Afatinib as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in routine clinical practice

Background:

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in Germany and worldwide. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprises ~80% of lung cancer diagnoses; in White patients, around 10% of NSCLC cases are epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+). Head-to-head clinical trials have demonstrated superior efficacy with second-/third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) versus first-generation EGFR TKIs in EGFRm+ NSCLC. Data from routine clinical practice are necessary to confirm that clinical trial findings are transferable to real-world populations.

Methods:

In NCT02047903, a prospective non-interventional study in Germany, patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC received first-line afatinib until disease progression or intolerable adverse events. Key objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 months, objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Safety/tolerability was also assessed.

Results:

Of 152 patients, 106 (69.7%) were female, 20 (13.1%) patients had an uncommon EGFR mutation and 51 patients (33.6%) had brain metastases. A starting dose of <40 mg was received by 39 (25.7%) patients. Overall, the 12-month PFS rate was 50.2% while the median PFS was 12.2 months. The ORR was 74.6% and the median OS was 30.4 months. In patients with brain metastases and uncommon mutations, the median PFS was 10.5 and 10.7 months, and the ORR was 77.3% and 83.3%, respectively. Treatment effectiveness was similar in patients with a starting dose of <40 mg (median PFS: 16.4 months; ORR, 81.3%) and a starting dose of 40 mg (median PFS: 10.8 months; ORR, 72.1%). Adverse drug reactions were manageable and consistent with the known afatinib safety profile.

Conclusion:

The results support clinical trial data for afatinib in routine clinical practice, including in patients generally excluded from clinical trials. Outcomes were positive in patients with uncommon EGFR mutations and in those with brain metastases. Treatment benefit was also seen in patients receiving a <40 mg afatinib starting dose, supporting patient-tailored dosing.

BRAF mutations and BRAF mutation functional class have no negative impact on the clinical outcome of advanced NSCLC and associate with susceptibility to immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

BRAF mutations have been subtyped in three functional classes with different oncogenic modes of action. The clinical impact of BRAF mutational subtypes in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains to be defined. So far, ambiguous results were reported from analyses of heterogeneous patient cohorts.

METHODS

We studied patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC who were sequentially enrolled in precision oncology programs at two large German lung cancer centres from 2009 to 2019. The study period allowed evaluating the specific impact of BRAF V600E-targeting.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 72 patients, BRAF mutation subtyping revealed p.V600E mutations in 31 cases (43%), whereas 41 cases (57%) harboured 18 different BRAF mutational subtypes of functional classes II/III. Functionally relevant comutations were observed in 6.4% of class I, and 24.4% of class II/III BRAF mutations. Most patients were treated with chemotherapy. Targeted therapy was administered in 11 patients with a response rate of 72.7%. PD-1/PD-L1-immunotherapy was given in 14 patients with a response rate of 28.6%. Overall survival of patients with BRAF-mutated NSCLC was inferior (HR 1.38, p = 0.048) as compared to patients with BRAF wild-type cancers. Median time-to-treatment-failure with BRAF-targeting agents was shorter as compared to approved targeted therapy of other oncogenic drivers (HR 1.97, p = 0.05). Survival outcomes were not impacted by BRAF mutation subtype functional class.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BRAF-mutated NSCLC have an inferior prognosis, which is not determined by BRAF mutation functional class. In contrast to NSCLC with other tractable driver mutations, BRAF-mutated NSCLC exhibit high susceptibility to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

[When to test in biomarker-stratified therapy of non-small cell lung cancer - Biomarker-stratified therapy of Non-small cell lung cancer: when and what to test?]

Therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) should be based on biomarker test results in the palliative setting. To this end, testing of all patients in stage IV and in the future also in the earlier stages will be important. In a conference with the patronage of the German Cancer Society, the question of "reflex testing", i.e. independently of tumor stage, was discussed but not deemed to be acceptable. The current report summarizes the results of the consensus conference and discusses possible paths to efficent biomarker testing in NSCLC.

A randomized, multicenter phase II study comparing efficacy, safety and tolerability of two dosing regimens of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Pemetrexed and cisplatin is a first-line standard in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without targetable mutations. It became the backbone of checkpoint-inhibitor-chemotherapy combinations. Single high doses of cisplatin pose toxicity risks and require hyperhydration, potentially prolonging outpatient application. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy, safety and tolerability of split-dose cisplatin with the standard schedule.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to up to six 21-day cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 (arm A), or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (day 1) and cisplatin 40 mg/m2 (day 1 + 8, arm B), followed by pemetrexed maintenance. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary objectives were overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, treatment compliance, toxicity profile, and quality of life.

RESULTS

We enrolled 130 patients (129 evaluable). Median cycle numbers in A and B were six (1-6) and five (1-6). Dose intensities were comparable between arms. More patients in A received pemetrexed maintenance (24.2% versus 11.1%). With 16 (24.2%) in A and 19 (30.2%) patients in B achieving objective responses [odds ratio 0.74 (0.34-1.62), p = 0.55] the primary endpoint was met. Overall survival was not different between arms (median 14.4 versus 14.9 months); [HR = 1.07; (0.68-1.68), p = 0.78]. Median progression-free survival was 7.0 months in A and 6.2 months in B [HR = 1.63; (1.17-2.38); p = 0.01]. Adverse events of CTCAE grade ⩾3, particularly hematological, were more frequent in B. No difference in grade 4 and 5 infections between arms was noted. Treatment-related asthenia and nausea/vomiting of any grade were more frequent in A. Global health status, fatigue and constipation measured on day 1 of cycle 4 demonstrated superior scores in B.

CONCLUSION

Pemetrexed and split-dose cisplatin is safe and effective. Advantages of split-dose cisplatin with regard to specific toxicities allow personalization of this important chemotherapy backbone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2011-001963-37.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant end-points in health technology assessment in oncology

Health technology assessment (HTA) of clinical and economic value of a new intervention is an integral step in providing the access of patients to innovative cancer care and treatment. Overall survival (OS) is the preferred criterion for demonstrating the therapeutic efficacy in HTA given its direct clinical and patient relevance. However, with often long life expectancy of patients with early cancer, analysis of OS becomes less practical. Partially due to this reason, pathological complete response (pCR) and time-to-event end-points like disease-free survival are frequently incorporated into the pivotal clinical trials in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. However, there exists a discrepancy between different national HTA bodies regarding the acknowledgement of patient relevance of these end-points. In this article, we analysed the perspectives of patients on different aspects of end-points used in clinical trials in early cancer. Gathered evidence strongly suggests that complete tumour eradication and reduced risk of recurrence provide important psychological benefits thus signifying that pCR and time-to-event end-points are directly relevant to patients. Additionally, we reviewed opinions on patient relevance of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy end-points adopted by HTA bodies during the recent evaluations. We found that improvements in end-points used in the adjuvant setting were commonly considered as valuable to patients. In contrast, opinions on patient relevance of neoadjuvant therapy end-points varied between the national HTA bodies. Universal acknowledgement of patient relevance of therapeutic end-points for early cancer by HTA bodies is necessary to balance the inequality in uptake of innovative therapies into national healthcare systems.

KRAS G12C-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A real-world cohort from the German prospective, observational, nation-wide CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315)

OBJECTIVES

After decades of unsuccessful efforts in inhibiting KRAS, promising clinical data targeting the mutation subtype G12C emerge. Since little is known about outcome with standard treatment of patients with G12C mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we analyzed a large, representative, real-world cohort from Germany.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1039 patients with advanced KRAS-mutant or -wildtype NSCLC without druggable alterations have been recruited in the prospective, observational registry CRISP from 12/2015 to 06/2019 by 98 centers in Germany. Details on treatment, best response, and outcome were analyzed for patients with KRAS wildtype, G12C, and non-G12C mutations.

RESULTS

Within the study population, 160 (15.4 %) patients presented with KRAS G12C, 251 (24.2 %) with non-G12C mutations, 628 (60.4 %) with KRAS wildtype. High PD-L1 expression (Tumor Proportion Score, TPS > 50 %) was documented for 28.0 %, 43.5 %, and 28.9 % (wildtype, G12C, non-G12C) of the tested patients; 68.8 %, 89.3 %, and 87.7 % of the patients received first-line treatment combined with an immune checkpoint-inhibitor in 2019. TPS > 50 % vs. TPS < 1 % was associated with a significantly decreased risk of mortality in a multivariate Cox model (HR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.26-0.60, p=<0.001). There were no differences in clinical outcome between KRAS wildtype, G12C or non-G12C mutations and KRAS mutational status was not prognostic in the model.

CONCLUSION

Here we describe the so far largest prospectively recruited cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC and KRAS mutations, with special focus on the G12C mutation. These data constitute an extremely valuable historical control for upcoming clinical studies that employ KRAS inhibitors.

Lorlatinib in pretreated ALK- or ROS1-positive lung cancer and impact of TP53 co-mutations: results from the German early access program

Introduction:

We report on the results of the German early access program (EAP) with the third-generation ALK- and ROS1-inhibitor lorlatinib.

Patients and Methods:

Patients with documented treatment failure of all approved ALK/ROS1-specific therapies or with resistance mutations not covered by approved inhibitors or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis were enrolled and analyzed.

Results:

In total, 52 patients were included [median age 57 years (range 32–81), 54% female, 62% never smokers, 98% adenocarcinoma]; 71% and 29% were ALK- and ROS1-positive, respectively. G1202R and G2032R resistance mutations prior to treatment with lorlatinib were observed in 10 of 26 evaluable patients (39%), 11 of 39 patients showed TP53 mutations (28%). Thirty-six patients (69%) had active brain metastases (BM) and nine (17%) leptomeningeal carcinomatosis when entering the EAP. Median number of prior specific TKIs was 3 (range 1–4). Median duration of treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), response rate and time to treatment failure were 10.4 months, 8.0 months, 54% and 13.0 months. Calculated 12-, 18- and 24-months survival rates were 65, 54 and 47%, overall survival since primary diagnosis (OS2) reached 79.6 months. TP53 mutations were associated with a substantially reduced PFS (3.7 versus 10.8 month, HR 3.3, p = 0.003) and were also identified as a strong prognostic biomarker (HR for OS2 3.0 p = 0.02). Neither prior treatments with second-generation TKIs nor BM had a significant influence on PFS and OS.

Conclusions:

Our data from real-life practice demonstrate the efficacy of lorlatinib in mostly heavily pretreated patients, providing a clinically meaningful option for patients with resistance mutations not covered by other targeted therapies and those with BM or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis.

[Diagnosis and therapy of tumors with NTRK gene fusion]

NTRK-Genfusionen sind seltene genetische Alterationen, die tumorentitätenübergreifend vorkommen können. Während sie in den meisten soliden Tumoren nur sehr niederfrequent vorkommen, lassen sie sich in bestimmten Tumoren wie dem infantilen Fibrosarkom, dem kongenitalen mesoblastischen Nephrom und dem sekretorischen Mamma- oder Speicheldrüsenkarzinom jedoch häufig nachweisen. NTRK-Genfusionen bzw. TRK-Fusionsproteine gelten als starke onkogene Treiber. Bei Nachweis von NTRK-Genfusionen können TRK-Inhibitoren unabhängig von der Tumorentität eingesetzt werden. Vertreter sind Entrectinib und Larotrectinib. Bislang ist nur Larotrectinib in der Europäischen Union zugelassen. Für beide wurden Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit in Phase-I- und Phase-II-Studien gezeigt. Die Seltenheit der TRK-Fusionstumoren stellt diagnostische und klinische Prozesse vor große Herausforderungen: Einerseits sollen alle Patienten mit TRK-Fusionstumoren identifiziert werden, andererseits sind epidemiologische und histologische Aspekte sowie Ressourcen zu berücksichtigen. Basierend auf diesen Punkten möchten wir einen Diagnosealgorithmus für TRK-Fusionstumoren vorschlagen, außerdem stellen wir aktuelle Daten zu den TRK-Inhibitoren vor.

Biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer in routine care: Analysis of the first 3,717 patients in the German prospective, observational, nation-wide CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315)

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of treatment-determining biomarkers has been identified in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and molecular testing is recommended to enable optimal individualized treatment. However, data on implementation of these recommendations in the "real-world" setting are scarce. This study presents comprehensive details on the frequency, methodology and results of biomarker testing of advanced NSCLC in Germany.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This analysis included 3,717 patients with advanced NSCLC (2,921 non-squamous; 796 squamous), recruited into the CRISP registry at start of systemic therapy by 150 German sites between December 2015 and June 2019. Evaluated were the molecular biomarkers EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, TP53, RET, HER2, as well as expression of PD-L1.

RESULTS

In total, 90.5 % of the patients were tested for biomarkers. Testing rates were 92.2 % (non-squamous), 70.7 % (squamous) and increased from 83.2 % in 2015/16 to 94.2% in 2019. Overall testing rates for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF were 72.5 %, 74.5 %, 66.1 %, and 53.0 %, respectively (non-squamous). Testing rates for PD-L1 expression were 64.5 % (non-squamous), and 58.5 % (squamous). The most common testing methods were immunohistochemistry (68.5 % non-squamous, 58.3 % squamous), and next-generation sequencing (38.7 % non-squamous, 14.4 % squamous). Reasons for not testing were insufficient tumor material or lack of guideline recommendations (squamous). No alteration was found in 37.8 % (non-squamous), and 57.9 % (squamous), respectively. Most common alterations in non-squamous tumors (all patients/all patients tested for the respective biomarker): KRAS (17.3 %/39.2 %), TP53 (14.1 %/51.4 %), and EGFR (11.0 %/15.1 %); in squamous tumors: TP53 (7.0 %/69.1 %), MET (1.5 %/11.1 %), and EGFR (1.1 %/4.4 %). Median PFS (non-squamous) was 8.7 months (95 % CI 7.4-10.4) with druggable EGFR mutation, and 8.0 months (95 % CI 3.9-9.2) with druggable ALK alterations.

CONCLUSION

Testing rates in Germany are high nationwide and acceptable in international comparison, but still leave out a significant portion of patients, who could potentially benefit. Thus, specific measures are needed to increase implementation.

Optimizing therapy sequence to prevent patient attrition in EGFR mutation-positive advanced or metastatic NSCLC

Clinical trial and real-world data in non-small-cell lung cancer indicate that 10-60% of patients that progressed on first- or second-generation EGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) do not receive systemic second-line therapy. In our article, we discuss efficacy, safety and treatment duration with different EGFR-TKIs and stress the need for delivery of the most efficacious therapy in the first-line. We also provide our perspective on analysis of circulating tumor DNA and the role of EGFR-TKI in combined therapies. Finally, we review new therapeutic options to overcome resistance to EGFR-TKI. We believe that overall treatment duration and access to different medications in subsequent lines of therapy should be considered when planning the optimal treatment strategy.

Tepotinib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations

BACKGROUND

A splice-site mutation that results in a loss of transcription of exon 14 in the oncogenic driver MET occurs in 3 to 4% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, in this patient population.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase 2 study, we administered tepotinib (at a dose of 500 mg) once daily in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a confirmed MET exon 14 skipping mutation. The primary end point was the objective response by independent review among patients who had undergone at least 9 months of follow-up. The response was also analyzed according to whether the presence of a MET exon 14 skipping mutation was detected on liquid biopsy or tissue biopsy.

RESULTS

As of January 1, 2020, a total of 152 patients had received tepotinib, and 99 patients had been followed for at least 9 months. The response rate by independent review was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36 to 57), with a median duration of response of 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.2 to could not be estimated) in the combined-biopsy group. The response rate was 48% (95% CI, 36 to 61) among 66 patients in the liquid-biopsy group and 50% (95% CI, 37 to 63) among 60 patients in the tissue-biopsy group; 27 patients had positive results according to both methods. The investigator-assessed response rate was 56% (95% CI, 45 to 66) and was similar regardless of the previous therapy received for advanced or metastatic disease. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were considered by investigators to be related to tepotinib therapy were reported in 28% of the patients, including peripheral edema in 7%. Adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of tepotinib in 11% of the patients. A molecular response, as measured in circulating free DNA, was observed in 67% of the patients with matched liquid-biopsy samples at baseline and during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced NSCLC with a confirmed MET exon 14 skipping mutation, the use of tepotinib was associated with a partial response in approximately half the patients. Peripheral edema was the main toxic effect of grade 3 or higher. (Funded by Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; VISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02864992.).