DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective case series.

METHODS: Retrospective review.

RESULTS: Seven patients presented with corneal findings ranging from superficial punctate epitheliopathy to bilateral corneal melt with subsequent perforation. Among those with mild corneal findings, resolution was achieved with topical steroids and lubrication, whereas some patients who developed progressive corneal melt required therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty. The history in all patients revealed exposure to aquarium zoanthid corals shortly before disease onset. A review of the literature revealed that there are few prior reports of coral-associated corneal toxicity and that some species of coral secrete a substance known as palytoxin, a potent vasoconstrictor that inhibits the membranous sodium-potassium ATPase pump across cell types and can cause rapid death if inhaled or ingested.

METHODS: Eligible Asian patients (enrolled at Asian sites) who were at least 18 years of age (≥20 years in Japan) and had untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg, orally once daily) or an SoC EGFR TKI (gefitinib, 250 mg, or erlotinib, 150 mg, orally once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). The key secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, central nervous system efficacy, and safety.

RESULTS: The median PFS was 16.5 versus 11.0 months for the osimertinib and SoC EGFR TKI groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.72, p < 0.0001). The overall survival data were immature (24% maturity). The objective response rates were 80% for osimertinib and 75% for an SoC EGFR TKI. The median central nervous system PFS was not calculable for the osimertinib group and was 13.8 months for the SoC EGFR TKI group (hazard ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-1.17, p = 0.118). Fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher (40% versus 48%) and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (15% versus 21%) were reported with osimertinib versus with an SoC EGFR TKI, respectively.

METHODS: OR cells were established via stepwise-dose escalation and limiting single-cell dilution method. We then evaluated Osimertinib resistance potential via cell viability assay. Proteins expression related to EGFR-signalling, epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), and autophagy were analyzed via western blot.

RESULTS: OR cell lines exhibited increased drug resistance potential compared to H1975. Distinguishable mesenchymal-like features were observed in OR cells. Protein expression analysis revealed EGFR-independent signaling involved in the derived OR cells as well as EMT and autophagy activity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.

RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.