: Overall patient compliance for LCSS and EQ-5D was >95%. TtD did not differ between treatment arms for LCSS Total Score (HR = 0.962, 95% CI = 0.690-1.343) and Average Symptom Burden Index (HR = 1.012, 95% CI = 0.732-1.400). TtD of individual LCSS items (appetite loss, fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, pain, symptom distress, difficulties with daily activities, quality of life) indicated no difference between arms; however, patient-reported blood in sputum was worse for ramucirumab/erlotinib (HR = 1.987, 95% CI = 1.206-3.275). Results of LCSS mean changes from baseline were consistent with TtD, indicating no significant differences between treatment arms except for blood in sputum. Mean changes from baseline in EQ-5D index score ( p  = .94) and visual analogue scale ( p  = .95) revealed no overall differences in health status between treatment arms., Conclusions: Patients' overall quality of life and symptom burden did not differ with the addition of ramucirumab to erlotinib compared to placebo/erlotinib. These data support the clinical benefit of ramucirumab/erlotinib in untreated EGFR -mutated metastatic NSCLC.

Aim: Evaluate quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with second or third line nab -paclitaxel ± durvalumab. Patients & methods: Longitudinal QoL was assessed using Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Five-Levels and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core. Results: QoL was generally stable through eight treatment cycles (both arms). Clinically meaningful improvement from baseline was noted in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (overall constitutional score and three-item index [ nab -paclitaxel + durvalumab]) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core (global health status/QoL and emotional functioning [both arms] and pain [ nab -paclitaxel + durvalumab]) analyses. EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Five-Levels domains were stable/improved or completely resolved at least once in 19-56% and 9-51% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: While QoL trends were promising, additional data are required to support these regimens in this setting.

Background: Dual blockade of the EGFR and VEGF pathways in EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is supported by preclinical and clinical data, yet the approach is not widely implemented. RELAY assessed erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) standard of care, plus ramucirumab, a human IgG1 VEGFR2 antagonist, or placebo in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC., Methods: This is a worldwide, double-blind, phase 3 trial done in 100 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years or older in Japan and Taiwan) at the time of study entry, had stage IV NSCLC, with an EGFR exon 19 deletion (ex19del) or exon 21 substitution (Leu858Arg) mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no CNS metastases. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) plus either intravenous ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or matching placebo once every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done by an interactive web response system with a computer-generated sequence and stratified by sex, geographical region, EGFR mutation type, and EGFR testing method. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02411448, and is ongoing for long-term survival follow-up., Findings: Between Jan 28, 2016, and Feb 1, 2018, 449 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment with ramucirumab plus erlotinib (n=224) or placebo plus erlotinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up was 20·7 months (IQR 15·8-27·2). At the time of primary analysis, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group (19·4 months [95% CI 15·4-21·6]) than in the placebo plus erlotinib group (12·4 months [11·0-13·5]), with a stratified hazard ratio of 0·59 (95% CI 0·46-0·76; p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 159 (72%) of 221 patients in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group versus 121 (54%) of 225 in the placebo plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group were hypertension (52 [24%]; grade 3 only) and dermatitis acneiform (33 [15%]), and in the placebo plus erlotinib group were dermatitis acneiform (20 [9%]) and increased alanine aminotransferase (17 [8%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 65 (29%) of 221 patients in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group and 47 (21%) of 225 in the placebo plus erlotinib group. The most common serious adverse events of any grade in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group were pneumonia (seven [3%]) and cellulitis and pneumothorax (four [2%], each); the most common in the placebo plus erlotinib group were pyrexia (four [2%]) and pneumothorax (three [1%]). One on-study treatment-related death due to an adverse event occurred (haemothorax after a thoracic drainage procedure for a pleural empyema) in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group., Interpretation: Ramucirumab plus erlotinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with placebo plus erlotinib in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. Safety was consistent with the safety profiles of the individual compounds in advanced lung cancer. The RELAY regimen is a viable new treatment option for the initial treatment of EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC., Funding: Eli Lilly., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Resistance to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is a clinical challenge in patients with oncogene-driven non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC). We have analyzed the utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to impact the clinical care of patients with TKI resistance., Materials and Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional prospective study including consecutive EGFR, ALK, or ROS1-altered NSCLC patients with TKI resistance from 12 Spanish institutions. Post-progression ctDNA NGS was performed by Guardant Health (Guardant360 assay)., Results: We included 53 patients separated in 3 cohorts: 31 EGFR-mutant NSCLCs with first/second-generation TKI resistance (cohort 1), 15 EGFR T790M + NSCLCs with osimertinib resistance (cohort 2), and 7 ALK/ROS1-rearranged NSCLCs with crizotinib and/or next-generation TKI resistance (cohort 3). Besides Guardant360, 22 patients from cohort 1 (71%) underwent post-progression tumor biopsies and/or alternative plasma-based genotyping. In the entire study population, 34 patients (64%) had reliable evidence of tumor-DNA shed for resistance assessment, and 24 patients (45%) had actionable alterations. Target-independent pathogenic alterations were frequently detected, particularly at osimertinib resistance. Eleven patients (20%) received subsequent molecular-guided therapies indicated by plasma NGS alone (n = 9, 17%), or plasma NGS and tissue sequencing (n = 2, 4%), deriving the expected clinical benefit. Of these, 9 had EGFR T790 M mutation and received osimertinib, 1 had ALK G1202R mutation and received lorlatinib, and 1 had ROS1 G2032R mutation and received cabozantinib. Two additional cases from cohort 1 (6%) had undetectable EGFR T790 M by Guardant360 but were T790M + by tissue and BEAMing digital PCR respectively, and also received osimertinib., Conclusion: NGS of ctDNA detects actionable alterations in a large proportion of oncogene-driven NSCLC patients with TKI resistance, and can be used to guide subsequent treatments as a complement or alternative to tissue or PCR-based plasma genotyping in the real-world clinical setting., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Preclinical and early clinical studies suggest that combining epigenetic agents with checkpoint inhibitors can potentially improve outcomes in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase 2 trial examined second-line pembrolizumab + CC-486 (oral azacitidine) in patients with advanced NSCLC., Methods: Patients with one prior line of platinum-containing therapy were randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to CC-486 or placebo, on days 1-14, in combination with pembrolizumab on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety., Results: Among 100 patients randomised (pembrolizumab + CC-486: 51; pembrolizumab + placebo: 49), most were male (57.0%), were white (87.0%) and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 (68.0%). No significant difference in PFS was observed between the pembrolizumab + CC-486 and pembrolizumab + placebo arms (median, 2.9 and 4.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.374; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.926-2.038; P = 0.1789). Median OS was 11.9 months versus not estimable (HR, 1.375; 90% CI, 0.830-2.276; P = 0.2968); ORR was 20% versus 14%. Median treatment duration was shorter (15.0 versus 24.1 weeks), and the number of cycles was lower (5.0 versus 7.0) with pembrolizumab + CC-486 versus pembrolizumab + placebo. No new safety signals for CC-486 or pembrolizumab were detected. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the pembrolizumab + CC-486 arm, particularly gastrointestinal, potentially impacting treatment feasibility., Conclusions: No improvement in PFS was observed with pembrolizumab + CC-486 versus pembrolizumab + placebo. Decreased treatment exposure due to adverse events may have impacted efficacy with pembrolizumab + CC-486., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This randomized phase 2 trial compared the efficacy and safety of second-line nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) with or without the addition of CC-486 (an oral formulation of 5-azacytidine) in patients with advanced-stage, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive either nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 on days 8 and 15 plus CC-486 200 mg daily on days 1 to 14 or single-agent nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8, with both regimens administered every 21 days until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included the overall response rate, the disease control rate, and overall survival., Results: Between January 2015 and August 2016, 161 patients were randomized (81 to the combination arm and 80 to the single-agent nab-paclitaxel arm). There was no benefit from the addition of CC-486 to nab-paclitaxel. The median progression-free survival was 3.2 months for the combination and 4.2 months for single-agent nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.9). The median overall survival was 8.1 months in the combination arm and 17 months in the single-agent nab-paclitaxel arms (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.57). Grade 3 or greater treatment-related, emergent adverse events were reported by 40.5% of patients in the combination arm and by 31.6% of those in the single-agent nab-paclitaxel arm., Conclusions: Single-agent nab-paclitaxel was associated with promising outcomes and a tolerable safety profile as second-line treatment for patients with advanced-stage, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. There was no benefit from the addition of CC-486 to nab-paclitaxel., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: Cancer immunotherapy may alter tumor biology such that treatment effects can extend beyond radiographic progression. In the randomized, phase III OAK study of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) versus docetaxel in advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab was observed in the overall patient population, without improvement in objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS). We examine the benefit-risk of atezolizumab treatment beyond progression (TBP)., Methods: Eight hundred fifty patients included in the OAK primary efficacy analysis were evaluated. Atezolizumab was continued until loss of clinical benefit. Docetaxel was administered until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity; no crossover to atezolizumab was allowed. ORR, PFS, post-PD OS, target lesion change, and safety were evaluated., Results: In atezolizumab-arm patients, ORR was 16% versus 14% and median PFS was 4.2 versus 2.8 months per immune-modified RECIST versus RECIST v1.1. The median post-PD OS was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3-14.9) in 168 atezolizumab-arm patients continuing TBP, 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.0-12.1) in 94 patients switching to nonprotocol therapy, and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-3.4) in 70 patients receiving no further therapy. Of the atezolizumab TBP patients, 7% achieved a post-progression response in target lesions and 49% had stable target lesions. Atezolizumab TBP was not associated with increased safety risks., Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the post-PD efficacy and safety data from OAK are consistent with a positive benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab TBP in patients performing well clinically at the time of PD., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC in the primary (n = 850) and secondary (n = 1225) efficacy populations of the randomized phase III OAK study (respectively referred to as the intention-to-treat [ITT] 850 [ITT850] and ITT1225) at an updated data cutoff were assessed., Methods: Patients received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, or docetaxel, 75 mg/m 2 , intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the ITT population and programmed death-ligand 1-expressing subgroup. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of subsequent immunotherapy use in the docetaxel arm on the observed survival benefit with atezolizumab., Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in the updated ITT850 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.0006) and the ITT1225 (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.92, p = 0.0012) after minimum follow-up times of 26 and 21 months, respectively. Improved survival with atezolizumab was observed across programmed death-ligand 1 and histological subgroups. In the immunotherapy sensitivity analysis, the relative OS benefit with atezolizumab was slightly greater in the ITT850 (HR = 0.69) and ITT1225 (HR = 0.74) than the conventional OS estimate. Fewer patients receiving atezolizumab experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (14.9%) than did patients receiving docetaxel (42.4%); no grade 5 adverse events related to atezolizumab were observed., Conclusions: The results of the updated ITT850 and initial ITT1225 analyses were consistent with those of the primary efficacy analysis demonstrating survival benefit with atezolizumab versus with docetaxel. Atezolizumab continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile after longer treatment exposure and follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The FGFR4-388Arg variant has been related to poor prognosis in several types of cancer, including lung cancer. The mechanism underlying this association has not been addressed in detail in patients with this pathology. Here, we report that this FGFR4 variant induces MAPK and STAT3 activation and causes pro-oncogenic effects in NSCLC in vitro and in vivo. This variant induces the expression of EMT-related genes, such as N-cadherin, vimentin, Snail1 and Twist1. Indeed, the induction of N-cadherin protein expression by this variant is essential for its pro-tumorigenic role. The presence of the FGFR4-388Arg variant correlates with higher N-cadherin expression levels in clinical NSCLC samples and with poorer outcome in patients with FGFR expression. These results support the prognostic role of this FGFR variant in lung cancer and show that these effects may be mediated by the induction of N-cadherin expression and an EMT phenotype.

Introduction: Docetaxel and erlotinib are registered second-line treatments for wild-type EGFR NSCLC. Previous studies suggested a predictive value of the VeriStrat test in second-line therapy of NSCLC, classifying patients as either VeriStrat good or VeriStrat poor. EMPHASIS-lung aimed at exploring this predictive effect in patients with squamous cell NSCLC. The trial closed prematurely because of low accrual and results from other trials. Our analysis includes an exploratory combined analysis with results from the PROSE trial., Methods: EMPHASIS-lung was a randomized phase III multicenter trial exploring the differential effect of second-line erlotinib versus docetaxel on progression-free survival (PFS) in VeriStrat good versus VeriStrat poor patients with squamous cell NSCLC., Results: A total of 80 patients were randomized, with 72.5% categorized as VeriStrat good. Patient characteristics were balanced between VeriStrat status and treatment groups. The median PFS times with docetaxel and erlotinib treatment in the VeriStrat good cohort were 4.1 and 1.6 months, respectively, versus 1.9 and 2.1 months, respectively, in the VeriStrat poor cohort. The median overall survival (OS) times with docetaxel and erlotinib treatment in the VeriStrat good cohort were 7.8 and 8.4 months, respectively, and 4.4 and 5.2 months, respectively, in the VeriStrat poor cohort. An additional exploratory analysis was performed; in it, 47 patients from the squamous cell subgroup of PROSE were included in a combined analysis, contributing with 45 PFS and 41 OS events., Conclusions: The final analysis of EMPHASIS-lung did not show a differential effect on PFS for erlotinib versus docetaxel stratified by VeriStrat status. Similarly, in the combined analysis, no significant treatment by VeriStrat status interaction was observed (interaction p = 0.24 for PFS and 0.45 for OS, stratified by study)., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)