Call Girls in Lucknow Just Call 👉👉 8875999948 Top Class Call Girl Service Ava...
Role of Chemotherapy, Targeted therapy and Immunotherapy in NSCLC Part I
1. Role of Chemotherapy, Targeted therapy and
Immunotherapy in treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung
cancer (NSCLC) (Part I)
Mohammed Fathy Bayomy, MSc, MD
Lecturer
Clinical Oncology & Nuclear Medicine
Faculty of Medicine
Zagazig University
3. Lung Cancer: US Incidence and 5-Yr Relative Survival
(2008-2014)
SEER 18 Cancer Statistics Review, 2008-2014. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html
Percent of Cases by Stage
5%
16%
22%
57%
Localized:
confined to
primary site
Regional:
spread to
regional
lymph nodes
Distant:
cancer has
metastasized
Unknown:
unstaged
5-Yr Relative Survival by Stage
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Stage
56.3
29.7
4.7 7.8
Aliveat5Yrs(%)
4. The Evolution of NSCLC
Increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma
Higher percentage of lung cancer in nonsmokers
Increasing number of identified targetable mutational drivers
‒ Adenocarcinoma
‒ Nonsmokers
More treatment options for NSCLC with EGFR, ALK, BRAF, and/or ROS1
aberrations
Meza. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121323.
5. Progress in treatment for Lung Cancer Over 40 Yrs
Mid-70s
Chemo agents show low
response in NSCLC but higher
in SCLC
1976
Histologic types of
lung cancer
determined
1979
Cisplatin approved by FDA
1983
Etoposide, methotrexate,
and carboplatin approved
by FDA
1989
Carboplatin approved
by FDA for NSCLC
1990s
Adjuvant chemo improves
survival in NSCLC
6. Progress in treatment for Lung Cancer Over 40 Yrs
1991
QoL identified as independent
prognostic factor
1992
EGFR identified as target in
NSCLC
Chemotherapy plus RT
increases survival vs RT alone
1995
Vinorelbine approved for first-
line treatment of advanced
NSCLC
1996
Gemcitabine + cisplatin
approved for first-line
treatment of advanced
NSCLC
1998
Paclitaxel in combination with
cisplatin approved for first-line
treatment of advanced NSCLC
1999
Docetaxel approved for advanced
NSCLC after failure of platinum
regimen
2000
Neoadjuvant chemo
demonstrates survival
results
7. Progress in treatment for Lung Cancer Over 40 Yrs
2001
Chemo doublet
efficacy plateau
demonstrated
2002
Docetaxel + cisplatin
approved for chemo-
naive NSCLC
2003
Gefitinib approved for
EGFR+ NSCLC;
distribution later limited
2004
Discovery that certain EGFR
mutations associated with
response to EGFR TKIs
Erlotinib for
NSCLC approved for
second- and third-line
treatment
2005
Paradigm established
for histology
confirmation before
chemo and targeted
therapy
2006
Bevacizumab approved
for
first-line treatment
2007
Transforming EMLA4-ALK
fusion gene identified in
NSCLC
Genetic variants identified
that
confer risk for developing lung
cancer
2008
Pemetrexed approved in
combination for locally
advanced NSCLC
2009
Pemetrexed
approved as
maintenance
treatment for NSCLC
8. Progress in treatment for Lung Cancer Over 40 Yrs
2010
2011
2012
Nab-paclitaxel +
carboplatin
approved
2013
Erlotinib approved for
EGFR+ NSCLC
Afatinib approved for
EGFR+ NSCLC
2014
Ramucirumab + docetaxel
approved for metastatic NSCLC
Ceritinib approved for ALK+
metastatic NSCLC
2015
Alectinib approved for ALK+ metastatic NSCLC with
progression after crizotinib
Necitumumab + gem/cis approved for
first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC
Osimertinib approved for metastatic EGFR T790M+
NSCLC after failure of EGFR TKI therapy
Gefitinib approved for metastatic NSCLC with EGFR
exon 19 deletion or exon 21 (L858R) substitution
mutations
2016
Crizotinib approved to treat
pts with ROS-1+ metastatic
NSCLC
Targetable genetic abnormalities
identified in up to 60% of lung
adenocarcinomas
Erlotinib maintenance treatment
approved
Use of biomarkers established for
identifying optimal therapy, age of
personalized medicine
Crizotinib approved for ALK+
NSCLC
9. Targeted Therapy
Immunotherapy ± Chemotherapy
Supportive Care
Stage IV or
Recurrent Disease
Stage I Surgery (Radiation if Inoperable)
Stage II Surgery + Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Concurrent Chemoradiation ±
Consolidation Immunotherapy
Stage III
Duma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94:1623.
Overview of Current NSCLC Treatment Paradigm
11. 2003 2004 2005 2006
ALPI
HR =0.96
N=1207
ANITA
HR =0.76
N=840
JBR.10
HR =0.69
N=482
IALT
HR =0.86
N=467
CALGB 9633
HR = 0.83
N=344
RADIANT
MAGRIT
E1505
Closed to
Accrual
2008 2013 2014
ALPI–MVP vs OBS Stage I-IIIA Scagliotti GV et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 1453-61
BLT-CPPP-based vs OBS Stage I-III Waller D et al. Eur J Cardiothorcic Surg 2004;26:173-182
IALT–CDDP-based vs OBS Stage I-IIIA Arriagada R et al. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 350-61
JBR.10–CDDP-VNR vs OBS Stage IB-II Winton T et al. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:2589-97
ANITA–CDDP-VNR vs OBS Stage IB-IIIA Douilland JY et al. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 719-27
CALGB 9633–PAC-CARBO vs OBS Stage IB Strauss GM et al. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5043-51
BLT
HR = 1.02
N=381
Adjuvant Therapy Timeline
ITACA
CALGB 30506
ALCHEMIST
CTONG1104
Afatinib Adjuv
EURECA
12. Meta-Analysis: Adjuvant Cisplatin-Based Chemo in NSCLC
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ. 1995;311:899-909.
Mos
Surgery
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Survival(%)
Surgery + Chemo
HR: 0.87
P = 0.08
8 trials, 1394 patients
13. IALT: Cisplatin-Based Adjuvant Treatment for NSCLC After
Resection
Arriagada R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351-360.
Patients with stage
I-III NSCLC aged
18-75 yrs with no previous
malignancy after complete
surgical resection*
(N = 1867)
Cisplatin-based chemotherapy†
(n = 932)
No chemotherapy
(n = 935)
*Postoperative radiotherapy performed at discretion of institution.
†Chemotherapy regimens: etoposide: 56.5%; vinorelbine: 26.8%; vinblastine: 11.0%; vindesine: 5.8%.
14. IALT: Survival Benefit Observed With Chemotherapy vs
No Chemotherapy
Arriagada R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351-360. Le Chevalier T, et al. ASCO 2003. Abstract 6.
Endpoint Chemo
(n = 932)
Control
(n = 935)
P Value
Median survival, mos 50.8 44.4 < .03
Median DFS, mos 40.2 30.5 < .003
5-yr survival, % 44.5 40.4 < .03
5-yr DFS, % 39.4 34.3 < .003
15. 0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
P <0.03
Surgery + CT
Surgery only
0 1 2 3 4 5
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yrs
%Survival
P =0.08
Yrs
%Survival
Surgery + CT
Surgery only
IALT Survival Meta-Analysis Survival
Arriagada R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351-360. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ. 1995;311:899-909.
IALT vs Meta-Analysis: Overall Survival
16. JBR.10: Adjuvant Vinorelbine + Cisplatin for Resected
NSCLC
Patients with completely
resected T2N0, T1N1,
or T2N1 NSCLC;
ECOG PS 0/1
(N = 482)
*Dose of 30 mg/m2 for first 18 patients; reduced due to hematologic toxicity.
Median
follow-up: 5.1 yrs
Median
follow-up: 5.3 yrs
Winton T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2589-2597.
Stratified by nodal status (N0 vs N1) and
Ras status (neg/pos/unknown)
Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2*
wkly for 16 wks +
Cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8
every 4 wks for 4 cycles
(n = 242)
Observation
(n = 240)
18. Absolute improvement in 5-yr OS: 11%
Butts CA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:29-34.
Median OS 5-Yr OS
94 mo 67%
72 mo 56%
HR: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99)
P = 0.04
JBR.10: Vinorelbine vs Observation in Resected Stage
IB/II NSCLC: OS
At Risk, n
Observation
Vinorelbine
Percentage
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
240
242
3
155
182
6
117
135
9
Time (Yrs)
58
67
12
9
12
15
0
0
Vinorelbine
Observation
19. JBR.10: Adjuvant Vinorelbine + Cisplatin for NSCLC:
Survival by Stage
Winton T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2589-2597.
OS: Stage 1B OS: Stage II
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Survival(%)
Yrs
P = .79
Observation
Vinorelbine + cisplatin
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Survival(%)
Yrs
P = .004
Observation
Vinorelbine
+ cisplatin
20. Chemo
Tumor < 4 cm
Suggestion of benefit with chemo for larger tumors but nearly significant harm for smaller tumors
Interaction P = .022
Butts CA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:29-34.
HR: 1.73 (95% CI: 0.98-3.04)
P = .056
JBR.10: Vinorelbine vs Observation in Resected Stage IB
NSCLC: OS by Tumor Size
At Risk, n
Observation
Vinorelbine
Observation
54
45
47
33
40
27
20
13
4
1
0
0
Percentage
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 3 6 9
Time (Yrs)
12 15
Tumor ≥ 4 cm
HR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.39-1.14)
P = .133
54
66
36
54
29
43
20
23
1
5
0
0
Percentage
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 3 6 9
Time (Yrs)
12 15
Chemo
Observation
At Risk, n
Observation
Vinorelbine
21. ANITA: Adjuvant Vinorelbine + Cisplatin vs Observation
Open, multicenter study
Delta expected in the 2-yr survival rate: 10%
Expected deaths: 466 events
Douillard JY, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:719-727.
Patients with stage
IB-IIIA NSCLC aged
18-75 yrs with no previous
malignancy after complete
surgical resection*
(N = 840)
Vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 IV wkly x 16 +
Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 IV on Days 1, 29, 57, 85
(n = 407)
Observation
(n = 433)
*Postoperative radiotherapy performed at discretion of institution.
Stratified by center, stage, and
histology
22. ANITA: Adjuvant Vinorelbine + Cisplatin vs Observation:
OS
Douillard JY, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:719-727.
Median OS 5-Yr OS*
43.7 mo 27%
65.7 mo 46%
HR: 0.80 (0.66-0.96);
P-value=0.017
*Without RT; with RT, 5-yr OS was 45% w/ chemo and 32% w/o chemo.
Observation
Chemotherapy
100
75
50
25
0
Survival(%)
At risk, n
Observation
Chemotherapy
433
407
211
228
293
288
119
144
65
63
17
18
23. Stage II
ANITA: Adjuvant Vinorelbine + Cisplatin vs Obs: OS by
Stage
Douillard JY, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:719-727.
N0 Patients N1 Patients
N2 Patients100
75
50
25
0
SurvivalDistribution
Function(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time After Randomization (Mos)
Chemotherapy
Observation
100
75
50
25
0
SurvivalDistribution
Function(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
100
75
50
25
0
SurvivalDistribution
Function(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
24. CALGB 9633: Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Stage IB NSCLC
Patients with completely
resected T2N0M0
stage IB NSCLC
(N = 344)
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 IV +
Carboplatin AUC 6
4 cycles over 12 wks
(n = 173)
Observation
(n = 171)
Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5043-5051.
Stratified by squamous vs other, poorly
differentiated vs other, and mediastinoscopy:
yes vs no
25. CALGB 9633: Adjuvant Chemo in Stage IB NSCLC: OS and
DFS
Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5043-5051.
Overall Survival Disease-Free Survival
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
SurvivalProbability
20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Mos)
HR = 0.83
90% CI: 0.64 to 1.08
P = .125
Chemotherapy (N = 173)
Control (N = 171)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
SurvivalProbability
20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Mos)
HR = 0.80
90% CI: 0.62 to 1.02
P = .065
Chemotherapy (N = 173)
Control (N = 171)
26. CALGB 9633: Adjuvant Chemo in Stage IB NSCLC: OS by
Tumor Size
Strauss GM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5043-5051.
Overall Survival: Tumor ≥ 4 cm Overall Survival: Tumor < 4 cm
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
SurvivalProbability
20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Mos)
HR = 0.69
90% CI: 0.48 to 0.99
P = .043
Chemotherapy (N = 99)
Control (N = 97)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
SurvivalProbability
20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Mos)
HR = 1.12
90% CI: 0.75 to 1.07
P = .32
Chemotherapy (N = 63)
Control (N = 71)
27. LACE Meta-Analysis: OS Benefit From Postoperative
Cisplatin in Early-Stage NSCLC
Pooled analysis of 5 trials
evaluating adjuvant cisplatin-based
chemotherapy (N = 4584)
‒ Cisplatin/vinorelbine most
commonly used agent (only
combination shown to prolong OS)
Chemotherapy led to improved OS
‒ HR: 0.89
‒ Absolute benefit of 3.9% and 5.4%
at 3 and 5 yrs, respectively
Pignon. JCO. 2016;26:3552.
OS
100
80
60
40
20
0
OS(%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 ≥ 6
Yrs From Randomization
Chemotherapy
No chemotherapy
28. LACE Meta-Analysis: Adjuvant Chemotherapy Effect and
Stage
Chemotherapy may be detrimental for stage IA, but these patients were generally not given the potentially best combination of
cisplatin + vinorelbine (13% of stage IA patients vs 43% for other stages)
Pignon JP, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3552-3559.
Stage IA 104/347 1.40 (0.95-2.06)
Stage IB 515/1371 0.93 (0.78-1.10)
Stage II 893/1616 0.83 (0.73-0.95)
Stage III 878/1247 0.83 (0.72-0.94)
Category Deaths/Patients, n
HR for OS
(Chemo vs Control) HR (95% CI)
Chemotherapy Better Control Better
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Test for trend: P = .04
29. ARM A: Cisplatin Doublet
(Investigator’s Choice)*
x 4, 21-day cycles
(n = 749)
ARM B: Cisplatin Doublet
(Investigator’s Choice)*
x 4, 21-day cycles +
Bevacizumab* Q3W, ≤ 1 yr
(n = 752)
Treatment-naive pts
with stage IB to IIIA,
resected NSCLC,
6-12 wks post-op, with
adequate nodal sampling,
no planned post-op RT,
acceptable organ function
(N = 1501)
Follow-up:
every 3 mos for 2 yrs,
every
6 mos through Yr 5,
annually through Yr 10
E1505: Study Design
Primary endpoint: OS
Secondary endpoint: DFS
Study powered for primary endpoint only,[1] not for the subset analyses[2]
1. Wakelee HA, et al. WCLC 2015. Abstract 1608.
2. Wakelee HA, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 8507.
Stratified by cisplatin doublet, stage,
histology, sex
*See notes section for full regimens.
30. E1505: Median OS by Bevacizumab Use
Wakelee HA, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 8507.
Reproduced with permission.
Median follow-up: 50.3 mos
CT: not reached
CT + bev: 85.8 mos
HR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.82-1.19;
P = .90)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
Mos From Registration
ProbabilityofOS
31. 8484
E1505 Chemotherapy Subset Analysis: DFS by Histology
DFS not significantly different between chemotherapy groups
Wakelee HA, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 8507.
Reproduced with permission.
P = 0.58
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Mos From Registration
ProbabilityofDFS
Nonsquamous
P =0.83
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Mos From Registration
Squamous
Cis/docetaxel (119 events/201 cases)
Cis/gemcitabine (75 events/131 cases)
Cis/pemetrexed (228 events/497 cases)
Cis/vinorelbine (122 events/249 cases)
Cis/docetaxel (63 events/142 cases)
Cis/gemcitabine (61 events/152 cases)
Cis/vinorelbine (56 events/128 cases)
ProbabilityofDFS
32. E1505 Chemotherapy Subset Analysis: OS by Histology
OS not significantly different between chemotherapy groups
Wakelee HA, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 8507.
Reproduced with permission.
P = 0.18 P = 0.99
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
Mos From Registration
ProbabilityofOS
Nonsquamous
Mos From Registration
ProbabilityofOS
Squamous
Cis/docetaxel (85 events/201 cases)
Cis/gemcitabine (52 events/131 cases)
Cis/pemetrexed (126 events/497 cases)
Cis/vinorelbine (78 events/249 cases)
Cis/docetaxel (50 events/142 cases)
Cis/gemcitabine (45 events/152 cases)
Cis/vinorelbine (39 events/128 cases)
33. Phase III Trials of Adjuvant EGFR TKI Therapy in NSCLC
BR.19: adjuvant gefitinib vs placebo in molecularly unselected NSCLC post
chemotherapy
‒ No evidence to support adjuvant EGFR TKI; study closed early
RADIANT: adjuvant erlotinib vs placebo in EGFR IHC+ or FISH+ NSCLC
‒ Early DFS benefit in EGFR mut+ patients without OS benefit . . .
no clear benefit to overtreating many if not curing
ADJUVANT: adjuvant gefitinib vs cisplatin/vinorelbine in EGFR mut+ NSCLC
‒ Glaring problems: 2/3 of patients were stage IIIA, no rigorous imaging suggests patients
were understaged, omits CT with proven survival benefit on gefitinib arm; basically, a trial
of EGFR TKI vs CT in metastatic NSCLC
‒ DFS goes to 0% for all patients
Goss. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3320. Kelly. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3320. Zhong. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:139.
34. RADIANT Trial: Adjuvant Erlotinib vs Placebo in Patients
With Resected EGFR+ NSCLC
Radiology assessment: every 3 mos on treatment and yearly during long-term follow-up
Primary endpoint: DFS
Secondary endpoints: OS; DFS and OS in pts with del(19)/L858R (EGFR M+)
Phase III trial
Altorki NK, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 4.
No adjuvant
chemotherapy
Up to 4 cycles of
platinum-based
doublet
Tumor samples
EGFR IHC+ and/or EGFR FISH+
Randomization
stratified by: histology,
stage, prior adjuvant
chemo, EGFR FISH
status, smoking
status, country
(N = 973)
Erlotinib
150 mg/day
(n = 623)
≤ 180 d
≤ 90 d
2:1
Up to 4 cycles of
platinum-based
doublet
Placebo
(n = 350)
2-yr treatment
period
Stage
IB-IIIA NSCLC
Complete
surgical
resection
35. RADIANT Trial: DFS
Altorki NK, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 4.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ProbabilityofDFS
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66
Mos
Placebo (156 events)
Median: 48.2 mos
Erlotinib (254 events)
Median: 50.5 mos
Log-rank P = .3235
HR: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.741-1.104)
Erlotinib
Placebo
Most common AEs with erlotinib (any grade): rash (86.4%), diarrhea (52.2%),
pruritus (26.4%); grade ≥ 3 over 2%: rash (22.3%), diarrhea (6.2%)
36. RADIANT Trial: Conclusions
Adjuvant erlotinib did not prolong DFS in the overall population
AEs primarily grade 2 or less
‒ Most common AEs with erlotinib (any grade): rash, diarrhea, pruritus;
grade ≥ 3 over 2%: rash, diarrhea
Altorki NK, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 4.
37. ADJUVANT: Study Design
Randomized, phase III trial
Pts 18-74 yrs of age with
completely resected
pathologic stage II-IIIA (N1-
N2) NSCLC and centrally
confirmed EGFR activating
mutation (exon 19 del or exon
21 L858R);
ECOG PS 0-1
(N = 222)
Gefitinib 250 mg/day
for up to 2 yrs
(n = 111)
Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8 +
Cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on Day 1
every 3 wks for up to 4 cycles
(n = 111)
Stratified by EGFR mutation, N stage
Wu YL, et al. ASCO 2017. Abstract 8500.
Primary endpoint: DFS
Secondary endpoints: 3-yr DFS, 5-yr DFS, OS, 5-yr OS, safety,
HRQoL, exploratory biomarker analyses
Follow-up every
12 wks until PD,
unacceptable
toxicity, death, or
study withdrawal
42. ADJUVANT: HRQoL
Wu YL, et al. ASCO 2017. Abstract 8500.
Pts With Clinically
Relevant
Improvement, %
Gefitinib
Vinorelbine +
Cisplatin
OR (95% CI) P Value
Total FACT-L 53.2 34.9 0.48 (0.25-0.91) .025
LCSS 71.3 46.0 0.34 (0.18-0.67) .002
TOI 40.2 24.2 0.47 (0.23-0.97) .041
43. ADJUVANT: Conclusions
Gefitinib achieved superior DFS vs vinorelbine/cisplatin in pts with
completely resected stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFRmut+ NSCLC
‒ Median DFS: 28.7 vs 18.0 mos (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.42-0.87; P = .005)
‒ 3-yr DFS rate: 34% vs 27%
‒ OS data immature
Gefitinib safety profile consistent with prior reports, with no cases of
interstitial lung disease
Investigators conclude that adjuvant treatment with gefitinib for 2 yrs is
safe, feasible and could be preferred approach in resected N1/N2 EGFRmut+
NSCLC
Wu YL, et al. ASCO 2017. Abstract 8500.
44. Adjuvant EGFR TKI in NSCLC? Still an Open Question
Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials
(post-op erlotinib vs placebo)
1. NCT02194738. 2. NCT02193282. 3. NCT02201992.
CONSENT
Preoperative,
during
adjuvant
therapy, or
after
Erlotinib x 2 yrs
Placebo x 2 yrs
Crizotinib x 2 yrs
Placebo x 2 yrs
ALCHEMIST-Screening[1]
Patients with resected or resectable
nonsquamous,
stage IB*-IIIA NSCLC
(Est. N = 8300)
SPECIMENS
Tumor EGFR and
ALK genotyping,
blood and tissue
sent to NCI
FOLLOW-UP
Patients not entering
trials followed Q6M
for 5 yrs
Phase III ALCHEMIST-EGFR (Est. N = 450)[2] Phase III ALCHEMIST-ALK (Est. N = 378)[3]
EGFR mut+
NSCLC
ALK-
rearranged
NSCLC
*≥ 4 cm.
45. ALCHEMIST Study: Genetic Testing in Resectable Stage
IB-IIIA NSCLC
ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02194738.
Trials conducted at sites in the
NCI Clinical Trials Networks: NCTN & NCORP
Nonsquamous NSCLC (N = 6000-8000) Clinical/pathologic stage
IB (≥ 4 cm), II, IIIA
Post-op cohort with negative surgical margins
Pre-op
cohort
Post-op
cohort
Complete
resection +
standard adj
therapy per
treating
physician
Central
EGFR & ALK
genotyping
FFPE tissue & blood
specimen
EGFR mutation:
Phase III trial of erlotinib vs placebo
x 2 yrs
(n = 410) after any adj tx
ALK rearranged:
Phase III trial of crizotinib vs
placebo x 2 yrs
(n = 360) after any adj tx
Without molecular
alterations: Followed every
6 mos x 5 yrs after any adj
tx
FFPE tissue from biopsy done at
recurrence
46. Future Directions: Moving Immunotherapy Into
Resectable Early-Stage NSCLC
Data
Status
Resectable
Neoadjuvant Adjuvant
Reported
LCMC3 (Phase II)[1]
Atezo → adj Atezo
MPR: 22%
Pilot Study (Phase II)[3]
Nivo
MPR: 45%
NADIM (Phase II)[4]
CT + Nivo → adj Nivo
MPR: 80%
Not yet
reported
CheckMate 816 (Ph III)[2]
Nivo + Ipi or
Nivo + CT vs
CT
TOP 1501 (Phase II)[5]
Pembro → adj Pembro
KEYNOTE-671 (Phase III)[6]
CT + Pembro → adj Pembro
ANVIL
(Phase III)[7]
Nivo vs Obs
PEARLS
(Phase III)[8]
Pembro vs PBO
IMpower010
(Phase III)[9]
Atezo vs BSC
IFCT1401 (Phase III)[10]
Durva vs PBO
1. Rusch. WCLC 2018. Abstr MA04.09. 2. NCT02998528. 3. Forde. NEJM. 2018;378:1976. 4. Provencio. WCLC 2018.
Abstr OA01.05. 5. NCT02818920. 6. NCT03425643. 7. NCT02595944. 8. NCT02504372. 9. NCT02486718. 10.
NCT02273375.
48. Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: The Challenges
Brain as sanctuary site for metastases
Systemic
Control
Loco-regional
control
49. Combined Modality Therapy in Stage III NSCLC:
Meta-Analyses of Chemoradiotherapy Strategies
Strategy
No. of
Trials
N
Absolute Benefit at
Yr 3, %
HR for Survival
(95% CI)
P Value
Sequential CRT vs
RT alone[1] 22 3839 2.6
0.88
(0.82-0.94)
.0001
Concurrent CRT vs
RT alone[1] 16 2910 3.2
0.88
(0.81-0.95)
.0008
Concurrent CRT vs
Sequential CRT[2] 6 1205 5.7
0.84
(0.74-0.95)
.004
1. Rolland. J Thor Oncol. 2007;2:S309 (Abstract A1-04). 2. Aupérin. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2181.
50. Combined Modality Therapy in Stage III NSCLC:
Concurrent vs Sequential Chemoradiotherapy
Meta-analysis of concurrent CRT vs sequential CRT in 6 trials of locally
advanced NSCLC (N = 1205)
‒ ↑ OS (HR: 0.84; P = .004)
‒ ↑ PFS (HR: 0.90; P = .07)
‒ ↓ risk of locoregional progression (HR: 0.77; P = .01)
‒ No difference in rates of distant progression between strategies
‒ Acute esophageal toxicity (grade 3/4) increased from 4% to 18% (RR: 4.9; 95%
CI: 3.1-7.8; P < .001)
‒ No difference in acute pulmonary toxicity
Aupérin. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2181.
51. Reasonable Treatment Options for Patients with Stage III
NSCLC
Concurrent CRT*:
Thoracic RT
Induction CT →
Concurrent CRT†:
Concurrent CRT† →
Consolidation CT:
CTCT
Induction CTInduction CT
Thoracic RT
CTCT
Thoracic RT
CTCT
Consol. CTConsol. CT
*Full-dose chemotherapy, typically cisplatin/etoposide. †Full- or low-dose chemotherapy, typically weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel.
52. Guideline-Recommended Chemotherapy Regimens
Used With Radiation Therapy for Stage III NSCLC
Cisplatin + etoposide
Cisplatin + vinblastine
Carboplatin + pemetrexed
Cisplatin + pemetrexed
Carboplatin + paclitaxel
53. Long-Term Survival with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy
in Stage III NSCLC
RTOG 94-10: sequential vinblastine/cisplatin → RT
vs concurrent vinblastine/cisplatin + RT[1]
START: tecemotide (MUC1-specific immunotherapy)
vs placebo after CRT[2]
1. Curran. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1452. 2. Butts. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:59.
Sequential
Concurrent
HR: 0.88 (0.75-1.03)
Concurrent CRT
Sequential CT → RT
100
75
50
25
0
OS(%)
Yrs Since Randomization
50 1 2 3 4
100
80
60
40
20
0
OS(%)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66
Mos Since Randomization
0.5 1.0 2.0
Favors tecemotide Favors placebo
Concurrent CRT (n = 806)
Sequential CT → RT (n = 433)
30.8
19.4
20.6
24.6
.0175
.419
0.78 (0.64-0.96)
1.11 (0.86-1.43)
P valueHR (95% CI)
Median OS, Mos
Tecemotide Placebo
Tecemotide
(n = 829)
Placebo
(n = 410)
Median OS, mos
(95% CI)
25.6
(22.5-29.2)
22.3
(19.6-25.5)
3-yr OS, n (%) 204 (40) 88 (37)
~20% to 25%
“cures”
54. Contemporary RT Techniques in Stage III NSCLC:
Long-Term OS Results from RTOG 0617
Phase III RTOG 0617 evaluated
standard dose vs high dose CRT*
± cetuximab in stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC
5-yr OS of ~ 32% with high-quality
standard dose RT (before era of
immunotherapy)
‒ No role for RT dose escalation
‒ No benefit of cetuximab addition
Now even better results when
immunotherapy added to CRT
backbone!
Stage III NSCLC is a potentially
curable disease!
Bradley. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:187. Bradley. ASTRO 2017. Abstract S105.
RT Dose Died
Median OS,
Yrs (95% CI)
HR (95% CI)
60 Gy
(n = 218)
150
2.4
(2.0-3.2)
RL
74 Gy
(n = 207)
163
1.7
(1.5-2.0)
1.35
(1.08-1.69)
OS
+ Censored
One-sided log-rank P = .004
Patients at Risk, n
*CT: paclitaxel/carboplatin.
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Yrs
60 Gy
74 Gy
218
207
171
143
123
92
89
64
70
52
54
37
32.1%
23%
5-Yr OS
55. Vast majority of patients with stage III NSCLC are eligible for concurrent CRT but
registry data show that 50% or fewer of these patients receive it
Ahmed. Clin Lung Cancer. 2017;18:706.
We Need to Ensure That All Eligible Patients With
Stage III NSCLC Receive Concurrent Chemoradiation
Selected Treatment Plans of Patients With NSCLC Who Were
Deemed Not to Be Candidates for CRT but in Fact Were Eligible
Clinical images courtesy of Kristin Higgins, MD. Emory University.
56. Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC: Lack
of Progress Before PACIFIC Study
Multiple strategies tested without success
‒ Incorporation of newer chemotherapy drugs
‒ Induction/consolidation strategies
‒ Incorporation of targeted therapies (eg, cetuximab)
‒ Vaccine strategies
‒ Dose escalation of thoracic RT
Senan. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:953. Santana-Davila. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:567. Bradley. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:187. Hanna. J Clin Oncol.
2008;26:5755. Gandara. Clin Lung Cancer. 2006;8:116. Ahn. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2660.
57. KN-024:
1st-line
pembro
better than CT
for PD-L1 ≥ 50%
Discovery of ICIs
Evolution of Care: Immunotherapy in NSCLC
2012 2015 2018
Drug
Approvals/
Other
Landmarks
Select
Trials
TMB associated
with response to
ICIs
20172016
Nivo:
2nd line post-CT
PACIFIC:
durva post-CRT
better than
placebo for
unresectable,
stage III
1990s
Pembro:
2nd line post-CT
PD-L1 ≥ 1%
Phase I: Nivolumab
efficacy demonstrated
Pembro:
1st line
PD-L1 ≥ 50%
KN-189 and -407:
1st-line pembro + CT
better than CT for nonsq
and sq, respectively
Durvalumab:
unresectable,
stage III
Atezo:
2nd line post-CT
IMpower150:
1st-line atezo + CT/bev better
than CT/bev for nonsq
2019
Pembro:
1st line PD-L1 ≥ 1%
Pembro + plt/pem
1st line nonsq
Pembro + carbo/pac or nab-pac:
1st line squamous
Atezo + CT/bev:
1st line nonsq
KN-042
1st-line pembro
better than CT for
PD-L1 ≥ 1%
Herbst. Nature. 2018;553:446. Ishida. EMBO J. 1992;11:3887. Nishimura. Immunity. 1999;11:141. Freeman. J Exp Med.
2000;192:1027. Antonia. NEJM. 2017;377:1919. Paz-Ares. NEJM. 2018;379:2040. Gandhi. NEJM. 2018;378:2078. Socinski.
NEJM. 2018;378:2288. Gettinger. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2004. Reck. NEJM. 2016;375:1823. Mok. Lancet. 2019;393:1819.
58. PACIFIC: Consolidation Durvalumab After Concurrent
CRT for Unresectable, Stage III NSCLC
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial
Patients with locally advanced,
unresectable, stage III NSCLC without
PD after definitive platinum-based
concurrent CRT (≥ 2 cycles);
WHO PS 0/1 and
life expectancy ≥ 12 wks
(N = 713)
Durvalumab 10 mg/kg IV Q2W
for up to 12 mos
(n = 476)
Placebo IV Q2W
for up to 12 mos
(n = 237)
Until disease
progression or
unacceptable
toxicity
Stratified by age (< 65 vs ≥ 65 yrs), sex (male vs female), and
smoking history (current/former vs never)
Antonia. NEJM. 2018;379:2342. Antonia. WCLC 2018. Abstr PL02.01. Antonia. NEJM. 2017;377:1919. Paz-Arez. ESMO 2017. Abstr LBA1_PR.
Randomized
within 1-42 days
after cCRT
Primary endpoints: PFS by BICR per RECIST v1.1, OS
Secondary endpoints including: ORR, DoR, TTDM, PFS2, safety/tolerability, PROs
63. PACIFIC: PFS and OS by Subgroup (ITT)
All patients
Sex Male
Female
Age at randomization < 65 yrs
≥ 65 yrs
Smoking status Smoker
Non-smoker
Disease stage IIIA
IIIB
Tumor histologic type Squamous
Nonsquamous
Prior definitive CT Cisplatin
Carboplatin
Best response to prior treatment CR
PR
SD
PFS HR (95% CI)* OS HR (95% CI)*
Antonia. WCLC 2018. Abstr. PL02.01. Antonia. NEJM. 2018;379:2342. Antonia. NEJM. 2017;377:1919.
*Not calculated if subgroup has < 20 events.
Data cut-off for PFS: February 13, 2017.
Data cut-off for OS: March 22, 2018.
Durvalumab better Placebo better
0.25 0.5 1.00 2.00
Durvalumab better Placebo better
0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00
NA NA
64. Subgroup PFS, HR (95% CI) OS, HR (95% CI)
Overall
PD-L1 status (prespecified)
≥ 25%
< 25%
Unknown*
PD-L1 status (post hoc)†
≥ 1%
1% to 24%
< 1%
EGFR mutation
Positive‡
Negative
Unknown
PACIFIC: Specific Subsets?
Antonia. WCLC 2018. Abstr. PL02.01. Antonia. NEJM. 2018;379:2342. Antonia. NEJM. 2017;377:1919.
*Unknown PD-L1 status in 37% of patients; testing not required, obtained pre-CRT.
†1% cutoff used in unplanned post hoc analysis requested by a health authority.
‡HR (95% CI) not calculated because fewer than 20 events.
Durvalumab better Placebo better
0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0
Durvalumab better Placebo better
0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0
NA‡
65. Phase II LUN 14-179: Consolidation Pembrolizumab
Following Concurrent CRT in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC
N = 93 patients with stage III NSCLC
(60% IIIA, 40% IIIB); n = 92 for efficacy
analysis
Primary endpoint: time to metastatic
disease or death
Histology: 55% adeno, 44% squamous,
1% mixed; 95% current/former
smokers
Prior Tx: 72% carbo/pac, 26% cis/etop,
2% cis/pem, all with chest RT
4-8 wks after CRT pembro 200 mg
IV Q3W for up to 1 yr
Pembro: 16% rec’d < 4 cycles, 84%
rec’d > 4 cycles, 37% completed 1 yr
16 patients (17%) with grade > 2
pneumonitis, 1 pneumonitis-related
death
Durm. ASCO 018. Abstr 8500. Durm. WCLC 2018. Abstr OA01.07.
Outcome n = 92
Median PFS, mos
24-mo PFS, %
15.0
41.4
Median OS, mos
24-mo OS, %
NR
61.5
66. PACIFIC Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg:
A Subset of Trials in Unresectable NSCLC
Trial Phase Study Arms Outcomes
PACIFIC[1] III cCRT → Durva vs PBO Median OS: NR vs 28.7 mos
24-mo OS: 66.3% vs 55.6%
Median PFS: 17.2 vs 5.6 mos
18-mo PFS: 49.5% vs 26.7%
LUN 14-179[2] II cCRT → Pembro Median OS: NR
24-mo OS: 61.5%
Median PFS: 15.0 mos
24-mo PFS: 41.4%
DETERRED[3] II
(non-
randomized)
CRT vs CRT/Atezo
→ CT/Atezo
→ Atezo
Median OS: 20.1 mos vs NR
1-yr OS: 60% vs 77%
Median PFS: 20.1 mos vs NR
1-yr PFS: 60% vs 66%
NICOLAS[4] II Nivo + cCRT Not yet reported
AFT-16[5] II Atezo → cCRT → CT → Atezo Not yet reported
1. Antonia. NEJM. 2018;[Epub]. 2. Durm. WCLC 2018. Abstr OA01.07. 3. Lin. WCLC 2018.
Abstr OA01.06. 4. NCT02434081. 5. NCT03102242.
67. Conclusions: Unresectable, Stage III NSCLC
Durvalumab consolidation following concurrent chemoradiotherapy is preferred
treatment in this setting
‒ Highly significant PFS and OS benefit in broad population post-CRT in PACIFIC trial
‒ OS benefit sustained out at least 2 yrs, no evidence that OS curves converge just after
treatment ends
‒ Should patients with PD-L1 < 1% and/or an EGFR mutation be excluded from receiving
durvalumab?
Many trials ongoing in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and stage III unresectable NSCLC,
with range of immunotherapy strategies
‒ We await trial results, but have reason to be optimistic
70. Lung Cancer Remains a Major Global Health Burden
One of the most common cancers and leading cause of cancer deaths in US and
worldwide[1,2]
‒ New cases, 2016 (estimated): US, 224,390; global, 1.8 million
‒ Deaths, 2016 (estimated): US, 158,080; global, 1.5 million
85% of cases are NSCLC (~ 188,000)[3]
‒ Stage IV at diagnosis: 40% (~ 75,000)[4]
Standard of care for stage IV NSCLC: systemic therapy[5]
1. GLOBOSCAN Cancer Fact Sheets. 2012. 2. Siegel RL, et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7-30. 3.
American Cancer Society. Non-small-cell Lung Cancer. 4. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2002.
71. Advanced NSCLC in an Era of Exciting New Targeted Agents
and Immunotherapies
Whirlwind of scientific advances and FDA approvals for NSCLC in the past decade
Tempting to believe we have “moved past” the era of chemotherapy
‒ In fact, only EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 mutations have FDA-approved targeted therapies
‒ Often monoclonal antibodies are used in combination with chemo
‒ PD-1–targeted immunotherapies approved in platinum-refractory NSCLC
‒ Pembrolizumab: 19% ORR; 45% ORR among pts with ≥ 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1[1]
‒ Nivolumab: 19% ORR[2]
Most, if not all, advanced NSCLC pts will have chemotherapy at some point during the course of their
illness
1. Garon EB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2018-2028.
2. Paz-Ares L, et al. ASCO 2015. Abstract LBA109.
72. Considerations for First-line Therapy of Advanced
NSCLC in 2019
Clinical features
‒ Performance status
‒ Age, comorbidities, and smoking
history
‒ Nutritional status (eg, weight loss)
‒ Hemoptysis
‒ CNS metastases
‒ Previous chemotherapy in
adjuvant or locally advanced
setting
Histologic subtyping
‒ Non-squamous vs squamous
Molecular subtyping
‒ EGFR mutation, ALK or ROS1
translocation
or
‒ Next-generation sequencing
73. What Tools Can Facilitate Personalized Therapy in
Advanced-Stage NSCLC?
How do we optimize therapy in individual pts (ie, first line, second line,
third line)?
Chemotherapy Checkpoint InhibitorsTargeted Therapy
Genomics-driven
TKIs:
EGFR
ALK
ROS1
Histologic
subtyping for
chemotherapy
Anti–PD-1
Anti–PD-L1
Anti–CTLA-4
74. All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise indicated.
*For PS 0–4; §Beware of flare phenomenon in subset of patients who discontinue EGFR TKI. If disease flare occurs, restart EGFR TKI; ¶Afatinib + cetuximab may be considered in patients with disease progression on
EGFR TKI therapy; **The data in the second-line setting suggest that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy is less effective, irrespective of PD-L1 expression, in EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC; §§Albumin-bound paclitaxel may be
substituted for either paclitaxel or docetaxel in patients who have experienced hypersensitivity reactions after receiving paclitaxel or docetaxel despite premedication, or for patients where the standard premedications
(i.e. dexamethasone, H2 blockers, H1 blockers) are contraindicated; ¶¶Carboplatin-based regimens are often used for patients with comorbidities or those who cannot tolerate cisplatin; ***Contraindications for
treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors may include active or previously documented autoimmune disease and/or current use of immunosuppressive agents or presence of an oncogene, which would predict lack of
benefit; §§§If progression on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor, switching to another
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor is not routinely recommended; ¶¶¶Bevacizumab should be given until progression; ****Any regimen with a high risk of thrombocytopenia and the potential risk of bleeding should be used with
caution in combination with bevacizumab; §§§§Criteria for treatment with bevacizumab: non-squamous NSCLC, and no recent history of haemoptysis. Bevacizumab should not be given as a single agent, unless as
maintenance if initially used with chemotherapy; ¶¶¶¶Plasma-based testing should be considered at progression on EGFR TKIs for the T790M mutation. If plasma-based testing is negative, tissue-based testing with
rebiopsy material is strongly recommended. Practitioners may want to consider scheduling the biopsy concurrently with plasma testing referral; *****Consider osimertinib (regardless of T790M status) or pulse erlotinib
for progressive leptomeningeal disease; §§§§§In the randomised Phase III trial of dacomitinib, patients with brain metastases were not eligible for enrollment. In the setting of brain metastases, consider other options;
¶¶¶¶¶Beware of flare phenomenon in subset of patients who discontinue EGFR TKI. If disease flare occurs, restart EGFR TKI.
1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Version 3. 2019. https://www.nccn.org/ (Accessed: 18 December 2018).
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines: EGFR mutation+
advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma1
75. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines: BRAF V600E mutation+,
ALK translocation+, ROS1 translocation+ advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma1
1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Version 3. 2019. https://www.nccn.org/ (Accessed: 18 December 2018).
*For PS 0–4; §Beware of flare phenomenon in subset of patients who discontinue ALK inhibitor. If disease flare occurs, restart ALK inhibitor; ¶Patients who are intolerant to crizotinib may be switched to ceritinib, alectinib, or brigatinib;
**If not previously given; §§Ceritinib, alectinib, or brigatinib are treatment options for patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC that has progressed on crizotinib; ¶¶Lorlatinib is a treatment option after progression on crizotinib and
alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib; ***Single-agent vemurafenib or dabrafenib are treatment options if the combination of dabrafenib + trametinib is not tolerated; ¶¶¶Albumin-bound paclitaxel may be substituted for either paclitaxel or
docetaxel in patients who have experienced hypersensitivity reactions after receiving paclitaxel or docetaxel despite premedication, or for patients where the standard premedications (i.e. dexamethasone, H2 blockers, H1 blockers) are
contraindicated; §§§Carboplatin-based regimens are often used for patients with comorbidities or those who cannot tolerate cisplatin; ****Contraindications for treatment with
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors may include active or previously documented autoimmune disease and/or current use of immunosuppressive agents or presence of an oncogene, which would predict lack of benefit; §§§§If progression on PD-
1/PD-L1 inhibitor, switching to another
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor is not routinely recommended; ¶¶¶¶Bevacizumab should be given until progression; *****Any regimen with a high risk of thrombocytopenia and the potential risk of bleeding should be used with caution in
combination with bevacizumab; §§§§§Criteria for treatment with bevacizumab: non-squamous NSCLC, and no recent history of haemoptysis. Bevacizumab should not be given as a single agent, unless as maintenance if initially used
with chemotherapy
76. All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise indicated.
*Contraindications for treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors may include active or previously documented autoimmune disease and/or current use of immunosuppressive agents or presence of an oncogene, which would predict lack of
benefit; §If progression on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor, switching to another PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor is not routinely recommended; ¶Bevacizumab should be given until progression; **Any regimen with a high risk of thrombocytopenia and the potential
risk of bleeding should be used with caution in combination with bevacizumab; §§Criteria for treatment with bevacizumab: non-squamous NSCLC, and no recent history of haemoptysis. Bevacizumab should not be given as a single agent,
unless as maintenance if initially used with chemotherapy; ¶¶The data in the second-line setting suggest that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy is less effective, irrespective of PD-L1 expression, in EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC; ***If progression on
PD-1/PD-LI inhibitor, switching to another PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor is not routinely recommended; §§§Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with NSCLC tumours with PD-L1 expression levels ≥1%, as determined by an FDA-approved test; ¶¶¶If
not previously given; ****If not already given, options for PS 0–2 include (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), docetaxel (Category 2B), pemetrexed (Category 2B), gemcitabine (Category 2B), or ramucirumab + docetaxel
(Category 2B); options for PS 3–4 include BSC. Options for further progression are BSC or clinical trial;. Clinical Trials: NCCN believes that the best management of any patient with cancer is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is
especially encouraged; ¶¶¶¶If patient has not received platinum-doublet chemotherapy, refer to systemic therapy. If patient received platinum chemotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1, refer to subsequent therapy; *****If pembrolizumab
monotherapy given; §§§§§If pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed or pembrolizumab/cisplatin/pemetrexed given; ¶¶¶¶¶ If atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab given; ******If bevacizumab was used with a first-line
pemetrexed/platinum chemotherapy regimen.
1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Version 3. 2019. https://www.nccn.org/ (Accessed: 18 December 2018).
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines:
non-targetable advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma1
77. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Version 3. 2019. https://www.nccn.org/ (Accessed: 18 December 2018).
*Contraindications for treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors may include active or previously documented autoimmune disease and/or current use of immunosuppressive agents or presence of an oncogene, which would
predict lack of benefit; §If progression on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor, switching to another PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor is not routinely recommended; ¶The data in the second-line setting suggest that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy
is less effective, irrespective of PD-L1 expression, in EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC; **Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with NSCLC tumours with PD-L1 expression levels ≥1%, as determined by an FDA-approved test; §§If
not previously given; ¶¶If not already given, options for PS 0–2 include (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), docetaxel (Category 2B), pemetrexed (Category 2B), gemcitabine (Category 2B), or
ramucirumab + docetaxel (Category 2B); options for PS 3–4 include BSC. Options for further progression are BSC or clinical trial; ***If pembrolizumab monotherapy given; §§§If patient has not received platinum-
doublet chemotherapy, refer to systemic therapy. If patient received platinum chemotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1, refer to subsequent therapy; ¶¶¶ If pembrolizumab/(cisplatin or carboplatin)/(paclitaxel or albumin-bound
paclitaxel) given.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines:
advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma1
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85. 1. Planchard D, et al. Ann Oncol 2018;29(Suppl. 4):iv192–iv237 [Published online 3 October 2018; updated 26 January 2019].
*Not EMA-approved.
§MCBS score for the combination of bevacizumab with gefitinib or erlotinib.
¶PS 0–1: 4–6 cycles cisplatin or carboplatin based doublets (gemcitabine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinorelbine), cisplatin/pemetrexed, carboplatin/pemetrexed; carboplatin/nab-PC, ± bevacizumab; PS 2, <70 years and PS 0–2, selected ≥70 years:
4–6 cycles carboplatin-based chemotherapy, single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, pemetrexed).
European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines:
targetable advanced or metastatic NSCC1
Treatment strategy should take into account histology, molecular pathology, age, PS, comorbidities and patient preference
86. European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines:
non-targetable advanced or metastatic NSCC1
*In absence of contraindications and conditioned by the registration and accessibility of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with platinum-based chemotherapy, this strategy will be preferred to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with PS 0–1 and PD-L1 <50%.
Alternatively, if TMB can accurately be evaluated, and conditioned by the registration and accessibility, nivolumab plus ipilimumab should be preferred to platinum-based standard chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC with a high TMB; §Not EMA-approved.
1. Planchard D, et al. Ann Oncol 2018;29(Suppl. 4):iv192–iv237 [Published online 3 October 2018; updated 26 January 2019].
Treatment strategy should take into account histology, molecular pathology, age, PS, comorbidities and patient preference
87. European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines:
advanced or metastatic SCC1
1. Planchard D, et al. Ann Oncol 2018;29(Suppl. 4):iv192–iv237 [Published online 3 October 2018; updated 26 January 2019].
*In absence of contraindications and conditioned by the registration and accessibility of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with platinum-based chemotherapy, this strategy will be preferred to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with PS 0–1 and PD-L1 <50%.
Alternatively, if TMB can accurately be evaluated, and conditioned by the registration and accessibility, nivolumab plus ipilimumab should be preferred to platinum-based standard chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC with a high TMB; §Molecular testing is not
recommended in SCC, except in those rare circumstances when SCC is found in a never-, long-time ex- or light-smoker (<15 pack-years); ¶Not EMA-approved.
Treatment strategy should take into account histology, molecular pathology, age, PS, comorbidities and patient preference
88. Moving the Bar: First-line Decision Tree for Advanced
NSCLC
NSCLC
PD-L1 high
(≥ 50%)
PD-1i
Targetable genetic
mutation
No mutation/
PD-L1 low (1%-49%)
or negative (< 1%)
ALK ROS1
Squamous
histology
Nonsquamous
histology
EGFR TKI ALK TKI ROS1 TKI
BRAF +
MEK TKI
Chemotherapy
± PD-1i
Chemotherapy
± PD-(L)1i
EGFR BRAF
89. Melosky. Front Oncol. 2017;7:38. Masters. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3488. Necitumumab PI. Pembrolizumab PI. Atezolizumab PI. Nivolumab PI. Afatinib PI. Ramucirumab PI. ESMO Guidelines
Committee. eUpdate – Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer algorithms. June 28, 2017.
Poor PS
Nonsquamous Squamous Single-agent or
combination CT,
consider hospice
Carboplatin/paclitaxel
(or nab-paclitaxel) +
pembrolizumab,
plt doublet,
cisplatin/gemcitabine/
necitumumab
Progression
Based on prior therapy: atezolizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab (if ≥ 1% PD-L1+) after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy alone, or other
systemic agents including docetaxel ± ramucirumab, pemetrexed, gemcitabine, or afatinib
Clinical (PS)
Clinical
Histologic
Bevacizumab eligible Bevacizumab ineligible
Carboplatin/pemetrexed + pembrolizumab,
carboplatin/paclitaxel + bevacizumab +
atezolizumab, plt doublet ± bevacizumab,
Carboplatin/pemetrexed +
pembrolizumab, plt doublet
Advanced NSCLC:
No Actionable Biomarker
Good PS
Based on prior therapy for patients with stable disease or better: bevacizumab, pemetrexed, bevacizumab + pemetrexed,
pembrolizumab, gemcitabine, or docetaxel; observation is also a reasonable option
FirstlineMaintenance
Second
lineand
beyond
Treatment Algorithm for Advanced NSCLC in 2019:
No Actionable Biomarker
90. Treatment Algorithm for Advanced NSCLC in 2019:
Molecular Biomarker Positive
ALK positive
Progression
EGFR mutation positive
Advanced NSCLC
(molecular biomarker positive)
ROS1 positive PD-L1 ≥ 50%
positive
Crizotinib
Follow treatment options for adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma without actionable biomarker
Pembrolizumab
Osimertinib
EGFR T790M
mutation negative or
previous osimertinib
Alectinib, brigatinib,
ceritinib, or
lorlatinib dependent
on previous therapy
Alectinib (preferred),
ceritinib, or crizotinib
Osimertinib (preferred)
erlotinib, afatinib, gefitinib, or
dacomitinib
EGFR T790M
mutation positive
BRAF V600E
positive
Dabrafenib/
trametinib*
Firstline
Second
lineand
beyond
*Or as second-line after chemotherapy
91. Immunotherapy Treatment Algorithm for NSCLC in 2019
Where does TMB fit in, if anywhere?
NonsquamousSquamous
Pembrolizumab or
Pembrolizumab + CT
Pembrolizumab +
Carboplatin/Pemetrexed -or-
Chemotherapy Alone
Pembrolizumab +
Carboplatin/Pemetrexed
Pembrolizumab or
Pembrolizumab + CT
Pembrolizumab +
Carboplatin/Paclitaxel or nab-Paclitaxel
Pembrolizumab +
Carboplatin/Paclitaxel or nab-Paclitaxel
PD-L1 ≥ 50%
PD-L1 ≥ 1-49%
PD-L1 < 1%
Atezolizumab+
Carboplatin/Pemetrexed+
Bevacizumab
94. First-line Platinum Doublet Chemotherapy
Benefit of cisplatin vs carboplatin for treatment of advanced NSCLC is
controversial
Treatment-related adverse events should be considered during treatment
selection
‒ Cisplatin associated with increased nausea, vomiting, neurotoxicity, and
renal toxicity
‒ Carboplatin associated with thrombocytopenia
Carboplatin-based regimens most often used in the US
1. Fossella F, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3016-3024.
2. Hotta K, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3852-3859.
3. Artizzoni A, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:847-857.
95. First-line Platinum Doublet Chemotherapy in NSCLC:
Safety
Platinum doublet arm: pemetrexed/carboplatin
‒ Lower rate of discontinuing treatment
‒ Due to early death, early progression, or clinical deterioration
Severe anemia, neutropenia: most significant increased toxicity in doublet
arm vs pemetrexed monotherapy
‒ Can be anticipated, often prevented
Zukin M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;x:2849-2853.
96. Can You Safely Treat PS 2 Pts With Doublet
Chemotherapy?
Randomized phase III trial of single-agent pemetrexed vs carboplatin/pemetrexed in
pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC and ECOG PS 2
‒ One third of pts were older than 70 yrs of age
Zukin M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2849-2853.
Survival Outcome, Mos Pemetrexed
x 4 Cycles
Carboplatin/Pemetrexed
x 4 Cycles
Median PFS 2.8 5.8
Median OS 5.3 9.3
104. Select Antiangiogenic Agents for NSCLC
Drug Target Route Frequency Clinical Status
Bevacizumab VEGF ligand IV q3w Approved
Ramucirumab VGFR-2 IV q3w Approved
Sorafenib Raf, Kit, Flt-3, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, PDGFR- PO Twice daily Not approved
Vandetanib VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, RET, EGFR PO Daily Not approved
Sunitinib VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, PDGFR-α, PDGFR-,
Flt-3, c-kit
PO Twice daily Not approved
Cediranib VEGFR-2, VEGFR-1, VEGFR-3, c-kit, Flt-3 PO Daily Not approved
Motesanib VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, PDGFR, RET, kit PO Daily Not approved
Axitinib VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, PDGFR-, kit PO Twice daily Not approved
Pazopanib VEGFR-2, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, PDGFR-α, PDGFR-,
c-kit
PO Daily Not approved
Nintedanib VEGFR1-3; FGFR1,3; PDGFα,β PO Twice daily Phase III
105. Phase III Studies of Anti-VEGF Antibody Therapy in NSCLC
1. Sandler A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2542-2550. 2. Reck M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1227-1234.
3. Herbst RS, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:1846-1854. 4. Johnson BE, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3926-3934.
*Significantly different from comparator.
Trial Treatment line Treatment Arms Median Survival, Mos Trial Outcome
ECOG 4599[1] First line Paclitaxel/carboplatin
+ bevacizumab
OS: 12.3* Positive
Paclitaxel/carboplatin OS: 10.3
AVAiL[2] First line Cisplatin/gemcitabine
+ bevacizumab
PFS
High dose: 6.5*
Low dose: 6.7*
Positive for
primary endpoint
Cisplatin/gemcitabine
+ placebo
PFS: 6.1
BETA[3] Second line Bevacizumab + erlotinib OS: 9.3 Negative
Erlotinib + placebo OS: 9.2
ATLAS[4] First line maintenance Bevacizumab + erlotinib PFS: 4.8* Positive for
primary endpoint
Bevacizumab + placebo PFS: 3.7
106. Phase III Studies of Bevacizumab in NSCLC
*Significantly different from comparator.
107. Sandler A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2542-2550.
ECOG E4599: Paclitaxel/Carboplatin ± Bevacizumab in
Advanced Non-squamous NSCLC
Pts with recurrent or advanced
nonsquamous NSCLC, no prior
chemotherapy
(N = 878)
Paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on Day 1 +
Carboplatin AUC 6.0 mg/mL/min on Day 1
for six 3-wk cycles; no crossover to bevacizumab permitted
(n = 444)
Paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on Day 1 +
Carboplatin AUC 6.0 mg/mL/min on Day 1
for six 3-wk cycles +
Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on Day 1
every 3 wks until PD or unacceptable toxicity
(n = 434)
Endpoint, % PC BPC Significance
ORR (CR + PR) 15.0 35.0 P < .001
Median OS, mos 10.3 12.3
HR: 0.79;
P = .003
Median PFS, mos 4.5 6.2
HR: 0.66;
P < .001
108. ECOG E4599: Bev + Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in
Metastatic Non-squamous NSCLC
Sandler A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2542-2550. Sandler A, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:1416-1423.
Overall Population Adenocarcinoma
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ProbabilityofOS
Mos
10.3
0 426 12 18 24 30 36
12.3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ProbabilityofOS
Mos
10.3
0 426 12 18 24 30 36
14.2
CP + bev (n = 434)
CP (n = 444)
HR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.67-0.92;
P = .003)
CP + bev (n = 300)
CP (n = 302)
HR: 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58-0.83;
P = .009)
109. Biomarkers for Antiangiogenic Therapy
Hypertension appears to be an early predictor of benefit with VEGF
inhibitors
ICAM and VEGF-A levels seem to be more prognostic than predictive
VEGF polymorphisms hold promise and may be predictive
Plasma cytokine/angiogenic factors are intriguing
IL-6, IL-12 hold promise
Still in need of truly predictive biomarkers to help us move forward in
antiangiogenic therapy
110. Primary endpoint: ORR
Secondary endpoints: PFS, OS, safety
Patients with stage IIIb/IV
NSCLC, ECOG PS 0-1, no
previous chemotherapy for
metastatic disease
(N = 1050)
Nab-Paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15 +
Carboplatin AUC 6 on Day 1
No premedication
Paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on Day 1 +
Carboplatin AUC 6 on Day 1
Premedication: dexamethasone, antihistamines
Stratified by stage (IIIb vs IV),
age (< 70 yrs vs > 70 yrs), sex,
histology (squamous vs non-squamous), geographic region
21-day cycles
Socinski MA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2055-2062.
Carboplatin/Nab-Paclitaxel vs Carboplatin/
Paclitaxel in Advanced NSCLC: Responses
111. P = .005
RRR: 1.31
33%
25%
ITT
Socinski MA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2055-2062.
Carboplatin/Nab-Paclitaxel vs Carboplatin/
Paclitaxel in Advanced NSCLC: Responses
ResponseRate(%)
P < .001
RRR: 1.680
P = .808
RRR: 1.034
41%
26%
24% 25%
0
10
20
30
40
50
Squamous Nonsquamous
229 221 292 310
Less neuropathy reported with nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel
521 531n =
Carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel
Carboplatin/paclitaxel
112. Squire study: Gem/Cis + Necitumumab vs Gem/Cis in
Stage IV Squamous NSCLC: OS
Thatcher N, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:763-774.
100
80
60
40
20
0
403632280 4 8 12 16
Gemcitabine/cisplatin + necitumumab
Censored pts
Gemcitabine/cisplatin
Censored pts
24
OS(%)
Pts censored, n (%)
Median OS, mos (95% CI)
Stratified P value (log-rank)
Stratified HR (95% CI)
127 (23)
11.5 (10.4-12.6)
.01
0.84 (0.74-0.96)
Gemcitabine/
Cisplatin +
Necitumumab
(n = 545)
Gemcitabine/ Cisplatin
(n = 548)
106 (19)
9.9 (8.9-11.1)
20
Mos
ECOG PS 0-2
113. Carboplatin and Paclitaxel ± Veliparib in Previously
Untreated Advanced NSCLC
Veliparib: A poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that interferes with DNA damage repair and sensitizes
tumors to radiation and chemotherapy treatments
Primary endpoint: PFS
Secondary endpoints: OS, ORR, peripheral neuropathy
Ramalingam S, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 8.
Phase II trial
Metastatic or advanced NSCLC (N = 158; ~
50 sites, 8 countries)
Carboplatin/Paclitaxel* +
Veliparib 120 mg BID† (n = 105)
Carboplatin/Paclitaxel* +
Placebo BID† (n = 53)
*Carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL/min and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on Day 3 of 21.
†Veliparib/placebo on Days 1-7 of 21-day cycle.
2:1 randomization
114. Carboplatin and Paclitaxel ± Veliparib:
PFS, OS, ORR, DOR
Ramalingam S, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 8.
*From Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for baseline ECOG performance status and sex.
Outcome Placebo and
Carboplatin +
Paclitaxel
(n = 53)
Veliparib and
Carboplatin +
Paclitaxel
(n = 105)
HR Adjusted HR*
PFS, median mos (95% Cl) 4.2 (3.1-5.6) 5.8 (4.2-6.1) 0.74 (0.46-1.17) 0.57 (0.35-0.92)
Squamous 4.1 (2.8-NA) 6.1 (5.8-8.3) 0.50 (0.24-1.04) 0.32 (0.14-0.73)
Nonsquamous 5.0 (2.8-5.6) 4.3 (2.8-6.0) 0.94 (0.52-1.71) 0.76 (0.41-1.42)
OS, median mos (95% Cl) 9.1 (5.4-12.3) 11.7 (8.8-13.7) 0.77 (0.52-1.15) 0.71 (0.48-1.07)
Squamous 8.4 (5.0-12.9) 10.3 (8.3-13.2) 0.71 (0.41-1.23) 0.70 (0.39-1.24)
Nonsquamous 11.1 (4.8-14.6) 12.8 (8.0-17.5) 0.85 (0.48-1.51) 0.72 (0.40-1.29)
ORR, % (95% Cl) 28 (17-42) 31 (22-40) -- --
DOR, median mos (95% Cl) 3.3 (2.7-4.3) 6.9 (4.4-7.0) 0.11 (0.03-0.50) --
115. Veliparib Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel: Conclusions
Improvements in PFS and OS were observed with the addition of
veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel, particularly in the squamous
histology subgroup
Veliparib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel were well tolerated
Based on results in the squamous histology subgroup,
a phase III pivotal trial of the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and
paclitaxel has been initiated for pts with previously untreated
advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC (M11-089; Clinical Trial
NCT02106546)
Ramalingam S, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 8.
119. Maintenance Therapy: Strategies
Continuation of a doublet beyond 4 cycles
Initiating a new agent (“switch”)
‒ Carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by pemetrexed as maintenance.
‒ Carboplatin and gemcitabine followed by docetaxel as maintenance.
‒ Platinum-based doublets followed by erlotinib as maintenance.
Continuation of a targeted agent
‒ Carboplatin, paclitaxel and bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab as maintenance.
Continuing 1 (or 2) of the same agents from the original combination (continuation)
‒ Cisplatin and pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed as maintenance.
‒ Carboplatin and gemcitabine followed by gemcitabine as maintenance.
‒ Cisplatin/pemetrexed and bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab and pemetrexed as maintenance.
120. Continuation Maintenance
Cai H, et al. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:333-341.
HR: 0.54
(95% CI: 0.46-0.63;
P < .00001)
HR: 0.61
(95% CI: 0.51-0.74;
P < .00001)
HR: 0.65
(95% CI: 0.59-0.72;
P < .00001)
Meta-analysis of NSCLC Maintenance Therapy: PFS
Switch Maintenance
0.2 0.5 1 2 5
Favors Experimental Favors
Control
Brodowicz 2006
Perol 2010
Barlesi 2011
Paz-Ares 2012
Study or
Subgroup
Peto Odds Ratio Exp[O-
E/V], Fixed, 95% CI
0.2 0.5 1 2 5
Favors
Experimental
Favors
Control
Study or Subgroup
Peto Odds Ratio
Exp[0-E)/V], Fixed, 95% CI
1.1 Cytotoxic Agents
Fidias 2009
Ciuleanu 2009
1.2 Molecularly Targeted Agents
Cappuzzo 2010
Gaatar 2010
Perol 2010
Zhang 2012
121. HR: 0.80
(95% CI: 0.63-1.01);
P = .06)
HR: 0.81
(95% CI: 0.71-0.92);
P = .001)Total
HR: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.92);
P =.0002)
7 trials report no detrimental effect on QOL
Meta-analysis of NSCLC Maintenance Therapy: OS
Cai H, et al. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:333-341.
Continuation Maintenance
0.2 0.5 1 2 5
Favors Experimental Favors
Control
Brodowicz 2006
Perol 2010
Belani 2010
Barlesi 2011
Paz-Ares 2012
Study or
Subgroup
Peto Odds
Ratio Exp[O-E/V],
Fixed, 95% CI
HR: 0.82
(95% CI: 0.66-1.01;
P = .06)
Switch Maintenance
0.2 0.5 1 2 5
Favors Switch
Maintenance
Favors
Control
Study or Subgroup
Peto Odds Ratio
Exp[0-E)/V], Fixed, 95% CI
1.1 Cytotoxic Agents
Ciuleanu 2009
Fidias 2009
1.2 Molecularly Targeted Agents
Cappuzzo 2010
Gaatar 2010
Perol 2010
Zhang 2012
122. Do you think maintenance therapy is worthwhile?
Do you think maintenance therapy is worthwhile depending on the
magnitude of the survival benefit?
Do you think maintenance therapy is worthwhile if there was no survival
benefit but symptom control benefit?
Do you think maintenance therapy is worthwhile depending on
mode of administration?
Peeters L, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:1291-1295.
75% of patients would take maintenance therapy
for mild to moderate toxicity
Patient Perception of NSCLC Maintenance
No
Unsure
Yes
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 0 2 4
Symptom relief Tumor control
No
Unsure
Yes
Patients(n)
Cycles of First-line Therapy
0 2 4 0 2 4
No
Unsure
Yes
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No
Unsure
Yes
1-yr OS
benefit
6-mo OS
benefit
3-mo OS
benefit
1-mo OS
benefit
Oral ODIV q3w
Patients(n)
Patients(n)Patients(n)
123. NSCLC Maintenance Therapy:
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Maintains disease control
Improves PFS
Improves OS
Maintains quality of life
Opportunity to treat more patients
Patients support maintenance therapy
Disadvantages
Induction regimens of 4 vs 6 cycles may
achieve the same improvement in PFS
Careful follow-up reveals more patients
available for second-line therapy than
initially estimated by early reports
Grade 3/4 AEs in 30% to 40% of patients
Cost prohibitive
Lack of reliable biomarkers
124.
125.
126.
127.
128. Maintenance Pemetrexed vs Placebo in Stage IIIB/IV
NSCLC: OS by Histology
Median OS pemetrexed:
15.5 mos
Median OS pemetrexed:
9.9 mos
Median OS placebo:
10.3 mos
Median OS placebo:
10.8 mos
Nonsquamous (n = 481) Squamous (n = 182)
HR: .70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.88; P = .002) HR: 1.07 (95% CI: 0.49-1.73; P = .678)
SurvivalProbability
Mos
Belani CP, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract 8000.
Pts with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and ECOG PS 0-1; All treated with initial therapy (gemcitabine, docetaxel, or paclitaxel +
cisplatin or carboplatin) for four 21-day cycles (N = 663)
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
SurvivalProbability
Mos
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
129. OS by Histology in Phase III Pemetrexed Studies
*Adenocarcinoma, large cell carcinoma, or other/indeterminate NSCLC histology
1. Scagliotti GV, et al. Oncologist. 2009;14:253-263. 2. Pemetrexed [package insert]. 2009.
NSCLC Histology Second-line
Pem vs Docetaxel[1]
First-line Pem/Cis
vs Gem/Cis[1]
Maintenance
Pem vs Placebo[2]
Pem Doc Cis/Pem Cis/Gem Pem Placebo
Nonsquamous,* n 205 194 618 634 325 156
Median OS, mos 9.3 8.0 11.0 10.1 15.5 10.3
Adjusted HR
(95% CI; P value)
0.78 (0.61-1.00;
.048)
0.84 (0.74-0.96;
.011)
0.70 (0.56-0.88;
.002)
Squamous, n 78 94 244 229 116 66
Median OS, mos 6.2 7.4 9.4 10.8 9.9 10.8
Adjusted HR
(95% CI; P value)
1.56 (1.08-2.26;
.018)
1.23 (1.00-1.51;
.050)
1.07 (0.77-1.50;
.678)
130. Heterogeneity of ERCC1, RRM1, and TS mRNA Expression in NSCLC
Maus MKH, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8:582-586.
ERCC1 RRM1 TS
*Gene expression level cutoff for drug sensitivity.
GeneExpressionLevel
Relativetoβ-actin
10
8
6
4
2
0
AC SCCA
10
8
6
4
2
0
AC SCCA
10
8
6
4
2
0
AC SCCA
ERCC1
(Reference < 1.7 for
platinum)*
% Below
Reference Level
NSCLC-total 43.4
NSCLC-AC 46.0
NSCLC-SCCA 30.7
RRM1
(Reference < 0.97 for
gemcitabine)*
% Below
Reference Level
NSCLC-total 39.6
NSCLC-AC 42.2
NSCLC-SCCA 13.0
TS
(Reference < 2.33 for
pemetrexed)*
% Below
Reference Level
NSCLC-total 41.3
NSCLC-AC 45.7
NSCLC-SCCA 25.9
132. PRONOUNCE: Phase III Trial of Pem/Carbo → Pem vs
Pac/Carbo/Bev → Bev
No significant difference in survival
Carbo/pem → pem: more anemia and thrombocytopenia
Carbo/pac/bev → bev: more neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy, plus total alopecia
Induction (Q3W, 4 cycles) Maintenance (Q3W until PD)
180 pts each
Bev-Eligible Population
Inclusion:
Chemo-naive pts
PS 0/1
Stage IV, nonsquamous
Stable treated CNS mets
Exclusion:
Uncontrolled effusions
Zinner RG, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:134-142.
Pemetrexed
(folic acid and vitamin B12)
+ Carboplatin
Paclitaxel
+ Carboplatin
+ Bevacizumab
R
1:1
Pemetrexed
(folic acid and vitamin B12)
Bevacizumab
133. CALGB 30607: Sunitinib as Switch Maintenance in
Advanced NSCLC
Stratification factors:
ECOG PS (0 vs 1)
Stage (IIIB vs IV)
Prior use of bevacizumab (yes or no)
Sex (male vs female)
Primary endpoint:
PFS
Secondary endpoints:
Toxicity
Additional responses
Impact on OS
QoL
1:1
Chemo-naive
advanced NSCLC
ECOG PS 0-1
Non-PD
4 cycles of
1st-line platinum-
based doublet*
Placebo
(n = 104)
PD
Sunitinib
37.5 mg/day
(n = 106)
PD
Socinski MA, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 1.
*Bevacizumab allowed but was discontinued with the fourth
cycle.
134. CALGB 30607 Sunitinib Switch Maintenance: PFS and OS
Socinski MA, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 1.
Median OS, mos (95% CI): sunitinib 11.7 (9.4-15.0); placebo 11.7 (9.9-14.0)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SurvivalProbability
Mos From Randomization
0 306 12 18 24
2-sided log-rank P = .0005
Pts at Risk, n
Sunitinib
Placebo
106
104
32
17
9
3
8
1
2
0
1
Median PFS (95% CI)
4.3 (3.2-4.9)
2.6 (1.8-3.0)
HR (95% CI)
0.61 (0.46-0.81)
Ref
Sunitinib
Placebo
135. CALGB 30607 Sunitinib Switch Maintenance:
Conclusions
First trial evaluating an anti-angiogenic agent as maintenance therapy
in advanced NSCLC
Sunitinib as switch maintenance in advanced NSCLC associated with
significant PFS improvement (HR: 0.61;
P = .0005)
‒ Effect independent of histology
No significant improvement in OS (secondary endpoint)
No new toxicity signals identified; toxicity profile similar to previous
studies of sunitinib
Socinski MA, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract 1.
136. LCT in Oligometastatic NSCLC: Randomized Phase II
Study Design
Primary outcome: PFS
‒ Time from randomization to PD or death if endpoint met, time from randomization to last imaging if no progression, and censored at time of
crossover due to toxicity
‒ Follow-up every 6-10 wks in Yr 1, then at physician’s discretion
Histologically confirmed
stage IV NSCLC, no
RECIST progression after
FLST, ≤ 3 metastases after
FLST
(n = 49)
No Local Consolidative Therapy (n = 24)
Local Consolidative Therapy (n = 25)
Slide credit: clinicaloptions.comGomez DR, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 9004.
Stratified by nodal status (NO/N1 vs N2/N3), EGFR/EML4-ALK status (yes/no), CNS metastases (yes/no), number of
metastases (1 vs 2/3), and response to FLST (SD vs PR/CR)
FLST*
(N = 74)
Standard
maintenance or
observation† PD/Toxicity
Consider LCT
(surgery ± radiation)
Crossover allowed
at PD
LCT
(surgery ±
radiation)
Standard
maintenance or
observation†
PD
*≥ 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy, or ≥ 3 mos of afatinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib in setting of EGFR mutation,
or ≥ 3 mos of crizotinib if EML4-ALK fusion; pts could enroll before or during FLST, but randomization occurred after completion of FLST without progression.
†Physician choice.
137. LCT in Oligometastatic NSCLC: PFS
Study closed by DSMC due to observed efficacy in the LCT arm after 49 pts randomized, at median follow-up of
18.7 mos
Other factors associated with
improved PFS included number of
metastases after FLST
(1 vs 2 or 3; P = .043) and EGFR/ALK
status (positive vs negative;
P = 0.035)
PFS benefit remained after censoring
pts with EGFR/ALK alterations
(HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.19-0.90; P = 0.022)
Gomez DR, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 9004. Reproduced with permission.
0
25
50
75
100
0 1 2 3
24
24
8
2
2
0
0
0
Pts at Risk, n
LCT
No LCT
Yrs
PFS(%)
LCT No LCT
Median
PFS, Mos
11.9 3.9
P value .005
138. LCT in Oligometastatic NSCLC: Patterns of Failure
Progression in 30 pts (61%), most often in new lesions (n = 14) or distant metastases (n = 16);
progression at combination of new and known sites also common (n = 9)
LCT arm had primarily distant and new lesion failures; no-LCT arm had more locoregional failures and
combined new and known site failures
Trend toward significance in patterns of failure (P = .09)
‒ Locoregional-only failures higher in no-LCT arm vs LCT arm (17% vs 4%)
‒ Metastatic-only failures higher in LCT arm vs no-LCT arm (40% vs 25%)
‒ Both locoregional/metastatic failures higher in no-LCT vs LCT arm (29% vs 8%)
Median TNSF: 11.9 mos in LCT arm vs 5.7 mos in no-LCT arm
(P = .0497)
Gomez DR, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 9004.
140. Eribulin vs Physician’s Choice in Pts With Progressive
NSCLC
Open-label, parallel-group phase III study in pts with advanced NSCLC
progressed on ≥ 2 previous regimens
Randomized 1:1 to 21-day cycle eribulin mesylate IV
1.4 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8 (n = 270) or the physician’s choice (21-day
cycles of vinorelbine, gemcitabine, pemetrexed [nonsquamous only], or
docetaxel; n = 270)
Primary endpoint: OS
Secondary endpoints: PFS, ORR, safety, tolerability
Spigel DR, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract LB1.
141. Eribulin vs Physician’s Choice: Results
Median OS 9.5 mos in both eribulin and TPC groups
(HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.95-1.41; P = .134)
Median PFS 3.0 mos with eribulin vs 2.8 mos with TPC (HR: 1.09; 95%
CI: 0.90-1.32; P = .395)
ORR: 12.2% and 15.2%, respectively
Most frequent grade 3/4 AEs with eribulin: neutropenia (28.6%),
decreased neutrophil count (21.2%), decreased WBC count (13.4%),
and asthenia (8.2%)
33.9% of pts had a serious AE (35.7% eribulin, 32.1% TPC)
Spigel DR, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract LB1.
142. Eribulin vs Physician’s Choice: Conclusions
Eribulin did not significantly improve OS or PFS compared with TPC in
pts with advanced NSCLC
AEs were manageable and consistent with previous eribulin studies
Spigel DR, et al. Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 2014. Abstract LB1.
143. 100
80
60
40
20
0
REVEL: Docetaxel ± Ramucirumab in Second-line NSCLC:
Response
First study in the second-line setting to show survival advantage by adding biotherapy to chemotherapy
in NSCLC
First and only angiogenesis inhibitor in advanced NSCLC to show benefit in squamous
Phase III Study
Perol M, et al. ASCO 2014. Abstract LBA8006.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Survival Time (Mos)
OS(%)
Ram + Doc
Pl + Doc
Ram + Doc Pl + Doc HR
P Value
ORR, %
(95% CI)
22.9
(19.7-26.4)
13.6
(11.0-16.5)
< .001
Median PFS, mos
(95% CI)
4.5
(4.2-5.4)
3.0
(2.8-3.9)
0.72
< .0001
Median OS, mos
(95% CI)
10.5
(9.5-11.2)
9.1
(8.4-10.0)
0.86
.0235
154. EGFR Structure and Mutations
EGFR: a tyrosine kinase
receptor
Overexpression in NSCLC
Increased gene copy number
EGFR-activating mutations
have been identified
Most common known cause
of acquired resistance to first-
and second-line EGFR TKIs is a
T790M secondary mutation
Lynch. NEJM. 2004;350:2129. Paez. Science. 2004;304:1497. Herbst. NEJM. 2008;359:136.
155. EGFR Mutational Epidemiology
Found in ~ 10% of NSCLC
patients in the US
More common in never-
smokers, adenocarcinomas,
females, Asians
Predominantly located in
EGFR exons 18-21
The specific EGFR mutation
identified is important:
sensitive mutations, primary
resistance mutations, and
de novo and acquired
resistance mutations
Irmer. Oncogene. 2007;26:5693. Pao. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2556. Wu. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:430.
Fang. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014;8:1595. Shea. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2016;10:113. Wang. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:3711.
EGFR Kinase Domain Mutations
Ligand Binding Transmembrane Tyrosine Kinase Autophosphorylation
N
N
K754R S768I*
L861Q*
A871G
L833V/
H835L/
L838V
E884K
L858R
~ 41%
Ins761 (EAFQ)/
Ins770 (ASV)/
Ins771 (G)/
Ins774 (NPH)
~ 3%
G719S*
~ 5%
E709A/
E709G
C
C
Y891
Y920
Y992
Y1045
Y1068
Y1086
Y1148
Y1173
T790M
~ 3%
EXON 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
del 747-752
and others
~ 48%
*Noncanonical EGFR mutations.
156. EGFR Mutations: Context
Found in ~ 10% of NSCLC patients in the US[1]
More common in never-smokers, adenocarcinomas, females, Asians[2]
Predominantly located in EGFR exons 18-21[3]
‒ 85% to 90% of EGFR mutations are either deletions in exon 19 or a single
point mutation in exon 21 (L858R)
The specific EGFR mutation identified is important
‒ There are sensitive mutations, primary resistance mutations (often exon
20), and de novo and acquired resistance mutations (T790M)[2-4]
1. Graham. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:163. 2. Wang. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:3711.
3. Fang. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014;8:1595. 4. Morgillo. ESMO Open. 2016;1:e000060.
157. ARCHER 1050:
1st-line dacomitinib
better than gefitinib
EGFR mutations sensitive to
erlotinib and gefitinib discovered
in lung adenocarcinoma
Evolution of Care: EGFR Mutation–Positive Advanced
NSCLC
EGFR inhibitors
enter clinical
development
IPASS:
1st-line gefitinib
better than CT
OPTIMAL:
1st-line erlotinib
better than CT
Mutation testing
included in
diagnostic workup
1997 2004 2009 2010 2013 2015
AURA: 2nd-line
osimertinib better than CT
against EGFR T790M
2018
Herbst. Nature. 2018;553:446. Mok. NEJM. 2009;361:947. Zhou. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:735. Sequist. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327. Yang. Lancet
Oncol. 2015;16:141. Wu. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:213.Soria. NEJM. 2018;378:113. Wu. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1454. Mok. NEJM. 2017;376:1993.
Drug
Approvals/
Other
Landmarks
Select
Trials
Erlotinib:
1st line
Gefitinib:
1st line
Osimertinib:
2nd line
T790M+
with plasma
ctDNA test
Osimertinib:
1st line
FLAURA:
1st-line
osimertinib
better than
1st-gen TKI
2017
LUX-Lung 3 & 6:
1st-line afatinib
better than CT
Dacomitinib:
1st line
2016
Afatinib:
1st line
159. EGFR TKIs: Structures
Erlotinib
First generation
FDA approved: 2011
Afatinib PI. Dacomitinib PI. Erlotinib PI. Gefitinib PI. Osimertinib PI.
Gefitinib
First generation
FDA approved: 2015
Afatinib
Second generation
FDA approved: 2013
Osimertinib
Third generation
FDA approved: 2015
O
N
HN
N
N
F
O
O
CI
F
CI NH
N
N
H
N
COOH
COOH
COOH
COOH
CH3
CH3N
OO
O
N
N
N
N N
N
H O
O NH
O
O
OH
S
HN
N
N
O
O
O
O
HCI
Dacomitinib
Second generation
FDA approved: 2018
O
H3CO
N
HN
HN
N
N
F
CI
H2O
161. Parameter Erlotinib Gefitinib Afatinib Osimertinib Dacomitinib
Receptor
binding
EGFR/HER1,*
SRC, ABL?
EGFR/HER1,*
IGF, PDGF
EGFR/HER1,*
HER2, HER4
EGFR/HER1,*
HER2, HER3,
HER4, BLK,
ACK1
EGFR/HER1,*
HER2, HER4
EGFR binding Reversible Reversible Irreversible Irreversible Irreversible
Half-life, hrs 36 48 37 48 59-85
Food effect
(take on empty
stomach)
Increase F from
~ 60% to ~ 100%
No change Decrease
AUC by 39%
No change No change
CNS
penetration,
AUC ratio
0.03X
CSF/plasma
0.01X
CSF/serum
0.02X
CSF/plasma
2X
Brain/plasma
Data not
available
EGFR TKIs: Properties
*All inhibit exon 19 deletion and L858R.
Afatinib PI. Erlotinib PI. Gefitinib PI. Osimertinib PI. Boehrer. Cell Cycle. 2011;10:3168. Togashi. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;70:399.
Tamiya. ESMO 2016. Abstract 1241P. Engelman. Cancer Res. 2007;67:11924. Gonzales. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008;7:1880. Jänne. Clin Cancer Res.
2011;17:1131. Ou. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:5641. Hochmair. Target Oncol. 2018;13:269.
162. First-line EGFR TKIs vs Chemotherapy in
EGFR Mutation–Positive NSCLC: A Clear Pattern
1. Maemondo. NEJM. 2010;362:2380. 2. Mitsudomi. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:121. 3. Yoshioka. ASCO 2014. Abstr 8117. 4. Zhou. Lancet Oncol.
2011;12:735-. 5. Zhou. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1877. 6. Rosell. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:239. 7. Khozin. Oncologist. 2014;19:774. 8. Sequist. J Clin
Oncol. 2013;31:3327. 9. Yang. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:141. 10. Wu. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:213.
Study N Treatment ORR, % Median PFS, Mos Median OS, Mos
NEJ002[1] 230
Gefitinib vs
carboplatin/paclitaxel
74 vs 31
10.8 vs 5.4
(P < .001)
30.5 vs 23.6
(HR: 0.89)
WJTOG
3405[2,3] 172
Gefitinib vs
cisplatin/docetaxel
62 vs 32
9.6 vs 6.6
(P < .001)
34.8 vs 37.3
(HR: 1.25)
OPTIMAL[4,5] 165
Erlotinib vs
carboplatin/gemcitabine
83 vs 36
13.1 vs 4.6
(P < .0001)
22.8 vs 27.2
(HR: 1.19)
EURTAC[6,7] 174
Erlotinib vs platinum-
based chemotherapy
58 vs 15
9.7 vs 5.2
(P < .0001)
22.9 vs 19.5
(HR: 0.93)
LUX-Lung 3[8,9] 345
Afatanib vs
cisplatin/pemetrexed
56 vs 23
11.1 vs 6.9
(P = .001)
28.2 vs 28.2
(HR: 0.88)
LUX-Lung 6[9,10] 364
Afatinib vs
cisplatin/gemcitabine
67 vs 23
11.0 vs 5.6
(P < .0001)
23.1 vs 23.5
(HR: 0.93)
163. First-line Treatment With EGFR TKIs in EGFR-Mutated
NSCLC
1. Maemondo. NEJM. 2010;362:2380. 2. Mitsudomi. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:121. 3. Yoshioka. ASCO 2014. Abstr 8117.
4. Zhou C. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:735. 5. Rosell. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:239. 6. Sequist. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327.
7. Wu. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:213. 8. Park. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:577. 9. Soria. NEJM. 2018;378:113. 10. Wu. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1454.
Agent/Study N Control Arm ORR, % Median PFS, Mos
Gefitinib
NEJ002[1]
WJTOG 3405[2,3]
230
172
Carboplatin/paclitaxel
Cisplatin/docetaxel
74 vs 31
62 vs 32
10.8 vs 5.4
9.6 vs 6.6
Erlotinib
OPTIMAL[4]
EURTAC[5]
165
174
Carboplatin/gemcitabine
Plt-based chemotherapy
83 vs 36
58 vs 15
13.1 vs 4.6
9.4 vs 5.2
Afatinib
LUX-Lung 3[6]
LUX-Lung 6[7]
LUX-Lung 7[8]
345
364
319
Cisplatin/pemetrexed
Cisplatin/gemcitabine
Gefitinib
56 vs 23
67 vs 23
70 vs 56
11.1 vs 6.9
11.0 vs 5.6
11.0 vs 10.9
Osimertinib
FLAURA[9] 556 Erlotinib or gefitinib 80 vs 76 18.9 vs 10.2
Dacomitinib
ARCHER 1050[10] 452 Gefitinib 75 vs 72 14.7 vs 9.2
164. Comparison of First-line Options for EGFR-Positive
NSCLC in 2019
*Not approved.
Agent Comparator Agent PFS QoL OS Toxicity CNS
Osimertinib[1] Gefitinib/erlotinib +++ +++ Pending Less +++
Dacomitinib[2-4] Gefitinib +++ Pending + More ++
Gefitinib +
plt-based CT[5]*
Gefitinib +++ NR ++ More NR
Erlotinib +
bevacizumab[6,7]*
Erlotinib +++ NR = More NR
Afatinib[8,9] Gefitinib +/- = = More ++
Gefitinib[10,11] Plt-based CT +++ +++ = Less +
Erlotinib[12-15] Plt-based CT +++ NR = Less +
1. Soira. NEJM. 2018 378:113. 2. Wu. Lancet Onc. 2017;18:1454. 3. Mok. ASCO 2018. Abstr 9004. 4. Mok. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2244. 5.
Nakamura. ASCO 2018. Abstr 9005. 6. Seto. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1236. 7. Saito. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:625. 8. Paz-Ares. Ann Oncol.
2017;28:270. 9. Park. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:577. 10. Maemondo. NEJM. 2010;362:2380. 11. Mitsudomi. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:121. 12. Zhou.
Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:735. 13. Zhou. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1877. 14. Rosell. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:239. 15. Khozin. Oncologist. 2014;19:774.
165. EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: First-line Treatment
Considerations
Head-to-head randomized FLAURA trial (N = 556): superior PFS with first-line
osimertinib vs erlotinib/gefitinib (18.9 vs 10.2 mos, respectively)[1]
Cost savings could be significant with sequential treatment
‒ Osimertinib: $584 per dose[2]
‒ Erlotinib: $338 per dose[2]
Using erlotinib first followed by osimertinib seems just as good BUT
‒ Not everyone will have a T790M-acquired mutation in second line
‒ In FLAURA, only 46% of the standard-treatment group received a second-line
EGFR TKI–containing regimen[1]
‒ In FLAURA, 12% and 17% died before second-line therapy[1]
1. Soria. NEJM. 2018;378:113. 2. Medi-Span Price Rx. February 2019. Available at: https://www.wolterskluwercdi.com/price-rx.
166. The landscape of NSCLC continues to evolve
‒ 47% of all lung cancer is adenocarcinoma, with 23% having EGFR
sensitizing mutations; represents ~ 10% of all advanced NSCLC in US
Liquid biopsy is approved for detection of EGFR mutations
‒ Easier than standard tissue biopsy, with the potential to better capture
tumor heterogeneity with further optimization
Third-generation EGFR TKIs (eg, osimertinib) are more specific for
mutated EGFR, associated with less toxicity
‒ Better CNS penetration
Consider treatment beyond progression
167. What About Sequencing?
Erlotinib/gefitinib 1st line
10.2 mos
Erlotinib/gefitinib 1st line
10.2 mos
Osimertinib 1st line
18.9 mos
Osimertinib 2nd line
10.1 mos
T790M-
(~ 40%)
T790M+
(~ 60%)
All
. . . resistance inevitably develops
Yu. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:2240. Soria. NEJM. 2018;378:113. Mok. NEJM 2017; 376:629.
168. EGFR Mutation–Positive NSCLC: Current Treatment
Paradigm and First-line Approvals
Approved for EGFR exon 19
deletions and exon 21 L858R
point mutation
‒ Afatinib, dacomitinib, erlotinib,
gefitinib, and osimertinib
Approved for EGFR point
mutations G719X, S768I, and
L861Q
‒ Afatinib
Progression
Melosky. Clin Lung Cancer. 2018;19:42. Erlotinib PI. Gefitinib PI. Afatinib PI. Osimertinib PI. Dacomitinib PI.
EGFR mutation positive
Follow treatment options for
adenocarcinoma or squamous cell
carcinoma without actionable biomarker
Osimertinib
EGFR T790M
mutation negative or
previous osimertinib
Osimertinib (preferred),
afatinib, dacomitinib, erlotinib,
or gefitinib
EGFR T790M
mutation positive
169. Acquired Resistance to EGFR TKI: Proposed Approach to
EGFR T790M Mutation Genotyping
Oxnard. JCO. 2016;34:3375.
Conventional Approach for T790M Genotyping
Proposed Approach for T790M Genotyping
All patients undergo
biopsy, FDA-approved
FFPE assay for T790M
T790M+
T790M-
Third-generation EGFR TKI
Chemotherapy
FDA-approved plasma
assay for T790M and
sensitizing mutations
T790M+
T790M-
Skip biopsy, start third-
generation EGFR TKI
Biopsy, FDA-approved
FFPE assay for T790M
T790M+
T790M-
Third-generation
EGFR TKI
Chemotherapy
172. Improved QoL With First-line EGFR TKI for EGFR Mutation–
Positive NSCLC
IPASS[1]: Gefitinib vs plt-based doublet chemotherapy showed improvement with FACT-L
NEJ002[2]: Gefitinib vs plt-based doublet chemotherapy showed improvement assessed with Care
Notebook
First Signal: Gefitinib vs plt-based doublet chemotherapy showed improvement assessed with EORTC
QoL C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires
OPTIMAL[4]: Erlotinib vs plt-based doublet chemotherapy showed improvement in FACT-L and LCS
scores
LUX-Lung-3[5] : Afatinib vs plt-based doublet chemotherapy showed statistically significant delay in
time to deterioration of cough, dyspnea; improvement in dyspnea scores, cognitive and physical role
functions assessed by EORTC QoL C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires
1. Thongprasert S, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:1872-1180.
2. Oizumi S, et al. Oncologist. 2012;17:863-870.
3. Han JY, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1122-1128.
4. Chen G, et al. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1615-1622.
5. Yang JC, J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3342-3350.
174. Mok. NEJM. 2009;361:947.
IPASS: First-line Gefitinib vs Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in
Advanced NSCLC
Open-label phase III trial conducted in Asian countries
Primary endpoint: PFS
Secondary endpoints: OS, ORR, QoL, symptom reduction, safety
Biomarker analysis
Previously untreated
patients with stage IIIB/IV
NSCLC, adenocarcinoma,
never or ex-light smokers,
WHO PS 0-2
(N = 1217)
Gefitinib 250 mg/day PO
(n = 609)
Paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 IV on Day 1 +
Carboplatin AUC 5-6 mg/mL/min IV on Day 1
Up to six 3-wk cycles
(n = 608)