Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (<I>ALK</I>)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Does Pemetrexed Work in Targetable, Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer? A Narrative Review

Simple Summary

The chemotherapy agent pemetrexed is currently considered in combination with other therapies for the treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients negative for gene mutations/rearrangements. The aim of this review was to highlight data from clinical studies with pemetrexed in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC positive for gene mutations/rearrangements. The results of the review suggest that pemetrexed could be a treatment option in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC positive for certain gene mutations/rearrangements.

Abstract

Pemetrexed is currently mainly considered for the treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) negative for gene mutations/rearrangements (wild-type disease (WTD)). This narrative review aimed to highlight the role of pemetrexed in the treatment of onco-driven nonsquamous advanced NSCLC by reviewing published clinical studies. For epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, patient survival following first-line pemetrexed–platinum was longer than for WTD. Later-line pemetrexed-based treatment after tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) failure provided greater benefits than non-pemetrexed regimens. First- and later-line pemetrexed-based therapy also provided survival benefits in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) or ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) rearrangements. In patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) proto-oncogene rearrangements, survival with pemetrexed was similar to that in ALK- and ROS1-positive patients and longer than that in patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) virus proto-oncogene mutations or WTD, although the available studies were limited. For Erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERRB2) mutations, first-line pemetrexed showed outcomes similar to those for EGFR and KRAS alterations. Data on pemetrexed in patients with KRAS mutations or MNNG HOS-transforming (MET) expression were limited. Pemetrexed could be an option for first- and second-line treatment for TKI failure in nonsquamous advanced NSCLC with select targetable driver mutations.

Current Strategies for Treating NSCLC: From Biological Mechanisms to Clinical Treatment

The identification of specific epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-activating mutations heralded a breakthrough in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatments, with the subsequent development of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKIs) becoming the first-line therapy for patients harboring EGFR mutations. However, acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs inevitably occurs in patients following initial TKI treatment, leading to disease progression. Various mechanisms are behind the acquired resistance, and mainly include (1) target gene modification, (2) alternative parallel pathway activation, (3) downstream pathway activation, and (4) histological/phenotypic transformation. Approaches to combat the acquired resistance have been investigated according to these mechanisms. Newer generations of TKIs have been developed to target the secondary/tertiary EGFR mutations in patients with acquired resistance. In addition, combination therapies have been developed as another promising strategy to overcome acquired resistance through the activation of other signaling pathways. Thus, in this review, we summarize the mechanisms for acquired resistance and focus on the potential corresponding therapeutic strategies for acquired resistance.

TP53 co-mutations in EGFR mutated patients in NSCLC stage IV: A strong predictive factor of ORR, PFS and OS in EGFR mt+ NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

The impact of TP53 co-mutations in EGFR mutated patients on PFS and OS is controversial. Different classifications of TP53 mutations with respect to functional and potential clinical impact have been published. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed the impact of TP53 co-mutations on ORR, PFS and OS in a cohort of EGFR mutated NSCLC IV patients (UICC 7) using different classifications of TP53 mutations.

METHODS

75 EGFR mutated NSCLC IV patients homogeneously treated with 1st line EGFR TKI were analyzed for TP53 co-mutations. TP53 mutations were classified according to three different types of classifications. The endpoints ORR, PFS and OS were investigated.

RESULTS

TP53 co-mutations were found in 29/59 patients (49.2%). TP53 co-mutations were a statistically significant independent negative predictive factor for ORR, PFS and OS. TP53 co-mutations were associated with inferior mPFS and mOS: mPFS/mOS 12 vs. 18/24 vs. 42 months for non-disruptive/disruptive mutations vs. WT (p < 0.004)/(p < 0.009), 11 vs. 17/23 vs. 42 months for pathogenic vs. non-pathogenic/WT (p < 0.001)/(p < 0.001), and 7 vs. 12 vs. 18/12 vs. 28 vs. 42 months for exon 8 vs. non-exon 8 vs. WT (p < 0.001)/(p < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

TP53 co-mutations are frequent in EGFR mt+ NSCLC and have a strong negative impact on all clinical endpoints of TKI therapy.

Concurrent RB1 and TP53 Alterations Define a Subset of EGFR-Mutant Lung Cancers at risk for Histologic Transformation and Inferior Clinical Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

EGFR-mutant lung cancers are clinically and genomically heterogeneous with concurrent RB transcriptional corepressor 1 (RB1)/tumor protein p53 (TP53) alterations identifying a subset at increased risk for small cell transformation. The genomic alterations that induce lineage plasticity are unknown.

METHODS

Patients with EGFR/RB1/TP53-mutant lung cancers, identified by next-generation sequencing from 2014 to 2018, were compared to patients with untreated, metastatic EGFR-mutant lung cancers without both RB1 and TP53 alterations. Time to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor discontinuation, overall survival, SCLC transformation rate, and genomic alterations were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients with EGFR/RB1/TP53-mutant lung cancers represented 5% (43 of 863) of EGFR-mutant lung cancers but were uniquely at risk for transformation (7 of 39, 18%), with no transformations in EGFR-mutant lung cancers without baseline TP53 and RB1 alterations. Irrespective of transformation, patients with EGFR/TP53/RB1-mutant lung cancers had a shorter time to discontinuation than EGFR/TP53- and EGFR-mutant -only cancers (9.5 versus 12.3 versus 36.6 months, respectively, p = 2 × 10^-9). The triple-mutant population had a higher incidence of whole-genome doubling compared to NSCLC and SCLC at large (80% versus 34%, p < 5 × 10^-9 versus 51%, p < 0.002, respectively) and further enrichment in triple-mutant cancers with eventual small cell histology (seven of seven pre-transformed plus four of four baseline SCLC versus 23 of 32 never transformed, respectively, p = 0.05). Activation-induced cytidine deaminase/apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like mutation signature was also enriched in triple-mutant lung cancers that transformed (false discovery rate = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

EGFR/TP53/RB1-mutant lung cancers are at unique risk of histologic transformation, with 25% presenting with de novo SCLC or eventual small cell transformation. Triple-mutant lung cancers are enriched in whole-genome doubling and Activation-induced cytidine deaminase/apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like hypermutation which may represent early genomic determinants of lineage plasticity.

Third generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib combined with pemetrexed or cisplatin exerts long-lasting anti-tumor effect in EGFR-mutated pre-clinical models of NSCLC

Background

The third generation Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib has been initially approved for T790M positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and more recently for first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant T790M negative NSCLC patients. Similarly to previous generation TKIs, despite the high response rate, disease progression eventually occurs and current clinical research is focused on novel strategies to delay the emergence of osimertinib resistance. In this study we investigated the combination of osimertinib with pemetrexed or cisplatin in EGFR-mutated NSCLC cell lines and xenografts.

Methods

Tumor growth was evaluated in a PC9T790M xenograft model and tissue composition was morphometrically determined. PC9, PC9T790M and HCC827 cell lines were employed to test the efficacy of osimertinib and chemotherapy combination in vitro. Cell viability and cell death were evaluated by MTT assay and fluorescence microscopy. Protein expression and gene status were analysed by Western blotting, fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis, next-generation sequencing and digital droplet PCR.

Results

In xenograft models, osimertinib significantly inhibited tumor growth, however, as expected, in 50% of mice drug-resistance developed. A combination of osimertinib with pemetrexed or cisplatin prevented or at least delayed the onset of resistance. Interestingly, such combinations increased the fraction of fibrotic tissue and exerted a long-lasting activity after stopping therapy. In vitro studies demonstrated the stronger efficacy of the combination over the single treatments in inhibiting cell proliferation and inducing cell death in PC9T790M cells as well as in T790M negative PC9 and HCC827 cell lines, suggesting the potential role of this strategy also as first-line treatment. Finally, we demonstrated that osimertinib resistant clones, either derived from resistant tumors or generated in vitro, were less sensitive to pemetrexed prompting to use a chemotherapy regimen non-containing pemetrexed in patients after progression to osimertinib treatment.

Conclusions

Our results identify a combination between osimertinib and pemetrexed or cisplatin potentially useful in the treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients, which might delay the appearance of osimertinib resistance with long-lasting effects.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13046-019-1240-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.