Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Morabito
Author of
-
+
P1.01 - Advanced NSCLC (ID 757)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.01-015 - Crizotinib in ROS1 Rearranged or MET Deregulated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Final Results of the METROS Trial (ID 9454)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): A. Morabito
- Abstract
Background:
Crizotinib is the standard of care in NSCLC with ALK rearrangement. Recent data showed that the drug is dramatically effective in patients with ROS1 rearrangement (ROS1[+]), with promising activity also in individuals with MET exon 14 mutations (MET[Ex14]) or MET amplification (MET[FISH+]).
Method:
The METROS is an Italian multicenter prospective phase II trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of crizotinib in ROS1[+ ]or MET[Ex1][4 ]or MET[FISH][+ ]advanced NSCLC patients who failed at least 1 standard chemotherapy regimen. The co-primary end-point was response rate (RR) in cohort A (ROS1+: centrally confirmed ROS1 rearrangement) and cohort B (MET+: centrally confirmed MET[FISH][+ ]defined as ratio MET/CEP7 >2.2 or locally confirmed MET[Ex1][4]). Eligible patients received crizotinib at the standard dose of 250 mg BID orally.
Result:
At the data cut-off of April 30[th], 2017, both cohorts completed accrual. Among 498 screened patients, 52 accounted for the intent-to-treat population (ITT) and received at least 1 dose of crizotinib. Among them, 26 resulted ROS1[+], 16 MET[FISH][+] and 10 MET[Ex1][4]. Notably, 3 MET[Ex1][4] cases had concurrent KRAS mutation and 1 had concurrent MET gene amplification. No concomitant driver event was detected in the ROS1 cohort. Cohort A included individuals with adenocarcinoma, median age of 55 years (range 29-86), predominantly female (61%) and never smokers (54%). Cohort B included older subjects (median age 68, range 39-78), predominantly male (65%), current/former smokers (77%) and with adenocarcinoma (92%). In both cohorts, the vast majority of patients (85%) presented > 2 metastatic sites and crizotinib was mainly offered as second line treatment (74%). Time from end of first line therapy to crizotinib was 4.1 and 1.6 months for cohort A and B, respectively. In ITT population RR, median progression free-survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 61.5%, 17.2 months and not reached in cohort A and 26.9%, 3.1 months and 5.3 months in cohort B, respectively. For cohort B, responses were observed in both MET[FISH][+] and MET[Ex1][4] (25% and 30%, respectively), with evidence of rapid progression in patients carrying MET[Ex1][4][/KRAS]. At present, for 2 MET+ patients assessment is pending. Therapy was generally well tolerated with no unexpected adverse event.
Conclusion:
The METROS is the first prospective trial specifically conducted in ROS1+ or MET+ deregulated NSCLC. The study confirms remarkable efficacy of crizotinib in ROS1[+] NSCLC. Responses observed in the MET cohort were of short duration confirming aggressiveness of the disease and the urgent needs for innovative therapies.
-
+
P3.01 - Advanced NSCLC (ID 621)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P3.01-043 - Impact of ErbB Mutations on Clinical Outcomes in Afatinib- or Erlotinib-Treated Patients with SCC of the Lung (ID 9457)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): A. Morabito
- Abstract
Background:
In LUX-Lung 8 (LL8), second-line afatinib (an irreversible ErbB family blocker) significantly improved OS (median 7.9 versus 6.8 months; HR [95% CI]: 0.81 [0.69‒0.95]; p=0.0077), and PFS (2.6 versus 1.9 months; 0.81 [0.69‒0.96]; p=0.0103) versus erlotinib in lung SCC (N=795). Comprehensive genetic analysis in LL8 patients assessed whether afatinib efficacy varied according to genetic aberrations in cancer-related genes, including ErbB family mutations.
Method:
Tumor genetic analysis (TGA) was performed using Foundation Medicine FoundationOne™ next-generation sequencing (NGS). The cohort was enriched for patients with PFS >2 months, reflecting a range of responsiveness to EGFR-TKIs. EGFR expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a largely separate cohort. Cox regression analysis correlated PFS/OS with genetic mutations (individual/grouped) and EGFR expression.
Result:
Of 440 patients selected for TGA (PFS >2 months: n=320; ≤2 months: n=120), samples from 245 were eligible (afatinib: n=132; erlotinib: n=113). In the selected TGA population, PFS/OS outcomes were improved in the afatinib versus erlotinib arm. Baseline characteristics were similar in TGA and IHC cohorts and LL8 overall. In the TGA subset, 53 patients (21.6%) had ≥1 ErbB family mutation (EGFR: 6.5%; HER2: 4.9%; HER3: 6.1%; HER4: 5.7%). Beyond the benefit seen for afatinib in the overall population, in afatinib-treated patients, PFS/OS were longer when ErbB mutations were present (PFS: 4.9 versus 3.0 months; OS: 10.6 versus 8.1 months). Conversely, survival outcomes in erlotinib-treated patients were similar with/without ErbB mutations. Presence of HER2 mutations predicted favorable PFS/OS with afatinib versus erlotinib. The Table shows outcomes in patients with/without ErbB family mutations, and by EGFR expression levels (afatinib: n=157; erlotinib: n=188).
Conclusion:
These data are provocative and suggest that NGS may enable identification of lung SCC patients who would derive additional clinical benefit from afatinib. Differential outcomes with respect to ErbB mutations for afatinib and erlotinib are hypothesized to reflect afatinib’s broader mechanism of action.Subgroup n Afatinib vs erlotinib PFS OS HR (95% CI) p~interaction~ HR (95% CI) p~interaction~ ErbB mutation-positive ErbB mutation-negative 53 192 0.56 (0.29–1.08) 0.70 (0.50–0.97) 0.718 0.62 (0.35‒1.12) 0.76 (0.56‒1.03) 0.683 EGFR mutation-positive EGFR mutation-negative 16 229 0.64 (0.17–2.44) 0.67 (0.50–0.91) 0.981 1.01 (0.32–3.16) 0.72 (0.54–0.95) 0.529 HER2 mutation-positive HER2 mutation-negative 12 233 0.06 (0.01–0.59) 0.72 (0.54–0.97) 0.006 0.06 (0.01–0.57) 0.76 (0.58–1.00) 0.004 HER3 mutation-positive HER3 mutation-negative 15 230 0.52 (0.16–1.72) 0.69 (0.51–0.94) 0.692 0.84 (0.27–2.59) 0.73 (0.56–0.97) 0.998 HER4 mutation-positive HER4 mutation-negative 14 231 0.21 (0.02–1.94) 0.67 (0.50–0.91) 0.909 0.22 (0.05–1.04) 0.75 (0.56–0.99) 0.272 EGFR IHC positive EGFR IHC negative 292 53 0.74 (0.56–0.97) 0.76 (0.41–1.40) 0.985 0.82 (0.63–1.06) 0.75 (0.41–1.40) 0.882 EGFR amplification present EGFR amplification absent 17 228 0.72 (0.18–2.90) 0.68 (0.50–0.92) 0.994 0.50 (0.15–1.65) 0.76 (0.58–1.00) 0.413 HER2 amplification present HER2 amplification absent 9 236 0.94 (0.20–4.38) 0.68 (0.50–0.91) 0.861 1.10 (0.27–4.48) 0.72 (0.54–0.94) 0.388
