Rat sarcoma (RAS) is the most frequently mutated oncogene in human cancer, with Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) being the most commonly mutated RAS isoform. Overall, KRAS accounts for 85% of RAS mutations ...observed in human cancers and is present in 35% of lung adenocarcinomas (LUADs). While the use of targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) has drastically changed the treatment landscape of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in recent years, historic attempts to target KRAS (both direct and indirect approaches) have had little success, and no KRAS-specific targeted therapies have been approved to date for patients in this molecular subset of NSCLC. With the discovery by Ostrem, Shokat, and colleagues of the switch II pocket on the surface of the active and inactive forms of KRAS, we now have an improved understanding of the complex interactions involved in the RAS family of signaling proteins which has led to the development of a number of promising direct KRASG12C inhibitors, such as sotorasib and adagrasib. In previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC, clinical activity has been shown for both sotorasib and adagrasib monotherapy; these data suggest promising new treatment options are on the horizon. With the stage now set for a new era in the treatment of KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC, many questions remain to be answered in order to further elucidate the mechanisms of resistance, how best to use combination strategies, and if KRASG12C inhibitors will have suitable activity in earlier lines of therapy for patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC.
•Better understanding of RAS signaling has led to the development of promising directly blocking compounds in KRAS-mutant tumors.•New drug candidates take advantage of the increased knowledge of the KRAS mutation complex and relevant protein structures.•Increasing evidence continues to demonstrate the genomic heterogeneity in KRAS-mutated NSCLC.•Current efforts include understanding and overcoming resistance after treatment with KRASG12C inhibitors.
Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell ...lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown.
In this randomized, international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 AUC5) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.
The median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression-free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%).
Osimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981 .).
In the phase III KEYNOTE-189 study (NCT02578680), pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy (pemetrexed–platinum) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free ...survival (PFS) in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus placebo plus pemetrexed–platinum. We report updated efficacy outcomes from the protocol-specified final analysis, including outcomes in patients who crossed over to pembrolizumab from pemetrexed–platinum and in patients who completed 35 cycles (∼2 years) of pembrolizumab.
Eligible patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (n = 410) or placebo (n = 206) every 3 weeks (for up to 35 cycles, ∼2 years) plus four cycles of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and investigators’ choice of cisplatin (75 mg/m2) or carboplatin (area under the curve 5 mg·min/ml) every 3 weeks, followed by pemetrexed until progression. Patients assigned to placebo plus pemetrexed–platinum could cross over to pembrolizumab upon progression if eligibility criteria were met. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS.
After a median follow-up of 31.0 months, pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum continued to improve OS hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-0.69 and PFS (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59) over placebo plus pemetrexed–platinum regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 expression. Objective response rate (ORR) (48.3% versus 19.9%) and time to second/subsequent tumor progression on next-line treatment (PFS2; HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.61) were improved in patients who received pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum. Eighty-four patients (40.8%) from the placebo plus pemetrexed–platinum group crossed over to pembrolizumab on-study. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 72.1% of patients receiving pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum and 66.8% of patients receiving placebo plus pemetrexed–platinum. Fifty-six patients completed 35 cycles (∼2 years) of pembrolizumab; ORR was 85.7% and 53 (94.6%) were alive at data cut-off.
Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum continued to show improved efficacy outcomes compared with placebo plus pemetrexed–platinum, with manageable toxicity. These findings support first-line pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.
•KEYNOTE-189 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab + pemetrexed–platinum versus placebo + pemetrexed–platinum in NSCLC.•Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed–platinum improved OS (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.69) versus placebo + pemetrexed–platinum.•Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed–platinum improved PFS (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59) versus placebo + pemetrexed–platinum.•ORR was 85.7% in patients who completed 35 cycles (2 years) of pembrolizumab therapy.•Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed–platinum had manageable toxicity.
•Currently, only patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% can receive immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) as first line treatment in clinical practice and they account for a maximum of 30% of all advanced NSCLC ...patients.•Several phase III studies demonstrated a survival advantage combining immunotherapy to chemotherapy.•An open issue is how to choose the most correct therapeutic strategy and to properly select patients for the different available treatment options.•To date, PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the only approved marker to select patients for immunotherapy but other factors, for example TMB, are under evaluation.
Immunotherapy has dramatically changed the therapeutic scenario in treatment naïve advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While single agent pembrolizumab has become the standard therapy in patients with PD-L1 expression on tumor cells ≥ 50%, the combination of pembrolizumab or atezolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy has emerged as an effective first line treatment regardless of PD-L1 expression both in squamous and non-squamous NSCLC without oncogenic drivers. Furthermore, double immune checkpoint inhibition has shown promising results in treatment naïve patients with high tumor mutational burden (TMB). Of note, the presence of both negative PD-L1 expression and low TMB may identify a subgroup of patients who has little benefit from immunotherapy combinations and for whom the best treatment option may still be platinum-based chemotherapy. To date, first-line single agent immune checkpoint blockade has demonstrated limited activity in EGFR mutated NSCLC and the combination of immunotherapy and targeted agents has raised safety concerns in both EGFR and ALK positive NSCLC patients. Finally, in EGFR mutated or ALK rearranged NSCLC, atezolizumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab is emerging as a potential treatment option upon progression to first line tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Long-term data with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. Two phase III trials demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile ...with the anti-programmed death-1 antibody nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous (CheckMate 017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate 057) NSCLC. We report results from≥3 years’ follow-up, including subgroup analyses of patients with liver metastases, who historically have poorer prognosis among patients with NSCLC.
Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3mg/kg every 2weeks) or docetaxel (75mg/m2 every 3weeks) until progression or discontinuation. The primary end point of each study was OS. Patients with baseline liver metastases were pooled across studies by treatment for subgroup analyses.
After 40.3 months’ minimum follow-up in CheckMate 017 and 057, nivolumab continued to show an OS benefit versus docetaxel: estimated 3-year OS rates were 17% 95% confidence interval (CI), 14% to 21% versus 8% (95% CI, 6% to 11%) in the pooled population with squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Nivolumab was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Of 854 randomized patients across both studies, 193 had baseline liver metastases. Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), consistent with findings from the overall pooled study population (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81). Rates of treatment-related hepatic adverse events (primarily grade 1–2 liver enzyme elevations) were slightly higher in nivolumab-treated patients with liver metastases (10%) than in the overall pooled population (6%).
After 3 years’ minimum follow-up, nivolumab continued to demonstrate an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. Similarly, nivolumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with liver metastases, and remained well tolerated.
CheckMate 017: NCT01642004; CheckMate 057: NCT01673867.
The addition of atezolizumab to carboplatin and etoposide (CP/ET) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in ...the IMpower133 study (NCT02763579). We have evaluated adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes in IMpower133 to assess the benefit–risk profile of this regimen.
Patients received four 21-day cycles of CP/ET plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo (induction phase), followed by atezolizumab or placebo (maintenance phase) until progression or loss of benefit. AEs were assessed and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated every 3 weeks during treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ-LC13.
Overall, 394 patients were assessable for safety in the induction phase and 318 in the maintenance phase. The frequency of AEs, grade 3–4 AEs, and serious AEs was similar between arms in both phases. Immune-related AEs were more frequent in the atezolizumab arm during both induction (28% versus 17%; leading to atezolizumab/placebo interruption 9% versus 5%, leading to withdrawal 4% versus 0%) and maintenance (26% versus 15%; leading to atezolizumab/placebo interruption, 3% versus 2%, leading to withdrawal 1% versus 1%), most commonly rash (induction 11% versus 9%, maintenance 14% versus 4%), and hypothyroidism (induction 4.0% versus 0%, maintenance 10% versus 1%). Changes in patient-reported treatment-related symptoms commonly associated with quality of life impairment were generally similar during induction and most of the maintenance phase. Patient-reported function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in both arms after initiating treatment, with more pronounced and persistent HRQoL improvements in the atezolizumab arm.
In patients with ES-SCLC, atezolizumab plus CP/ET has a comparable safety profile to placebo plus CP/ET, and the addition of atezolizumab did not adversely impact patient-reported HRQoL. These data demonstrate the positive benefit–risk profile of first-line atezolizumab plus CP/ET in ES-SCLC and further support this regimen as a new standard of care in this setting.
NCT02763579.
•First-line atezolizumab plus CP/ET had a similar safety profile to placebo plus CP/ET in both induction and maintenance.•The addition of atezolizumab did not adversely impact patient-reported health-related quality of life.•The risk:benefit ratio further supports atezolizumab plus CP/ET as a new standard of care in ES-SCLC.
In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in ...extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP numerically improved OS versus EP, but did not reach statistical significance. Here we report updated OS in censored patients after median follow-up of >3 years.
805 patients with treatment-naïve ES-SCLC were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to durvalumab plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP, or EP. The two primary endpoints were OS for durvalumab plus EP versus EP and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP.
As of 22 March 2021 (median follow-up 39.4 months, 86% maturity), durvalumab plus EP continued to demonstrate improved OS versus EP: hazard ratio (HR) 0.71 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.86; nominal P = 0.0003; median OS was 12.9 versus 10.5 months, and 36-month OS rate was 17.6% versus 5.8%. Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP continued to numerically improve OS versus EP: HR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.97; nominal P = 0.0200); median OS was 10.4 months, and 36-month OS rate was 15.3%. Twenty-seven and nineteen patients in the durvalumab plus EP and durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP arms, respectively, remained on durvalumab treatment at data cut-off.
Three times more patients were estimated to be alive at 3 years when treated with durvalumab plus EP versus EP, with the majority still receiving durvalumab at data cut-off, further establishing durvalumab plus EP as first-line standard of care for ES-SCLC.
•Durvalumab plus EP showed sustained OS benefit over EP with a well-tolerated safety profile after median follow-up >3 years.•Three times more patients were estimated to be alive at 3 years when treated with durvalumab plus EP versus EP alone.•These results further establish durvalumab plus EP as standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with ES-SCLC.
PDF
