MyMedR

Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group Expert Consensus Statement on Optimal Management of Stage III NSCLC

Tan WL, Chua KLM, Lin CC, Lee VHF, Tho LM, Chan AW, et al.

J Thorac Oncol, 2020 03;15(3):324-343.
PMID: 31733357 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.10.022

Stage III NSCLC represents a heterogeneous disease for which optimal treatment continues to pose a clinical challenge. Recent changes in the American Joint Commission on Cancer staging to the eighth edition has led to a shift in TNM stage grouping and redefined the subcategories (IIIA-C) in stage III NSCLC for better prognostication. Although concurrent chemoradiotherapy has remained standard-of-care for stage III NSCLC for almost 2 decades, contemporary considerations include the impact of different molecular subsets of NSCLC, and the roles of tyrosine kinase inhibitors post-definitive therapy and of immune checkpoint inhibitors following chemoradiotherapy. With rapid evolution of diagnostic algorithms and expanding treatment options, the need for interdisciplinary input involving multiple specialists (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, radiologists, pathologists and thoracic surgeons) has become increasingly important. The unique demographics of Asian NSCLC pose further challenges when applying clinical trial data into clinical practice. This includes differences in smoking rates, prevalence of oncogenic driver mutations, and access to health care resources including molecular testing, prompting the need for critical review of existing data and identification of current gaps. In this expert consensus statement by the Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group, an interdisciplinary group of experts representing Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Mainland China was convened. Standard clinical practices for stage III NSCLC across different Asian countries were discussed from initial diagnosis and staging through to multi-modality approaches including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, targeted therapies, and immunotherapy.
Fulltext Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG) Expert Consensus Statement on MET Alterations in NSCLC: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Considerations

Ahn MJ, Mendoza MJL, Pavlakis N, Kato T, Soo RA, Kim DW, et al.

Clin Lung Cancer, 2022 Dec;23(8):670-685.
PMID: 36151006 DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2022.07.012

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease, with many oncogenic driver mutations, including de novo mutations in the Mesenchymal Epithelial Transition (MET) gene (specifically in Exon 14 [ex14]), that lead to tumourigenesis. Acquired alterations in the MET gene, specifically MET amplification is also associated with the development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Although MET has become an actionable biomarker with the availability of MET-specific inhibitors in selected countries, there is differential accessibility to diagnostic platforms and targeted therapies across countries in Asia-Pacific (APAC). The Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG), an interdisciplinary group of experts from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mainland China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam, discussed testing for MET alterations and considerations for using MET-specific inhibitors at a consensus meeting in January 2022, and in subsequent offline consultation. Consensus recommendations are provided by the ATORG group to address the unmet need for standardised approaches to diagnosing MET alterations in NSCLC and for using these therapies. MET inhibitors may be considered for first-line or second or subsequent lines of treatment for patients with advanced and metastatic NSCLC harbouring MET ex14 skipping mutations; MET ex14 testing is preferred within multi-gene panels for detecting targetable driver mutations in NSCLC. For patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and MET amplification leading to EGFR TKI resistance, enrolment in combination trials of EGFR TKIs and MET inhibitors is encouraged.
Pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in platinum-pretreated, recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer (KEYNOTE-122): an open-label, randomized, phase III trial

Chan ATC, Lee VHF, Hong RL, Ahn MJ, Chong WQ, Kim SB, et al.

Ann Oncol, 2023 Mar;34(3):251-261.
PMID: 36535566 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.12.007

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab previously demonstrated robust antitumor activity and manageable safety in a phase Ib study of patients with heavily pretreated, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive, recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The phase III KEYNOTE-122 study was conducted to further evaluate pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-pretreated, recurrent and/or metastatic NPC. Final analysis results are presented.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-122 was an open-label, randomized study conducted at 29 sites, globally. Participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with capecitabine, gemcitabine, or docetaxel. Randomization was stratified by liver metastasis (present versus absent). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using the stratified log-rank test (superiority threshold, one-sided P = 0.0187). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population.
RESULTS: Between 5 May 2016 and 28 May 2018, 233 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (pembrolizumab, n = 117; chemotherapy, n = 116); Most participants (86.7%) received study treatment in the second-line or later setting. Median time from randomization to data cut-off (30 November 2020) was 45.1 months (interquartile range, 39.0-48.8 months). Median OS was 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7-22.9 months] with pembrolizumab and 15.3 months (95% CI 10.9-18.1 months) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio, 0.90 (95% CI 0.67-1.19; P = 0.2262)]. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12 of 116 participants (10.3%) with pembrolizumab and 49 of 112 participants (43.8%) with chemotherapy. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: 1 participant (0.9%) with pembrolizumab (pneumonitis) and 2 (1.8%) with chemotherapy (pneumonia, intracranial hemorrhage).
CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS compared with chemotherapy in participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC but did have manageable safety and a lower incidence of treatment-related adverse events.
Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From LASER301

Cho BC, Ahn MJ, Kang JH, Soo RA, Reungwetwattana T, Yang JC, et al.

J Clin Oncol, 2023 Sep 10;41(26):4208-4217.
PMID: 37379502 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00515

PURPOSE: Lazertinib is a potent, CNS-penetrant, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This global, phase III study (LASER301) compared lazertinib versus gefitinib in treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion [ex19del]/L858R) locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older with no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Neurologically stable patients with CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to lazertinib 240 mg once daily orally or gefitinib 250 mg once daily orally, stratified by mutation status and race. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1.
RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients received double-blind study treatment across 96 sites in 13 countries. Median PFS was significantly longer with lazertinib than with gefitinib (20.6 v 9.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58; P < .001). The PFS benefit of lazertinib over gefitinib was consistent across all predefined subgroups. The objective response rate was 76% in both groups (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.59). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 24.9) with lazertinib versus 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 10.9) with gefitinib. Overall survival data were immature at the interim analysis (29% maturity). The 18-month survival rate was 80% with lazertinib and 72% with gefitinib (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P = .116). Observed safety of both treatments was consistent with their previously reported safety profiles.
CONCLUSION: Lazertinib demonstrated significant efficacy improvement compared with gefitinib in the first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, with a manageable safety profile.
Fulltext Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Treatment-Naíve Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: Analysis of the Asian Subpopulation in LASER301

Reungwetwattana T, Cho BC, Lee KH, Pang YK, Fong CH, Kang JH, et al.

J Thorac Oncol, 2023 Oct;18(10):1351-1361.
PMID: 37702629 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.06.016

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib is a third-generation central nervous system-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting mutant EGFR in NSCLC. Lazertinib exhibited improved efficacy versus gefitinib in the LASER301 study; this subset analysis compared lazertinib with gefitinib among Asian patients.
METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.
RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In LASER301, efficacy and safety results in Asian patients were consistent with the overall population. Lazertinib exhibited better efficacy than gefitinib in Asian patients with a tolerable safety profile.
Fulltext Central Nervous System Outcomes of Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: A LASER301 Subset Analysis

Soo RA, Cho BC, Kim JH, Ahn MJ, Lee KH, Zimina A, et al.

J Thorac Oncol, 2023 Dec;18(12):1756-1766.
PMID: 37865896 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.08.017

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib, a third-generation mutant-selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved progression-free survival compared with gefitinib in the phase 3 LASER301 study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248829). Here, we report the efficacy of lazertinib and gefitinib in patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) metastases.
METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response.
RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.