Lung Cancer

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Shortly after osimertinib was approved for patients with non–small cell lung cancer in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration, a patient came to me with increasing shortness of breath. He had been on erlotinib (Tarceva) for about 2 years and had done well. Nearly all of his pulmonary lesions had resolved and he was feeling well. He enjoyed boating in the summer and visiting grandkids in California in the winter. However, on this day, it was different. He was losing weight; he was tired and didn’t feel strong enough to put his boat in the water that spring. Long story short: We ordered a CT scan and all of his lesions were progressing. Since osimertinib had just been approved, we got a second biopsy, hoping that his insurance would pay for it. It did and sure enough, a new T790M mutation was present. He was on osimertinib for another 2 years before progressing and starting chemotherapy.

Second biopsies increasingly routine

The practice of ordering a second biopsy for patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) was not common practice until after 2015 when the Food and Drug Administration approved gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutations.

Up until then, second biopsies were not routinely done for lung cancers. But with the advent of targeted therapy and new drugs designed specifically to tackle first- and second-line treatment resistance mutations, rebiopsies have become a necessity for patients with progressive disease.

Epidermal growth factors, including HER2, ErbB2, and MET, are receptors of tyrosine kinases that control cell growth, but when in overdrive, they can lead to the development of cancers, including lung adenocarcinoma, conventional glioblastoma multiforme, glioblastoma, colon adenocarcinoma, and NSCLC.

EGFRs date back to 1962 with their discovery by Stanley Cohen. The discovery was so important that in 1986, Mr. Cohen was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery along with Rita Levi-Montalcini.

Now, many years later, we finally have a string of new approvals for mutations in the EGF family of receptors and several under study.

Sensitizing mutations

The more commonly used strategy for blocking EGFR signaling in lung cancer is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which compete with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for binding to the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor. They are located at chromosome 7p11.2. The most frequent mutations that sensitize patients to EGFR inhibitors include exon 19 deletions and L858R point mutation in exon 21, although multiple other driver mutations also exist.

The first-generation of EGFR TKIs include gefitinib and erlotinib, which bind reversibly to the EGF receptor. Second-generation inhibitors afatinib and dacomitinib bind irreversibly. Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, which also binds irreversibly, was approved in 2020 for adjuvant therapy, and first- and second-line treatment in patients with NSCLC who have EGFR mutation–positive disease.
 

First-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Four randomized, first-line, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials conducted with EGFR TKIs in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in an EGFR nonselected patient population failed to show a survival benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib (TRIBUTE, Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial, INTACT 1, INTACT 2).

However, a first-line study randomized patients to gefitinib or chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, and included patients with or without an EGFR mutations. In the subgroup of patients with an EGFR mutation, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48), whereas in the subgroup of patients who were negative for the mutation, PFS was significantly longer among those who received chemotherapy (HR for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85).

Numerous studies have shown that EGFR TKIs used in the first-line setting improved progression free survival, response rates, and quality of life while reducing toxicity. A recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving EGFR TKIs showed that EGFR TKI improved PFS with a HR of 0.40, compared with standard chemotherapy with fewer serious adverse events, although no benefit on overall survival was observed (HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .556).
 

T790M: The most common resistance mutation

T790M is the most common resistance mechanism to develop in patients with EGFR mutations being treated with EGFR TKIs. A randomized phase 3 trial of osimertinib vs. chemotherapy in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, reported a median duration of progression-free survival that was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.30). In addition, among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system, the median duration of PFS was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; HR, 0.32). However, now that osimertinib has moved into the front-line setting, it has left a void for the treatment of patients with advanced disease who have failed osimertinib.

New resistance mechanisms continue to be identified

One of the most common sets of resistance mutations are insertions in exon 20 of the EGF receptor gene. These are a heterogenous group of mutations, many of which do not respond to first-, second-, or third-generation TKIs. Some, such as EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA, may be sensitive to first- and third-generation EGFR TKIs. Other drugs targeting exon 20 insertion mutations are under development.

Newly approved by the FDA within the last year are mobocertinib and CLN-081 for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Savolitinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase (MET) inhibitor currently under development for NSCLC and other cancers. Amivantamab-vmjw was approved by the FDA last year for metastatic NSCLC. It targets EGF and MET receptors in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

We finally have approved drugs for exon 20 insertions and c-Met amplification, even though their approvals are based on small, single arm studies with no definitive claims of improved efficacy over older therapies. Taking a second biopsy will help determine which resistance mechanisms are active to better identify subsequent treatment as in my patient described in this article.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Shortly after osimertinib was approved for patients with non–small cell lung cancer in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration, a patient came to me with increasing shortness of breath. He had been on erlotinib (Tarceva) for about 2 years and had done well. Nearly all of his pulmonary lesions had resolved and he was feeling well. He enjoyed boating in the summer and visiting grandkids in California in the winter. However, on this day, it was different. He was losing weight; he was tired and didn’t feel strong enough to put his boat in the water that spring. Long story short: We ordered a CT scan and all of his lesions were progressing. Since osimertinib had just been approved, we got a second biopsy, hoping that his insurance would pay for it. It did and sure enough, a new T790M mutation was present. He was on osimertinib for another 2 years before progressing and starting chemotherapy.

Second biopsies increasingly routine

The practice of ordering a second biopsy for patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) was not common practice until after 2015 when the Food and Drug Administration approved gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutations.

Up until then, second biopsies were not routinely done for lung cancers. But with the advent of targeted therapy and new drugs designed specifically to tackle first- and second-line treatment resistance mutations, rebiopsies have become a necessity for patients with progressive disease.

Epidermal growth factors, including HER2, ErbB2, and MET, are receptors of tyrosine kinases that control cell growth, but when in overdrive, they can lead to the development of cancers, including lung adenocarcinoma, conventional glioblastoma multiforme, glioblastoma, colon adenocarcinoma, and NSCLC.

EGFRs date back to 1962 with their discovery by Stanley Cohen. The discovery was so important that in 1986, Mr. Cohen was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery along with Rita Levi-Montalcini.

Now, many years later, we finally have a string of new approvals for mutations in the EGF family of receptors and several under study.

Sensitizing mutations

The more commonly used strategy for blocking EGFR signaling in lung cancer is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which compete with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for binding to the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor. They are located at chromosome 7p11.2. The most frequent mutations that sensitize patients to EGFR inhibitors include exon 19 deletions and L858R point mutation in exon 21, although multiple other driver mutations also exist.

The first-generation of EGFR TKIs include gefitinib and erlotinib, which bind reversibly to the EGF receptor. Second-generation inhibitors afatinib and dacomitinib bind irreversibly. Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, which also binds irreversibly, was approved in 2020 for adjuvant therapy, and first- and second-line treatment in patients with NSCLC who have EGFR mutation–positive disease.
 

First-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Four randomized, first-line, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials conducted with EGFR TKIs in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in an EGFR nonselected patient population failed to show a survival benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib (TRIBUTE, Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial, INTACT 1, INTACT 2).

However, a first-line study randomized patients to gefitinib or chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, and included patients with or without an EGFR mutations. In the subgroup of patients with an EGFR mutation, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48), whereas in the subgroup of patients who were negative for the mutation, PFS was significantly longer among those who received chemotherapy (HR for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85).

Numerous studies have shown that EGFR TKIs used in the first-line setting improved progression free survival, response rates, and quality of life while reducing toxicity. A recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving EGFR TKIs showed that EGFR TKI improved PFS with a HR of 0.40, compared with standard chemotherapy with fewer serious adverse events, although no benefit on overall survival was observed (HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .556).
 

T790M: The most common resistance mutation

T790M is the most common resistance mechanism to develop in patients with EGFR mutations being treated with EGFR TKIs. A randomized phase 3 trial of osimertinib vs. chemotherapy in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, reported a median duration of progression-free survival that was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.30). In addition, among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system, the median duration of PFS was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; HR, 0.32). However, now that osimertinib has moved into the front-line setting, it has left a void for the treatment of patients with advanced disease who have failed osimertinib.

New resistance mechanisms continue to be identified

One of the most common sets of resistance mutations are insertions in exon 20 of the EGF receptor gene. These are a heterogenous group of mutations, many of which do not respond to first-, second-, or third-generation TKIs. Some, such as EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA, may be sensitive to first- and third-generation EGFR TKIs. Other drugs targeting exon 20 insertion mutations are under development.

Newly approved by the FDA within the last year are mobocertinib and CLN-081 for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Savolitinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase (MET) inhibitor currently under development for NSCLC and other cancers. Amivantamab-vmjw was approved by the FDA last year for metastatic NSCLC. It targets EGF and MET receptors in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

We finally have approved drugs for exon 20 insertions and c-Met amplification, even though their approvals are based on small, single arm studies with no definitive claims of improved efficacy over older therapies. Taking a second biopsy will help determine which resistance mechanisms are active to better identify subsequent treatment as in my patient described in this article.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Shortly after osimertinib was approved for patients with non–small cell lung cancer in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration, a patient came to me with increasing shortness of breath. He had been on erlotinib (Tarceva) for about 2 years and had done well. Nearly all of his pulmonary lesions had resolved and he was feeling well. He enjoyed boating in the summer and visiting grandkids in California in the winter. However, on this day, it was different. He was losing weight; he was tired and didn’t feel strong enough to put his boat in the water that spring. Long story short: We ordered a CT scan and all of his lesions were progressing. Since osimertinib had just been approved, we got a second biopsy, hoping that his insurance would pay for it. It did and sure enough, a new T790M mutation was present. He was on osimertinib for another 2 years before progressing and starting chemotherapy.

Second biopsies increasingly routine

The practice of ordering a second biopsy for patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) was not common practice until after 2015 when the Food and Drug Administration approved gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutations.

Up until then, second biopsies were not routinely done for lung cancers. But with the advent of targeted therapy and new drugs designed specifically to tackle first- and second-line treatment resistance mutations, rebiopsies have become a necessity for patients with progressive disease.

Epidermal growth factors, including HER2, ErbB2, and MET, are receptors of tyrosine kinases that control cell growth, but when in overdrive, they can lead to the development of cancers, including lung adenocarcinoma, conventional glioblastoma multiforme, glioblastoma, colon adenocarcinoma, and NSCLC.

EGFRs date back to 1962 with their discovery by Stanley Cohen. The discovery was so important that in 1986, Mr. Cohen was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery along with Rita Levi-Montalcini.

Now, many years later, we finally have a string of new approvals for mutations in the EGF family of receptors and several under study.

Sensitizing mutations

The more commonly used strategy for blocking EGFR signaling in lung cancer is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which compete with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for binding to the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor. They are located at chromosome 7p11.2. The most frequent mutations that sensitize patients to EGFR inhibitors include exon 19 deletions and L858R point mutation in exon 21, although multiple other driver mutations also exist.

The first-generation of EGFR TKIs include gefitinib and erlotinib, which bind reversibly to the EGF receptor. Second-generation inhibitors afatinib and dacomitinib bind irreversibly. Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, which also binds irreversibly, was approved in 2020 for adjuvant therapy, and first- and second-line treatment in patients with NSCLC who have EGFR mutation–positive disease.
 

First-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Four randomized, first-line, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials conducted with EGFR TKIs in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in an EGFR nonselected patient population failed to show a survival benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib (TRIBUTE, Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial, INTACT 1, INTACT 2).

However, a first-line study randomized patients to gefitinib or chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, and included patients with or without an EGFR mutations. In the subgroup of patients with an EGFR mutation, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48), whereas in the subgroup of patients who were negative for the mutation, PFS was significantly longer among those who received chemotherapy (HR for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85).

Numerous studies have shown that EGFR TKIs used in the first-line setting improved progression free survival, response rates, and quality of life while reducing toxicity. A recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving EGFR TKIs showed that EGFR TKI improved PFS with a HR of 0.40, compared with standard chemotherapy with fewer serious adverse events, although no benefit on overall survival was observed (HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .556).
 

T790M: The most common resistance mutation

T790M is the most common resistance mechanism to develop in patients with EGFR mutations being treated with EGFR TKIs. A randomized phase 3 trial of osimertinib vs. chemotherapy in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, reported a median duration of progression-free survival that was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.30). In addition, among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system, the median duration of PFS was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; HR, 0.32). However, now that osimertinib has moved into the front-line setting, it has left a void for the treatment of patients with advanced disease who have failed osimertinib.

New resistance mechanisms continue to be identified

One of the most common sets of resistance mutations are insertions in exon 20 of the EGF receptor gene. These are a heterogenous group of mutations, many of which do not respond to first-, second-, or third-generation TKIs. Some, such as EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA, may be sensitive to first- and third-generation EGFR TKIs. Other drugs targeting exon 20 insertion mutations are under development.

Newly approved by the FDA within the last year are mobocertinib and CLN-081 for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Savolitinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase (MET) inhibitor currently under development for NSCLC and other cancers. Amivantamab-vmjw was approved by the FDA last year for metastatic NSCLC. It targets EGF and MET receptors in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

We finally have approved drugs for exon 20 insertions and c-Met amplification, even though their approvals are based on small, single arm studies with no definitive claims of improved efficacy over older therapies. Taking a second biopsy will help determine which resistance mechanisms are active to better identify subsequent treatment as in my patient described in this article.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Uptake of the approved extended-interval dosing regimen for pembrolizumab has been poor, according to a review of Veterans Health Administration data.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved extended dosing for standalone pembrolizumab – 400 mg every 6 weeks instead of the standard dosing of 200 mg every 3 weeks. The shift came, in part, to reduce patient health care encounters during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because fewer infusions save patients time and out-of-pocket costs and reduce the burden on the health care system.

The FDA deemed this move safe after pharmacologic studies and a small melanoma study found that responses and adverse events were equivalent in comparison with standard dosing.

Given the benefits, one would expect “brisk adoption” of extended-interval dosing, Garth Strohbehn, MD, an oncologist at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues wrote in a recent report in JAMA Oncology.

However, when the team reviewed data on 835 veterans from the Veterans Health Administration who began taking single-agent pembrolizumab between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, only about one-third received extended-interval dosing.

Between April and January 2021, use of extended-interval dosing rose steadily to about 35% of patients but then hovered in that range through August 2021.

Among the patients, age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and pembrolizumab indications were well balanced between the standard-dosing and the extended-interval dosing groups.

Notably, Dr. Strohbehn and colleagues also found no difference in time-to-treatment discontinuation between patients receiving extended dosing in comparison with patients receiving standard dosing, which is “a real-world measure of clinical effectiveness,” the team said.

And there was no difference in immune-related side effects between the two regimens, as assessed by incident levothyroxine and prednisone prescriptions.

The real-world near equivalence of extended and standard dosing intervals that was demonstrated in the study is “reassuring” and helps make the case for considering it “as a best practice” for single-agent pembrolizumab, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Strohbehn remained somewhat puzzled by the low uptake of the extended-dosing option.

“I was frankly surprised by the small number of patients who received the extended-interval regimen,” Dr. Strohbehn said in an interview.

“Admittedly, there are patients who would prefer to receive standard-interval therapy, and that preference should of course be accommodated whenever possible, but in my experience, those numbers are small,” at least in the VA system, he noted.

In addition, the authors noted, there is no direct financial incentive for more frequent dosing in the VA system.

It’s possible that low uptake could stem from clinicians’ doubts about switching to an extended-interval dose, given that the FDA’s approval was based largely on a study of 44 patients with melanoma in a single-arm trial.

If that is indeed the case, the new findings – which represent the first health system–level, real-world comparative effectiveness data for standard vs. extended-interval pembrolizumab – should help address these concerns, the team said.

“This observational dataset lends further credence to [the dosing] regimens being clinically equivalent,” said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study.

To address the issue, Dr. Strohbehn and his team suggested “clinical guideline promotion to overcome some of the barriers to the adoption of extended-interval pembrolizumab.”

Dr. Riechert suggested further validation of equivalent outcomes for the two regimens, more advocacy to encourage patients to ask about the 6-week option, as well as incentives from insurers to adopt it.

Dr. Strohbehn added that the situation highlights a broader issue in oncology, namely that many drugs “end up on the market with dosing regimens that haven’t necessarily been optimized.”

Across the world, investigators are conducting clinical trials “to identify the minimum dosages, frequencies, and durations patients need in order to achieve their best outcome,” Dr. Strohbehn said. In oncology, much of this effort is being led by Project Optimus, from the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, he said.

The study was funded by the VA National Oncology Program. Dr. Reichert and Dr. Strohbehn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator has received grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of weight loss that frequently occurs during cancer treatment. Consequences can include skeletal muscle loss, fatigue, functional impairment, worse quality of life, and worse survival. On the other hand, weight gain during cancer treatment has been tied to better survival.

A new study shows that, among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), weight gain over the course of treatment with standard of care chemotherapy was associated with improved survival in both men and women. Few studies have examined the relationship between weight gain and outcomes by sex.

“The finding that weight gain occurred in subsets of males and females is a new observation. The fact that weight gain occurs in cancer patients during anticancer treatment could confound results of clinical [trials] evaluating novel anticachexia treatments. Simultaneously studying longitudinal body weights and serum and cellular biomarkers in cancer patients might provide insights into mechanisms involved in cachexia. Increased understanding of mechanisms driving cachexia could lead to new therapeutic strategies,” said study coauthor Philip Bonomi, MD, who is an oncologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“This data, although it appears to be very basic, is critically important, especially as we consider our novel interventions in the treatment of cancer cachexia,” said Eric Roeland, MD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of European Society for Medical Oncology. Dr. Roeland is a medical oncologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Roeland is also the lead author of cancer cachexia guidelines published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020. The guidelines suggest that dietary counseling can be offered to patients, but warns against routine use of enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition. Although no specific drug can be recommended for cancer cachexia, progesterone analogs and corticosteroids used over the short term (weeks) can be used on a trial base to improve appetite and weight gain. While not approved in the United States, anamorelin was approved in 2020 in Japan for cancer cachexia in NSCLC, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.

The new study should raise awareness of the importance of adverse effects of cancer treatments, said Karin Jordan, MD, University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany). She served as a discussant following the presentation. “As a medical oncologist, we focus a bit too much on the benefits of antineoplastic therapy, both on cure and on the survival benefit. But what is also very, very important to do is a balanced oncology treatment to focus on the risks of oncology therapies,” she said.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and potential for bias. “The hypothesis that weight gain leads to improved survival is not really proven as it likewise may be the other way around,” Dr. Jordan said.

However, in oncology research, a phenomenon called the “obesity paradox” is increasingly catching the interest of investigators. Observational studies have shown that overweight patients with certain cancers (specifically, colorectal, endometrial and lung cancer). actually have improved overall survival as compared with normal-weight patients.
 

Details from the new study

The researchers pooled data 1,030 patients who participated in three phase 3 clinical trials conducted between 2005 and 2011. The patients all received platinum-based chemotherapy as part of control arms. 304 were female and 726 were male. The median age was 62. 16.7% were Asian, the mean body mass index was 24.6 kg/m², 88.5% had stage 4 disease, 36.9% had adenocarcinoma, and 86.3% were current or former smokers.

Males and females had similar magnitudes and rate of weight gain over the course of treatment. Any weight gain was associated with improved overall survival in both males (12.7 vs. 8.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; P < .001) and females (16.2 vs. 10.1 months; HR, 0.65; P = .0028). Patients who had a weight gain of 2.5% of body weight or more saw an improvement in overall survival in both males (14.0 vs. 8.2 months; HR, 0.57; P < .001) and females (16.7 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 0.61; P = .0041).

Patients with a weight gain of 5% or more was associated with improved survival in males (13.6 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.62; P = .0001), but there was no statistically significant association in females (16.7 vs. 12.6 months; HR, 0.69; P = .1107).

Regardless of weight-gain status, males had lower survival rates than females. All of the associations were independent of smoking status.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Bonomi has received honoraria from Pfizer and Helsinn for participation in scientific advisory boards. Dr. Jordan has consulted for Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, and BD Solution. She has received research funding from Deutsche Krebshilfe. She has received honoraria from MSD, Merck, Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, Pomme-med, PharmaMar, arttemoi, OnkoUpdate, Stemline, and Roche.

Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of weight loss that frequently occurs during cancer treatment. Consequences can include skeletal muscle loss, fatigue, functional impairment, worse quality of life, and worse survival. On the other hand, weight gain during cancer treatment has been tied to better survival.

A new study shows that, among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), weight gain over the course of treatment with standard of care chemotherapy was associated with improved survival in both men and women. Few studies have examined the relationship between weight gain and outcomes by sex.

“The finding that weight gain occurred in subsets of males and females is a new observation. The fact that weight gain occurs in cancer patients during anticancer treatment could confound results of clinical [trials] evaluating novel anticachexia treatments. Simultaneously studying longitudinal body weights and serum and cellular biomarkers in cancer patients might provide insights into mechanisms involved in cachexia. Increased understanding of mechanisms driving cachexia could lead to new therapeutic strategies,” said study coauthor Philip Bonomi, MD, who is an oncologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“This data, although it appears to be very basic, is critically important, especially as we consider our novel interventions in the treatment of cancer cachexia,” said Eric Roeland, MD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of European Society for Medical Oncology. Dr. Roeland is a medical oncologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Roeland is also the lead author of cancer cachexia guidelines published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020. The guidelines suggest that dietary counseling can be offered to patients, but warns against routine use of enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition. Although no specific drug can be recommended for cancer cachexia, progesterone analogs and corticosteroids used over the short term (weeks) can be used on a trial base to improve appetite and weight gain. While not approved in the United States, anamorelin was approved in 2020 in Japan for cancer cachexia in NSCLC, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.

The new study should raise awareness of the importance of adverse effects of cancer treatments, said Karin Jordan, MD, University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany). She served as a discussant following the presentation. “As a medical oncologist, we focus a bit too much on the benefits of antineoplastic therapy, both on cure and on the survival benefit. But what is also very, very important to do is a balanced oncology treatment to focus on the risks of oncology therapies,” she said.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and potential for bias. “The hypothesis that weight gain leads to improved survival is not really proven as it likewise may be the other way around,” Dr. Jordan said.

However, in oncology research, a phenomenon called the “obesity paradox” is increasingly catching the interest of investigators. Observational studies have shown that overweight patients with certain cancers (specifically, colorectal, endometrial and lung cancer). actually have improved overall survival as compared with normal-weight patients.
 

Details from the new study

The researchers pooled data 1,030 patients who participated in three phase 3 clinical trials conducted between 2005 and 2011. The patients all received platinum-based chemotherapy as part of control arms. 304 were female and 726 were male. The median age was 62. 16.7% were Asian, the mean body mass index was 24.6 kg/m², 88.5% had stage 4 disease, 36.9% had adenocarcinoma, and 86.3% were current or former smokers.

Males and females had similar magnitudes and rate of weight gain over the course of treatment. Any weight gain was associated with improved overall survival in both males (12.7 vs. 8.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; P < .001) and females (16.2 vs. 10.1 months; HR, 0.65; P = .0028). Patients who had a weight gain of 2.5% of body weight or more saw an improvement in overall survival in both males (14.0 vs. 8.2 months; HR, 0.57; P < .001) and females (16.7 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 0.61; P = .0041).

Patients with a weight gain of 5% or more was associated with improved survival in males (13.6 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.62; P = .0001), but there was no statistically significant association in females (16.7 vs. 12.6 months; HR, 0.69; P = .1107).

Regardless of weight-gain status, males had lower survival rates than females. All of the associations were independent of smoking status.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Bonomi has received honoraria from Pfizer and Helsinn for participation in scientific advisory boards. Dr. Jordan has consulted for Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, and BD Solution. She has received research funding from Deutsche Krebshilfe. She has received honoraria from MSD, Merck, Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, Pomme-med, PharmaMar, arttemoi, OnkoUpdate, Stemline, and Roche.

Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of weight loss that frequently occurs during cancer treatment. Consequences can include skeletal muscle loss, fatigue, functional impairment, worse quality of life, and worse survival. On the other hand, weight gain during cancer treatment has been tied to better survival.

A new study shows that, among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), weight gain over the course of treatment with standard of care chemotherapy was associated with improved survival in both men and women. Few studies have examined the relationship between weight gain and outcomes by sex.

“The finding that weight gain occurred in subsets of males and females is a new observation. The fact that weight gain occurs in cancer patients during anticancer treatment could confound results of clinical [trials] evaluating novel anticachexia treatments. Simultaneously studying longitudinal body weights and serum and cellular biomarkers in cancer patients might provide insights into mechanisms involved in cachexia. Increased understanding of mechanisms driving cachexia could lead to new therapeutic strategies,” said study coauthor Philip Bonomi, MD, who is an oncologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“This data, although it appears to be very basic, is critically important, especially as we consider our novel interventions in the treatment of cancer cachexia,” said Eric Roeland, MD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of European Society for Medical Oncology. Dr. Roeland is a medical oncologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Roeland is also the lead author of cancer cachexia guidelines published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020. The guidelines suggest that dietary counseling can be offered to patients, but warns against routine use of enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition. Although no specific drug can be recommended for cancer cachexia, progesterone analogs and corticosteroids used over the short term (weeks) can be used on a trial base to improve appetite and weight gain. While not approved in the United States, anamorelin was approved in 2020 in Japan for cancer cachexia in NSCLC, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.

The new study should raise awareness of the importance of adverse effects of cancer treatments, said Karin Jordan, MD, University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany). She served as a discussant following the presentation. “As a medical oncologist, we focus a bit too much on the benefits of antineoplastic therapy, both on cure and on the survival benefit. But what is also very, very important to do is a balanced oncology treatment to focus on the risks of oncology therapies,” she said.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and potential for bias. “The hypothesis that weight gain leads to improved survival is not really proven as it likewise may be the other way around,” Dr. Jordan said.

However, in oncology research, a phenomenon called the “obesity paradox” is increasingly catching the interest of investigators. Observational studies have shown that overweight patients with certain cancers (specifically, colorectal, endometrial and lung cancer). actually have improved overall survival as compared with normal-weight patients.
 

Details from the new study

The researchers pooled data 1,030 patients who participated in three phase 3 clinical trials conducted between 2005 and 2011. The patients all received platinum-based chemotherapy as part of control arms. 304 were female and 726 were male. The median age was 62. 16.7% were Asian, the mean body mass index was 24.6 kg/m², 88.5% had stage 4 disease, 36.9% had adenocarcinoma, and 86.3% were current or former smokers.

Males and females had similar magnitudes and rate of weight gain over the course of treatment. Any weight gain was associated with improved overall survival in both males (12.7 vs. 8.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; P < .001) and females (16.2 vs. 10.1 months; HR, 0.65; P = .0028). Patients who had a weight gain of 2.5% of body weight or more saw an improvement in overall survival in both males (14.0 vs. 8.2 months; HR, 0.57; P < .001) and females (16.7 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 0.61; P = .0041).

Patients with a weight gain of 5% or more was associated with improved survival in males (13.6 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.62; P = .0001), but there was no statistically significant association in females (16.7 vs. 12.6 months; HR, 0.69; P = .1107).

Regardless of weight-gain status, males had lower survival rates than females. All of the associations were independent of smoking status.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Bonomi has received honoraria from Pfizer and Helsinn for participation in scientific advisory boards. Dr. Jordan has consulted for Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, and BD Solution. She has received research funding from Deutsche Krebshilfe. She has received honoraria from MSD, Merck, Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, Pomme-med, PharmaMar, arttemoi, OnkoUpdate, Stemline, and Roche.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib (Retevmo) in 40-mg and 80-mg capsules for adults with locally advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive solid tumors that have progressed during or following systemic treatment, or for patients for whom there are no good alternative treatments.

In 2020, selpercatinib received accelerated approval for lung and thyroid RET-positive tumors; that approval transitioned to a regular approval for non–small cell lung cancer on Sept. 21. The latest approval expands the drug label to include an array of RET-positive tumor types, including pancreatic and colorectal cancers.

The approval was based on data from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial, which evaluated 41 patients with RET fusion–positive tumors. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had received prior systemic therapy, with almost one-third receiving three or more. Primary efficacy measures were overall response rate and duration of response.

Among the 41 patients, the overall response rate was 44%, with a duration of response of 24.5 months. Additionally, for 67% of patients, results lasted at least 6 months.

“In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, selpercatinib demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable responses across a variety of tumor types in patients with RET-driven cancers,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, coinvestigator for the trial, said in a press release. “These data and FDA approval of the tumor-agnostic indication underscore the importance of routine, comprehensive genomic testing for patients across a wide variety of tumor types.”

The most common cancers in the study were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (27%), colorectal cancer (24%), and salivary cancer (10%).

The recommended selpercatinib dose, based on body weight, is 120 mg orally twice daily for people who weigh less than 110 pounds or 160 mg orally twice daily for who weigh 110 pounds or more.

The most common adverse reactions were edema, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, hypertension, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, nausea, and headache.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib (Retevmo) in 40-mg and 80-mg capsules for adults with locally advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive solid tumors that have progressed during or following systemic treatment, or for patients for whom there are no good alternative treatments.

In 2020, selpercatinib received accelerated approval for lung and thyroid RET-positive tumors; that approval transitioned to a regular approval for non–small cell lung cancer on Sept. 21. The latest approval expands the drug label to include an array of RET-positive tumor types, including pancreatic and colorectal cancers.

The approval was based on data from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial, which evaluated 41 patients with RET fusion–positive tumors. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had received prior systemic therapy, with almost one-third receiving three or more. Primary efficacy measures were overall response rate and duration of response.

Among the 41 patients, the overall response rate was 44%, with a duration of response of 24.5 months. Additionally, for 67% of patients, results lasted at least 6 months.

“In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, selpercatinib demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable responses across a variety of tumor types in patients with RET-driven cancers,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, coinvestigator for the trial, said in a press release. “These data and FDA approval of the tumor-agnostic indication underscore the importance of routine, comprehensive genomic testing for patients across a wide variety of tumor types.”

The most common cancers in the study were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (27%), colorectal cancer (24%), and salivary cancer (10%).

The recommended selpercatinib dose, based on body weight, is 120 mg orally twice daily for people who weigh less than 110 pounds or 160 mg orally twice daily for who weigh 110 pounds or more.

The most common adverse reactions were edema, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, hypertension, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, nausea, and headache.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib (Retevmo) in 40-mg and 80-mg capsules for adults with locally advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive solid tumors that have progressed during or following systemic treatment, or for patients for whom there are no good alternative treatments.

In 2020, selpercatinib received accelerated approval for lung and thyroid RET-positive tumors; that approval transitioned to a regular approval for non–small cell lung cancer on Sept. 21. The latest approval expands the drug label to include an array of RET-positive tumor types, including pancreatic and colorectal cancers.

The approval was based on data from the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial, which evaluated 41 patients with RET fusion–positive tumors. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had received prior systemic therapy, with almost one-third receiving three or more. Primary efficacy measures were overall response rate and duration of response.

Among the 41 patients, the overall response rate was 44%, with a duration of response of 24.5 months. Additionally, for 67% of patients, results lasted at least 6 months.

“In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, selpercatinib demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable responses across a variety of tumor types in patients with RET-driven cancers,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, coinvestigator for the trial, said in a press release. “These data and FDA approval of the tumor-agnostic indication underscore the importance of routine, comprehensive genomic testing for patients across a wide variety of tumor types.”

The most common cancers in the study were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (27%), colorectal cancer (24%), and salivary cancer (10%).

The recommended selpercatinib dose, based on body weight, is 120 mg orally twice daily for people who weigh less than 110 pounds or 160 mg orally twice daily for who weigh 110 pounds or more.

The most common adverse reactions were edema, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, hypertension, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, nausea, and headache.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

PARIS – For patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation that have progressed on prior therapies, the first-in-class KRAS G12C inhibitor sotorasib (Lumykras) was associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates than docetaxel in the randomized, phase 3 CodeBreaK 200 trial.

­Among 345 patients who had experienced disease progression after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and an immune checkpoint inhibitor, 1-year PFS rates at a median follow-up of 17.7 months were 24.8% for patients randomized to receive sotorasib versus 10.1% for patients assigned to docetaxel, reported Melissa L, Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at Tennessee Oncology in Nashville.

“In my opinion, this supports sotorasib as a new second-line standard for patients with KRAS G12C non–small cell lung cancer,” she said in a media briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
 

First phase 3, randomized, controlled trial

The trial is the first head-to-head, randomized comparison pitting a KRAS G12C inhibitor against the standard of care in patients with NSCLC.

Approximately 30% of patients with NSCLC have KRAS driver mutations, and KRAS G12C–mutant NSCLC comprises an estimated 13% of all NSCLC cases, Dr. Johnson said.

Sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the 2020 ESMO annual meeting. It is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
 

CodeBreaK 200 details

A total of 345 patients from sites in the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either oral sotorasib 960 mg daily, or intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant improvement in PFS with sotorasib as measured by independent central reviewers blinded to study assignment, with a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .002). Median PFS with sotorasib was 5.6 months, compared with 4.5 months for docetaxel.

The objective response rate was significantly improved for sotorasib versus docetaxel (28.1% vs. 13.2%, P < .001), as was the disease control rate at 82.5% for sotorasib versus 60.3% for docetaxel. Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment arms, though the study was not powered for this endpoint.

Sotorasib was also superior to docetaxel at forestalling deterioration of patients’ global health status, physical functioning, and cancer-related symptoms such as dyspnea and cough. There was no significant difference between the study arms in reported chest pain, however.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.1% of patients with sotorasib, compared with 40.4% of patients on docetaxel.
 

‘Tremendous advance’

“I think the conduct of this study is impressive, it’s well designed, it was well run, any imbalances really favored the control arm, and I think that this advance is relevant not just for performance status 0 and 1 KRAS G12C–mutant patients, but even beyond, to performance status 2 and perhaps even performance status 3,” commented Natasha Leighl, MD, MMSc, from the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, the invited discussant.

Comparing the drug performance of the respective arms, Dr. Leighl said that “I don’t think I’ve ever seen such good outcomes in a randomized trial with the chemotherapy, but unfortunately sotorasib performed a little bit less well than we had hoped.”

Nonetheless, “I think CodeBreaK 200 is a tremendous advance for patients. It is a confirmatory positive trial, and I think sotorasib is the new standard of care in patients who have received chemo and immunotherapy for KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK 200 was supported by Amgen. Dr. Johnson disclosed a consulting and advisory role with payments to her institution from Amgen and others. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal honoraria from Amgen and others.

PARIS – For patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation that have progressed on prior therapies, the first-in-class KRAS G12C inhibitor sotorasib (Lumykras) was associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates than docetaxel in the randomized, phase 3 CodeBreaK 200 trial.

­Among 345 patients who had experienced disease progression after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and an immune checkpoint inhibitor, 1-year PFS rates at a median follow-up of 17.7 months were 24.8% for patients randomized to receive sotorasib versus 10.1% for patients assigned to docetaxel, reported Melissa L, Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at Tennessee Oncology in Nashville.

“In my opinion, this supports sotorasib as a new second-line standard for patients with KRAS G12C non–small cell lung cancer,” she said in a media briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
 

First phase 3, randomized, controlled trial

The trial is the first head-to-head, randomized comparison pitting a KRAS G12C inhibitor against the standard of care in patients with NSCLC.

Approximately 30% of patients with NSCLC have KRAS driver mutations, and KRAS G12C–mutant NSCLC comprises an estimated 13% of all NSCLC cases, Dr. Johnson said.

Sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the 2020 ESMO annual meeting. It is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
 

CodeBreaK 200 details

A total of 345 patients from sites in the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either oral sotorasib 960 mg daily, or intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant improvement in PFS with sotorasib as measured by independent central reviewers blinded to study assignment, with a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .002). Median PFS with sotorasib was 5.6 months, compared with 4.5 months for docetaxel.

The objective response rate was significantly improved for sotorasib versus docetaxel (28.1% vs. 13.2%, P < .001), as was the disease control rate at 82.5% for sotorasib versus 60.3% for docetaxel. Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment arms, though the study was not powered for this endpoint.

Sotorasib was also superior to docetaxel at forestalling deterioration of patients’ global health status, physical functioning, and cancer-related symptoms such as dyspnea and cough. There was no significant difference between the study arms in reported chest pain, however.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.1% of patients with sotorasib, compared with 40.4% of patients on docetaxel.
 

‘Tremendous advance’

“I think the conduct of this study is impressive, it’s well designed, it was well run, any imbalances really favored the control arm, and I think that this advance is relevant not just for performance status 0 and 1 KRAS G12C–mutant patients, but even beyond, to performance status 2 and perhaps even performance status 3,” commented Natasha Leighl, MD, MMSc, from the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, the invited discussant.

Comparing the drug performance of the respective arms, Dr. Leighl said that “I don’t think I’ve ever seen such good outcomes in a randomized trial with the chemotherapy, but unfortunately sotorasib performed a little bit less well than we had hoped.”

Nonetheless, “I think CodeBreaK 200 is a tremendous advance for patients. It is a confirmatory positive trial, and I think sotorasib is the new standard of care in patients who have received chemo and immunotherapy for KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK 200 was supported by Amgen. Dr. Johnson disclosed a consulting and advisory role with payments to her institution from Amgen and others. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal honoraria from Amgen and others.

PARIS – For patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation that have progressed on prior therapies, the first-in-class KRAS G12C inhibitor sotorasib (Lumykras) was associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates than docetaxel in the randomized, phase 3 CodeBreaK 200 trial.

­Among 345 patients who had experienced disease progression after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and an immune checkpoint inhibitor, 1-year PFS rates at a median follow-up of 17.7 months were 24.8% for patients randomized to receive sotorasib versus 10.1% for patients assigned to docetaxel, reported Melissa L, Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at Tennessee Oncology in Nashville.

“In my opinion, this supports sotorasib as a new second-line standard for patients with KRAS G12C non–small cell lung cancer,” she said in a media briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
 

First phase 3, randomized, controlled trial

The trial is the first head-to-head, randomized comparison pitting a KRAS G12C inhibitor against the standard of care in patients with NSCLC.

Approximately 30% of patients with NSCLC have KRAS driver mutations, and KRAS G12C–mutant NSCLC comprises an estimated 13% of all NSCLC cases, Dr. Johnson said.

Sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the 2020 ESMO annual meeting. It is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
 

CodeBreaK 200 details

A total of 345 patients from sites in the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either oral sotorasib 960 mg daily, or intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant improvement in PFS with sotorasib as measured by independent central reviewers blinded to study assignment, with a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .002). Median PFS with sotorasib was 5.6 months, compared with 4.5 months for docetaxel.

The objective response rate was significantly improved for sotorasib versus docetaxel (28.1% vs. 13.2%, P < .001), as was the disease control rate at 82.5% for sotorasib versus 60.3% for docetaxel. Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment arms, though the study was not powered for this endpoint.

Sotorasib was also superior to docetaxel at forestalling deterioration of patients’ global health status, physical functioning, and cancer-related symptoms such as dyspnea and cough. There was no significant difference between the study arms in reported chest pain, however.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.1% of patients with sotorasib, compared with 40.4% of patients on docetaxel.
 

‘Tremendous advance’

“I think the conduct of this study is impressive, it’s well designed, it was well run, any imbalances really favored the control arm, and I think that this advance is relevant not just for performance status 0 and 1 KRAS G12C–mutant patients, but even beyond, to performance status 2 and perhaps even performance status 3,” commented Natasha Leighl, MD, MMSc, from the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, the invited discussant.

Comparing the drug performance of the respective arms, Dr. Leighl said that “I don’t think I’ve ever seen such good outcomes in a randomized trial with the chemotherapy, but unfortunately sotorasib performed a little bit less well than we had hoped.”

Nonetheless, “I think CodeBreaK 200 is a tremendous advance for patients. It is a confirmatory positive trial, and I think sotorasib is the new standard of care in patients who have received chemo and immunotherapy for KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK 200 was supported by Amgen. Dr. Johnson disclosed a consulting and advisory role with payments to her institution from Amgen and others. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal honoraria from Amgen and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

On the basis of this presentation, and the findings from the chest x-ray (as shown), the likely diagnosis is non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Pancoast tumor, also known as superior sulcus tumor. Pancoast tumors are rare, representing about 3%-5% of all lung cancers, and invade the structures in the apex of the chest, including the first thoracic ribs or periosteum, the lower nerve roots of the bronchial plexus, the sympathetic chain and stellate ganglion, or the subclavian vessels. The majority of Pancoast tumors are non–small cell carcinomas.

Because of their pulmonary location, Pancoast tumors are characterized by several distinct symptoms. As seen in this case, patients often present with shoulder pain that worsens over time, especially with invasion of the chest wall and brachial plexus. The pain may radiate to the neck; axilla; anterior chest wall; and medial aspect of the arm, forearm, and wrist. If Pancoast tumors infiltrate the ulnar nerve, patients may present with weakness and muscle atrophy of the intrinsic muscles of the hand. In addition, invasion of the sympathetic chain and of the inferior cervical ganglion can cause Horner syndrome (ptosis, miosis, enophthalmos, and anhidrosis). Lastly, upper-arm edema may develop, signaling invasion and potentially occlusion of the subclavian vein.

During workup, CT-guided core biopsy is the first-line diagnostic test for Pancoast tumors. CT of the chest can confirm the presence of an apical mass and its position in relation to other structures of the thoracic inlet. MRI can further assess suspected brachial plexus, subclavian vessels, spine, and neural foramina invasion, specifying the extent of the disease and of the amount of nerve-root involvement.

For resectable Pancoast tumors, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends chemoradiation, followed by surgical resection and chemotherapy. Preoperative chemoradiation together with surgical resection has shown a 2-year survival between 50% and 70%. Depending on biomarker status (certain EGFR mutations or programmed death ligand 1 levels ≥ 1%), the addition of either atezolizumab or osimertinib is advised. However, the positioning of Pancoast tumors can pose a surgical challenge, and if the lesion remains unresectable after preoperative concurrent chemoradiation, then consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab is recommended.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

On the basis of this presentation, and the findings from the chest x-ray (as shown), the likely diagnosis is non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Pancoast tumor, also known as superior sulcus tumor. Pancoast tumors are rare, representing about 3%-5% of all lung cancers, and invade the structures in the apex of the chest, including the first thoracic ribs or periosteum, the lower nerve roots of the bronchial plexus, the sympathetic chain and stellate ganglion, or the subclavian vessels. The majority of Pancoast tumors are non–small cell carcinomas.

Because of their pulmonary location, Pancoast tumors are characterized by several distinct symptoms. As seen in this case, patients often present with shoulder pain that worsens over time, especially with invasion of the chest wall and brachial plexus. The pain may radiate to the neck; axilla; anterior chest wall; and medial aspect of the arm, forearm, and wrist. If Pancoast tumors infiltrate the ulnar nerve, patients may present with weakness and muscle atrophy of the intrinsic muscles of the hand. In addition, invasion of the sympathetic chain and of the inferior cervical ganglion can cause Horner syndrome (ptosis, miosis, enophthalmos, and anhidrosis). Lastly, upper-arm edema may develop, signaling invasion and potentially occlusion of the subclavian vein.

During workup, CT-guided core biopsy is the first-line diagnostic test for Pancoast tumors. CT of the chest can confirm the presence of an apical mass and its position in relation to other structures of the thoracic inlet. MRI can further assess suspected brachial plexus, subclavian vessels, spine, and neural foramina invasion, specifying the extent of the disease and of the amount of nerve-root involvement.

For resectable Pancoast tumors, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends chemoradiation, followed by surgical resection and chemotherapy. Preoperative chemoradiation together with surgical resection has shown a 2-year survival between 50% and 70%. Depending on biomarker status (certain EGFR mutations or programmed death ligand 1 levels ≥ 1%), the addition of either atezolizumab or osimertinib is advised. However, the positioning of Pancoast tumors can pose a surgical challenge, and if the lesion remains unresectable after preoperative concurrent chemoradiation, then consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab is recommended.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

On the basis of this presentation, and the findings from the chest x-ray (as shown), the likely diagnosis is non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Pancoast tumor, also known as superior sulcus tumor. Pancoast tumors are rare, representing about 3%-5% of all lung cancers, and invade the structures in the apex of the chest, including the first thoracic ribs or periosteum, the lower nerve roots of the bronchial plexus, the sympathetic chain and stellate ganglion, or the subclavian vessels. The majority of Pancoast tumors are non–small cell carcinomas.

Because of their pulmonary location, Pancoast tumors are characterized by several distinct symptoms. As seen in this case, patients often present with shoulder pain that worsens over time, especially with invasion of the chest wall and brachial plexus. The pain may radiate to the neck; axilla; anterior chest wall; and medial aspect of the arm, forearm, and wrist. If Pancoast tumors infiltrate the ulnar nerve, patients may present with weakness and muscle atrophy of the intrinsic muscles of the hand. In addition, invasion of the sympathetic chain and of the inferior cervical ganglion can cause Horner syndrome (ptosis, miosis, enophthalmos, and anhidrosis). Lastly, upper-arm edema may develop, signaling invasion and potentially occlusion of the subclavian vein.

During workup, CT-guided core biopsy is the first-line diagnostic test for Pancoast tumors. CT of the chest can confirm the presence of an apical mass and its position in relation to other structures of the thoracic inlet. MRI can further assess suspected brachial plexus, subclavian vessels, spine, and neural foramina invasion, specifying the extent of the disease and of the amount of nerve-root involvement.

For resectable Pancoast tumors, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends chemoradiation, followed by surgical resection and chemotherapy. Preoperative chemoradiation together with surgical resection has shown a 2-year survival between 50% and 70%. Depending on biomarker status (certain EGFR mutations or programmed death ligand 1 levels ≥ 1%), the addition of either atezolizumab or osimertinib is advised. However, the positioning of Pancoast tumors can pose a surgical challenge, and if the lesion remains unresectable after preoperative concurrent chemoradiation, then consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab is recommended.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.