Key clinical point: Adagrasib shows favorable clinical efficacy without any new safety signals in patients with previously treated KRAS^G12C-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, 42.9% had a confirmed objective response. The median progression-free survival was 6.5 (95% CI 4.7-8.4) months. At a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median overall survival was 12.6 (95% CI 9.2-19.2) months. The treatment-related adverse events of grade 1/2 and 3 occurred in 52.6% and 44.8% of patients, respectively.

Study details: This registrational phase 2 cohort study investigated adagrasib in 116 patients with KRAS^G12C-mutated NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with or without anti-programmed death 1 or programmed death ligand 1 therapy.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics. The authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including employment or stock options in Mirati Therapeutics.

Source: Jänne PA et al. Adagrasib in non–small-cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS^G12Cmutation. N Engl J Med. 2022 (Jun 3). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204619

Key clinical point: Adagrasib shows favorable clinical efficacy without any new safety signals in patients with previously treated KRAS^G12C-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, 42.9% had a confirmed objective response. The median progression-free survival was 6.5 (95% CI 4.7-8.4) months. At a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median overall survival was 12.6 (95% CI 9.2-19.2) months. The treatment-related adverse events of grade 1/2 and 3 occurred in 52.6% and 44.8% of patients, respectively.

Study details: This registrational phase 2 cohort study investigated adagrasib in 116 patients with KRAS^G12C-mutated NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with or without anti-programmed death 1 or programmed death ligand 1 therapy.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics. The authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including employment or stock options in Mirati Therapeutics.

Source: Jänne PA et al. Adagrasib in non–small-cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS^G12Cmutation. N Engl J Med. 2022 (Jun 3). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204619

Key clinical point: Adagrasib shows favorable clinical efficacy without any new safety signals in patients with previously treated KRAS^G12C-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, 42.9% had a confirmed objective response. The median progression-free survival was 6.5 (95% CI 4.7-8.4) months. At a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median overall survival was 12.6 (95% CI 9.2-19.2) months. The treatment-related adverse events of grade 1/2 and 3 occurred in 52.6% and 44.8% of patients, respectively.

Study details: This registrational phase 2 cohort study investigated adagrasib in 116 patients with KRAS^G12C-mutated NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with or without anti-programmed death 1 or programmed death ligand 1 therapy.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics. The authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including employment or stock options in Mirati Therapeutics.

Source: Jänne PA et al. Adagrasib in non–small-cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS^G12Cmutation. N Engl J Med. 2022 (Jun 3). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204619

Key clinical point: A modeling study suggests that the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening of high-risk adults is likely to be cost saving by shifting lung cancer diagnosis to earlier stages.

Major finding: LDCT screening would lead to a stage shift toward earlier diagnosis, with 43% more patients being identified at stage I or II. The estimated screening costs, at $35.6 million, avoid $42 million in treating later stages of the disease, resulting in a cost saving of $6.65 million.

Study details: Canadian researchers used a decision analytic modeling technique to compare the benefits of earlier diagnosis of lung cancer with the costs of screening in current and former smokers aged 55-74 years.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. A Tremblay and D Steward reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies or health organizations. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Thanh NX et al. Expected cost savings from low dose computed tomography scan screening for lung cancer in Alberta, Canada. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022 (Jun 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100350

Key clinical point: A modeling study suggests that the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening of high-risk adults is likely to be cost saving by shifting lung cancer diagnosis to earlier stages.

Major finding: LDCT screening would lead to a stage shift toward earlier diagnosis, with 43% more patients being identified at stage I or II. The estimated screening costs, at $35.6 million, avoid $42 million in treating later stages of the disease, resulting in a cost saving of $6.65 million.

Study details: Canadian researchers used a decision analytic modeling technique to compare the benefits of earlier diagnosis of lung cancer with the costs of screening in current and former smokers aged 55-74 years.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. A Tremblay and D Steward reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies or health organizations. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Thanh NX et al. Expected cost savings from low dose computed tomography scan screening for lung cancer in Alberta, Canada. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022 (Jun 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100350

Key clinical point: A modeling study suggests that the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening of high-risk adults is likely to be cost saving by shifting lung cancer diagnosis to earlier stages.

Major finding: LDCT screening would lead to a stage shift toward earlier diagnosis, with 43% more patients being identified at stage I or II. The estimated screening costs, at $35.6 million, avoid $42 million in treating later stages of the disease, resulting in a cost saving of $6.65 million.

Study details: Canadian researchers used a decision analytic modeling technique to compare the benefits of earlier diagnosis of lung cancer with the costs of screening in current and former smokers aged 55-74 years.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. A Tremblay and D Steward reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies or health organizations. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Thanh NX et al. Expected cost savings from low dose computed tomography scan screening for lung cancer in Alberta, Canada. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022 (Jun 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100350

Key clinical point: Cemiplimab appears to have the most favorable benefit-risk ratio among the analyzed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: Cemiplimab was associated with the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) relative to chemotherapy (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0. 57-0.81), translating to the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 49.5%. Additionally, cemiplimab was associated with the lowest incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) relative to chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.17; 95% credible interval 0.06-0.45).

Study details: The data come from a network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (n = 7795). The SUCRA values of all ICI (cemiplimab, avelumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) were determined for OS and TRAE.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Jiang M et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled studies. Front Oncol. 2022;12:827050 (May 10). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.827050

Key clinical point: Cemiplimab appears to have the most favorable benefit-risk ratio among the analyzed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: Cemiplimab was associated with the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) relative to chemotherapy (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0. 57-0.81), translating to the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 49.5%. Additionally, cemiplimab was associated with the lowest incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) relative to chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.17; 95% credible interval 0.06-0.45).

Study details: The data come from a network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (n = 7795). The SUCRA values of all ICI (cemiplimab, avelumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) were determined for OS and TRAE.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Jiang M et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled studies. Front Oncol. 2022;12:827050 (May 10). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.827050

Key clinical point: Cemiplimab appears to have the most favorable benefit-risk ratio among the analyzed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: Cemiplimab was associated with the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) relative to chemotherapy (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0. 57-0.81), translating to the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 49.5%. Additionally, cemiplimab was associated with the lowest incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) relative to chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.17; 95% credible interval 0.06-0.45).

Study details: The data come from a network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (n = 7795). The SUCRA values of all ICI (cemiplimab, avelumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) were determined for OS and TRAE.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Jiang M et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled studies. Front Oncol. 2022;12:827050 (May 10). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.827050

Key clinical point: A meta-analysis suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors are not very effective against brain metastases (BM) in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), except in patients with a programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) of ≥50%.

Major finding: In PD-L1 unselected patients with any BM, the pooled intracranial objective response rate (icORR) was 13% and intracranial disease control rate (icDCR) was 50%. In patients with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%, the pooled icORR and icDCR increased to 68% and 82%, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 33 cohort studies involving 12,154 patients with NSCLC and 2744 patients with NSCLC and BM.

Disclosures: The study was partially funded by the China National Major Project for New Drug Innovation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen H et al. Brain metastases and immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2022 Jun 1. Doi: 10.1007/s00262-022-03224-2

Key clinical point: A meta-analysis suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors are not very effective against brain metastases (BM) in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), except in patients with a programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) of ≥50%.

Major finding: In PD-L1 unselected patients with any BM, the pooled intracranial objective response rate (icORR) was 13% and intracranial disease control rate (icDCR) was 50%. In patients with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%, the pooled icORR and icDCR increased to 68% and 82%, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 33 cohort studies involving 12,154 patients with NSCLC and 2744 patients with NSCLC and BM.

Disclosures: The study was partially funded by the China National Major Project for New Drug Innovation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen H et al. Brain metastases and immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2022 Jun 1. Doi: 10.1007/s00262-022-03224-2

Key clinical point: A meta-analysis suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors are not very effective against brain metastases (BM) in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), except in patients with a programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) of ≥50%.

Major finding: In PD-L1 unselected patients with any BM, the pooled intracranial objective response rate (icORR) was 13% and intracranial disease control rate (icDCR) was 50%. In patients with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%, the pooled icORR and icDCR increased to 68% and 82%, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 33 cohort studies involving 12,154 patients with NSCLC and 2744 patients with NSCLC and BM.

Disclosures: The study was partially funded by the China National Major Project for New Drug Innovation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen H et al. Brain metastases and immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2022 Jun 1. Doi: 10.1007/s00262-022-03224-2

Key clinical point: Adebrelimab plus chemotherapy improves overall survival (OS) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Major finding: The adebrelimab vs. placebo group demonstrated a longer median OS (15.3 vs. 12.8 months; hazard ratio 0.72; one-sided P = .0017). The frequency of treatment-related serious adverse events was 39% in the adebrelimab group vs. 28% in the placebo group.

Study details: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 CAPSTONE-1 trial included patients with ES-SCLC who were randomly assigned to receive the first-line adebrelimab (n = 230) or placebo (n = 232) on day 1 of each cycle plus chemotherapy (carboplatin and etoposide).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. C Zhou reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies. B Zhang, W Shi, and X Zhang are employees of Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Wang J et al. Adebrelimab or placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CAPSTONE-1): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(6):739-747 (May 13). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00224-8

Key clinical point: Adebrelimab plus chemotherapy improves overall survival (OS) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Major finding: The adebrelimab vs. placebo group demonstrated a longer median OS (15.3 vs. 12.8 months; hazard ratio 0.72; one-sided P = .0017). The frequency of treatment-related serious adverse events was 39% in the adebrelimab group vs. 28% in the placebo group.

Study details: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 CAPSTONE-1 trial included patients with ES-SCLC who were randomly assigned to receive the first-line adebrelimab (n = 230) or placebo (n = 232) on day 1 of each cycle plus chemotherapy (carboplatin and etoposide).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. C Zhou reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies. B Zhang, W Shi, and X Zhang are employees of Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Wang J et al. Adebrelimab or placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CAPSTONE-1): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(6):739-747 (May 13). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00224-8

Key clinical point: Adebrelimab plus chemotherapy improves overall survival (OS) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Major finding: The adebrelimab vs. placebo group demonstrated a longer median OS (15.3 vs. 12.8 months; hazard ratio 0.72; one-sided P = .0017). The frequency of treatment-related serious adverse events was 39% in the adebrelimab group vs. 28% in the placebo group.

Study details: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 CAPSTONE-1 trial included patients with ES-SCLC who were randomly assigned to receive the first-line adebrelimab (n = 230) or placebo (n = 232) on day 1 of each cycle plus chemotherapy (carboplatin and etoposide).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. C Zhou reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies. B Zhang, W Shi, and X Zhang are employees of Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Wang J et al. Adebrelimab or placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CAPSTONE-1): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(6):739-747 (May 13). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00224-8

Key clinical point: Lorlatinib extends progression-free survival (PFS) and reduces central nervous system (CNS) progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and with or without brain metastases at baseline.

Major finding: In patients with and without baseline brain metastasis, lorlatinib vs. crizotinib improved the 12-month PFS (78% vs. 22% and 78% vs. 45%, respectively) and 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression (7% vs. 72% and 1% vs. 18%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of the CROWN trial including patients with ALK+ NSCLC and with (n = 78) or without (n = 218) brain metastasis at baseline.

Disclosures: The CROWN trial was funded by Pfizer. Many authors reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Source: Solomon BJ et al. Post hoc analysis of lorlatinib intracranial efficacy and safety in patients with ALK-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer from the phase III CROWN study. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 23). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02278

Key clinical point: Lorlatinib extends progression-free survival (PFS) and reduces central nervous system (CNS) progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and with or without brain metastases at baseline.

Major finding: In patients with and without baseline brain metastasis, lorlatinib vs. crizotinib improved the 12-month PFS (78% vs. 22% and 78% vs. 45%, respectively) and 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression (7% vs. 72% and 1% vs. 18%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of the CROWN trial including patients with ALK+ NSCLC and with (n = 78) or without (n = 218) brain metastasis at baseline.

Disclosures: The CROWN trial was funded by Pfizer. Many authors reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Source: Solomon BJ et al. Post hoc analysis of lorlatinib intracranial efficacy and safety in patients with ALK-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer from the phase III CROWN study. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 23). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02278

Key clinical point: Lorlatinib extends progression-free survival (PFS) and reduces central nervous system (CNS) progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and with or without brain metastases at baseline.

Major finding: In patients with and without baseline brain metastasis, lorlatinib vs. crizotinib improved the 12-month PFS (78% vs. 22% and 78% vs. 45%, respectively) and 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression (7% vs. 72% and 1% vs. 18%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of the CROWN trial including patients with ALK+ NSCLC and with (n = 78) or without (n = 218) brain metastasis at baseline.

Disclosures: The CROWN trial was funded by Pfizer. Many authors reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Source: Solomon BJ et al. Post hoc analysis of lorlatinib intracranial efficacy and safety in patients with ALK-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer from the phase III CROWN study. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 23). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02278

Key clinical point: Ever-smokers treated with the first-line pembrolizumab for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a significantly longer overall survival (OS) compared with never-smokers.

Major finding: Ever-smokers vs. never-smokers treated with the first-line pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC had a 31% longer median OS (12.8 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.95) after adjusting for covariates.

Study details: The data come from a real-world retrospective cohort study of 1166 patients with advanced NSCLC (91 never-smokers and 1075 current or former smokers [ever-smokers]) treated with the first-line pembrolizumab in the U.S.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies or research organizations.

Source: Popat S et al. Association between smoking history and overall survival in patients receiving pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5):e2214046 (May 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.14046

Key clinical point: Ever-smokers treated with the first-line pembrolizumab for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a significantly longer overall survival (OS) compared with never-smokers.

Major finding: Ever-smokers vs. never-smokers treated with the first-line pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC had a 31% longer median OS (12.8 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.95) after adjusting for covariates.

Study details: The data come from a real-world retrospective cohort study of 1166 patients with advanced NSCLC (91 never-smokers and 1075 current or former smokers [ever-smokers]) treated with the first-line pembrolizumab in the U.S.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies or research organizations.

Source: Popat S et al. Association between smoking history and overall survival in patients receiving pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5):e2214046 (May 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.14046

Key clinical point: Ever-smokers treated with the first-line pembrolizumab for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a significantly longer overall survival (OS) compared with never-smokers.

Major finding: Ever-smokers vs. never-smokers treated with the first-line pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC had a 31% longer median OS (12.8 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.95) after adjusting for covariates.

Study details: The data come from a real-world retrospective cohort study of 1166 patients with advanced NSCLC (91 never-smokers and 1075 current or former smokers [ever-smokers]) treated with the first-line pembrolizumab in the U.S.

Disclosures: No funding source was identified. The authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies or research organizations.

Source: Popat S et al. Association between smoking history and overall survival in patients receiving pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5):e2214046 (May 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.14046

Key clinical point: Lorlatinib extends progression-free survival (PFS) and reduces central nervous system (CNS) progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and with or without brain metastases at baseline.

Major finding: In patients with and without baseline brain metastasis, lorlatinib vs. crizotinib improved the 12-month PFS (78% vs. 22% and 78% vs. 45%, respectively) and 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression (7% vs. 72% and 1% vs. 18%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of the CROWN trial including patients with ALK+ NSCLC and with (n = 78) or without (n = 218) brain metastasis at baseline.

Disclosures: The CROWN trial was funded by Pfizer. Many authors reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Source: Solomon BJ et al. Post hoc analysis of lorlatinib intracranial efficacy and safety in patients with ALK-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer from the phase III CROWN study. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 23). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02278

Key clinical point: Lorlatinib extends progression-free survival (PFS) and reduces central nervous system (CNS) progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and with or without brain metastases at baseline.

Major finding: In patients with and without baseline brain metastasis, lorlatinib vs. crizotinib improved the 12-month PFS (78% vs. 22% and 78% vs. 45%, respectively) and 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression (7% vs. 72% and 1% vs. 18%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of the CROWN trial including patients with ALK+ NSCLC and with (n = 78) or without (n = 218) brain metastasis at baseline.

Disclosures: The CROWN trial was funded by Pfizer. Many authors reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Source: Solomon BJ et al. Post hoc analysis of lorlatinib intracranial efficacy and safety in patients with ALK-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer from the phase III CROWN study. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 23). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02278

Key clinical point: Lorlatinib extends progression-free survival (PFS) and reduces central nervous system (CNS) progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and with or without brain metastases at baseline.

Major finding: In patients with and without baseline brain metastasis, lorlatinib vs. crizotinib improved the 12-month PFS (78% vs. 22% and 78% vs. 45%, respectively) and 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression (7% vs. 72% and 1% vs. 18%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of the CROWN trial including patients with ALK+ NSCLC and with (n = 78) or without (n = 218) brain metastasis at baseline.

Disclosures: The CROWN trial was funded by Pfizer. Many authors reported ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Source: Solomon BJ et al. Post hoc analysis of lorlatinib intracranial efficacy and safety in patients with ALK-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer from the phase III CROWN study. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 23). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02278

Key clinical point: Aumolertinib vs. gefitinib as the first-line therapy significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation (i.e., exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation).

Major finding: The aumolertinib vs. gefitinib group had a significantly longer median PFS (19.3 vs. 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; P < .0001). The PFS advantage of aumolertinib over gefitinib was substantial in the subgroup of patients with central nervous system metastases (15.3 vs. 8.2 months; HR 0.38; P < .0001).

Study details: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 AENEAS trial included 429 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the first-line aumolertinib or gefitinib once daily orally.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co, Ltd. Many authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including Hansoh Pharma.

Source: Lu S et al. AENEAS: A randomized phase III trial of aumolertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 17). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02641

Key clinical point: Aumolertinib vs. gefitinib as the first-line therapy significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation (i.e., exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation).

Major finding: The aumolertinib vs. gefitinib group had a significantly longer median PFS (19.3 vs. 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; P < .0001). The PFS advantage of aumolertinib over gefitinib was substantial in the subgroup of patients with central nervous system metastases (15.3 vs. 8.2 months; HR 0.38; P < .0001).

Study details: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 AENEAS trial included 429 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the first-line aumolertinib or gefitinib once daily orally.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co, Ltd. Many authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including Hansoh Pharma.

Source: Lu S et al. AENEAS: A randomized phase III trial of aumolertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 17). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02641

Key clinical point: Aumolertinib vs. gefitinib as the first-line therapy significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation (i.e., exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation).

Major finding: The aumolertinib vs. gefitinib group had a significantly longer median PFS (19.3 vs. 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; P < .0001). The PFS advantage of aumolertinib over gefitinib was substantial in the subgroup of patients with central nervous system metastases (15.3 vs. 8.2 months; HR 0.38; P < .0001).

Study details: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 AENEAS trial included 429 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the first-line aumolertinib or gefitinib once daily orally.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co, Ltd. Many authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including Hansoh Pharma.

Source: Lu S et al. AENEAS: A randomized phase III trial of aumolertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (May 17). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02641

Key clinical point: First-line tiragolumab plus atezolizumab vs. placebo plus atezolizumab is associated with a better objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive, recurrent, or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: The tiragolumab vs. placebo group demonstrated a superior ORR (31.3% vs. 16.2%; P = .031) and median PFS (5.4 vs. 3.6 months; stratified hazard ratio 0.57; P = .015). The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events in the tiragolumab and placebo groups were 21% and 18%, respectively.

Study details: This phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled CITYSCAPE trial included chemotherapy-naive patients with PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic NSCLC (with no EGFR or ALK alterations) who were randomly assigned to receive either tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (n = 67) or placebo plus atezolizumab (n = 68) once every 3 weeks.

Disclosures: The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. M Cobo, N Secen, and X Yang declared no competing interests. The other authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including employment or stock options in the funding companies.

Source: Cho BC et al. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): Primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(6):781-792 (May 13). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00226-1

Key clinical point: First-line tiragolumab plus atezolizumab vs. placebo plus atezolizumab is associated with a better objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive, recurrent, or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: The tiragolumab vs. placebo group demonstrated a superior ORR (31.3% vs. 16.2%; P = .031) and median PFS (5.4 vs. 3.6 months; stratified hazard ratio 0.57; P = .015). The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events in the tiragolumab and placebo groups were 21% and 18%, respectively.

Study details: This phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled CITYSCAPE trial included chemotherapy-naive patients with PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic NSCLC (with no EGFR or ALK alterations) who were randomly assigned to receive either tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (n = 67) or placebo plus atezolizumab (n = 68) once every 3 weeks.

Disclosures: The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. M Cobo, N Secen, and X Yang declared no competing interests. The other authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including employment or stock options in the funding companies.

Source: Cho BC et al. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): Primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(6):781-792 (May 13). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00226-1

Key clinical point: First-line tiragolumab plus atezolizumab vs. placebo plus atezolizumab is associated with a better objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive, recurrent, or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Major finding: The tiragolumab vs. placebo group demonstrated a superior ORR (31.3% vs. 16.2%; P = .031) and median PFS (5.4 vs. 3.6 months; stratified hazard ratio 0.57; P = .015). The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events in the tiragolumab and placebo groups were 21% and 18%, respectively.

Study details: This phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled CITYSCAPE trial included chemotherapy-naive patients with PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic NSCLC (with no EGFR or ALK alterations) who were randomly assigned to receive either tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (n = 67) or placebo plus atezolizumab (n = 68) once every 3 weeks.

Disclosures: The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. M Cobo, N Secen, and X Yang declared no competing interests. The other authors reported ties with one or more pharmaceutical companies, including employment or stock options in the funding companies.

Source: Cho BC et al. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): Primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(6):781-792 (May 13). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00226-1