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.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.
EXPERIMENTS: New graphene-philic surfactants carrying aromatic moieties in the hydrophilic headgroups and hydrophobic tails were synthesized by swapping the traditional sodium counterion with anilinium. 1H NMR spectroscopy was used to characterize the surfactants. These custom-made surfactants were used to assist the dispersion of GNPs in natural rubber latex matrices for the preparation of conductive nanocomposites. The properties of nanocomposites with the new anilinium surfactants were compared with commercial sodium surfactant sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS), sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS), and the previously synthesized aromatic tri-chain sodium surfactant TC3Ph3 (sodium 1,5-dioxo-1,5-bis(3-phenylpropoxy)-3-((3phenylpropoxy)carbonyl) pentane-2-sulfonate). Structural properties of the nanocomposites were studied using Raman spectroscopy, field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM). Electrical conductivity measurements and Zeta potential measurements were used to assess the relationships between total number of aromatic groups in the surfactant molecular structure and nanocomposite properties. The self-assembly structure of surfactants in aqueous systems and GNP dispersions was assessed using small-angle neutron scattering (SANS).
FINDINGS: Among these different surfactants, the anilinium version of TC3Ph3 namely TC3Ph3-AN (anilinium 1,5-dioxo-1,5-bis(3-phenylpropoxy)-3-((3phenylpropoxy)carbonyl) pentane-2-sulfonate) was shown to be highly efficient for dispersing GNPs in the NRL matrices, increasing electrical conductivity eleven orders of magnitude higher than the neat rubber latex. Comparisons between the sodium and anilinium surfactants show significant differences in the final properties of the nanocomposites. In general, the strategy of increasing the number of surfactant-borne aromatic groups by incorporating anilinium ions in surfactant headgroups appears to be effective.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue EGFRm status was determined at screening using the central cobas tissue test or a local tissue test. Baseline circulating tumor (ct)DNA EGFRm status was retrospectively determined with the central cobas plasma test.
RESULTS: Of 994 patients screened, 556 were randomized (289 and 267 with central and local EGFR test results, respectively) and 438 failed screening. Of those randomized from local EGFR test results, 217 patients had available central test results; 211/217 (97%) were retrospectively confirmed EGFRm positive by central cobas tissue test. Using reference central cobas tissue test results, positive percent agreements with cobas plasma test results for Ex19del and L858R detection were 79% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74-84] and 68% (95% CI, 61-75), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) superiority with osimertinib over comparator EGFR-TKI remained consistent irrespective of randomization route (central/local EGFRm-positive tissue test). In both treatment arms, PFS was prolonged in plasma ctDNA EGFRm-negative (23.5 and 15.0 months) versus -positive patients (15.2 and 9.7 months).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support utility of cobas tissue and plasma testing to aid selection of patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC for first-line osimertinib treatment. Lack of EGFRm detection in plasma was associated with prolonged PFS versus patients plasma EGFRm positive, potentially due to patients having lower tumor burden.