•Single-arm phase I/II clinical trial in patients with advanced EGFR ex20ins NSCLC.•Compared outcomes with mobocertinib vs real-world treatment in this rare population.•Confirmed overall response ...rate was greater with mobocertinib than other treatments.•Median PFS (7.3 vs 3.3 months) and OS (24.0 vs 12.4 months) were also greater.•Mobocertinib substantially outperformed available therapies in this population.
Mobocertinib is a novel, first-in-class, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) designed to selectively target in-frame EGFR exon 20 insertions (ex20ins). Comparative effectiveness data for mobocertinib versus real-world treatments are lacking in this rare population. This study compared data for mobocertinib reported in a Phase I/II single-arm clinical trial with an external control group consisting of patients who received available treatment in the real-world setting in the United States (US).
The mobocertinib group included platinum-pretreated patients with advanced EGFR ex20ins non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving mobocertinib 160 mg QD in an ongoing, single-arm, phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT02716116; n = 114). The real-world data (RWD) group included platinum-pretreated patients with advanced EGFR ex20ins-mutant NSCLC from the Flatiron Health database (n = 50). Inverse probability treatment weighting based on the propensity score method controlled for potential confounding between groups. Confirmed overall response rate (cORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups.
After weighting, baseline characteristics were balanced. Patients in the RWD group received EGFR TKI (20 %), immuno-oncology therapy (40 %), or any regimens containing chemotherapy (40 %) in the second- or later-line setting. In the mobocertinib and RWD groups, respectively, cORR was 35.1 % and 11.9 % (odds ratio: 3.75 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.05, 6.89); median PFS was 7.3 and 3.3 months (hazard ratio HR: 0.57 95 % CI: 0.36, 0.90); and median OS was 24.0 and 12.4 months (HR: 0.53 95 % CI: 0.33, 0.83) after weighting.
Mobocertinib showed substantially improved outcomes versus an external control group using available therapies in platinum-pretreated patients with EGFR ex20ins-mutant NSCLC. In the absence of comparative evidence from randomized trials, these findings help elucidate potential benefits of mobocertinib in this rare population.
Introduction
Preclinical evidence suggests the feedforward cytokine loop of interleukin-6/Janus kinases (JAK)/STAT3 plays a role in epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR ...TKI) resistance in
EGFR
-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods
In this phase 1b study, the JAK1/2 and TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1) inhibitor momelotinib was evaluated in combination with erlotinib in patients with EGFR TKI-naive,
EGFR
-mutated NSCLC. After erlotinib lead-in (50, 75, 100, or 150 mg oral daily QD), momelotinib was combined and dose escalated in a 3 + 3 study design. The primary endpoint of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of momelotinib was determined based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first 28-day cycle. Secondary endpoints included efficacy and pharmacokinetics (PK).
Results
Eleven patients were enrolled across 3 dose levels of momelotinib (100 mg QD, 200 mg QD, and 100 mg twice daily BID). The MTD was momelotinib 200 mg QD in combination with erlotinib. Two DLTs of grade 4 neutropenia without fever and grade 3 diarrhea occurred at momelotinib 100 mg BID. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events included diarrhea, dry skin, fatigue, and decreased appetite; the vast majority being grades 1–2. The overall response rate was 54.5% (90% CI 27.1–80.0; all partial) and median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (90% CI 6.2–12.4). Momelotinib did not affect the PK of erlotinib.
Conclusions
The JAK1/2 and TBK1 inhibitor momelotinib in combination with erlotinib did not appear to enhance benefit over the historical data of erlotinib monotherapy in patients with
EGFR
-mutated NSCLC.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
NCT02206763.
While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs ...are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials.
Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017-2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days.
Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days.
Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported.
Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) no longer are approved for second-line or later treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), and have not been studied in combination with ...chemotherapy. Exploring the efficacy and safety of second-line or later immunotherapy for ES-SCLC is an urgent clinical question that needs to be addressed, and combination therapies are an important research direction. This study intended to investigate the efficacy and safety of the sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy as a second-line and beyond treatment option for ES-SCLC.BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) no longer are approved for second-line or later treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), and have not been studied in combination with chemotherapy. Exploring the efficacy and safety of second-line or later immunotherapy for ES-SCLC is an urgent clinical question that needs to be addressed, and combination therapies are an important research direction. This study intended to investigate the efficacy and safety of the sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy as a second-line and beyond treatment option for ES-SCLC.Medical records of patients who received treatment with sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone as a second-line or beyond therapy were retrospectively analyzed. The study evaluated efficacy and safety. Indicators of efficacy included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety indicators included adverse events (AEs).MethodsMedical records of patients who received treatment with sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone as a second-line or beyond therapy were retrospectively analyzed. The study evaluated efficacy and safety. Indicators of efficacy included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety indicators included adverse events (AEs).This cohort comprised of 46 patients: 24 in the sintilimab combination chemotherapy group and 22 in the chemotherapy group. Chemotherapy received by both groups was either albumin-bound paclitaxel or irinotecan. Compared with the chemotherapy group, the sintilimab combination chemotherapy group had higher ORR and DCR (ORR: 37.5% vs. 9.1%, P=0.04; DCR: 75.0% vs. 40.9%, P=0.04), and significantly prolonged PFS and OS median PFS (mPFS): 5.07 vs. 2.45 months, P=0.006; median OS (mOS): 14.43 vs. 10.34 months, P=0.009. Also, there was no significant increase in the incidence of AEs in the sintilimab combination chemotherapy group, which was well tolerated by patients.ResultsThis cohort comprised of 46 patients: 24 in the sintilimab combination chemotherapy group and 22 in the chemotherapy group. Chemotherapy received by both groups was either albumin-bound paclitaxel or irinotecan. Compared with the chemotherapy group, the sintilimab combination chemotherapy group had higher ORR and DCR (ORR: 37.5% vs. 9.1%, P=0.04; DCR: 75.0% vs. 40.9%, P=0.04), and significantly prolonged PFS and OS median PFS (mPFS): 5.07 vs. 2.45 months, P=0.006; median OS (mOS): 14.43 vs. 10.34 months, P=0.009. Also, there was no significant increase in the incidence of AEs in the sintilimab combination chemotherapy group, which was well tolerated by patients.Sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy is superior to single-agent chemotherapeutic treatment as second-line or later therapy in ES-SCLC patients who have not received prior immunotherapy. These results need to be confirmed in future clinical trials.ConclusionsSintilimab in combination with chemotherapy is superior to single-agent chemotherapeutic treatment as second-line or later therapy in ES-SCLC patients who have not received prior immunotherapy. These results need to be confirmed in future clinical trials.
•Hypofractionated accelerated radiation therapy (HART) can provide dose escalation.•Adoption of HART with chemotherapy has been limited due to concerns of toxicity.•In patients with favorable ...dosimetry to organs at risk, HART had low toxicity.•HART provided excellent local control.•These results are being used to inform a prospective study.
Adoption of hypofractionated accelerated radiation therapy (HART) with concurrent chemotherapy has been limited by toxicity concerns. We aimed to describe outcomes of patients treated with HART and concurrent chemotherapy and to evaluate dosimetry to organs at risk to guide patient selection.
We evaluated a retrospective cohort of NSCLC patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy with HART (>2.2 Gy per fraction) or standard fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT; 2-2.2 Gy fractions). Dosimetric parameters to key organs at risk were compared, and toxicity, patterns of recurrence and survival were calculated for the cohorts.
Fifty-three patients treated with HART were compared with 100 patients treated with SFRT. Median dose per fraction for the HART cohort was 2.75 Gy (range 2.4-3 Gy). HART patients had significantly lower doses to the lung, heart, and esophagus due to patient selection. The HART group and had rates of grade 2+ pneumonitis (9.4 vs. 19%, P = .16) and grade 2+ esophagitis (20.8 vs. 45%, P < .01) that compared favorably to SFRT. Cumulative incidence of in-field recurrence trended lower in the HART cohort (7.6% vs. 23.1%, P = .058). Among the HART group, 88.7% (47/53) met the newly proposed lung constraints based on the degree of hypofractionation
In select patients with favorable dosimetry to organs at risk, definitive HART with concurrent chemotherapy achieved excellent local control with low toxicity. These results are being used to inform a prospective study on the safety and efficacy of HART with concurrent chemotherapy for select NSCLC patients.
Adoption of hypofractionated accelerated radiation (HART) with concurrent chemotherapy in the treatment of lung cancer has been limited by toxicity concerns. We aimed to describe outcomes of patients treated with this approach. In patients with smaller treatment volumes, and with favorable dosimetry to organs at risk, this approach showed excellent local control with low toxicity.
Liquid biopsy circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) mutational analysis holds great promises for precision medicine targeted therapy and more effective cancer management. However, its wide adoption is ...hampered by high cost and long turnaround time of sequencing assays, or by inadequate analytical sensitivity of existing portable nucleic acid tests to mutant allelic fraction in ctDNA.
We developed a ctDNA Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutational assay using giant magnetoresistive (GMR) nanosensors. This assay was validated in 36 plasma samples of non-small cell lung cancer patients with known EGFR mutations. We assessed therapy response through follow-up blood draws, determined concordance between the GMR assay and radiographic response, and ascertained progression-free survival of patients.
The GMR assay achieved analytical sensitivities of 0.01% mutant allelic fraction. In clinical samples, the assay had 87.5% sensitivity (95% CI = 64.0-97.8%) for Exon19 deletion and 90% sensitivity (95% CI = 69.9-98.2%) for L858R mutation with 100% specificity; our assay detected T790M resistance with 96.3% specificity (95% CI = 81.7-99.8%) with 100% sensitivity. After 2 weeks of therapy, 10 patients showed disappearance of ctDNA by GMR (predicted responders), whereas 3 patients did not (predicted nonresponders). These predictions were 100% concordant with radiographic response. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed responders had significantly (P < 0.0001) longer PFS compared to nonresponders (N/A vs. 12 weeks, respectively).
The GMR assay has high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and is well suited for detecting EGFR mutations at diagnosis and noninvasively monitoring treatment response at the point-of-care.
Severe pulmonary hemorrhage can occur in patients treated with thoracic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis). There is limited ...understanding of which patients are at risk for toxicity with the combination of thoracic SABR and VEGFis or how the risk differs over either therapy alone.
We evaluated a prospectively maintained cohort of 690 patients with 818 pulmonary tumors treated with highly conformal SABR. Rates of any-grade and grade 3 plus (G3+) pulmonary hemorrhage were compared between patients treated with or without VEGFi therapy across tumor locations. Outcomes were compared between patients treated with SABR plus VEGFi and a propensity-matched cohort of those treated with VEGFi therapy alone.
Treatment with VEGFi plus SABR was associated with higher rates of G3+ pulmonary hemorrhage compared with those treated with SABR alone for the overall cohort (3-y incidence: 7.9% versus 0.6%, p < 0.01) and those with central tumors (19.1% versus 3.3%, p = 0.04). When further subdivided, there were significantly higher toxicity rates with VEGFi for the ultracentral (9.0% versus 45.0%, p = 0.044), but not central nonabutting tumors (0.0% versus 1.3%, p = 0.69). There was an increased incidence of G3+ hemorrhage in patients treated with VEGFi plus SABR compared with VEGFi alone (9.6% versus 1.3%, p = 0.04).
The combination of VEGFi and SABR was associated with an increased risk of high-grade pulmonary hemorrhage over either therapy alone. Low rates of toxicity were observed when excluding patients with SABR to ultracentral tumors and applying highly conformal SABR techniques.
•Afatinib has limited activity in EGFR-mutant NSCLC after progression on osimertinib•Response to prior osimertinib may be predictive of response to afatinib•Osimertinib resistance mechanisms may play ...a key role in selecting for afatinib
After the development of acquired resistance to osimertinib, the standard-of-care treatment for advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC is chemotherapy. Whether afatinib, a pan-ErbB family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is active after progression on osimertinib is unknown.
We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC who received afatinib-containing therapy after progression on osimertinib. Kaplan-Meier analyses evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from initiation of afatinib.
After progression on first (N=3) or second-line plus (N=12) osimertinib, 15 patients received afatinib monotherapy (N=3), afatinib and cetuximab (N=10), or afatinib and bevacizumab (N=2). The objective response rate was 6.7% and disease control rate was 53.3%. Median PFS was 2.5 months and median OS was 7.7 months. Median PFS of ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months on osimertinib was associated with a significantly greater median PFS on afatinib (4.0 versus 1.4 months; P=0.003), although there was no significant difference in median OS (9.3 versus 6.6 months; P=0.123). Best response of stable disease/partial response versus progressive disease on osimertinib was associated with a significantly greater median PFS on afatinib (3.4 versus 1.6 months; P=0.036) and a significantly greater median OS (8.7 versus 4.6 months; P=0.017).
Afatinib-containing therapy had limited activity in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after progression on osimertinib in this cohort of mostly second-line plus osimertinib. Response and longer PFS to prior osimertinib may be predictive of response to afatinib. Strategies based on osimertinib resistance mechanisms may further define the role of subsequent afatinib.
Background
Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known ...about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer.
Methods
A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C‐TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG‐ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression.
Results
A total of 740 patients completing the C‐TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69–7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64–10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02–0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Conclusions
Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Among patients participating in cancer clinical trials, those residing in environments with greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage are more likely to report current smoking, be asked about their tobacco use, and less likely to be recommended counseling to support quitting. Cancer care providers need to increase routine delivery of all the components of 5 As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange follow‐up) consistent with an evidence‐based approach to treating tobacco use.
PDF
