•EGFR-dependent and independent resistance mechanisms to osimertinib are described.•Chemotherapy remains the standard of care after osimertinib failure outside trials.•Early trials show promising ...results for targeting specific resistance mechanisms.
Osimertinib is an irreversible EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor initially approved for treatment of EGFR-positive patients exhibiting a T790 M resistance mutation in the second line setting and now emerging as the new standard of care for all EGFR positive patients as first-line treatment. Despite its efficacy, resistance to osimertinib inevitably develops and mechanisms of resistance can be grouped broadly in two categories: on-target EGFR-dependent and off-target EGFR-independent mechanisms. EGFR-dependent resistance typically is associated with additional EGFR-mutations disrupting the osimertinib binding through changes in the binding site by allosteric/ conformational transitions; EGFR-independent mechanisms are related mostly to alternate pathway activation or aberrant downstream signalling but also to lineage plasticity leading to small cell transformation. MET amplification is the most frequent off-target mechanisms of resistance to osimertinib treatment and recently published early trials show promising results for combination of MET-inhibitors with osimertinib upon development of resistance. This review will summarize mechanisms of resistance overall and in different treatment settings and will focus on potential new treatment options targeting specific acquired alterations after osimertinib failure.
Purpose Provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2015 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The ASCO NSCLC Expert Panel ...made recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016 plus the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's update of a previous ASCO search. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Fourteen randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Recommendations New or revised recommendations include the following. Regarding first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (without positive markers, eg, EGFR/ALK /ROS1), if the patient has high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pembrolizumab should be used alone; if the patient has low PD-L1 expression, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. All other clinical scenarios follow 2015 recommendations. Regarding second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy, without prior immune checkpoint therapy, if NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab. All immune checkpoint therapy is recommended alone plus in the absence of contraindications. For patients who received a prior first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. For patients who cannot receive immune checkpoint inhibitor after chemotherapy, docetaxel is recommended; in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, pemetrexed is recommended. In patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, disease progression after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and T790M mutation, osimertinib is recommended; if NSCLC lacks the T790M mutation, then chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangement without prior crizotinib may be offered crizotinib, or if they previously received crizotinib, they may be offered chemotherapy.
To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs).
The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update ...Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee.
Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults.
Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.
The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver ...alterations. A guideline update for patients with stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations will be published separately.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel made updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from December 2015 to 2019.
This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Five randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed.
Recommendations apply to patients without driver alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor or ALK. For patients with high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score TPS ≥ 50%) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. Additional treatment options include pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, or atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel. For most patients with non-SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive (1% to 49%) PD-L1, the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed. Additional options are atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, platinum-based two-drug combination chemotherapy, or non-platinum-based two-drug therapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option for low positive PD-L1. For patients with high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%) and SCC, the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. An additional treatment option is pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel). For most patients with SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive PD-L1 (TPS 1% to 49%), the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel) or chemotherapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option in select cases of low positive PD-L1. Recommendations are conditional on the basis of histology, PD-L1 status, and/or the presence or absence of contraindications. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/lung-cancer-guidelines.
Recent advances in the field of novel anticancer agents prolong patients' survival and show a promising future. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy for lung cancer are the two major areas ...undergoing rapid development. Although increasing novel anticancer agents were innovated, how to translate and optimize these novel agents into clinical practice remains to be explored. Besides, toxicities and availability of these drugs in specific regions should also be considered during clinical determination. Herein, we summarize emerging agents including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, checkpoint inhibitors, and other potential immunotherapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T cell for non-small cell lung cancer attempting to provide insights and perspectives of the future in anticancer treatment.
Limited data exist on the optimal duration of immunotherapy, including for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present an exploratory analysis of CheckMate 153, a largely community-based phase ...IIIb/IV study, to evaluate the impact of 1-year fixed-duration versus continuous therapy on the efficacy and safety of nivolumab.
Patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Those still receiving treatment at 1 year, including patients perceived to be deriving benefit despite radiographic progression, were randomly assigned to continue nivolumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to stop nivolumab with the option of on-study retreatment after disease progression (1-year fixed duration).
Of 1,428 patients treated, 252 were randomly assigned to continuous (n = 127) or 1-year fixed-duration (n = 125) treatment (intent-to-treat ITT population). Of these, 89 and 85 patients in the continuous and 1-year fixed-duration arms, respectively, had not progressed (progression-free survival PFS population). With minimum post-random assignment follow-up of 13.5 months, median PFS was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment (PFS population: 24.7 months
9.4 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.56 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.84). Median overall survival from random assignment was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment in the PFS (not reached
32.5 months; HR, 0.61 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99) and ITT (not reached
28.8 months; HR, 0.62 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.92) populations. Few new-onset treatment-related adverse events occurred. No new safety signals were identified.
To our knowledge, these findings from an exploratory analysis represent the first randomized data on continuous versus fixed-duration immunotherapy in previously treated advanced NSCLC and suggest that continuing nivolumab beyond 1 year improves outcomes.
Abstract Objective To evaluate a new protocol of accelerated hemithoracic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) for patients with resectable ...malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Methods A total of 25 Gy of radiation was delivered in 5 daily fractions over 1 week to the entire ipsilateral hemithorax with concomitant boost of 5 Gy to volumes at high risk based on computed tomography and positron emission tomography scan findings. EPP was performed at 6 ± 2 days after the end of radiation therapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to patients with ypN2 disease. Results A total of 62 patients were included between November 2008 and October 2014. One patient died in the hospital 2 months after EPP, for an operative mortality of 1.6%, and 2 died after discharged from the hospital for an overall treatment-related mortality (grade 5 toxicity) of 4.8%. Twenty-four patients (39%) developed grade 3 to 5 (grade 3+) complications. On final pathology, 94% of the patients were stage III or IV, and 52% had ypN2 disease. The median survival for all patients as an intention-to-treat analysis was 36 months. The median overall survival and disease-free survival was 51 and 47 months, respectively, in epithelial subtypes, compared with 10 and 8 months in biphasic subtypes ( P = .001). Ipsilateral chest recurrence occurred in 8 patients. Conclusions Accelerated hemithoracic IMRT followed by EPP has become our preferred approach for resectable MPM. The results have been encouraging in patients with epithelial subtype.
•Anti-PD-(L)1 therapy + platinum chemotherapy improves outcomes in NSCLC and SCLC.•Toxicity with these combinations is generally manageable.•Appropriate workup of AEs allows clinicians to make ...informed treatment decisions.
The combination of an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) or anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody with platinum-based chemotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) compared with chemotherapy alone. For patients receiving these new treatment regimens, it is important that toxicities be managed effectively. A particular challenge can be determining the etiology of an event, especially when there are overlapping symptoms that can be attributed to either immunotherapy or to platinum-based chemotherapy. Here, we evaluate adverse events (AEs) reported in clinical trials of combination therapy with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 (anti-PD-L1) immunotherapy and chemotherapy to provide information on toxicity management.
We performed a systematic review of the literature focused on randomized controlled trials of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy combined with platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC and SCLC.
Eleven reports from 9 randomized studies evaluating pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung cancer were identified. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred more commonly in patients who received anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone; however, there was no evidence of unexpected or unanticipated toxicity with these combinations.
Combinations of anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy regimens improve outcomes for patients with NSCLC and SCLC, and toxicity is generally manageable. Strategies for appropriate workup of AEs to allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding causality and treatment modifications when appropriate are an important element of management of patients receiving an anti-PD-(L)1 agent combined with platinum-based chemotherapy.
Should lorlatinib be the standard first-line treatment in advanced ALK-rearranged lung cancer? In the New England Journal of Medicine, Shaw et al. present interim analysis results from CROWN, a ...randomized, phase 3 study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib as initial therapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC.
PDF
