PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC randomized to amivantamab-lazertinib (n = 429) or osimertinib (n = 429) in MARIPOSA. Pathogenic alterations were identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of baseline blood ctDNA with Guardant360 CDx. Ex19del and L858R ctDNA in blood was analyzed at baseline and cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1) with Biodesix droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR).
RESULTS: Baseline ctDNA for NGS of pathogenic alterations was available for 636 patients (amivantamab-lazertinib, n = 320; osimertinib, n = 316). Amivantamab-lazertinib improved median PFS (mPFS) versus osimertinib for patients with TP53 co-mutations {18.2 versus 12.9 months; HR 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.87]; P = 0.003} and for patients with wild-type TP53 [22.1 versus 19.9 months; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.52-1.07)]. In patients with EGFR-mutant, ddPCR-detectable baseline ctDNA, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib [20.3 versus 14.8 months; HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53-0.86); P = 0.002]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly improved mPFS versus osimertinib in patients without ctDNA clearance at C3D1 [16.5 versus 9.1 months; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.87); P = 0.015] and with clearance [24.0 versus 16.5 months; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.48-0.87); P = 0.004]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib among randomized patients with [18.2 versus 11.0 months; HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.37-0.91); P = 0.017] and without baseline liver metastases [24.0 versus 18.3 months; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91); P = 0.004].
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-lazertinib effectively overcomes the effect of high-risk features and represents a promising new standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.
Objectives: To identify novel genome-wide significant loci for PD in Asian individuals and to compare genetic risk between Asian and European cohorts.
Design Setting, and Participants: Genome-wide association data generated from PD cases and controls in an Asian population (ie, Singapore/Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China, and South Korea) were collected from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, as part of an ongoing study. Results were combined with inverse variance meta-analysis, and replication of top loci in European and Japanese samples was performed. Discovery samples of 31 575 individuals passing quality control of 35 994 recruited were used, with a greater than 90% participation rate. A replication cohort of 1 926 361 European-ancestry and 3509 Japanese samples was analyzed. Parkinson disease was diagnosed using UK Parkinson's Disease Society Brain Bank Criteria.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Genotypes of common variants, association with disease status, and polygenic risk scores.
Results: Of 31 575 samples identified, 6724 PD cases (mean [SD] age, 64.3 [10] years; age at onset, 58.8 [10.6] years; 3472 [53.2%] men) and 24 851 controls (age, 59.4 [11.4] years; 11 030 [45.0%] men) were analyzed in the discovery study. Eleven genome-wide significant loci were identified; 2 of these loci were novel (SV2C and WBSCR17) and 9 were previously found in Europeans. Replication in European-ancestry and Japanese samples showed robust association for SV2C (rs246814; odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21; P = 1.17 × 10-10 in meta-analysis of discovery and replication samples) but showed potential genetic heterogeneity at WBSCR17 (rs9638616; I2=67.1%; P = 3.40 × 10-3 for hetereogeneity). Polygenic risk score models including variants at these 11 loci were associated with a significant improvement in area under the curve over the model based on 78 European loci alone (63.1% vs 60.2%; P = 6.81 × 10-12).
Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified 2 apparently novel gene loci and found 9 previously identified European loci to be associated with PD in this large, meta-genome-wide association study in a worldwide population of Asian individuals and reports similarities and differences in genetic risk factors between Asian and European individuals in the risk for PD. These findings may lead to improved stratification of Asian patients and controls based on polygenic risk scores. Our findings have potential academic and clinical importance for risk stratification and precision medicine in Asia.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a Delphi-based approach, a multidisciplinary panel of 50 international experts from 26 countries reached a consensus on some of the open research questions regarding the link between MAFLD and CKD.
CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi-based consensus statement provided guidance on the epidemiology, mechanisms, management and treatment of MAFLD and CKD, as well as the relationship between the severity of MAFLD and risk of CKD, which establish a framework for the early prevention and management of these two common and interconnected diseases.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC who progressed following osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous or intravenous amivantamab, both combined with lazertinib. Co-primary pharmacokinetic noninferiority endpoints were trough concentrations (Ctrough; on cycle-2-day-1 or cycle-4-day-1) and cycle-2 area under the curve (AUCD1-D15). Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a predefined exploratory endpoint.
RESULTS: Overall, 418 patients underwent randomization (subcutaneous group, n=206; intravenous group, n=212). Geometric mean ratios of Ctrough for subcutaneous to intravenous amivantamab were 1.15 (90% CI, 1.04-1.26) at cycle-2-day-1 and 1.42 (90% CI, 1.27-1.61) at cycle-4-day-1; the cycle-2 AUCD1-D15 was 1.03 (90% CI, 0.98-1.09). ORR was 30% in the subcutaneous and 33% in the intravenous group; median PFS was 6.1 and 4.3 months, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the subcutaneous versus intravenous group (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92; nominal P=0.02). Fewer patients in the subcutaneous group experienced infusion-related reactions (13% versus 66%) and venous thromboembolism (9% versus 14%) versus the intravenous group. Median administration time for first infusion was reduced to 4.8 minutes (range, 0-18) for subcutaneous amivantamab from 5 hours (range, 0.2-9.9) for intravenous amivantamab. During cycle-1-day-1, 85% and 52% of patients in the subcutaneous and intravenous groups, respectively, considered treatment convenient; end-of-treatment rates were 85% and 35%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous amivantamab-lazertinib demonstrated noninferiority to intravenous amivantamab-lazertinib, offering a consistent safety profile with reduced infusion-related reactions, increased convenience, and prolonged survival.