Virtual Library
Start Your Search
J. Soria
Author of
-
+
MA 05 - Immuno-Oncology: Novel Biomarker Candidates (ID 658)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Yoichi Nakanishi, P. Mitchell
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 303 + 304
-
+
MA 05.03 - The Early Monitoring of Derived Neutrophil-To Lymphocyte Ratio (dNLR) Could Be a Surrogate Marker of Benefit of Immunotherapy in NSCLC (ID 10147)
15:55 - 16:00 | Author(s): J. Soria
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Baseline high derived NLR (dNLR>3, neutrophils/(leucocytes-neutrophils) ratio) has recently correlated with no benefit to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in advanced NSCLC, but the dynamic monitoring of dNLR has not been assessed in this population.
Method:
dNLR at baseline, at 2[nd] cycle and at progressive disease were retrospectively collected in advanced NSCLC patients treated with ICI from November 2012 to April 2017, in a multicentric cohort (N= 292) from 4 European centers. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR).
Result:
Out of 292 patients (67%) were males, 264 (92%) smokers and 239 (83%) with PS ≤1, with median age 64 years; 153 (52%) had adenocarcinoma and 114 (30%) squamous; 44 (15%) were KRASmut, 11 (4%) EGFRmut and 3 (1%) ALK positive. PDL1 was ≥ 1% by immunohistochemistry in 67 (76%), negative in 21 (24%) and unknown in 204 patients. The median of prior lines was 1 (0-10). The median follow-up was 12 months (m) [11-14]. The median PFS and OS were 4m [3-5] and 11m [9-15]. Baseline dNLR was>3 in 106 patients (36%) and at 2[nd] cycle in 90 patients (32%). dNLR>3 at baseline and at 2[nd] cycle were associated with poor PFS (p<0.0001 and p=0.0008, respectively), poor OS (both p<0.0001) and progressive disease (p=0.002 and p=0.005, respectively). At 2[nd] cycle of ICI, the dNLR status (> high or ≤ 3 low) changed in 63 patients: in 38 (14%) dNLR decreased; in 25 (9%) dNLR increased. According to the dNLR monitoring (combining dNLR at baseline et at 2[nd] cycle), the median OS was 17m (95%CI 13-NA) when dNLR remained low (n=153), 10m (95%CI 7-NA) when dNLR changed (n=64) and 4m (95%CI 3-7) when dNLR remained high (dNLR>3, n=64, p<0.0001).The dNLR monitoring was also associated with PFS (p=0.002), RR and DCR (p=0.003 and p=0.013, respectively).
Conclusion:
Monitoring dNLR at baseline and at 2[nd] cycle could be a routinely tool to early assess benefit to ICI in NSCLC patients on treatment. The dNLR monitoring showed a strong correlation with OS and PFS. Modification of dNLR between baseline and 2[nd] cycle impacts outcomes in NSCLC patients treated with ICI.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MA 10 - Immunotherapy I (ID 664)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:S. Wang, Robert Pirker
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 303 + 304
-
+
MA 10.11 - Hyperprogressive Disease (HPD) Is Frequent in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients (Pts) Treated with Anti PD1/PD-L1 Agents (IO) (ID 10222)
12:10 - 12:15 | Author(s): J. Soria
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Using Tumor Growth Rate (TGR), HPD was identified in 9% of 131 advanced cancer pts, treated with IO in a single institution (Champiat et al. 2017). In this study, we explored HPD in a large, multicenter cohort of advanced NSCLC pts treated with IO.
Method:
We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive NSCLC pts treated with IO, in 8 institutions, between November 2012 and April 2017. Eligibility criteria required, for each patient: 2 CT scans performed before starting IO and one during IO, an interval between two CT scans ≥2 weeks or 3 months (m) and presence of target lesions. CT scans were centrally assessed according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. We calculated TGR before IO (TGR pre-IO) and during IO (TGR IO); patients were defined HPD if they had progression disease (PD) at first evaluation during IO and a ≥ 2-fold increase in the TGR IO compared to TGR pre-IO. Median overall survival (mOS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method for the total population and HPD pts.
Result:
Among 419 eligible pts, 86 were excluded for inadequate intervals between CT scans. Among 333 evaluable pts, 63% were male, 46% ≥65 years, 43% smokers; 12% had PS ≥ 2, 65% adenocarcinoma, 45% ≥3 metastatic sites, 22% KRAS mutation, 4% EGFR mutation, 1% ALK rearrangement; 21% had PD-L1 positive status, 10% negative, 69% unknown, >90% received single agent PD-1 inhibitor in ≥ 2 line. Response rate (RR) to IO was 18%, median follow up was 12 m [10-14]. 33% of pts had TGR IO ≥1 (not regressing tumors), 25% had TGR IO ≥ 2-fold TGR pre-IO and 54 pts (16%) had HPD. 15 pts (4%) had confirmed pseudoprogression, 3 were initially qualified as HPD. Compared to not-HPD, HPD pts had more frequently ≥ 3 metastatic sites at baseline (59% vs 43% p=0,02) and more new lung lesions during IO (34% vs 17% p=0,007). PD-L1 negative status was more common among HPD pts but the association was borderline significant (53% vs 28% p=0,05). Age, clinical, molecular characteristics, RR to treatment before IO, baseline tumor burden, liver or brain new lesions during IO were not different according to HPD status. mOS was 13 m [10-17] in the total population, 5 m [3-8] in HPD pts.
Conclusion:
HPD occurred in 16% of advanced NSCLC pts treated with IO and was associated with plurimetastatic disease and appearance of new lung lesions. Further work is needed to characterize HPD prognostic value.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MA 11 - Emerging Diagnostic/Biomarkers in NSCLC (ID 668)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:M.I. Abdul Wahid, Martin Reck
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 313 + 314
-
+
MA 11.01 - Liquid Biopsies for Monitoring BRAF Mutation (V600E) in Advanced BRAF (V600E) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (ID 10232)
11:00 - 11:05 | Author(s): J. Soria
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been shown beneficial in monitoring EGFR mutations in blood, especially for the detection of resistance mutations, like T790M in NSCLC patients. However, the role of BRAF (V600E) ctDNA for monitoring the patient’s response has not been studied yet. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical relevance of BRAF (V600E) ctDNA for monitoring the response to BRAF inhibitors in a prospective cohort of advanced NSCLC BRAF (V600E) patients.
Method:
We prospectively enrolled advanced NSCLC patients with BRAF (V600E) treated with BRAF +/- MEK inhibitors in our institution. A blood sample was collected at different time points, including at baseline, during treatment and at progressive disease. ctDNA BRAF analysis was performed using the Inivata InVision platform (enhanced tagged-amplicon next-generation sequencing (eTAM-Seq).
Result:
Between June 2016 and June 2017, 14 patients have been included. Eight patients (57%) were females, 9 (64%) non-smokers, with a median age of 63 years (35-70). All the patients had adenocarcinoma and BRAF (V600E) mutation in tissue analysis. Thirteen patients (93%) had stage IV at diagnosis, 7 patients (50%) with bone, 6 (43%) pleural and 4 (29%) lung metastasis. The median of lines of treatment received was 2 (1-4). Thirteen patients (93%) received BRAF + MEK inhibitor and 1 patient (14%) BRAF inhibitor, with an objective response rate of 64% (1 complete, 8 partial response) and disease control rate of 86%. BRAF mutation detection was tested under treatment in 12 patients (86%). Longitudinal analysis was performed from the serial sampling in 6 patients to date: 4 patients (67%) were ctDNA positive for BRAF (V600E) at time of progression, with a range of allelic frequency of 0.11-6.16%. BRAF mutation was not detectable in patients with objective response (2/6, 33%) at time of sample collection(s). Additional BRAF (V600E) NSCLC patient samples are being analyzed.
Conclusion:
Liquid biopsy for monitoring BRAF (V600E) using ctDNA appears to be feasible and useful in advanced NSCLC patients. Updated longitudinal results for the complete patient cohort will be presented at the meeting.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P1.03 - Chemotherapy/Targeted Therapy (ID 689)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Chemotherapy/Targeted Therapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.03-013 - Monitoring of ALK Fusions and Mutations in Advanced ALK Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients (ID 10208)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): J. Soria
- Abstract
Background:
Co-isolated exosomal RNA and cfDNA from plasma can be used for detection of genomic alteration such as EML4-ALK fusion RNA and ALK resistance mutations in NSCLC patients. The clinical utility of this liquid biopsy for response monitoring is under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate liquid biopsy as tool for monitoring response to treatment in a prospective cohort of ALK-positive NSCLC patients.
Method:
Consecutive ALK positive NSCLC patients treated with systemic therapies in our institution were enrolled. After informed consent, blood samples were prospectively collected for longitudinal analysis during treatment and at progression. Exosomal RNA and cfDNA co-isolated from plasma was used for detection of EML4-ALK fusion RNAs by the qPCR-based ExoDx Lung(ALK)™-test as well as for analysis of ALK-resistance mutations by ExoDx NGS sequencing.
Result:
From Aug 2016 to date, 23 patients were enrolled in the study, 14 (61%) were females, 15 (65%) non-smokers, median age of 50 years (23-76). All patients had adenocarcinoma and were tissue positive for ALK by immunohistochemistry 14 (61%) and/or FISH 16 (70%). Nineteen patients (83%) had stage IV disease at diagnosis, with brain involvement in 7 patients (37%), bone in 11 (48%) and liver in 2 (11%). The median number of ALK inhibitors received was 2 (0-4). Twenty-one patients (91%) received ALK inhibitors (5 crizotinib, 3 ceritinib, 13 next-generation inhibitors) and 2 chemotherapy, with an objective response rate of 48%. Five out of 8 patients (63%) that were treatment naïve (baseline) or progressive disease (PD) at the time of collection, were positive for EML4-ALK by liquid biopsy, 1 of 4 samples (25%) at baseline, and 4 of 4 samples (100%) at PD, were positive by liquid biopsy. EML4-ALK variant 1 was detected in two (40%) and variant 3 in three patients (60%). All 26 samples collected during objective response or stable disease (100%) were negative for EML4-ALK by liquid biopsy. The ALK resistance mutation panel was performed on 2 samples from patients with PD, and both were detected positive for ALK resistance mutations, L1196M (variant 1) and G1202R (variant 3), respectively.
Conclusion:
The monitoring of ALK fusions on exosomal RNA by liquid biopsy is applicable in the clinic and closely correlated to disease control. ALK mutations detection using liquid biopsy can be an accurate tool for assessing the resistance to ALK inhibitors. Updated results from up to 30 patients will be available for the final presentation.
-
+
P1.04 - Clinical Design, Statistics and Clinical Trials (ID 690)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Clinical Design, Statistics and Clinical Trials
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.04-008 - POSEIDON: A Phase 3 Study of First-Line Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone in Metastatic NSCLC (ID 8666)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): J. Soria
- Abstract
Background:
Immunotherapy is an important new treatment modality for NSCLC. Dual blockade of the non-redundant PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 pathways may provide additive or synergistic effects. Durvalumab is a selective, high-affinity, engineered human IgG1 mAb that blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80. Tremelimumab is a selective human IgG2 mAb against CTLA-4. A combination regimen of immunotherapy with chemotherapy may further enhance clinical benefit. In a Phase 1b study (NCT02537418), durvalumab ± tremelimumab combined with chemotherapy demonstrated manageable tolerability and preliminary signs of clinical activity in patients with solid tumors, including NSCLC.
Method:
POSEIDON (NCT03164616) is a Phase 3, randomized, multicenter, open-label, global study to investigate durvalumab ± tremelimumab + platinum-based chemotherapy vs platinum-based chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC. Patients must be immunotherapy- and chemotherapy-naïve with EGFR/ALK wild-type metastatic NSCLC, and have confirmed tumor PD-L1 expression status, and a WHO/ECOG performance status of 0/1. Approximately 801 patients will be randomized 1:1:1 to receive durvalumab + tremelimumab + chemotherapy (Arm 1); durvalumab + chemotherapy (Arm 2); or chemotherapy alone (Arm 3). After induction, patients in the immunotherapy arms will receive durvalumab monotherapy, and non-squamous patients who initially received pemetrexed during induction will receive it as maintenance therapy if eligible. Treatment will continue until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion has been met. The primary endpoint is PFS according to blinded independent central review (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints include OS; ORR; duration of response; best overall response; proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 months; disease-related symptoms and HRQoL; and safety and tolerability. Recruitment is ongoing.Figure 1
Result:
Section not applicable
Conclusion:
Section not applicable
-
+
P2.01 - Advanced NSCLC (ID 618)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 09:00 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P2.01-038 - Determinants of Frailty and Treatment Toxicity in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patient (ID 9566)
09:00 - 09:00 | Author(s): J. Soria
- Abstract
Background:
Platinum-based chemotherapy remains a first line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Despite better individualization of treatment, some patients will seek frequent medical attention because of cancer-related complications or treatment toxicity. This can negatively impact patient’s quality of life and health care resources. This study aimed to identify biological and clinical factors predictive of frailty and treatment toxicity among NSCLC patients eligible for first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
Method:
Using our institutional medical charts, we retrospectively extracted data on stage III and IV NSCLC patients diagnosed between December 2011 and November 2015 who had received a first-line platinum based chemotherapy. The primary outcome is defined as any unplanned emergency visit and/or unplanned hospitalization for cancer or treatment related complications. Using multivariate logistic regression model with step by step method, we defined baseline biological and clinical determinants associated with the primary outcome.
Result:Table 1. First Multivariate Analysis
We included 227 patients. Mean age was 60 years old, 65% were male, 46% current smokers, 10% PS 2-3 and 74% had adenocarcinoma histology. 20,7% patients had locally advanced disease (Stage III) treated by chemoradiation and 78,4% had metastatic disease treated by exclusive chemotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) was 15 months and PFS 6 months. Overall, 55 % (122/227) met the primary outcome. There were 14 variables (Table 1) included in the first multivariate analysis before computer based step by step approach. In the final model (not shown), albumin level <35 g/L (OR 2.24 95% IC 1.14- 4.38, p= 0.02) was an independent predictor of the primary outcome. There was also a trend for squamous cell carcinoma subtype (OR 2.27 95% IC 0.872- 5.914, p= 0.09).Variable OR 95% CI Age ≥ 62 Years-old 1.61 0.70 - 3.68 Adenocarcinoma - Squamous Cell Carcinoma - NSCLC other 1 2.43 0.50 0.61- 9.61 1.45 – 1.74 Performance scale ≥ 1 1.35 0.57 – 3.18 Number of metastasis ≥ 2 1.36 0.58 – 3.18 Pleural metastasis 2.04 0.53 – 7.86 Weight loss ≥10% or ≥3 kg 1.00 0.41 – 2.43 ≥ 3 prescription drugs per day 0.98 0.42 – 2.28 Current smoker - Former Smoker - Never smoker 1 0.56 1.10 0.24 – 1.30 0.24 – 5.11 Neutrophils count ≥ 7500/ mm[3] 1.57 0.70 – 3.54 Lymphocytes count ≤ 1000/ mm[3] 1.04 0.34 – 3.22 Albumin ≤ 35 g/L 2.70 0.93 – 7.69 LDH ≥ 247 U/L 0.93 0.37 – 2.30
Conclusion:
Low albumin level is a determinant of frailty in patients eligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. Early intervention in these subgroups could benefit patient’s quality of life and health care expenses. (Medicoeconomic analysis will be presented).
-
+
P2.07 - Immunology and Immunotherapy (ID 708)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P2.07-060 - Response Assessment and Subgroups Analysis According to the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) for Immunotherapy in Advanced NSCLC Patients (ID 10179)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): J. Soria
- Abstract
Background:
LIPI is a score that combine dNLR (neutrophils/(leucocytes-neutrophils) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and correlate with prognosis of NSCLC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We report the predictive role of LIPI on response and in various subgroups of patients.
Method:
Baseline dNLR and LDH were retrospectively collected in 431 patients treated with ICI from Nov. 2012 to Jan. 2017, from 8 European centers. LIPI delineates 3 groups: good (dNLR<3+LDH3 or LDH>ULN), poor (dNLR>3+LDH>ULN). Response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR) were assessed according to the investigator’s criteria. The subgroup analysis was performed according to the age, histology, performance status (PS) and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry (positivity if ≥ 1% on tumor cells).
Result:
With a median follow-up of 12.8 months (m.) [95%CI 11.9-14], 431 patients were included. Baseline characteristics are summarized in table 1. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 10.5m. [95%CI 9.5-13] and 3.9m. [3-4.4], respectively. The median OS was 4.8m. vs. 10 m. vs. 16.5m., and median PFS was 2m. vs. 3.1m. vs. 5m. for the poor, intermediate and good LIPI groups, respectively (both p<0.0001). LIPI was correlated with response rate (p<0.0001). In multivariate analysis, the intermediate and poor group were associated with progressive disease, with an OR of 2.20 [CI95% 1.26-3.84] p=0.005) and an OR of 3.04 [CI95% 1.46-6.36] p=0.003), respectively. LIPI was correlated with OS, regardless the age (<70 years (p<0.0001) vs. older (p=0.0006) and the histology non-squamous (p<0.0001) vs. squamous (p=0.02). In PS 0-1 and in smoker population, LIPI correlated with OS (both p<0.0001), but not in PS ≥2 (12%) and non-smokers (8%). LIPI was correlated with OS for positivity (p=0.01) and unknown PD-L1 (p=0.0001), but not negativity.LIPI 0 Good (N=162, 37%) LIPI 1 Intermediate (N=206, 48%) LIPI 2 Poor (N= 63, 15%) All population cohort N = 431 (%) Sex Male 102 (63) 131 (64) 42 (67) 275 (64) Age at diagnosis Median (years, range) 62 (36;86) 63 (29;86) 62 (39;84) 62 (29;86) Smoking status Non-smoker 13 (8) 18 (9) 5 (8) 36 (8) Former 80 (49) 115 (56) 46 (73) 241 (56) Current 67 (42) 69 (33) 11 (17) 147 (34) Unknown 2 4 1 7 Histology Non-squamous 111 (69) 132 (64) 41 (65) 284 (66) Squamous 51 (31) 74 (36) 22 (35) 147 (34) Molecular alteration EGFR mutation 3 (2) 13 (6) 3 (5) 19 (4) ALK rearrangement 2 (1) 2 (1) 1 (2) 5 (1) KRAS mutation 34 (21) 31 (15) 8 (13) 73 (17) PDL1 status Negative 16 (36) 14 (25) 1 (5) 31 (25) Positive 28 (64) 43 (75) 20 (95) 91 (75) Unknown 118 149 42 337 Performance Status 0 51 (32) 45 (22) 10 (16) 106 (25) 1 96 (60) 132 (64) 42 (67) 270 (63) ≥ 2 12 (8) 28 (14) 11 (17) 51 (12) Stage at diagnosis IIIb 18 (11) 33 (16) 14 (22) 65 (15) IV 101 (62) 135 (66) 38 (60) 274 (64) Metastases sites Median (Range) 2 (0;6) 2 (0;7) 2 (1;7) 2 (0-7) Bone 43 (27) 58 (28) 20 (32) 121 (28) Liver 28 (17) 39 (19) 16 (25) 83 (19) Brain 22 (14) 19 (9) 9 (14) 50 (12) Immunotherapy PD1 inhibitor 133 (82) 167 (81) 48 (76) 348 (81) PDL1 inhibitor 19 (12) 34 (17) 12 (19) 65 (15) PDL1 inhibitor- CTLA4 inhibitor 10 (6) 5 (2) 3 (5) 18 (4) Immunotherapy line Median (Range) 2 (1;11) 2 (1;12) 2 (1;8) 2 (1-12) Response rate Complete response (CR) 6 (4) 3 (1) 0 (0) 8 (2) Partial response (PR) 42 (26) 53 (26) 18 (28) 113 (26) Stable disease (SD) 66 (41) 59 (29) 8 (13) 133 (31) Progression 40 (25) 81 (39) 33 (52) 154 (36) NA 8 10 4 25 Dissociated response 14 (9) 15 (7) 2 (3) 31 (7)
Conclusion:
Baseline LIPI predicts response to ICI, and was correlated with OS regardless of age and histology.
-
+
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): J. Soria
- 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
