Amivantamab plus chemotherapy with and without lazertinib in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib: primary results from the phase III MARIPOSA-2 study

BACKGROUND

Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy) with and without lazertinib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with refractory epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase I studies. These combinations were evaluated in a global phase III trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.

RESULTS

All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.

Clinical encounter heterogeneity and methods for resolving in networked EHR data: a study from N3C and RECOVER programs

OBJECTIVE

Clinical encounter data are heterogeneous and vary greatly from institution to institution. These problems of variance affect interpretability and usability of clinical encounter data for analysis. These problems are magnified when multisite electronic health record (EHR) data are networked together. This article presents a novel, generalizable method for resolving encounter heterogeneity for analysis by combining related atomic encounters into composite "macrovisits."

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Encounters were composed of data from 75 partner sites harmonized to a common data model as part of the NIH Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative, a project of the National Covid Cohort Collaborative. Summary statistics were computed for overall and site-level data to assess issues and identify modifications. Two algorithms were developed to refine atomic encounters into cleaner, analyzable longitudinal clinical visits.

RESULTS

Atomic inpatient encounters data were found to be widely disparate between sites in terms of length-of-stay (LOS) and numbers of OMOP CDM measurements per encounter. After aggregating encounters to macrovisits, LOS and measurement variance decreased. A subsequent algorithm to identify hospitalized macrovisits further reduced data variability.

DISCUSSION

Encounters are a complex and heterogeneous component of EHR data and native data issues are not addressed by existing methods. These types of complex and poorly studied issues contribute to the difficulty of deriving value from EHR data, and these types of foundational, large-scale explorations, and developments are necessary to realize the full potential of modern real-world data.

CONCLUSION

This article presents method developments to manipulate and resolve EHR encounter data issues in a generalizable way as a foundation for future research and analysis.

Coding long COVID: characterizing a new disease through an ICD-10 lens

BACKGROUND

Naming a newly discovered disease is a difficult process; in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the existence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), which includes long COVID, it has proven especially challenging. Disease definitions and assignment of a diagnosis code are often asynchronous and iterative. The clinical definition and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of long COVID are still in flux, and the deployment of an ICD-10-CM code for long COVID in the USA took nearly 2 years after patients had begun to describe their condition. Here, we leverage the largest publicly available HIPAA-limited dataset about patients with COVID-19 in the US to examine the heterogeneity of adoption and use of U09.9, the ICD-10-CM code for "Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified."

METHODS

We undertook a number of analyses to characterize the N3C population with a U09.9 diagnosis code (n = 33,782), including assessing person-level demographics and a number of area-level social determinants of health; diagnoses commonly co-occurring with U09.9, clustered using the Louvain algorithm; and quantifying medications and procedures recorded within 60 days of U09.9 diagnosis. We stratified all analyses by age group in order to discern differing patterns of care across the lifespan.

RESULTS

We established the diagnoses most commonly co-occurring with U09.9 and algorithmically clustered them into four major categories: cardiopulmonary, neurological, gastrointestinal, and comorbid conditions. Importantly, we discovered that the population of patients diagnosed with U09.9 is demographically skewed toward female, White, non-Hispanic individuals, as well as individuals living in areas with low poverty and low unemployment. Our results also include a characterization of common procedures and medications associated with U09.9-coded patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This work offers insight into potential subtypes and current practice patterns around long COVID and speaks to the existence of disparities in the diagnosis of patients with long COVID. This latter finding in particular requires further research and urgent remediation.

Coding Long COVID: Characterizing a new disease through an ICD-10 lens

Background

Naming a newly discovered disease is a difficult process; in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the existence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), which includes Long COVID, it has proven especially challenging. Disease definitions and assignment of a diagnosis code are often asynchronous and iterative. The clinical definition and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of Long COVID are still in flux, and the deployment of an ICD-10-CM code for Long COVID in the US took nearly two years after patients had begun to describe their condition. Here we leverage the largest publicly available HIPAA-limited dataset about patients with COVID-19 in the US to examine the heterogeneity of adoption and use of U09.9, the ICD-10-CM code for "Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified."

Methods

We undertook a number of analyses to characterize the N3C population with a U09.9 diagnosis code ( n = 21,072), including assessing person-level demographics and a number of area-level social determinants of health; diagnoses commonly co-occurring with U09.9, clustered using the Louvain algorithm; and quantifying medications and procedures recorded within 60 days of U09.9 diagnosis. We stratified all analyses by age group in order to discern differing patterns of care across the lifespan.

Results

We established the diagnoses most commonly co-occurring with U09.9, and algorithmically clustered them into four major categories: cardiopulmonary, neurological, gastrointestinal, and comorbid conditions. Importantly, we discovered that the population of patients diagnosed with U09.9 is demographically skewed toward female, White, non-Hispanic individuals, as well as individuals living in areas with low poverty, high education, and high access to medical care. Our results also include a characterization of common procedures and medications associated with U09.9-coded patients.

Conclusions

This work offers insight into potential subtypes and current practice patterns around Long COVID, and speaks to the existence of disparities in the diagnosis of patients with Long COVID. This latter finding in particular requires further research and urgent remediation.

Updated FDA pooled analysis of pain medication use in trial participants with HR+, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy and a CDK 4/6 inhibitor

e24101

Background: Pain medications (PMs) are commonly used to treat pain in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We previously reported an initial analysis of PM prescribing patterns in clinical trial participants with breast cancer receiving CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDKI)-based treatment. We present an updated analysis here. Methods: We pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of CDKI + endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with HR+, HER2-negative MBC. All analyzed patients received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo+ET and a concomitant PM with a documented start date. Medications administered during hospitalizations were not included. We looked at PM use in all patients, patients who took PM only before or after the trial started, and those who took PM both before and during the trial. PMs were categorized as opioid (includes codeine-containing), NSAIDS, or other (i.e. bone-directed, antiepileptic, topical PMs). Results: 4200 patients enrolled across the 7 trials who received at least one dose of CDKI/placebo+ET (n = 2616 CDKI, n = 1548 placebo). Of these, 2881 took a PM at any time (n = 1774 CDKI, n = 1107 placebo). Of the 1774 patients who received CDKI+ET, 487 (27%) took at least one opioid and one NSAID at any time, 782 (44%) took at least one NSAID at any time but no opioids, 244 (14%) took at least one opioid at any time but no NSAIDs, and 261 (15%) took only PM that were not opioids or NSAIDs. Of the 1107 patients who received placebo+ET, 297 (27%) took at least one opioid and one NSAID at any time, 490 (44%) took at least one NSAID at any time but no opioids, 153 (14%) took at least one opioid at any time but no NSAIDS, and 167 (15%) took only PM that were not opioids or NSAIDs. Of the 2881 patients who took a PM at any time, 2038 patients (n = 1222 CDKI, n = 816 placebo) had documented start for their PM. Of these, 544 took PM only before the trial started (n = 334 CDKI, n = 210 placebo), 915 took a PM only during the trial (n = 551 CDKI, n = 364 placebo), and 579 took a PM both before and during the trial (n = 337 CDKI, n = 242 placebo). Overall, more patients took NSAIDs only compared to opioids only. Patient characteristics at baseline were balanced between the two arms. Conclusions: Overall, PM prescribing patterns were similar between the arms. NSAID use was higher than opiates in all groups. These findings are hypothesis generating and additional research is needed to determine the impact of PM on participants’ pain and physical function. Further research should include an understanding of the duration of PM needed in patients with MBC.

Impact of radiotherapy on risk of adverse events in patients receiving immunotherapy: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis

3018

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used in the treatment of multiple advanced malignancies. Radiotherapy (RT) has been used in combination with ICIs to activate tumor-specific T cell responses, and RT also promotes non-specific acute and chronic inflammatory responses both locally and systemically. More than 50% of patients receive RT at some point during their course of cancer therapy, and relatively little information is available pertaining to the impact of RT, if any, on the risk of adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving ICIs. Methods: Pooled data from prospective trials of ICIs submitted to the FDA in initial or supplemental BLAs or NDAs through 12/2019 were included (N=66). Trials from applications that were withdrawn or not approved were not included. Patients were subdivided by whether or not radiotherapy was administered at any time during the course of their cancer treatment. AEs common to both ICI treatment and RT were identified to focus on the following reactions: neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, colitis, hepatitis, pneumonitis, and myocarditis. Descriptive statistics were used to examine AEs associated with the use of radiation and ICIs. Results: A total of 25,836 patients were identified, of which 9087 (35%) received RT and 16,749 (65%) did not. Radiation was associated with similar rates of AEs overall with numerically higher hematologic toxicities and pneumonitis and numerically lower colitis, hepatitis and myocarditis (Table). Patients receiving RT were more likely to experience Grade 3-5 hematologic toxicities compared to those not receiving RT. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest report of AE risk associated with the use of radiation and ICIs. Our results show that the incidence of hematologic toxicity and pneumonitis in patients receiving RT may be slightly higher. Analysis to determine comparability of baseline demographic characteristics, comprehensive AE profile, and timing of RT is underway. [Table: see text]

Pain medication use in patients with HR+, HER2-neg advanced breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy and a CDK 4/6 inhibitor: A U.S. FDA pooled analysis

e24145

Background: Pain medications (PMs) are commonly used to treat pain in patients (pts) with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We examined PM usage patterns in pts receiving CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDKI) based treatment. Methods: We pooled data from seven phase 3 randomized, controlled trials of CDKI + endocrine therapy in pts with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative MBC. PM were categorized as opioid (includes codeine-containing), NSAID, or other (i.e. bone-directed, antiepileptic, topical PMs). All analyzed pts received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo and had concomitant PM with a documented start date. Medications prescribed during hospitalizations were not included. We evaluated percent PM by demographic factors and pts with bone mets, and liver/lung mets. Results: 2416 pts met the inclusion criteria, of which 928 pts started a PM before the study and 1488 pts did not start PM before the study. Of the 1488 pts not on a PM before the study, 739 started a PM after study started, and 749 did not receive any PM at any time. Of the 739 pts who started a PM only after study start, overall, 59% were prescribed only an NSAID, 10% were prescribed only opioid, 17% were prescribed both an NSAID and opioid, and 14% were prescribed other PMs. The PM use by percent in demographic subgroups in the 1488 pts who took none or more PMs only after study start are presented in the table. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first analysis of PM usage patterns in pts with MBC receiving CDKI or placebo with hormonal therapy on clinical trials. NSAID use was higher than opiates in all prespecified subgroups. Future analyses will examine the benefit of different classes of pain medications in treating symptoms of pain and whether there are differences between study treatment arms Percent PM Use by Class (Patients Who Took None or More PM Only After Study Start). [Table: see text]

Evaluation of the correlation between antibiotic use and survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)

6509

Background: Recent evidence suggests that treatment with systemic antibiotics (Abx) disrupts the intestinal microbiome and may be associated with decreased survival for patients receiving treatment with ICIs for advanced cancers, including R/M HNSCC. However, a potential confounder is that Abx use identifies a subgroup of patients with a worse prognosis. The FDA examined the association between Abx use and survival for ICIs and other drugs used for the treatment of patients with R/M HNSCC. Methods: Data submitted to the FDA from three randomized controlled trials with ICI as a single agent or with chemotherapy (ICI group) compared to chemotherapy and/or cetuximab (Control group) were pooled. The association between systemic Abx use within 30 days of initiating anticancer therapy and survival for the ICI and Control groups was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates and compared using Cox proportional hazards regression models, controlling for ECOG performance status, line of therapy, HPV status, PD-L1 expression, and other important prognostic factors. Results: In the ICI and Control groups, 36% and 46% of patients received Abx, respectively. For the ICI group, the difference in KM-estimated median overall survival (OS) was 5.6 months based on receipt of Abx (hazard ratio [HR] 1.70). Abx had no impact on OS for the Control group. Similar trends were observed for progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, systemic Abx within 30 days of initiating treatment for R/M HNSCC was associated with decreased survival for patients treated with ICIs compared with patients who did not receive Abx. Use of Abx had no apparent difference in survival in the control group. Further examination of the association between Abx use and clinical outcomes for patients with R/M HNSCC treated with ICIs is needed. [Table: see text]

Impact of timing of antibiotic use on clinical outcomes in patients with urothelial cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)

5045

Background: Although recent evidence has suggested that patients who receive antibiotics (ABX) during the course of ICI treatment might decrease overall survival (OS) (1), our previous analysis did not support a difference in OS in urothelial cancer patients who did and did not use ABX during the course of ICI treatment without regard to timing (2). This updated analysis aims to addresses the question of timing; specifically, use of ABX in the 30-day window pre- or post- initiation of ICI treatment. Methods: We pooled data from 7 trials that led to drug approval and which included 1747 patients with advanced urothelial cancer treated with an ICI. Five trials enrolled patients who received prior platinum and 2 enrolled cisplatin-ineligible patients. Concomitant medication datasets were searched for systemic ABX use. The association between ABX use and survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression models stratified by study. Results: Overall, 56% of patients were exposed to antibiotics (ABX+) and 43% were not exposed (ABX-). In an exploratory analysis, median OS was similar between arms: 9.7 vs. 9.3 months in ABX+ vs. ABX- patients, respectively (HR 0.96). However, OS results differed in the 27% of patients who were exposed to antibiotics in the 30-day window pre- or post- initiation of ICI treatment, for whom median OS was 4.7 months vs. 11.5 months in the ABX+ vs. ABX- patients, respectively (HR 1.8). This remained true after controlling for baseline risk prognostic factors (Bajorin and Bellmunt scores). Similar trends were observed for progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusions: Patients treated with ABX while on therapy with an ICI for urothelial cancer had similar OS outcomes to those not treated with ABX. However, in an exploratory analysis looking at ABX use in the 30-day window pre- or post-initiation of ICI treatment, OS appeared decreased in ABX+ vs ABX- patients. Our exploratory analyses appear to show an association of OS/PFS with timing of antibiotics. References: 1) Routy B, Science (2017) 2) Weinstock C, ASCO 2019, abstract. [Table: see text]

Patient-reported pain and pain medication impact in patients with HR+ Her2-neg advanced breast cancer: A U.S. FDA pooled analysis

e13027

Background: Despite the ubiquitous prescribing of pain medications (PMs) in cancer clinical trials, the impact of such prescribing patterns and reporting on the experience of pain is not often investigated. We examined patient-reported pain before initiation of PM reporting and at the next available pain assessment. Our aim was to understand change in patient-reported pain. Methods: We pooled data from 7 phase 3 randomized, controlled, registration trials of CDKI with endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative MBC. We restricted our analyses to patients who started therapy with no PM reported and looked at patients who had NSAID or opioid medication documented. We calculated change between 2 assessments in patient-reported pain before and after PM using the pain occurrence item (Q9) on the EORTC Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Results: Of the 4200 patients who received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo, 1488 started with no documented PM, with 48% reporting none at all when asked about pain at baseline. Subsequently, 185 patients had documented NSAID and 43 an opioid and had a pain PRO assessment before and after. NSAIDs documentation occurred on average 11 weeks into trial and opioids 5. Before documentation of NSAIDs, 45% of patients reported no pain compared to 23% of patients with an opioid. Patients who had documented NSAIDs, 29% experienced an improvement in their self-reported pain, whereas 32% of patients with documented opioids improved. On average the time between the 2 pain assessments was around 58 days for both PMs. Conclusions: In this analysis in patients who had a pain assessment before and after documentation of a PM, there is a small group whose pain improved. It is important to note that patients’ response to the pain item was not provided to the clinical care team, which may explain why there may have been suboptimal pain control. Further study is needed to examine how pain management can be achieved in patients with advanced breast cancer. Future analysis should be performed with patients whose PRO pain results are communicated with the clinical care team in real-time. [Table: see text]

Simulation of a Chemical Autonomous Agent

A chemical autonomous agent is defined as a reproducing molecular system that carries out a thermodynamic work cycle, reminiscent of the earliest prebiotic replicators that harnessed free energy. The efficiency with which free energy is utilized to promote replication is a measure of the selective fitness of such a system. Simulations of the operation of a typical autonomous agent over a wide range of possible parameter settings reveals a fitness landscape with a well-defined maximum and a variety of features that are amenable to interpretation in terms of evolutionary concepts.