Lung Cancer

Two liquid biopsy assays show generally good concordance with the gold standard of next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed on tissue for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non–small cell lung (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

Availability of targeted therapies for EGFR-mutated NSCLC underscores the importance of detecting these molecular aberrations, note lead investigator Christi M.J. Steendam, MD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, and Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, and coinvestigators. In addition, assessing and monitoring mutational status can provide information about resistance and better inform treatment decisions.

The investigators studied 36 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had experienced progression on their current therapy and had both tissue and plasma available. They first compared results of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and NGS for detecting primary activating EGFR mutations and the resistance p.T790M EGFR mutation (the most common resistance mechanism to first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in this population) in plasma-derived cell-free DNA. They then compared each assay against NGS performed on conventional tissue.

Study results showed high agreement between ddPCR and NGS, at 86% for detection of the primary activating mutation and at 94% for detection of the p.T790M mutation. Findings were similar for the quantified allele ratio (mutant alleles divided by total alleles).

Overall, 15 patients (41.7%) had some degree of discrepant results. Six had no detectable mutations in cell-free DNA, three had detectable p.T790M in plasma but not in tissue, and three others had detectable p.T790M in tissue but not in plasma.

Finally, there was generally good concordance of the cell-free DNA results and the results obtained in tissue for detection of the primary activating mutation (69% for ddPCR, 83% for NGS) and for detection of p.T790M (75% for ddPCR, 75% for NGS). Patients with discordant results tended to have intrathoracic and/or CNS progression.

“ddPCR and NGS yield comparable results, with similar sensitivity for the mutations that can be detected by both methods, and the concordance with tissue-based results is high,” Dr. Steendam and coinvestigators summarize in JCO Precision Oncology. “When searching for a resistance mechanism, NGS analysis of cell-free DNA in plasma offers a more comprehensive view than ddPCR, with comparable precision at a single mutation level. When no mutations are detected in plasma, tissue-based investigation remains desirable.”

“Our results confirm the ability to detect targetable aberrations in blood, which provides possibilities for new lines of targeted treatments in daily practice without the necessity of tissue procurement in many patients,” they conclude.

Dr. Steendam disclosed that she receives research funding from AstraZeneca (institutional) and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Steendam CMJ et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 20. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00401.

Two liquid biopsy assays show generally good concordance with the gold standard of next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed on tissue for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non–small cell lung (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

Availability of targeted therapies for EGFR-mutated NSCLC underscores the importance of detecting these molecular aberrations, note lead investigator Christi M.J. Steendam, MD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, and Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, and coinvestigators. In addition, assessing and monitoring mutational status can provide information about resistance and better inform treatment decisions.

The investigators studied 36 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had experienced progression on their current therapy and had both tissue and plasma available. They first compared results of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and NGS for detecting primary activating EGFR mutations and the resistance p.T790M EGFR mutation (the most common resistance mechanism to first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in this population) in plasma-derived cell-free DNA. They then compared each assay against NGS performed on conventional tissue.

Study results showed high agreement between ddPCR and NGS, at 86% for detection of the primary activating mutation and at 94% for detection of the p.T790M mutation. Findings were similar for the quantified allele ratio (mutant alleles divided by total alleles).

Overall, 15 patients (41.7%) had some degree of discrepant results. Six had no detectable mutations in cell-free DNA, three had detectable p.T790M in plasma but not in tissue, and three others had detectable p.T790M in tissue but not in plasma.

Finally, there was generally good concordance of the cell-free DNA results and the results obtained in tissue for detection of the primary activating mutation (69% for ddPCR, 83% for NGS) and for detection of p.T790M (75% for ddPCR, 75% for NGS). Patients with discordant results tended to have intrathoracic and/or CNS progression.

“ddPCR and NGS yield comparable results, with similar sensitivity for the mutations that can be detected by both methods, and the concordance with tissue-based results is high,” Dr. Steendam and coinvestigators summarize in JCO Precision Oncology. “When searching for a resistance mechanism, NGS analysis of cell-free DNA in plasma offers a more comprehensive view than ddPCR, with comparable precision at a single mutation level. When no mutations are detected in plasma, tissue-based investigation remains desirable.”

“Our results confirm the ability to detect targetable aberrations in blood, which provides possibilities for new lines of targeted treatments in daily practice without the necessity of tissue procurement in many patients,” they conclude.

Dr. Steendam disclosed that she receives research funding from AstraZeneca (institutional) and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Steendam CMJ et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 20. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00401.

Two liquid biopsy assays show generally good concordance with the gold standard of next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed on tissue for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non–small cell lung (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

Availability of targeted therapies for EGFR-mutated NSCLC underscores the importance of detecting these molecular aberrations, note lead investigator Christi M.J. Steendam, MD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, and Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, and coinvestigators. In addition, assessing and monitoring mutational status can provide information about resistance and better inform treatment decisions.

The investigators studied 36 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had experienced progression on their current therapy and had both tissue and plasma available. They first compared results of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and NGS for detecting primary activating EGFR mutations and the resistance p.T790M EGFR mutation (the most common resistance mechanism to first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in this population) in plasma-derived cell-free DNA. They then compared each assay against NGS performed on conventional tissue.

Study results showed high agreement between ddPCR and NGS, at 86% for detection of the primary activating mutation and at 94% for detection of the p.T790M mutation. Findings were similar for the quantified allele ratio (mutant alleles divided by total alleles).

Overall, 15 patients (41.7%) had some degree of discrepant results. Six had no detectable mutations in cell-free DNA, three had detectable p.T790M in plasma but not in tissue, and three others had detectable p.T790M in tissue but not in plasma.

Finally, there was generally good concordance of the cell-free DNA results and the results obtained in tissue for detection of the primary activating mutation (69% for ddPCR, 83% for NGS) and for detection of p.T790M (75% for ddPCR, 75% for NGS). Patients with discordant results tended to have intrathoracic and/or CNS progression.

“ddPCR and NGS yield comparable results, with similar sensitivity for the mutations that can be detected by both methods, and the concordance with tissue-based results is high,” Dr. Steendam and coinvestigators summarize in JCO Precision Oncology. “When searching for a resistance mechanism, NGS analysis of cell-free DNA in plasma offers a more comprehensive view than ddPCR, with comparable precision at a single mutation level. When no mutations are detected in plasma, tissue-based investigation remains desirable.”

“Our results confirm the ability to detect targetable aberrations in blood, which provides possibilities for new lines of targeted treatments in daily practice without the necessity of tissue procurement in many patients,” they conclude.

Dr. Steendam disclosed that she receives research funding from AstraZeneca (institutional) and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Steendam CMJ et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 20. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00401.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two “chemo-free” neoadjuvant studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. One summarizes the potential utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are – or can become – candidates for curative resection and the other highlights the potential utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

NEOSTAR in NSCLC

With the accumulation of comorbid conditions in an aging population, we all see NSCLC patients who are potential candidates for curative surgery, but for whom we have concerns about standard preoperative chemotherapy plus or minus radiation. At ASCO 2019, abstracts 8503 (atezolizumab, the LCMC3 trial) and 8504 (nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab, NEOSTAR) addressed the neoadjuvant use of ICIs. I will focus on NEOSTAR, because the major pathologic response (mPR) rate – reduction in viable tumor cells to 10% or less – was higher with the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NEOSTAR than with single agent nivolumab or atezolizumab in the NEOSTAR or LCMC3 trials, respectively.

Briefly, 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC were randomized to nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab. In total, 93% completed 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy and 89% were resected. The mPR rate was 33% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (about twice as high as with nivolumab alone in NEOSTAR or atezolizumab in LCMC3).

Among resected patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 44% mPR rate and a pathologic complete response rate of 38%. Although RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses were more likely in patients who had an mPR, 11% of patients had radiographic “nodal immune flare” because of noncaseating granulomas in regional (or nonregional) nodes. Elevated baseline programmed death-ligand 1 was associated with a higher rate of mPR. Surgical complications seemed similar to expectations – 1 bronchopleural fistula and 8 air leaks among the 39 resected patients.
 

What this means in practice

Although the mPR endpoint has no validated association with survival and the studies were relatively small, neoadjuvant use of ICIs in patients for whom tolerance to standard chemotherapy plus or minus radiation might be problematic is attractive – especially in view of the reality of an approximately 50% relapse rate after surgical resection with standard therapy.

If I had a potential candidate for neoadjuvant ICI therapy – especially one with a high proportion of cells with PD-L1 or someone with an equivocal distant metastasis on a preoperative PET-CT – I would consider using an ICI as given in LCMC3 or NEOSTAR.

PREDIX in HER2-positive breast cancer

As Mark Pegram, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University suggested in his discussion at the local/regional/adjuvant breast cancer session at ASCO 2019, the goal of HER2-targeted therapy was originally that it could replace – not supplement – the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Abstracts 500 (the KRISTINE trial: neoadjuvant T-DM1 plus pertuzumab vs. docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab); 501 (the PREDIX study: T-DM1 vs. docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab [DTP] for six cycles); and 502 (HER2 heterogeneity as a predictor of response) addressed the potential for the antibody-drug conjugate to replace standard preoperative cytotoxic chemotherapy plus HER2-targeting.

In PREDIX, it was anticipated that toxicity would be lower with T-DM1 than with DTP – and it was, with better quality of life scores. The authors found a pathologic complete response rate of 45% among 98 participants with stage IIA-IIIA HER2-positive breast cancer, with higher rates among hormone receptor–negative than hormone receptor–positive patients, as expected.

PREDIX patients were allowed to switch from T-DM1 to DTP for progression, lack of clinical/radiographic response, or toxicity. More than twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1 than vice versa for progression or lack of response.

What this means in practice

Although neither DTP nor T-DM1 are National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-endorsed neoadjuvant regimens at present, the KRISTINE and PREDIX trials and Abstract 502 advance the discussion about further personalizing therapy for HER2-amplified breast cancer with high HER2 copy number and lack of intratumor heterogeneity for HER2. They also raise questions about de-escalating therapy for patients with good prognosis and HER2-positive cancers, and the creative use of T-DM1 in the neoadjuvant setting.

Neoadjuvant T-DM1 may not be standard of care yet, but watch this space.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two “chemo-free” neoadjuvant studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. One summarizes the potential utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are – or can become – candidates for curative resection and the other highlights the potential utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

NEOSTAR in NSCLC

With the accumulation of comorbid conditions in an aging population, we all see NSCLC patients who are potential candidates for curative surgery, but for whom we have concerns about standard preoperative chemotherapy plus or minus radiation. At ASCO 2019, abstracts 8503 (atezolizumab, the LCMC3 trial) and 8504 (nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab, NEOSTAR) addressed the neoadjuvant use of ICIs. I will focus on NEOSTAR, because the major pathologic response (mPR) rate – reduction in viable tumor cells to 10% or less – was higher with the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NEOSTAR than with single agent nivolumab or atezolizumab in the NEOSTAR or LCMC3 trials, respectively.

Briefly, 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC were randomized to nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab. In total, 93% completed 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy and 89% were resected. The mPR rate was 33% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (about twice as high as with nivolumab alone in NEOSTAR or atezolizumab in LCMC3).

Among resected patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 44% mPR rate and a pathologic complete response rate of 38%. Although RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses were more likely in patients who had an mPR, 11% of patients had radiographic “nodal immune flare” because of noncaseating granulomas in regional (or nonregional) nodes. Elevated baseline programmed death-ligand 1 was associated with a higher rate of mPR. Surgical complications seemed similar to expectations – 1 bronchopleural fistula and 8 air leaks among the 39 resected patients.
 

What this means in practice

Although the mPR endpoint has no validated association with survival and the studies were relatively small, neoadjuvant use of ICIs in patients for whom tolerance to standard chemotherapy plus or minus radiation might be problematic is attractive – especially in view of the reality of an approximately 50% relapse rate after surgical resection with standard therapy.

If I had a potential candidate for neoadjuvant ICI therapy – especially one with a high proportion of cells with PD-L1 or someone with an equivocal distant metastasis on a preoperative PET-CT – I would consider using an ICI as given in LCMC3 or NEOSTAR.

PREDIX in HER2-positive breast cancer

As Mark Pegram, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University suggested in his discussion at the local/regional/adjuvant breast cancer session at ASCO 2019, the goal of HER2-targeted therapy was originally that it could replace – not supplement – the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Abstracts 500 (the KRISTINE trial: neoadjuvant T-DM1 plus pertuzumab vs. docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab); 501 (the PREDIX study: T-DM1 vs. docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab [DTP] for six cycles); and 502 (HER2 heterogeneity as a predictor of response) addressed the potential for the antibody-drug conjugate to replace standard preoperative cytotoxic chemotherapy plus HER2-targeting.

In PREDIX, it was anticipated that toxicity would be lower with T-DM1 than with DTP – and it was, with better quality of life scores. The authors found a pathologic complete response rate of 45% among 98 participants with stage IIA-IIIA HER2-positive breast cancer, with higher rates among hormone receptor–negative than hormone receptor–positive patients, as expected.

PREDIX patients were allowed to switch from T-DM1 to DTP for progression, lack of clinical/radiographic response, or toxicity. More than twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1 than vice versa for progression or lack of response.

What this means in practice

Although neither DTP nor T-DM1 are National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-endorsed neoadjuvant regimens at present, the KRISTINE and PREDIX trials and Abstract 502 advance the discussion about further personalizing therapy for HER2-amplified breast cancer with high HER2 copy number and lack of intratumor heterogeneity for HER2. They also raise questions about de-escalating therapy for patients with good prognosis and HER2-positive cancers, and the creative use of T-DM1 in the neoadjuvant setting.

Neoadjuvant T-DM1 may not be standard of care yet, but watch this space.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two “chemo-free” neoadjuvant studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. One summarizes the potential utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are – or can become – candidates for curative resection and the other highlights the potential utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

NEOSTAR in NSCLC

With the accumulation of comorbid conditions in an aging population, we all see NSCLC patients who are potential candidates for curative surgery, but for whom we have concerns about standard preoperative chemotherapy plus or minus radiation. At ASCO 2019, abstracts 8503 (atezolizumab, the LCMC3 trial) and 8504 (nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab, NEOSTAR) addressed the neoadjuvant use of ICIs. I will focus on NEOSTAR, because the major pathologic response (mPR) rate – reduction in viable tumor cells to 10% or less – was higher with the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NEOSTAR than with single agent nivolumab or atezolizumab in the NEOSTAR or LCMC3 trials, respectively.

Briefly, 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC were randomized to nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab. In total, 93% completed 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy and 89% were resected. The mPR rate was 33% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (about twice as high as with nivolumab alone in NEOSTAR or atezolizumab in LCMC3).

Among resected patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 44% mPR rate and a pathologic complete response rate of 38%. Although RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses were more likely in patients who had an mPR, 11% of patients had radiographic “nodal immune flare” because of noncaseating granulomas in regional (or nonregional) nodes. Elevated baseline programmed death-ligand 1 was associated with a higher rate of mPR. Surgical complications seemed similar to expectations – 1 bronchopleural fistula and 8 air leaks among the 39 resected patients.
 

What this means in practice

Although the mPR endpoint has no validated association with survival and the studies were relatively small, neoadjuvant use of ICIs in patients for whom tolerance to standard chemotherapy plus or minus radiation might be problematic is attractive – especially in view of the reality of an approximately 50% relapse rate after surgical resection with standard therapy.

If I had a potential candidate for neoadjuvant ICI therapy – especially one with a high proportion of cells with PD-L1 or someone with an equivocal distant metastasis on a preoperative PET-CT – I would consider using an ICI as given in LCMC3 or NEOSTAR.

PREDIX in HER2-positive breast cancer

As Mark Pegram, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University suggested in his discussion at the local/regional/adjuvant breast cancer session at ASCO 2019, the goal of HER2-targeted therapy was originally that it could replace – not supplement – the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Abstracts 500 (the KRISTINE trial: neoadjuvant T-DM1 plus pertuzumab vs. docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab); 501 (the PREDIX study: T-DM1 vs. docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab [DTP] for six cycles); and 502 (HER2 heterogeneity as a predictor of response) addressed the potential for the antibody-drug conjugate to replace standard preoperative cytotoxic chemotherapy plus HER2-targeting.

In PREDIX, it was anticipated that toxicity would be lower with T-DM1 than with DTP – and it was, with better quality of life scores. The authors found a pathologic complete response rate of 45% among 98 participants with stage IIA-IIIA HER2-positive breast cancer, with higher rates among hormone receptor–negative than hormone receptor–positive patients, as expected.

PREDIX patients were allowed to switch from T-DM1 to DTP for progression, lack of clinical/radiographic response, or toxicity. More than twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1 than vice versa for progression or lack of response.

What this means in practice

Although neither DTP nor T-DM1 are National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-endorsed neoadjuvant regimens at present, the KRISTINE and PREDIX trials and Abstract 502 advance the discussion about further personalizing therapy for HER2-amplified breast cancer with high HER2 copy number and lack of intratumor heterogeneity for HER2. They also raise questions about de-escalating therapy for patients with good prognosis and HER2-positive cancers, and the creative use of T-DM1 in the neoadjuvant setting.

Neoadjuvant T-DM1 may not be standard of care yet, but watch this space.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on an overall response rate of 19% among 83 patients with SCLC who had disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy enrolled in two nonrandomized trials, according to the FDA.

SCLC cohorts in KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 received either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 64) or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 19). Treatment continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for a maximum of 24 months.

The ORR was 19% (95% confidence interval, 11%-29%), while the complete response rate was 2%. Responses were durable for 6 months or longer in 94% of the 16 responding patients.

Common adverse reactions included fatigue, decreased appetite, cough, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent serious adverse reactions were pneumonia and pleural effusion.

The recommended dosage for SCLC treatment is 200 mg, administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months in patients without disease progression, the FDA said.

Pembrolizumab is marketed as Keytruda by Merck.






 

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on an overall response rate of 19% among 83 patients with SCLC who had disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy enrolled in two nonrandomized trials, according to the FDA.

SCLC cohorts in KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 received either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 64) or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 19). Treatment continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for a maximum of 24 months.

The ORR was 19% (95% confidence interval, 11%-29%), while the complete response rate was 2%. Responses were durable for 6 months or longer in 94% of the 16 responding patients.

Common adverse reactions included fatigue, decreased appetite, cough, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent serious adverse reactions were pneumonia and pleural effusion.

The recommended dosage for SCLC treatment is 200 mg, administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months in patients without disease progression, the FDA said.

Pembrolizumab is marketed as Keytruda by Merck.






 

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on an overall response rate of 19% among 83 patients with SCLC who had disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy enrolled in two nonrandomized trials, according to the FDA.

SCLC cohorts in KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 received either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 64) or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 19). Treatment continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for a maximum of 24 months.

The ORR was 19% (95% confidence interval, 11%-29%), while the complete response rate was 2%. Responses were durable for 6 months or longer in 94% of the 16 responding patients.

Common adverse reactions included fatigue, decreased appetite, cough, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent serious adverse reactions were pneumonia and pleural effusion.

The recommended dosage for SCLC treatment is 200 mg, administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months in patients without disease progression, the FDA said.

Pembrolizumab is marketed as Keytruda by Merck.






 

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.

However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.

Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m² once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m² once every 6 weeks (n = 138).

The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.

The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.

Efficacy

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.

The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.

The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.

There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.

Safety

There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.

The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.

There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.

There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.

Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.

CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.

However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.

Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m² once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m² once every 6 weeks (n = 138).

The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.

The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.

Efficacy

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.

The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.

The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.

There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.

Safety

There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.

The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.

There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.

There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.

Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.

CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.

However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.

Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m² once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m² once every 6 weeks (n = 138).

The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.

The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.

Efficacy

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.

The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.

The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.

There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.

Safety

There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.

The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.

There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.

There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.

Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.

CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.

The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.

The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.

Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.

At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.

Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.

Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.

As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).

Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.

Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.

The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.

“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.

The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.

SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.

CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.

The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.

The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.

Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.

At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.

Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.

Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.

As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).

Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.

Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.

The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.

“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.

The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.

SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.

CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.

The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.

The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.

Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.

At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.

Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.

Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.

As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).

Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.

Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.

The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.

“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.

The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.

SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.

CHICAGO – Two immune checkpoint inhibitors were better than one as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 2 NEOSTAR trial.

Among 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC who were randomized to either a combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) or to nivolumab alone, the combination was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of major pathological response (MPR), defined as a reduction in viable tumors cells to 10% or less, reported Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Nivolumab/ipilimumab induced a 44% MPR rate in resected patients, met the trial prespecified boundary with seven MPRs in the intention-to-treat population, and induced pathologic complete responses in 38% of resected patients,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

To test whether neoadjuvant monotherapy or combination therapy could improve outcomes of standard induction chemotherapy, NEOSTAR investigators enrolled patients with NSCLC stage I-IIIA, including patients with a single involved mediastinal node (N2 single station) who were eligible for surgical resection.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1, 15 and 29 alone or in combination with ipilimumab delivered 1 mg/kg on day 1, followed by surgery 3-6 weeks after the last study dose and then postoperative standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Of 53 patients screened, 44 were eligible, with 23 randomized to nivolumab monotherapy and 21 randomized to nivolumab/ipilimumab. Of this group, five did not proceed to surgery (one in the monotherapy arm, four in the combination arm) because of either high surgical risk, lack of respectability, or refusal of surgery. The mean age at randomization was 65.6 years. In all, 18% were never smokers, and the remaining 82% were former or current smokers.

The MPR rate in the intention-to-treat population – the primary endpoint – was reached in four patients (17%) in the monotherapy arm and in seven patients (33%) in the combination arm. As noted, the combination arm reached the prespecified boundary of six or more patients with an MPR. All patients in each arm who had an MPR also had a pathologic complete responses.

Of the 39 patients who went on to resection, 37 were evaluable, and in these patients the respective MPR rates were 19% and 44%. Two patients on nivolumab alone and six on nivolumab plus ipilimumab had 0% viable tumor detectable at the time of surgery. Radiographic responses included one complete response in the combination arm and eight total partial responses, in five and three patients, respectively. The objective response rated was 20%. The responses, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were positively associated with MPR, Dr. Cascone said.

In 11% of patients, the investigators observed apparent radiographic progression after neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in mediastinal and or in nonregional nodes. However, pathological assessment and evaluation of the flaring nodes did not reveal evidence of disease, but instead showed noncaseating granulomas that were not present at baseline.

“Awareness of this phenomenon, which we named the ‘nodal immune flare,’ is of critical importance, as if the clinician fails to distinguish the nodal immune flare from disease progression, potential curative surgery for these patients could be avoided,” she said.

Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events included rash, itching, fatigue, anemia, cough, and diarrhea. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events included hypoxia, pneumonia, and pneumonitis in the nivolumab monotherapy arm and diarrhea and hyponatremia in the combination group. One patient treated with nivolumab monotherapy, who had achieved 0% viable tumor, had grade 3 pneumonia and pneumonitis, which was treated with steroids that impeded the healing of a bronchopleural fistula and subsequent empyema. Other surgical complications included air leaks, which occurred in five patients in the nivolumab group and three in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm.

Two patients died, one in the monotherapy arm from steroid-treated pneumonitis 4.1 months after randomization and one in the combination arm who had progressive disease 2 months after randomization, and died from the disease 15 months later.

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, from Stanford (California) University School of Medicine, commented that the choice of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not based on molecular markers, “and I think we have a major unmet need for developing biomarkers for personalized treatment in this area.

“Ideally, the biomarkers that we would have in this setting would, A, allow us to identify which patients have micrometastatic disease and therefore are likely to benefit from the upfront systemic therapy and, secondly, also could tell us which neoadjuvant therapy they would respond to, be it immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or the combination,” he added.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone disclosed honoraria from the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding and travel expenses from various companies.



SOURCE: Cascone T. et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8504.

CHICAGO – Two immune checkpoint inhibitors were better than one as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 2 NEOSTAR trial.

Among 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC who were randomized to either a combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) or to nivolumab alone, the combination was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of major pathological response (MPR), defined as a reduction in viable tumors cells to 10% or less, reported Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Nivolumab/ipilimumab induced a 44% MPR rate in resected patients, met the trial prespecified boundary with seven MPRs in the intention-to-treat population, and induced pathologic complete responses in 38% of resected patients,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

To test whether neoadjuvant monotherapy or combination therapy could improve outcomes of standard induction chemotherapy, NEOSTAR investigators enrolled patients with NSCLC stage I-IIIA, including patients with a single involved mediastinal node (N2 single station) who were eligible for surgical resection.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1, 15 and 29 alone or in combination with ipilimumab delivered 1 mg/kg on day 1, followed by surgery 3-6 weeks after the last study dose and then postoperative standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Of 53 patients screened, 44 were eligible, with 23 randomized to nivolumab monotherapy and 21 randomized to nivolumab/ipilimumab. Of this group, five did not proceed to surgery (one in the monotherapy arm, four in the combination arm) because of either high surgical risk, lack of respectability, or refusal of surgery. The mean age at randomization was 65.6 years. In all, 18% were never smokers, and the remaining 82% were former or current smokers.

The MPR rate in the intention-to-treat population – the primary endpoint – was reached in four patients (17%) in the monotherapy arm and in seven patients (33%) in the combination arm. As noted, the combination arm reached the prespecified boundary of six or more patients with an MPR. All patients in each arm who had an MPR also had a pathologic complete responses.

Of the 39 patients who went on to resection, 37 were evaluable, and in these patients the respective MPR rates were 19% and 44%. Two patients on nivolumab alone and six on nivolumab plus ipilimumab had 0% viable tumor detectable at the time of surgery. Radiographic responses included one complete response in the combination arm and eight total partial responses, in five and three patients, respectively. The objective response rated was 20%. The responses, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were positively associated with MPR, Dr. Cascone said.

In 11% of patients, the investigators observed apparent radiographic progression after neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in mediastinal and or in nonregional nodes. However, pathological assessment and evaluation of the flaring nodes did not reveal evidence of disease, but instead showed noncaseating granulomas that were not present at baseline.

“Awareness of this phenomenon, which we named the ‘nodal immune flare,’ is of critical importance, as if the clinician fails to distinguish the nodal immune flare from disease progression, potential curative surgery for these patients could be avoided,” she said.

Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events included rash, itching, fatigue, anemia, cough, and diarrhea. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events included hypoxia, pneumonia, and pneumonitis in the nivolumab monotherapy arm and diarrhea and hyponatremia in the combination group. One patient treated with nivolumab monotherapy, who had achieved 0% viable tumor, had grade 3 pneumonia and pneumonitis, which was treated with steroids that impeded the healing of a bronchopleural fistula and subsequent empyema. Other surgical complications included air leaks, which occurred in five patients in the nivolumab group and three in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm.

Two patients died, one in the monotherapy arm from steroid-treated pneumonitis 4.1 months after randomization and one in the combination arm who had progressive disease 2 months after randomization, and died from the disease 15 months later.

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, from Stanford (California) University School of Medicine, commented that the choice of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not based on molecular markers, “and I think we have a major unmet need for developing biomarkers for personalized treatment in this area.

“Ideally, the biomarkers that we would have in this setting would, A, allow us to identify which patients have micrometastatic disease and therefore are likely to benefit from the upfront systemic therapy and, secondly, also could tell us which neoadjuvant therapy they would respond to, be it immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or the combination,” he added.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone disclosed honoraria from the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding and travel expenses from various companies.



SOURCE: Cascone T. et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8504.

CHICAGO – Two immune checkpoint inhibitors were better than one as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 2 NEOSTAR trial.

Among 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC who were randomized to either a combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) or to nivolumab alone, the combination was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of major pathological response (MPR), defined as a reduction in viable tumors cells to 10% or less, reported Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Nivolumab/ipilimumab induced a 44% MPR rate in resected patients, met the trial prespecified boundary with seven MPRs in the intention-to-treat population, and induced pathologic complete responses in 38% of resected patients,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

To test whether neoadjuvant monotherapy or combination therapy could improve outcomes of standard induction chemotherapy, NEOSTAR investigators enrolled patients with NSCLC stage I-IIIA, including patients with a single involved mediastinal node (N2 single station) who were eligible for surgical resection.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1, 15 and 29 alone or in combination with ipilimumab delivered 1 mg/kg on day 1, followed by surgery 3-6 weeks after the last study dose and then postoperative standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Of 53 patients screened, 44 were eligible, with 23 randomized to nivolumab monotherapy and 21 randomized to nivolumab/ipilimumab. Of this group, five did not proceed to surgery (one in the monotherapy arm, four in the combination arm) because of either high surgical risk, lack of respectability, or refusal of surgery. The mean age at randomization was 65.6 years. In all, 18% were never smokers, and the remaining 82% were former or current smokers.

The MPR rate in the intention-to-treat population – the primary endpoint – was reached in four patients (17%) in the monotherapy arm and in seven patients (33%) in the combination arm. As noted, the combination arm reached the prespecified boundary of six or more patients with an MPR. All patients in each arm who had an MPR also had a pathologic complete responses.

Of the 39 patients who went on to resection, 37 were evaluable, and in these patients the respective MPR rates were 19% and 44%. Two patients on nivolumab alone and six on nivolumab plus ipilimumab had 0% viable tumor detectable at the time of surgery. Radiographic responses included one complete response in the combination arm and eight total partial responses, in five and three patients, respectively. The objective response rated was 20%. The responses, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were positively associated with MPR, Dr. Cascone said.

In 11% of patients, the investigators observed apparent radiographic progression after neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in mediastinal and or in nonregional nodes. However, pathological assessment and evaluation of the flaring nodes did not reveal evidence of disease, but instead showed noncaseating granulomas that were not present at baseline.

“Awareness of this phenomenon, which we named the ‘nodal immune flare,’ is of critical importance, as if the clinician fails to distinguish the nodal immune flare from disease progression, potential curative surgery for these patients could be avoided,” she said.

Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events included rash, itching, fatigue, anemia, cough, and diarrhea. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events included hypoxia, pneumonia, and pneumonitis in the nivolumab monotherapy arm and diarrhea and hyponatremia in the combination group. One patient treated with nivolumab monotherapy, who had achieved 0% viable tumor, had grade 3 pneumonia and pneumonitis, which was treated with steroids that impeded the healing of a bronchopleural fistula and subsequent empyema. Other surgical complications included air leaks, which occurred in five patients in the nivolumab group and three in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm.

Two patients died, one in the monotherapy arm from steroid-treated pneumonitis 4.1 months after randomization and one in the combination arm who had progressive disease 2 months after randomization, and died from the disease 15 months later.

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, from Stanford (California) University School of Medicine, commented that the choice of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not based on molecular markers, “and I think we have a major unmet need for developing biomarkers for personalized treatment in this area.

“Ideally, the biomarkers that we would have in this setting would, A, allow us to identify which patients have micrometastatic disease and therefore are likely to benefit from the upfront systemic therapy and, secondly, also could tell us which neoadjuvant therapy they would respond to, be it immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or the combination,” he added.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone disclosed honoraria from the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding and travel expenses from various companies.



SOURCE: Cascone T. et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8504.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes a late analysis of a previously published randomized trial in stage IV NSCLC with three or fewer sites of metastasis – oligometastatic disease. The other reviews deidentified patient data to discern whether immune-targeted treatment might be valuable in particular subsets of NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.

Local consolidative therapy

Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues published an updated analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and an initial analysis of overall survival (OS) data in a randomized phase 2 trial in oligometastatic NSCLC. As originally published, patients were randomized to local consolidative treatment (LCT) versus standard maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O). Patients were required to have responding or stable disease after first-line systemic therapy prior to randomization.

Among the 49 patients who received LCT, there was a clear benefit of LCT (PFS of 14.2 months vs. 4.4 months for MT/O; P = .022; and median OS 41.2 months vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). The OS benefit was seen despite allowing crossover to LCT for patients who demonstrated disease progression in the MT/O arm.
 

What this means in practice

These data are exciting and move clinical research forward – if not, at this time, clinical practice. They support the ongoing clinical trials in NSCLC (NRG LU002) and breast cancer (NRG BR002) investigating the role of LCT in the oligometastatic setting.

For patients who are not candidates for (or choose not to participate in) these important phase 2R/3 trials, I believe that LCT should be discussed with all of the caveats that the authors appropriately mention, from the small number of patients because of the premature closure of the trial, to heterogeneous systemic regimens, to the lack of clarity on whether newer systemic therapies are better.

Immune checkpoint blockade

Historically, EGFR-mutated NSCLCs have not derived comparable benefit to EGFR-wild type (WT) tumors from checkpoint inhibitors. For that reason, in EGFR-mutated tumors, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) suggest immune-targeted treatment should be used only on clinical trials or after receipt of EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Several recent studies (IMpower and ATLANTIC), however, have suggested that selected EGFR-mutated patients can benefit from immune-targeted treatment.

Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates found, in a multi-institution clinical-molecular data review, that among the 44 of 171 EGFR-mutated tumors with L858R mutations, benefit from checkpoint inhibitors was comparable to WT tumors with regard to overall response rate and OS, but not PFS. Additionally, tumors with the EGFR T790M mutation demonstrated similar benefit from checkpoint inhibitors as in WT tumors, L858R-mutated tumors (but not exon 19 deleted tumors) had high tumor mutation burden, and PD-L1 expression did not influence outcome from immunotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

I agree with the modesty of the authors’ conclusion that these findings should not change clinical practice but rather should encourage further research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immune-targeted therapy. For now, outside of a clinical trial, in EGFR-mutated patients, I will follow NCCN guidelines, using immune-targeted therapy off-study only with attentiveness to the particular immunotherapy regimens that have shown promise in the literature – and later, not earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes a late analysis of a previously published randomized trial in stage IV NSCLC with three or fewer sites of metastasis – oligometastatic disease. The other reviews deidentified patient data to discern whether immune-targeted treatment might be valuable in particular subsets of NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.

Local consolidative therapy

Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues published an updated analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and an initial analysis of overall survival (OS) data in a randomized phase 2 trial in oligometastatic NSCLC. As originally published, patients were randomized to local consolidative treatment (LCT) versus standard maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O). Patients were required to have responding or stable disease after first-line systemic therapy prior to randomization.

Among the 49 patients who received LCT, there was a clear benefit of LCT (PFS of 14.2 months vs. 4.4 months for MT/O; P = .022; and median OS 41.2 months vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). The OS benefit was seen despite allowing crossover to LCT for patients who demonstrated disease progression in the MT/O arm.
 

What this means in practice

These data are exciting and move clinical research forward – if not, at this time, clinical practice. They support the ongoing clinical trials in NSCLC (NRG LU002) and breast cancer (NRG BR002) investigating the role of LCT in the oligometastatic setting.

For patients who are not candidates for (or choose not to participate in) these important phase 2R/3 trials, I believe that LCT should be discussed with all of the caveats that the authors appropriately mention, from the small number of patients because of the premature closure of the trial, to heterogeneous systemic regimens, to the lack of clarity on whether newer systemic therapies are better.

Immune checkpoint blockade

Historically, EGFR-mutated NSCLCs have not derived comparable benefit to EGFR-wild type (WT) tumors from checkpoint inhibitors. For that reason, in EGFR-mutated tumors, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) suggest immune-targeted treatment should be used only on clinical trials or after receipt of EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Several recent studies (IMpower and ATLANTIC), however, have suggested that selected EGFR-mutated patients can benefit from immune-targeted treatment.

Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates found, in a multi-institution clinical-molecular data review, that among the 44 of 171 EGFR-mutated tumors with L858R mutations, benefit from checkpoint inhibitors was comparable to WT tumors with regard to overall response rate and OS, but not PFS. Additionally, tumors with the EGFR T790M mutation demonstrated similar benefit from checkpoint inhibitors as in WT tumors, L858R-mutated tumors (but not exon 19 deleted tumors) had high tumor mutation burden, and PD-L1 expression did not influence outcome from immunotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

I agree with the modesty of the authors’ conclusion that these findings should not change clinical practice but rather should encourage further research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immune-targeted therapy. For now, outside of a clinical trial, in EGFR-mutated patients, I will follow NCCN guidelines, using immune-targeted therapy off-study only with attentiveness to the particular immunotherapy regimens that have shown promise in the literature – and later, not earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes a late analysis of a previously published randomized trial in stage IV NSCLC with three or fewer sites of metastasis – oligometastatic disease. The other reviews deidentified patient data to discern whether immune-targeted treatment might be valuable in particular subsets of NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.

Local consolidative therapy

Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues published an updated analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and an initial analysis of overall survival (OS) data in a randomized phase 2 trial in oligometastatic NSCLC. As originally published, patients were randomized to local consolidative treatment (LCT) versus standard maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O). Patients were required to have responding or stable disease after first-line systemic therapy prior to randomization.

Among the 49 patients who received LCT, there was a clear benefit of LCT (PFS of 14.2 months vs. 4.4 months for MT/O; P = .022; and median OS 41.2 months vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). The OS benefit was seen despite allowing crossover to LCT for patients who demonstrated disease progression in the MT/O arm.
 

What this means in practice

These data are exciting and move clinical research forward – if not, at this time, clinical practice. They support the ongoing clinical trials in NSCLC (NRG LU002) and breast cancer (NRG BR002) investigating the role of LCT in the oligometastatic setting.

For patients who are not candidates for (or choose not to participate in) these important phase 2R/3 trials, I believe that LCT should be discussed with all of the caveats that the authors appropriately mention, from the small number of patients because of the premature closure of the trial, to heterogeneous systemic regimens, to the lack of clarity on whether newer systemic therapies are better.

Immune checkpoint blockade

Historically, EGFR-mutated NSCLCs have not derived comparable benefit to EGFR-wild type (WT) tumors from checkpoint inhibitors. For that reason, in EGFR-mutated tumors, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) suggest immune-targeted treatment should be used only on clinical trials or after receipt of EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Several recent studies (IMpower and ATLANTIC), however, have suggested that selected EGFR-mutated patients can benefit from immune-targeted treatment.

Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates found, in a multi-institution clinical-molecular data review, that among the 44 of 171 EGFR-mutated tumors with L858R mutations, benefit from checkpoint inhibitors was comparable to WT tumors with regard to overall response rate and OS, but not PFS. Additionally, tumors with the EGFR T790M mutation demonstrated similar benefit from checkpoint inhibitors as in WT tumors, L858R-mutated tumors (but not exon 19 deleted tumors) had high tumor mutation burden, and PD-L1 expression did not influence outcome from immunotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

I agree with the modesty of the authors’ conclusion that these findings should not change clinical practice but rather should encourage further research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immune-targeted therapy. For now, outside of a clinical trial, in EGFR-mutated patients, I will follow NCCN guidelines, using immune-targeted therapy off-study only with attentiveness to the particular immunotherapy regimens that have shown promise in the literature – and later, not earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.