TBD Meeting (5260-19)

GENEVA – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count is an independent predictor of both progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from 550 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This is the largest CTC study to date and the first to compare test results from multiple centers, reported lead author Colin Lindsay, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. Among the centers, investigators found minimal variability in results guiding progression-free survival and no significant differences in results predicting overall survival. These findings suggest that CTC testing could be reproducible and reliable on a large scale, Dr. Lindsay said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference; he added that this conclusion addresses a previous concern about the process.

“A slight problem with the process is still that it is semi-automated,” Dr. Lindsay said at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The machine will harvest potential cells and stain potential cells, but the end step of the process is that a trained user in each laboratory will decide which cell is a CTC and which cell isn’t a CTC, and it’s that potential for user variability that was the basis of this study.”

The retrospective study involved 550 patients with NSCLC whose samples were processed at seven centers in multiple European countries, including 209 patients whose data was previously unpublished. The investigators looked for associations between CTC count and survival using Cox regression analysis and evaluated if CTCs could add value to prognostic clinicopathologic models based on c-indices and likelihood ratio statistics. CTC count was assessed as a continuous variable and, based on previous studies, using two categorical thresholds: at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL and at least 5 cells per 7.5 mL. In addition, the investigators looked for associations between NSCLC molecular subtypes and CTC levels.

The results showed that both cutoff levels were predictive of survival, with the higher threshold carrying a poorer prognosis. For progression-free survival, CTC counts of at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL carried a hazard ratio of 1.72, whereas the 5-cell threshold had a hazard ratio of 2.21 (P less than .001 for both). Similarly, overall survival hazard ratios for the lower and higher thresholds were 2.18 and 2.75, respectively (P less than .001 for both). When baseline CTC count was added to the analysis, predictive accuracy increased further, dropping P values tenfold, down to .0001. C-index models had a more modest impact. Although minor heterogeneity was detected among centers for prediction of progression-free survival, overall survival data was broadly reliable. Dr. Lindsay noted that intercenter differences seemed to diminish with greater testing experience. No relationships were detected between molecular subtypes and CTC profiles.

“It’s always good to finish a talk with the white elephant in the room,” Dr. Lindsay said in his concluding remarks. “Is there room for CTCs in non–small cell lung cancer? I believe they have the potential to complement ctDNA work by offering a cellular context, but [CTCs] aren’t there yet for clinical roll-out.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Juergen Wolf, MD, of the University Hospital Cologne (Germany) provided a similar conclusion, suggesting that CTCs have a clear place in research, but their clinical value is debatable. He noted that ctDNA, the most similar diagnostic and prognostic tool under development, has a pragmatic edge because ctDNA samples are more amenable to shipping and handling. Dr. Wolf noted that ctDNA also has been shown to have value for treatment planning, specifically for the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. This latter point tied into a larger issue described by Dr. Wolf, who suggested that in the current treatment landscape for NSCLC, predictive testing needs to be actionable.

“We cannot draw a consequence of a prognostic biomarker,” Dr. Wolf said. “In the era of personalized medicine, what we need is predictive markers, predictive of the outcome of specific therapies.”The investigators disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Lindsay C et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 21O.

GENEVA – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count is an independent predictor of both progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from 550 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This is the largest CTC study to date and the first to compare test results from multiple centers, reported lead author Colin Lindsay, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. Among the centers, investigators found minimal variability in results guiding progression-free survival and no significant differences in results predicting overall survival. These findings suggest that CTC testing could be reproducible and reliable on a large scale, Dr. Lindsay said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference; he added that this conclusion addresses a previous concern about the process.

“A slight problem with the process is still that it is semi-automated,” Dr. Lindsay said at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The machine will harvest potential cells and stain potential cells, but the end step of the process is that a trained user in each laboratory will decide which cell is a CTC and which cell isn’t a CTC, and it’s that potential for user variability that was the basis of this study.”

The retrospective study involved 550 patients with NSCLC whose samples were processed at seven centers in multiple European countries, including 209 patients whose data was previously unpublished. The investigators looked for associations between CTC count and survival using Cox regression analysis and evaluated if CTCs could add value to prognostic clinicopathologic models based on c-indices and likelihood ratio statistics. CTC count was assessed as a continuous variable and, based on previous studies, using two categorical thresholds: at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL and at least 5 cells per 7.5 mL. In addition, the investigators looked for associations between NSCLC molecular subtypes and CTC levels.

The results showed that both cutoff levels were predictive of survival, with the higher threshold carrying a poorer prognosis. For progression-free survival, CTC counts of at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL carried a hazard ratio of 1.72, whereas the 5-cell threshold had a hazard ratio of 2.21 (P less than .001 for both). Similarly, overall survival hazard ratios for the lower and higher thresholds were 2.18 and 2.75, respectively (P less than .001 for both). When baseline CTC count was added to the analysis, predictive accuracy increased further, dropping P values tenfold, down to .0001. C-index models had a more modest impact. Although minor heterogeneity was detected among centers for prediction of progression-free survival, overall survival data was broadly reliable. Dr. Lindsay noted that intercenter differences seemed to diminish with greater testing experience. No relationships were detected between molecular subtypes and CTC profiles.

“It’s always good to finish a talk with the white elephant in the room,” Dr. Lindsay said in his concluding remarks. “Is there room for CTCs in non–small cell lung cancer? I believe they have the potential to complement ctDNA work by offering a cellular context, but [CTCs] aren’t there yet for clinical roll-out.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Juergen Wolf, MD, of the University Hospital Cologne (Germany) provided a similar conclusion, suggesting that CTCs have a clear place in research, but their clinical value is debatable. He noted that ctDNA, the most similar diagnostic and prognostic tool under development, has a pragmatic edge because ctDNA samples are more amenable to shipping and handling. Dr. Wolf noted that ctDNA also has been shown to have value for treatment planning, specifically for the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. This latter point tied into a larger issue described by Dr. Wolf, who suggested that in the current treatment landscape for NSCLC, predictive testing needs to be actionable.

“We cannot draw a consequence of a prognostic biomarker,” Dr. Wolf said. “In the era of personalized medicine, what we need is predictive markers, predictive of the outcome of specific therapies.”The investigators disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Lindsay C et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 21O.

GENEVA – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count is an independent predictor of both progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from 550 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This is the largest CTC study to date and the first to compare test results from multiple centers, reported lead author Colin Lindsay, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. Among the centers, investigators found minimal variability in results guiding progression-free survival and no significant differences in results predicting overall survival. These findings suggest that CTC testing could be reproducible and reliable on a large scale, Dr. Lindsay said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference; he added that this conclusion addresses a previous concern about the process.

“A slight problem with the process is still that it is semi-automated,” Dr. Lindsay said at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The machine will harvest potential cells and stain potential cells, but the end step of the process is that a trained user in each laboratory will decide which cell is a CTC and which cell isn’t a CTC, and it’s that potential for user variability that was the basis of this study.”

The retrospective study involved 550 patients with NSCLC whose samples were processed at seven centers in multiple European countries, including 209 patients whose data was previously unpublished. The investigators looked for associations between CTC count and survival using Cox regression analysis and evaluated if CTCs could add value to prognostic clinicopathologic models based on c-indices and likelihood ratio statistics. CTC count was assessed as a continuous variable and, based on previous studies, using two categorical thresholds: at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL and at least 5 cells per 7.5 mL. In addition, the investigators looked for associations between NSCLC molecular subtypes and CTC levels.

The results showed that both cutoff levels were predictive of survival, with the higher threshold carrying a poorer prognosis. For progression-free survival, CTC counts of at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL carried a hazard ratio of 1.72, whereas the 5-cell threshold had a hazard ratio of 2.21 (P less than .001 for both). Similarly, overall survival hazard ratios for the lower and higher thresholds were 2.18 and 2.75, respectively (P less than .001 for both). When baseline CTC count was added to the analysis, predictive accuracy increased further, dropping P values tenfold, down to .0001. C-index models had a more modest impact. Although minor heterogeneity was detected among centers for prediction of progression-free survival, overall survival data was broadly reliable. Dr. Lindsay noted that intercenter differences seemed to diminish with greater testing experience. No relationships were detected between molecular subtypes and CTC profiles.

“It’s always good to finish a talk with the white elephant in the room,” Dr. Lindsay said in his concluding remarks. “Is there room for CTCs in non–small cell lung cancer? I believe they have the potential to complement ctDNA work by offering a cellular context, but [CTCs] aren’t there yet for clinical roll-out.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Juergen Wolf, MD, of the University Hospital Cologne (Germany) provided a similar conclusion, suggesting that CTCs have a clear place in research, but their clinical value is debatable. He noted that ctDNA, the most similar diagnostic and prognostic tool under development, has a pragmatic edge because ctDNA samples are more amenable to shipping and handling. Dr. Wolf noted that ctDNA also has been shown to have value for treatment planning, specifically for the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. This latter point tied into a larger issue described by Dr. Wolf, who suggested that in the current treatment landscape for NSCLC, predictive testing needs to be actionable.

“We cannot draw a consequence of a prognostic biomarker,” Dr. Wolf said. “In the era of personalized medicine, what we need is predictive markers, predictive of the outcome of specific therapies.”The investigators disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Lindsay C et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 21O.

GENEVA – Level of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression does not impact patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among those receiving durvalumab for stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a retrospective analysis of the phase III PACIFIC trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The findings support durvalumab for all comers regardless of PD-L1 expression, reported lead author Marina Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS – Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, who presented findings at the European Lung Cancer Congress.

The PACIFIC trial involved 713 patients with stage III NSCLC who did not progress after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, demonstrating both improved progression-free and overall survival. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either durvalumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo IV every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Out of 713 patients involved in the trial, 63% had PD-L1 tumor expression level data available for the present analysis, allowing for subgrouping into five categories: expression level of at least 25%, less than 25%, at least 1%, less than 1%, or unknown. The investigators compared PROs from these cohorts using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire and lung cancer module (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -LC13). With scores ranging from 1 to 100 points, clinically meaningful differences were defined by score changes exceeding 10 points. Changes during treatment, from baseline to week 48, were analyzed by a mixed model for repeated measures, overall responses for improvement rates by logistic regression, and hazard ratios for time to deterioration (TTD) by a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model.

The investigators found that most PROs remained consistent over time, without clinically meaningful variations between PD-L1 expression levels. However, as with the entire PACIFIC treatment population, patients in the present analysis showed changes in some PROs. At the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology, Dr. Garassino noted that it would be unrealistic to describe all PRO comparisons; instead, she presented several examples. For one, in patients receiving durvalumab, dysphagia and alopecia improved in four out of five PD-L1 subgroups and all subgroups, respectively, while patients in the placebo arm reported improvements in both measures regardless of PD-L1 expression. Other improvements tended to favor the durvalumab group; for instance, compared with other subgroups, patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 25% were more likely to report improved chest pain, physical functioning, pain, emotional functioning, and hemoptysis. In contrast, patients receiving placebo with PD-L1 expression less than 25% were more likely to report improved cough. Still, the investigators concluded that the overall picture did not suggest major differences in PROs by PD-L1 expression level, noting that global quality of life did not differ, and symptom improvement rates and time-to-deterioration measures generally aligned with the intent-to-treat population, judging by overlapping 95% confidence intervals and hazard ratios.

“These data support the PACIFIC regimen for the standard of care for stage III unresectable non–small cell lung cancer patients,” Dr. Garassino concluded.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Fabrice Barlesi, MD, PhD, of Aix-Marseille University, said that studies such as this one are important to ensure that investigator-implemented measures of response are calibrated to patient experiences. As an example, Dr. Barlesi noted that many clinicians would say that grade 2 diarrhea is a completely manageable adverse event, but not all patients would agree.

In this light, Dr. Barlesi said that the present findings are valuable, but they are not without flaws. He noted that 11 out of 13 symptoms from the quality of life lung cancer module were not reported, and that one-third of patients in the PACIFIC trial lacked PD-L1 expression level data.

Considering these shortcomings, and more broadly, difficulties comparing patient-reported outcome studies because of various measurement techniques, Dr. Barlesi called for standardization.

“We need to standardize the analysis of quality of life data,” Dr. Barlesi said. “We should correct for the multiplicity of tests. … we should identify some specific quality of life outcomes that we want to look at in the protocol.” He continued to suggest a variety of ideal characteristics for studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes, including defined statistical measures and protocols for missing data.

Without a standardized approach, “cross trial comparison will be a nightmare for all of us,” Dr. Barlesi said.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, BMS, Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Garassino et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract LBA2.

GENEVA – Level of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression does not impact patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among those receiving durvalumab for stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a retrospective analysis of the phase III PACIFIC trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The findings support durvalumab for all comers regardless of PD-L1 expression, reported lead author Marina Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS – Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, who presented findings at the European Lung Cancer Congress.

The PACIFIC trial involved 713 patients with stage III NSCLC who did not progress after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, demonstrating both improved progression-free and overall survival. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either durvalumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo IV every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Out of 713 patients involved in the trial, 63% had PD-L1 tumor expression level data available for the present analysis, allowing for subgrouping into five categories: expression level of at least 25%, less than 25%, at least 1%, less than 1%, or unknown. The investigators compared PROs from these cohorts using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire and lung cancer module (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -LC13). With scores ranging from 1 to 100 points, clinically meaningful differences were defined by score changes exceeding 10 points. Changes during treatment, from baseline to week 48, were analyzed by a mixed model for repeated measures, overall responses for improvement rates by logistic regression, and hazard ratios for time to deterioration (TTD) by a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model.

The investigators found that most PROs remained consistent over time, without clinically meaningful variations between PD-L1 expression levels. However, as with the entire PACIFIC treatment population, patients in the present analysis showed changes in some PROs. At the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology, Dr. Garassino noted that it would be unrealistic to describe all PRO comparisons; instead, she presented several examples. For one, in patients receiving durvalumab, dysphagia and alopecia improved in four out of five PD-L1 subgroups and all subgroups, respectively, while patients in the placebo arm reported improvements in both measures regardless of PD-L1 expression. Other improvements tended to favor the durvalumab group; for instance, compared with other subgroups, patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 25% were more likely to report improved chest pain, physical functioning, pain, emotional functioning, and hemoptysis. In contrast, patients receiving placebo with PD-L1 expression less than 25% were more likely to report improved cough. Still, the investigators concluded that the overall picture did not suggest major differences in PROs by PD-L1 expression level, noting that global quality of life did not differ, and symptom improvement rates and time-to-deterioration measures generally aligned with the intent-to-treat population, judging by overlapping 95% confidence intervals and hazard ratios.

“These data support the PACIFIC regimen for the standard of care for stage III unresectable non–small cell lung cancer patients,” Dr. Garassino concluded.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Fabrice Barlesi, MD, PhD, of Aix-Marseille University, said that studies such as this one are important to ensure that investigator-implemented measures of response are calibrated to patient experiences. As an example, Dr. Barlesi noted that many clinicians would say that grade 2 diarrhea is a completely manageable adverse event, but not all patients would agree.

In this light, Dr. Barlesi said that the present findings are valuable, but they are not without flaws. He noted that 11 out of 13 symptoms from the quality of life lung cancer module were not reported, and that one-third of patients in the PACIFIC trial lacked PD-L1 expression level data.

Considering these shortcomings, and more broadly, difficulties comparing patient-reported outcome studies because of various measurement techniques, Dr. Barlesi called for standardization.

“We need to standardize the analysis of quality of life data,” Dr. Barlesi said. “We should correct for the multiplicity of tests. … we should identify some specific quality of life outcomes that we want to look at in the protocol.” He continued to suggest a variety of ideal characteristics for studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes, including defined statistical measures and protocols for missing data.

Without a standardized approach, “cross trial comparison will be a nightmare for all of us,” Dr. Barlesi said.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, BMS, Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Garassino et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract LBA2.

GENEVA – Level of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression does not impact patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among those receiving durvalumab for stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a retrospective analysis of the phase III PACIFIC trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The findings support durvalumab for all comers regardless of PD-L1 expression, reported lead author Marina Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS – Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, who presented findings at the European Lung Cancer Congress.

The PACIFIC trial involved 713 patients with stage III NSCLC who did not progress after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, demonstrating both improved progression-free and overall survival. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either durvalumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo IV every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Out of 713 patients involved in the trial, 63% had PD-L1 tumor expression level data available for the present analysis, allowing for subgrouping into five categories: expression level of at least 25%, less than 25%, at least 1%, less than 1%, or unknown. The investigators compared PROs from these cohorts using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire and lung cancer module (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -LC13). With scores ranging from 1 to 100 points, clinically meaningful differences were defined by score changes exceeding 10 points. Changes during treatment, from baseline to week 48, were analyzed by a mixed model for repeated measures, overall responses for improvement rates by logistic regression, and hazard ratios for time to deterioration (TTD) by a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model.

The investigators found that most PROs remained consistent over time, without clinically meaningful variations between PD-L1 expression levels. However, as with the entire PACIFIC treatment population, patients in the present analysis showed changes in some PROs. At the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology, Dr. Garassino noted that it would be unrealistic to describe all PRO comparisons; instead, she presented several examples. For one, in patients receiving durvalumab, dysphagia and alopecia improved in four out of five PD-L1 subgroups and all subgroups, respectively, while patients in the placebo arm reported improvements in both measures regardless of PD-L1 expression. Other improvements tended to favor the durvalumab group; for instance, compared with other subgroups, patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 25% were more likely to report improved chest pain, physical functioning, pain, emotional functioning, and hemoptysis. In contrast, patients receiving placebo with PD-L1 expression less than 25% were more likely to report improved cough. Still, the investigators concluded that the overall picture did not suggest major differences in PROs by PD-L1 expression level, noting that global quality of life did not differ, and symptom improvement rates and time-to-deterioration measures generally aligned with the intent-to-treat population, judging by overlapping 95% confidence intervals and hazard ratios.

“These data support the PACIFIC regimen for the standard of care for stage III unresectable non–small cell lung cancer patients,” Dr. Garassino concluded.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Fabrice Barlesi, MD, PhD, of Aix-Marseille University, said that studies such as this one are important to ensure that investigator-implemented measures of response are calibrated to patient experiences. As an example, Dr. Barlesi noted that many clinicians would say that grade 2 diarrhea is a completely manageable adverse event, but not all patients would agree.

In this light, Dr. Barlesi said that the present findings are valuable, but they are not without flaws. He noted that 11 out of 13 symptoms from the quality of life lung cancer module were not reported, and that one-third of patients in the PACIFIC trial lacked PD-L1 expression level data.

Considering these shortcomings, and more broadly, difficulties comparing patient-reported outcome studies because of various measurement techniques, Dr. Barlesi called for standardization.

“We need to standardize the analysis of quality of life data,” Dr. Barlesi said. “We should correct for the multiplicity of tests. … we should identify some specific quality of life outcomes that we want to look at in the protocol.” He continued to suggest a variety of ideal characteristics for studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes, including defined statistical measures and protocols for missing data.

Without a standardized approach, “cross trial comparison will be a nightmare for all of us,” Dr. Barlesi said.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, BMS, Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Garassino et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract LBA2.

GENEVA – Treatment with osimertinib leads to clinically meaningful responses in about half of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have asymptomatic leptomeningeal metastases, according to a post hoc analysis of patients from multiple AURA studies.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This conclusion aligns with previous encouraging findings delivered by the BLOOM trial, with the notable caveat that AURA patients received the Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of 80 mg osimertinib daily, instead of 160 mg, as given to BLOOM patients, reported lead author Myung Ju Ahn, MD, PhD, of Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea, and her colleagues.

At the European Lung Cancer Congress, invited discussant Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, provided additional background for the study. “Leptomeningeal disease is really a devastating complication for our patients with lung cancer,” Dr. Jänne said, noting that effective treatments have been historically lacking; apart from osimertinib, other treatment strategies have included whole brain radiation therapy, high-dose pemetrexed, and pulsatile erlotinib, which were largely based on anecdotal evidence. Like other next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, osimertinib stands apart from older agents because of its greater ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

The present, retrospective analysis involved 22 patients with advanced, EGFR T790M–positive NSCLC with asymptomatic leptomeningeal metastases (LM) that was radiographically detected by blinded independent review. Patients received 80 mg osimertinib daily after progressing on another EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Follow-up brain scans were evaluated using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology LM criteria. Median overall survival was determined, as were progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate, with these latter parameters analyzed specifically for LM disease.

Demographically, the patient population was consistent with previous AURA trials, with a predominance of Asian (82%) and female (59%) patients. Patients received treatment for a median of 7.3 months. Analysis showed that slightly more than half of patients (55%) responded to therapy, with an even split between partial (27%) and complete responders (27%). Median progression-free survival reached almost 1 year (11.1 months), while overall survival exceeded a year and a half (18.8 months), with a 1-year overall survival rate of 65%. Duration of response data are still immature. Graphical longitudinal analysis showed comparable responses between the AURA and BLOOM trials, suggesting that an 80-mg dose is likely to provide a similar efficacy to a 160-mg dose, Dr. Ahn said, although she also urged a cautionary interpretation because of study design.

Dr. Ahn described the survival statistics as “encouraging” at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology, as the outcomes were better than those typically seen in historical controls.

Discussing these findings, Dr. Jänne suggested that the patient assessment criteria were “pretty subjective in nature.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

“You could get a score of plus one or minus one if the scans are kind of better or kind of worse,” Dr. Jänne said. “There’s really no objective criteria there.” He noted that imaging results may not reflect clinical impact of LM disease, and suggested that additional assessment criteria would have been welcome, such as assessments involving neurologic status or cerebrospinal fluid characteristics, both of which were included in the BLOOM trial.

“The real question comes, when we’re facing someone with leptomeningeal disease, is 80 milligrams as effective as 160 milligrams?” Dr. Jänne asked. “I don’t think we have the answer to that because the [AURA and BLOOM] studies are different, including different endpoints, and they’re not comparative.” He also noted that, in the United States, when met with LM disease progression, clinicians commonly increase the osimertinib dose from 80 mg to 160 mg; however, “it is without any data,” and warrants an actual clinical study.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Ahn MJ et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 105O.

GENEVA – Treatment with osimertinib leads to clinically meaningful responses in about half of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have asymptomatic leptomeningeal metastases, according to a post hoc analysis of patients from multiple AURA studies.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This conclusion aligns with previous encouraging findings delivered by the BLOOM trial, with the notable caveat that AURA patients received the Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of 80 mg osimertinib daily, instead of 160 mg, as given to BLOOM patients, reported lead author Myung Ju Ahn, MD, PhD, of Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea, and her colleagues.

At the European Lung Cancer Congress, invited discussant Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, provided additional background for the study. “Leptomeningeal disease is really a devastating complication for our patients with lung cancer,” Dr. Jänne said, noting that effective treatments have been historically lacking; apart from osimertinib, other treatment strategies have included whole brain radiation therapy, high-dose pemetrexed, and pulsatile erlotinib, which were largely based on anecdotal evidence. Like other next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, osimertinib stands apart from older agents because of its greater ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

The present, retrospective analysis involved 22 patients with advanced, EGFR T790M–positive NSCLC with asymptomatic leptomeningeal metastases (LM) that was radiographically detected by blinded independent review. Patients received 80 mg osimertinib daily after progressing on another EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Follow-up brain scans were evaluated using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology LM criteria. Median overall survival was determined, as were progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate, with these latter parameters analyzed specifically for LM disease.

Demographically, the patient population was consistent with previous AURA trials, with a predominance of Asian (82%) and female (59%) patients. Patients received treatment for a median of 7.3 months. Analysis showed that slightly more than half of patients (55%) responded to therapy, with an even split between partial (27%) and complete responders (27%). Median progression-free survival reached almost 1 year (11.1 months), while overall survival exceeded a year and a half (18.8 months), with a 1-year overall survival rate of 65%. Duration of response data are still immature. Graphical longitudinal analysis showed comparable responses between the AURA and BLOOM trials, suggesting that an 80-mg dose is likely to provide a similar efficacy to a 160-mg dose, Dr. Ahn said, although she also urged a cautionary interpretation because of study design.

Dr. Ahn described the survival statistics as “encouraging” at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology, as the outcomes were better than those typically seen in historical controls.

Discussing these findings, Dr. Jänne suggested that the patient assessment criteria were “pretty subjective in nature.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

“You could get a score of plus one or minus one if the scans are kind of better or kind of worse,” Dr. Jänne said. “There’s really no objective criteria there.” He noted that imaging results may not reflect clinical impact of LM disease, and suggested that additional assessment criteria would have been welcome, such as assessments involving neurologic status or cerebrospinal fluid characteristics, both of which were included in the BLOOM trial.

“The real question comes, when we’re facing someone with leptomeningeal disease, is 80 milligrams as effective as 160 milligrams?” Dr. Jänne asked. “I don’t think we have the answer to that because the [AURA and BLOOM] studies are different, including different endpoints, and they’re not comparative.” He also noted that, in the United States, when met with LM disease progression, clinicians commonly increase the osimertinib dose from 80 mg to 160 mg; however, “it is without any data,” and warrants an actual clinical study.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Ahn MJ et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 105O.

GENEVA – Treatment with osimertinib leads to clinically meaningful responses in about half of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have asymptomatic leptomeningeal metastases, according to a post hoc analysis of patients from multiple AURA studies.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This conclusion aligns with previous encouraging findings delivered by the BLOOM trial, with the notable caveat that AURA patients received the Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of 80 mg osimertinib daily, instead of 160 mg, as given to BLOOM patients, reported lead author Myung Ju Ahn, MD, PhD, of Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea, and her colleagues.

At the European Lung Cancer Congress, invited discussant Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, provided additional background for the study. “Leptomeningeal disease is really a devastating complication for our patients with lung cancer,” Dr. Jänne said, noting that effective treatments have been historically lacking; apart from osimertinib, other treatment strategies have included whole brain radiation therapy, high-dose pemetrexed, and pulsatile erlotinib, which were largely based on anecdotal evidence. Like other next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, osimertinib stands apart from older agents because of its greater ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

The present, retrospective analysis involved 22 patients with advanced, EGFR T790M–positive NSCLC with asymptomatic leptomeningeal metastases (LM) that was radiographically detected by blinded independent review. Patients received 80 mg osimertinib daily after progressing on another EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Follow-up brain scans were evaluated using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology LM criteria. Median overall survival was determined, as were progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate, with these latter parameters analyzed specifically for LM disease.

Demographically, the patient population was consistent with previous AURA trials, with a predominance of Asian (82%) and female (59%) patients. Patients received treatment for a median of 7.3 months. Analysis showed that slightly more than half of patients (55%) responded to therapy, with an even split between partial (27%) and complete responders (27%). Median progression-free survival reached almost 1 year (11.1 months), while overall survival exceeded a year and a half (18.8 months), with a 1-year overall survival rate of 65%. Duration of response data are still immature. Graphical longitudinal analysis showed comparable responses between the AURA and BLOOM trials, suggesting that an 80-mg dose is likely to provide a similar efficacy to a 160-mg dose, Dr. Ahn said, although she also urged a cautionary interpretation because of study design.

Dr. Ahn described the survival statistics as “encouraging” at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology, as the outcomes were better than those typically seen in historical controls.

Discussing these findings, Dr. Jänne suggested that the patient assessment criteria were “pretty subjective in nature.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

“You could get a score of plus one or minus one if the scans are kind of better or kind of worse,” Dr. Jänne said. “There’s really no objective criteria there.” He noted that imaging results may not reflect clinical impact of LM disease, and suggested that additional assessment criteria would have been welcome, such as assessments involving neurologic status or cerebrospinal fluid characteristics, both of which were included in the BLOOM trial.

“The real question comes, when we’re facing someone with leptomeningeal disease, is 80 milligrams as effective as 160 milligrams?” Dr. Jänne asked. “I don’t think we have the answer to that because the [AURA and BLOOM] studies are different, including different endpoints, and they’re not comparative.” He also noted that, in the United States, when met with LM disease progression, clinicians commonly increase the osimertinib dose from 80 mg to 160 mg; however, “it is without any data,” and warrants an actual clinical study.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Ahn MJ et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 105O.

GENEVA – For EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), afatinib appears safe and effective in a “real-world” setting, based on results of a phase 3b study.

Across a diverse population of patients, including those with brain metastases, uncommon mutations, multiple lines of prior therapy, and/or an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, afatinib delivered “encouraging” responses, reported lead author Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. During his presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Passaro described the safety profile as “predictable and manageable.”

The findings follow on the heels of the LUX-Lung trials, which showed that afatinib could match the progression-free survival (PFS) achieved with gefitinib, at about 11 months, while beating chemotherapy, which was associated with a PFS of approximately 5-7 months.

“However,” the investigators noted in their abstract, “in real-world practice chemotherapy remains a first-line choice.”

The present study aimed to demonstrate the real-world potential of afatinib across treatment lines, Dr. Passaro said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The patient population was diverse, with multiple treatment lines represented. The majority of patients (78%) received afatinib as first-line treatment, while smaller groups received the treatment as second-line (17%), or third-line or greater (5%). About one-third of the patients (36%) had an ECOG score of 0, about half (57%) had a score of 1, and a small group (8%) had a score of 2. A minority of patients had brain metastases (17%) and/or uncommon mutations (13%). Patients received 40 mg of afatinib daily; dose reduction to 20 mg was allowed if necessary.

Analysis showed that patients received afatinib for a median of almost 1 year (359 days). Slightly more than half of the patients (54%) got reduced doses because of adverse events, most commonly, diarrhea (25%) and rash (11%). About one out of five patients (22%) discontinued treatment entirely.

Secondarily, the investigators analyzed efficacy, reporting that the objective response rate was 46% and the disease control rate was 86%. During his presentation, Dr. Passaro focused on median time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) and median progression-free survival (PFS), describing these outcomes in relation to patient subgroups. Across all patients, TTSP was 14.9 months and PFS was 13.4 months. Among subgroups, patients receiving afatinib as first-line therapy had the best median PFS, at 13.8 months, which was comparable with those who received the treatment second-line (13.2 months). In contrast, patients receiving afatinib as a third-line treatment or later had noticeably shorter PFS, at 6.6 months. Baseline ECOG performance status showed a similar trend; patients with scores of 0 had a median PFS of 15.4 months, compared with 12.9 months for those with a score of 1, and 6.2 months with a score of 2. Patients with brain metastases fared worse than did those without (PFS 10.1 months vs. 13.9 months), and patients with uncommon mutations had shorter PFS than that of those with common mutations (6.0 months vs. 14.1 months). TTSP durations paralleled the above PFS trends.Boehringer Ingelheim funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Passaro et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 115O.

GENEVA – For EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), afatinib appears safe and effective in a “real-world” setting, based on results of a phase 3b study.

Across a diverse population of patients, including those with brain metastases, uncommon mutations, multiple lines of prior therapy, and/or an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, afatinib delivered “encouraging” responses, reported lead author Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. During his presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Passaro described the safety profile as “predictable and manageable.”

The findings follow on the heels of the LUX-Lung trials, which showed that afatinib could match the progression-free survival (PFS) achieved with gefitinib, at about 11 months, while beating chemotherapy, which was associated with a PFS of approximately 5-7 months.

“However,” the investigators noted in their abstract, “in real-world practice chemotherapy remains a first-line choice.”

The present study aimed to demonstrate the real-world potential of afatinib across treatment lines, Dr. Passaro said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The patient population was diverse, with multiple treatment lines represented. The majority of patients (78%) received afatinib as first-line treatment, while smaller groups received the treatment as second-line (17%), or third-line or greater (5%). About one-third of the patients (36%) had an ECOG score of 0, about half (57%) had a score of 1, and a small group (8%) had a score of 2. A minority of patients had brain metastases (17%) and/or uncommon mutations (13%). Patients received 40 mg of afatinib daily; dose reduction to 20 mg was allowed if necessary.

Analysis showed that patients received afatinib for a median of almost 1 year (359 days). Slightly more than half of the patients (54%) got reduced doses because of adverse events, most commonly, diarrhea (25%) and rash (11%). About one out of five patients (22%) discontinued treatment entirely.

Secondarily, the investigators analyzed efficacy, reporting that the objective response rate was 46% and the disease control rate was 86%. During his presentation, Dr. Passaro focused on median time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) and median progression-free survival (PFS), describing these outcomes in relation to patient subgroups. Across all patients, TTSP was 14.9 months and PFS was 13.4 months. Among subgroups, patients receiving afatinib as first-line therapy had the best median PFS, at 13.8 months, which was comparable with those who received the treatment second-line (13.2 months). In contrast, patients receiving afatinib as a third-line treatment or later had noticeably shorter PFS, at 6.6 months. Baseline ECOG performance status showed a similar trend; patients with scores of 0 had a median PFS of 15.4 months, compared with 12.9 months for those with a score of 1, and 6.2 months with a score of 2. Patients with brain metastases fared worse than did those without (PFS 10.1 months vs. 13.9 months), and patients with uncommon mutations had shorter PFS than that of those with common mutations (6.0 months vs. 14.1 months). TTSP durations paralleled the above PFS trends.Boehringer Ingelheim funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Passaro et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 115O.

GENEVA – For EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), afatinib appears safe and effective in a “real-world” setting, based on results of a phase 3b study.

Across a diverse population of patients, including those with brain metastases, uncommon mutations, multiple lines of prior therapy, and/or an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, afatinib delivered “encouraging” responses, reported lead author Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. During his presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Passaro described the safety profile as “predictable and manageable.”

The findings follow on the heels of the LUX-Lung trials, which showed that afatinib could match the progression-free survival (PFS) achieved with gefitinib, at about 11 months, while beating chemotherapy, which was associated with a PFS of approximately 5-7 months.

“However,” the investigators noted in their abstract, “in real-world practice chemotherapy remains a first-line choice.”

The present study aimed to demonstrate the real-world potential of afatinib across treatment lines, Dr. Passaro said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The patient population was diverse, with multiple treatment lines represented. The majority of patients (78%) received afatinib as first-line treatment, while smaller groups received the treatment as second-line (17%), or third-line or greater (5%). About one-third of the patients (36%) had an ECOG score of 0, about half (57%) had a score of 1, and a small group (8%) had a score of 2. A minority of patients had brain metastases (17%) and/or uncommon mutations (13%). Patients received 40 mg of afatinib daily; dose reduction to 20 mg was allowed if necessary.

Analysis showed that patients received afatinib for a median of almost 1 year (359 days). Slightly more than half of the patients (54%) got reduced doses because of adverse events, most commonly, diarrhea (25%) and rash (11%). About one out of five patients (22%) discontinued treatment entirely.

Secondarily, the investigators analyzed efficacy, reporting that the objective response rate was 46% and the disease control rate was 86%. During his presentation, Dr. Passaro focused on median time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) and median progression-free survival (PFS), describing these outcomes in relation to patient subgroups. Across all patients, TTSP was 14.9 months and PFS was 13.4 months. Among subgroups, patients receiving afatinib as first-line therapy had the best median PFS, at 13.8 months, which was comparable with those who received the treatment second-line (13.2 months). In contrast, patients receiving afatinib as a third-line treatment or later had noticeably shorter PFS, at 6.6 months. Baseline ECOG performance status showed a similar trend; patients with scores of 0 had a median PFS of 15.4 months, compared with 12.9 months for those with a score of 1, and 6.2 months with a score of 2. Patients with brain metastases fared worse than did those without (PFS 10.1 months vs. 13.9 months), and patients with uncommon mutations had shorter PFS than that of those with common mutations (6.0 months vs. 14.1 months). TTSP durations paralleled the above PFS trends.Boehringer Ingelheim funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Passaro et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 115O.

GENEVA – Liquid biopsy appears inadequate to detect molecular aberrations in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have isolated central nervous system (CNS) progression, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis detected molecular abnormalities in almost all patients with systemic disease progression, compared with just two out of five patients with isolated brain lesions, reported lead author Mihaela Aldea, MD, who presented findings at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

Dr. Aldea, of Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, said that “central nervous system progression is an example of hard-to-biopsy disease and is common in oncogene addicted non–small cell lung cancer, making it a potential setting to employ ctDNA analysis.” However, Dr. Aldea noted that the blood-brain barrier limits passage of molecules such as ctDNA into systemic circulation, leading to hypothetical skepticism within the medical community, despite “very limited” data.

“Currently, the actual performance of ctDNA in patients with lung cancer and isolated CNS progression remains largely unknown,” Dr. Aldea said, “so this is the question that we put in our study.”

Dr. Aldea and her colleagues screened 959 patients with NSCLC who were involved in prospective trials at Gustave Roussy between 2016 and 2018. Study inclusion required that patients have a molecular alteration detected via tissue sample and at least 1 ctDNA sample available from the time of CNS progression. Molecular alterations included ALK, EGFR, KRAS, ROS1, HER2, BRAF, TP53, and MET. Through these criteria, the study population was narrowed to 58 patients and 66 ctDNA samples, of which 21 were from patients with isolated CNS (I-CNS) progression and 45 were from patients with systemic disease progression (S-CNS). CtDNA was conducted with next generation sequencing and compared with imaging, molecular, and clinical patient data.

Most patients in the I-CNS group were female (94%), compared with about half of the S-CNS group (59%). Rates of adenocarcinoma and smoking history were relatively similar between I-CNS and S-CNS patients; in contrast, S-CNS patients had a median of two metastatic sites, compared with one in the I-CNS group. Rates of ALK, KRAS, and EGFR aberrations were slightly higher in the I-CNS group, whereas HER2, TP53, MET, and BRAF abnormalities were found only in the S-CNS group. Relating to the central hypothesis, 98% of S-CNS patients tested positive for at least one actionable driver via ctDNA analysis, compared with just 38% of I-CNS patients (P less than .0001). Resistance mutations were detected more commonly in the S-CNS group, although not significantly, which Dr. Aldea attributed to small population size.

“Plasma liquid biopsy is not a reliable marker for analyzing the molecular landscape of CNS progression,” Dr. Aldea concluded, adding that patients with isolated brain lesions may need to be treated with “more potent drugs” even when resistance mutations are not detected.

The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Aldea et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 110O.

GENEVA – Liquid biopsy appears inadequate to detect molecular aberrations in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have isolated central nervous system (CNS) progression, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis detected molecular abnormalities in almost all patients with systemic disease progression, compared with just two out of five patients with isolated brain lesions, reported lead author Mihaela Aldea, MD, who presented findings at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

Dr. Aldea, of Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, said that “central nervous system progression is an example of hard-to-biopsy disease and is common in oncogene addicted non–small cell lung cancer, making it a potential setting to employ ctDNA analysis.” However, Dr. Aldea noted that the blood-brain barrier limits passage of molecules such as ctDNA into systemic circulation, leading to hypothetical skepticism within the medical community, despite “very limited” data.

“Currently, the actual performance of ctDNA in patients with lung cancer and isolated CNS progression remains largely unknown,” Dr. Aldea said, “so this is the question that we put in our study.”

Dr. Aldea and her colleagues screened 959 patients with NSCLC who were involved in prospective trials at Gustave Roussy between 2016 and 2018. Study inclusion required that patients have a molecular alteration detected via tissue sample and at least 1 ctDNA sample available from the time of CNS progression. Molecular alterations included ALK, EGFR, KRAS, ROS1, HER2, BRAF, TP53, and MET. Through these criteria, the study population was narrowed to 58 patients and 66 ctDNA samples, of which 21 were from patients with isolated CNS (I-CNS) progression and 45 were from patients with systemic disease progression (S-CNS). CtDNA was conducted with next generation sequencing and compared with imaging, molecular, and clinical patient data.

Most patients in the I-CNS group were female (94%), compared with about half of the S-CNS group (59%). Rates of adenocarcinoma and smoking history were relatively similar between I-CNS and S-CNS patients; in contrast, S-CNS patients had a median of two metastatic sites, compared with one in the I-CNS group. Rates of ALK, KRAS, and EGFR aberrations were slightly higher in the I-CNS group, whereas HER2, TP53, MET, and BRAF abnormalities were found only in the S-CNS group. Relating to the central hypothesis, 98% of S-CNS patients tested positive for at least one actionable driver via ctDNA analysis, compared with just 38% of I-CNS patients (P less than .0001). Resistance mutations were detected more commonly in the S-CNS group, although not significantly, which Dr. Aldea attributed to small population size.

“Plasma liquid biopsy is not a reliable marker for analyzing the molecular landscape of CNS progression,” Dr. Aldea concluded, adding that patients with isolated brain lesions may need to be treated with “more potent drugs” even when resistance mutations are not detected.

The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Aldea et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 110O.

GENEVA – Liquid biopsy appears inadequate to detect molecular aberrations in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have isolated central nervous system (CNS) progression, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis detected molecular abnormalities in almost all patients with systemic disease progression, compared with just two out of five patients with isolated brain lesions, reported lead author Mihaela Aldea, MD, who presented findings at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

Dr. Aldea, of Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, said that “central nervous system progression is an example of hard-to-biopsy disease and is common in oncogene addicted non–small cell lung cancer, making it a potential setting to employ ctDNA analysis.” However, Dr. Aldea noted that the blood-brain barrier limits passage of molecules such as ctDNA into systemic circulation, leading to hypothetical skepticism within the medical community, despite “very limited” data.

“Currently, the actual performance of ctDNA in patients with lung cancer and isolated CNS progression remains largely unknown,” Dr. Aldea said, “so this is the question that we put in our study.”

Dr. Aldea and her colleagues screened 959 patients with NSCLC who were involved in prospective trials at Gustave Roussy between 2016 and 2018. Study inclusion required that patients have a molecular alteration detected via tissue sample and at least 1 ctDNA sample available from the time of CNS progression. Molecular alterations included ALK, EGFR, KRAS, ROS1, HER2, BRAF, TP53, and MET. Through these criteria, the study population was narrowed to 58 patients and 66 ctDNA samples, of which 21 were from patients with isolated CNS (I-CNS) progression and 45 were from patients with systemic disease progression (S-CNS). CtDNA was conducted with next generation sequencing and compared with imaging, molecular, and clinical patient data.

Most patients in the I-CNS group were female (94%), compared with about half of the S-CNS group (59%). Rates of adenocarcinoma and smoking history were relatively similar between I-CNS and S-CNS patients; in contrast, S-CNS patients had a median of two metastatic sites, compared with one in the I-CNS group. Rates of ALK, KRAS, and EGFR aberrations were slightly higher in the I-CNS group, whereas HER2, TP53, MET, and BRAF abnormalities were found only in the S-CNS group. Relating to the central hypothesis, 98% of S-CNS patients tested positive for at least one actionable driver via ctDNA analysis, compared with just 38% of I-CNS patients (P less than .0001). Resistance mutations were detected more commonly in the S-CNS group, although not significantly, which Dr. Aldea attributed to small population size.

“Plasma liquid biopsy is not a reliable marker for analyzing the molecular landscape of CNS progression,” Dr. Aldea concluded, adding that patients with isolated brain lesions may need to be treated with “more potent drugs” even when resistance mutations are not detected.

The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Aldea et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 110O.

GENEVA – Afatinib appears safe and effective for elderly patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to investigators.

A retrospective analysis of the phase 3 GIDEON trial showed similar objective responses, disease control rates, and progression-free survival rates among elderly patients, compared with younger patients, reported lead author Wolfgang M. Brückl, MD, of Universitätsklinik der Paracelsus Medizinischen Privatuniversität in Nürnberg, Germany, and his colleagues. These findings were presented in a poster at the European Lung Cancer Congress.

“Elderly patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote, “which can lead to uncertainties regarding optimal treatment of such patients in routine clinical practice. The GIDEON noninterventional study enrolled a high proportion of patients aged 70 years or older, providing an opportunity to study the real-world use of afatinib in older individuals.”

The GIDEON study involved 160 patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC who were treated at 49 centers in Germany between 2014 and 2016. From this total, 151 patients were available for interim analysis, and 67 patients (44%) were at least 70-years old. Among this elderly group, about one out of five patients (22%) had brain metastases and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores were typically 1 (45%) or 0 (42%).

Compared with younger patients, elderly patients were more likely to receive a lower starting dose of afatinib (62% vs. 83%), which usually entailed a decrease from 40 mg to 30 mg. Thereafter, dose reduction rates were similar between age groups, with 58% of younger patients requiring lower doses and 55% of elderly patients requiring reduced doses. Adverse events were comparable across age groups, although a fraction more of the patients 70 years or older discontinued treatment because of serious adverse drug reactions (12% vs. 7%).

Efficacy results were also comparable between age groups. Overall response rates were slightly higher among elderly patients than younger patients, with a 70-year age threshold (78% vs. 70%); disease control rate was marginally higher among the elderly (93% vs. 89%); and elderly patients had a slightly better 12-month PFS rate (62.2% vs. 49.1%).

“Data from the GIDEON noninterventional study provide important information on the routine clinical use of afatinib in elderly patients,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. The investigators did not report conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brückl WM et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 125P.

GENEVA – Afatinib appears safe and effective for elderly patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to investigators.

A retrospective analysis of the phase 3 GIDEON trial showed similar objective responses, disease control rates, and progression-free survival rates among elderly patients, compared with younger patients, reported lead author Wolfgang M. Brückl, MD, of Universitätsklinik der Paracelsus Medizinischen Privatuniversität in Nürnberg, Germany, and his colleagues. These findings were presented in a poster at the European Lung Cancer Congress.

“Elderly patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote, “which can lead to uncertainties regarding optimal treatment of such patients in routine clinical practice. The GIDEON noninterventional study enrolled a high proportion of patients aged 70 years or older, providing an opportunity to study the real-world use of afatinib in older individuals.”

The GIDEON study involved 160 patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC who were treated at 49 centers in Germany between 2014 and 2016. From this total, 151 patients were available for interim analysis, and 67 patients (44%) were at least 70-years old. Among this elderly group, about one out of five patients (22%) had brain metastases and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores were typically 1 (45%) or 0 (42%).

Compared with younger patients, elderly patients were more likely to receive a lower starting dose of afatinib (62% vs. 83%), which usually entailed a decrease from 40 mg to 30 mg. Thereafter, dose reduction rates were similar between age groups, with 58% of younger patients requiring lower doses and 55% of elderly patients requiring reduced doses. Adverse events were comparable across age groups, although a fraction more of the patients 70 years or older discontinued treatment because of serious adverse drug reactions (12% vs. 7%).

Efficacy results were also comparable between age groups. Overall response rates were slightly higher among elderly patients than younger patients, with a 70-year age threshold (78% vs. 70%); disease control rate was marginally higher among the elderly (93% vs. 89%); and elderly patients had a slightly better 12-month PFS rate (62.2% vs. 49.1%).

“Data from the GIDEON noninterventional study provide important information on the routine clinical use of afatinib in elderly patients,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. The investigators did not report conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brückl WM et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 125P.

GENEVA – Afatinib appears safe and effective for elderly patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to investigators.

A retrospective analysis of the phase 3 GIDEON trial showed similar objective responses, disease control rates, and progression-free survival rates among elderly patients, compared with younger patients, reported lead author Wolfgang M. Brückl, MD, of Universitätsklinik der Paracelsus Medizinischen Privatuniversität in Nürnberg, Germany, and his colleagues. These findings were presented in a poster at the European Lung Cancer Congress.

“Elderly patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote, “which can lead to uncertainties regarding optimal treatment of such patients in routine clinical practice. The GIDEON noninterventional study enrolled a high proportion of patients aged 70 years or older, providing an opportunity to study the real-world use of afatinib in older individuals.”

The GIDEON study involved 160 patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC who were treated at 49 centers in Germany between 2014 and 2016. From this total, 151 patients were available for interim analysis, and 67 patients (44%) were at least 70-years old. Among this elderly group, about one out of five patients (22%) had brain metastases and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores were typically 1 (45%) or 0 (42%).

Compared with younger patients, elderly patients were more likely to receive a lower starting dose of afatinib (62% vs. 83%), which usually entailed a decrease from 40 mg to 30 mg. Thereafter, dose reduction rates were similar between age groups, with 58% of younger patients requiring lower doses and 55% of elderly patients requiring reduced doses. Adverse events were comparable across age groups, although a fraction more of the patients 70 years or older discontinued treatment because of serious adverse drug reactions (12% vs. 7%).

Efficacy results were also comparable between age groups. Overall response rates were slightly higher among elderly patients than younger patients, with a 70-year age threshold (78% vs. 70%); disease control rate was marginally higher among the elderly (93% vs. 89%); and elderly patients had a slightly better 12-month PFS rate (62.2% vs. 49.1%).

“Data from the GIDEON noninterventional study provide important information on the routine clinical use of afatinib in elderly patients,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. The investigators did not report conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brückl WM et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 125P.

GENEVA – The TRK inhibitor larotrectinib is highly active in lung cancer patients with NTRK gene fusions, supporting routine screening for such fusions in cases of lung cancer, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Although NTRK fusions are relatively infrequent in lung cancer, lead author Alexander Drilon, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggested that their low frequency should not preclude testing in the current diagnostic setting.

“The frequency of TRK fusions in lung cancers in a prospective series that we put together was at the order of 0.23%, recognizing that the paradigm now for molecular profiling in lung cancer screens for many different drivers together, and not just single-gene testing,” Dr. Drilon said at the European Lung Cancer Conference. Dr. Drilon noted that larotrectinib is now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with TRK fusion-positive cancers.

The present analysis involved 11 patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma and NTRK gene fusions from two previous clinical trials (NCT02122913 and NCT02576431); of these patients, 8 had NTRK1 fusions and 3 had NTRK3 fusions. Patients were given larotrectinib 100 mg twice daily on a continuous 28-day schedule until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Almost all patients (10 out of 11) had a prior systemic therapy, and 5 patients had three or more prior therapies. The best response to previous therapies included four stable disease and one partial response. Out of 11 patients, 4 were ineligible for response analysis because of a treatment period of less than 1 month, leaving 7 evaluable patients; of these, 2 patients had stable disease, 4 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response, translating to an overall response rate of 71%. On average, patients responded in just 1.8 months, with responses ranging from 7.4 months to 17.6 months, with the caveat that median duration of response has yet to be met. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being grade 1 or 2. Dr. Drilon cited a historical dose reduction rate of 9% and a discontinuation rate of less than 1% (out of 122 patients across cancer types).

Although most patients were heavily pretreated, Dr. Drilon highlighted one patient, a 76-year-old woman with non–small cell lung cancer, who had an NTRK1 gene fusion and multiple metastases to the brain and contralateral lung. This patient received larotrectinib as first-line therapy after refusing standard platinum doublet chemotherapy. The woman had a partial response, including “a near complete intracranial response with 95% volumetric shrinkage,” Dr. Drilon said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “She remains on therapy as of six and a half months per the last data cutoff and is still doing well without any substantial toxicities from this drug.”

“In conclusion, larotrectinib is active in advanced lung cancers that harbor a TRK fusion,” Dr. Drilon said. “Of course, these [findings] underscore the utility of molecular profiling for TRK fusions when we look for drivers in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.”

When asked by the invited discussant if NTRK fusions should be tested up-front in all cases of non–small cell lung cancer, Dr. Drilon said, “I think the answer is absolutely yes.” He highlighted the fact that this study and other existing research has shown an overall response rate of about 70%, “which certainly beats the outcomes that we see with other systemic therapies, including, arguably, chemoimmunotherapy for this population. So I think that the paradigm here should be similar to the paradigm for EGFR and ALK, where we have an active target therapeutic that we can use up front, which would likely really improve outcomes for patients.”

Loxo Oncology Inc. and Bayer AG funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Ignyta, Loxo, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Drilon et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 111O.

GENEVA – The TRK inhibitor larotrectinib is highly active in lung cancer patients with NTRK gene fusions, supporting routine screening for such fusions in cases of lung cancer, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Although NTRK fusions are relatively infrequent in lung cancer, lead author Alexander Drilon, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggested that their low frequency should not preclude testing in the current diagnostic setting.

“The frequency of TRK fusions in lung cancers in a prospective series that we put together was at the order of 0.23%, recognizing that the paradigm now for molecular profiling in lung cancer screens for many different drivers together, and not just single-gene testing,” Dr. Drilon said at the European Lung Cancer Conference. Dr. Drilon noted that larotrectinib is now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with TRK fusion-positive cancers.

The present analysis involved 11 patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma and NTRK gene fusions from two previous clinical trials (NCT02122913 and NCT02576431); of these patients, 8 had NTRK1 fusions and 3 had NTRK3 fusions. Patients were given larotrectinib 100 mg twice daily on a continuous 28-day schedule until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Almost all patients (10 out of 11) had a prior systemic therapy, and 5 patients had three or more prior therapies. The best response to previous therapies included four stable disease and one partial response. Out of 11 patients, 4 were ineligible for response analysis because of a treatment period of less than 1 month, leaving 7 evaluable patients; of these, 2 patients had stable disease, 4 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response, translating to an overall response rate of 71%. On average, patients responded in just 1.8 months, with responses ranging from 7.4 months to 17.6 months, with the caveat that median duration of response has yet to be met. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being grade 1 or 2. Dr. Drilon cited a historical dose reduction rate of 9% and a discontinuation rate of less than 1% (out of 122 patients across cancer types).

Although most patients were heavily pretreated, Dr. Drilon highlighted one patient, a 76-year-old woman with non–small cell lung cancer, who had an NTRK1 gene fusion and multiple metastases to the brain and contralateral lung. This patient received larotrectinib as first-line therapy after refusing standard platinum doublet chemotherapy. The woman had a partial response, including “a near complete intracranial response with 95% volumetric shrinkage,” Dr. Drilon said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “She remains on therapy as of six and a half months per the last data cutoff and is still doing well without any substantial toxicities from this drug.”

“In conclusion, larotrectinib is active in advanced lung cancers that harbor a TRK fusion,” Dr. Drilon said. “Of course, these [findings] underscore the utility of molecular profiling for TRK fusions when we look for drivers in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.”

When asked by the invited discussant if NTRK fusions should be tested up-front in all cases of non–small cell lung cancer, Dr. Drilon said, “I think the answer is absolutely yes.” He highlighted the fact that this study and other existing research has shown an overall response rate of about 70%, “which certainly beats the outcomes that we see with other systemic therapies, including, arguably, chemoimmunotherapy for this population. So I think that the paradigm here should be similar to the paradigm for EGFR and ALK, where we have an active target therapeutic that we can use up front, which would likely really improve outcomes for patients.”

Loxo Oncology Inc. and Bayer AG funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Ignyta, Loxo, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Drilon et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 111O.

GENEVA – The TRK inhibitor larotrectinib is highly active in lung cancer patients with NTRK gene fusions, supporting routine screening for such fusions in cases of lung cancer, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Although NTRK fusions are relatively infrequent in lung cancer, lead author Alexander Drilon, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggested that their low frequency should not preclude testing in the current diagnostic setting.

“The frequency of TRK fusions in lung cancers in a prospective series that we put together was at the order of 0.23%, recognizing that the paradigm now for molecular profiling in lung cancer screens for many different drivers together, and not just single-gene testing,” Dr. Drilon said at the European Lung Cancer Conference. Dr. Drilon noted that larotrectinib is now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with TRK fusion-positive cancers.

The present analysis involved 11 patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma and NTRK gene fusions from two previous clinical trials (NCT02122913 and NCT02576431); of these patients, 8 had NTRK1 fusions and 3 had NTRK3 fusions. Patients were given larotrectinib 100 mg twice daily on a continuous 28-day schedule until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Almost all patients (10 out of 11) had a prior systemic therapy, and 5 patients had three or more prior therapies. The best response to previous therapies included four stable disease and one partial response. Out of 11 patients, 4 were ineligible for response analysis because of a treatment period of less than 1 month, leaving 7 evaluable patients; of these, 2 patients had stable disease, 4 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response, translating to an overall response rate of 71%. On average, patients responded in just 1.8 months, with responses ranging from 7.4 months to 17.6 months, with the caveat that median duration of response has yet to be met. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being grade 1 or 2. Dr. Drilon cited a historical dose reduction rate of 9% and a discontinuation rate of less than 1% (out of 122 patients across cancer types).

Although most patients were heavily pretreated, Dr. Drilon highlighted one patient, a 76-year-old woman with non–small cell lung cancer, who had an NTRK1 gene fusion and multiple metastases to the brain and contralateral lung. This patient received larotrectinib as first-line therapy after refusing standard platinum doublet chemotherapy. The woman had a partial response, including “a near complete intracranial response with 95% volumetric shrinkage,” Dr. Drilon said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “She remains on therapy as of six and a half months per the last data cutoff and is still doing well without any substantial toxicities from this drug.”

“In conclusion, larotrectinib is active in advanced lung cancers that harbor a TRK fusion,” Dr. Drilon said. “Of course, these [findings] underscore the utility of molecular profiling for TRK fusions when we look for drivers in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.”

When asked by the invited discussant if NTRK fusions should be tested up-front in all cases of non–small cell lung cancer, Dr. Drilon said, “I think the answer is absolutely yes.” He highlighted the fact that this study and other existing research has shown an overall response rate of about 70%, “which certainly beats the outcomes that we see with other systemic therapies, including, arguably, chemoimmunotherapy for this population. So I think that the paradigm here should be similar to the paradigm for EGFR and ALK, where we have an active target therapeutic that we can use up front, which would likely really improve outcomes for patients.”

Loxo Oncology Inc. and Bayer AG funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Ignyta, Loxo, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Drilon et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 111O.

GENEVA – Pembrolizumab monotherapy is as safe and effective in elderly patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as it is younger patients, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

They reached this conclusion after analyzing pooled data from 264 patients 75 years or older involved in the KEYNOTE-010, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 phase 3 trials, reported lead author Kaname Nosaki, MD, of the National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center in Fukuoka, Japan, and his colleagues.

“Approximately 70% of newly-diagnosed NSCLC cases occur in the elderly, and more than half are locally advanced or metastatic,” the investigators noted in their abstract. Despite this, patients aged 75 years or older are underrepresented in clinical trials, Dr. Nosaki said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

All patients in the three KEYNOTE trials had PD-L1 positive NSCLC, with variations between studies with respect to PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) and dosing regimen. While KEYNOTE-010 and KEYNOTE-042 involved patients with a TPS of at least 1%, KEYNOTE-024 raised the minimum TPS threshold to 50%. KEYNOTE-010 pembrolizumab dose was set at 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, compared with the other two studies, which set a consistent dose of the checkpoint inhibitor at 200 mg.

As with younger patients, higher TPS expression generally predicted better outcomes. Independent of treatment line, elderly patients with a TPS of at least 50% had a hazard ratio of 0.40 in favor of pembrolizumab over chemotherapy, compared with all PD-L1-positive elderly patients, who had a hazard ratio of 0.76.

Generally, adverse events were comparable between age groups, with 68% of elderly patients experiencing at least one treatment-related adverse event, compared with 65% of younger patients. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were slightly more common among elderly patients than younger patients (23% vs. 16%), with a mild concomitant increase in adverse event–related treatment discontinuations (11% vs. 7%). The rate of immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions, however, held steady regardless of age group, occurring in one out of four patients (25%). In contrast with these similarities, almost all elderly patients receiving chemotherapy (94%) had adverse events, compared with two out of three elderly patients receiving pembrolizumab. Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events also favored pembrolizumab over chemotherapy (23% vs. 59%).

“These data support the use of pembrolizumab monotherapy in elderly patients more than 75 years old with advanced PD-L1-expressing NSCLC,” Dr. Nosaki concluded.

Invited discussant Sanjay Popat, PhD, of Imperial College London, described the knowledge gap addressed by this study. “If we look at U.S. statistics, we see that lung cancer is the leading cause of death for patients above the age of 80, both for males and females,” Dr. Popat said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The real question is should this group of patients be getting any form of checkpoint inhibitors at all, and if so, what is the benefit to risk ratio?

Will Pass/MDedge News

“Our patients are getting older, we’re all living slightly longer, and the burden of geriatric oncology is predicted to rise quite markedly with age, so it’s important to get a good feel for how we should be managing our senior population,” he added.

According to Dr. Popat, elderly patients naturally undergo immune senescence, meaning the immune system deteriorates with age, and this phenomenon could theoretically mitigate efficacy of immunotherapies; however, previous studies have not found decreased efficacy among elderly patients. Still, some “so-called elderly population subsets we’ve been analyzing are actually around the median age [of diagnosis with NSCLC],” Dr. Popat said, noting that among these studies, those with wider age ranges offer more reliable data.

“Today we looked at the novel cutoff, this 75-year group cutoff, which I very much welcome,” Dr. Popat said, “because this much more reflects what we see in routine clinical care.”

Regarding the results, Dr. Popat suggested that chemotherapy leads to an “excess of mortality” among elderly patients, “likely due to toxicities,” thereby explaining part of the relative advantage provided by pembrolizumab. Considering these findings in addition to previous experiences with pembrolizumab in the elderly, Dr. Popat said that “if you choose your patient population well, fit patients well enough to go to a trial, they don’t have an excess of toxicities regardless of their age.”

Taken as a whole, the present analysis supports the routine use of pembrolizumab in fit, elderly patients, Dr. Popat said.

The study was funded by MSD. The investigators reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Taiho, Chugai, and others.

SOURCE: Nosaki et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 103O_PR.

GENEVA – Pembrolizumab monotherapy is as safe and effective in elderly patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as it is younger patients, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

They reached this conclusion after analyzing pooled data from 264 patients 75 years or older involved in the KEYNOTE-010, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 phase 3 trials, reported lead author Kaname Nosaki, MD, of the National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center in Fukuoka, Japan, and his colleagues.

“Approximately 70% of newly-diagnosed NSCLC cases occur in the elderly, and more than half are locally advanced or metastatic,” the investigators noted in their abstract. Despite this, patients aged 75 years or older are underrepresented in clinical trials, Dr. Nosaki said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

All patients in the three KEYNOTE trials had PD-L1 positive NSCLC, with variations between studies with respect to PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) and dosing regimen. While KEYNOTE-010 and KEYNOTE-042 involved patients with a TPS of at least 1%, KEYNOTE-024 raised the minimum TPS threshold to 50%. KEYNOTE-010 pembrolizumab dose was set at 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, compared with the other two studies, which set a consistent dose of the checkpoint inhibitor at 200 mg.

As with younger patients, higher TPS expression generally predicted better outcomes. Independent of treatment line, elderly patients with a TPS of at least 50% had a hazard ratio of 0.40 in favor of pembrolizumab over chemotherapy, compared with all PD-L1-positive elderly patients, who had a hazard ratio of 0.76.

Generally, adverse events were comparable between age groups, with 68% of elderly patients experiencing at least one treatment-related adverse event, compared with 65% of younger patients. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were slightly more common among elderly patients than younger patients (23% vs. 16%), with a mild concomitant increase in adverse event–related treatment discontinuations (11% vs. 7%). The rate of immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions, however, held steady regardless of age group, occurring in one out of four patients (25%). In contrast with these similarities, almost all elderly patients receiving chemotherapy (94%) had adverse events, compared with two out of three elderly patients receiving pembrolizumab. Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events also favored pembrolizumab over chemotherapy (23% vs. 59%).

“These data support the use of pembrolizumab monotherapy in elderly patients more than 75 years old with advanced PD-L1-expressing NSCLC,” Dr. Nosaki concluded.

Invited discussant Sanjay Popat, PhD, of Imperial College London, described the knowledge gap addressed by this study. “If we look at U.S. statistics, we see that lung cancer is the leading cause of death for patients above the age of 80, both for males and females,” Dr. Popat said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The real question is should this group of patients be getting any form of checkpoint inhibitors at all, and if so, what is the benefit to risk ratio?

Will Pass/MDedge News

“Our patients are getting older, we’re all living slightly longer, and the burden of geriatric oncology is predicted to rise quite markedly with age, so it’s important to get a good feel for how we should be managing our senior population,” he added.

According to Dr. Popat, elderly patients naturally undergo immune senescence, meaning the immune system deteriorates with age, and this phenomenon could theoretically mitigate efficacy of immunotherapies; however, previous studies have not found decreased efficacy among elderly patients. Still, some “so-called elderly population subsets we’ve been analyzing are actually around the median age [of diagnosis with NSCLC],” Dr. Popat said, noting that among these studies, those with wider age ranges offer more reliable data.

“Today we looked at the novel cutoff, this 75-year group cutoff, which I very much welcome,” Dr. Popat said, “because this much more reflects what we see in routine clinical care.”

Regarding the results, Dr. Popat suggested that chemotherapy leads to an “excess of mortality” among elderly patients, “likely due to toxicities,” thereby explaining part of the relative advantage provided by pembrolizumab. Considering these findings in addition to previous experiences with pembrolizumab in the elderly, Dr. Popat said that “if you choose your patient population well, fit patients well enough to go to a trial, they don’t have an excess of toxicities regardless of their age.”

Taken as a whole, the present analysis supports the routine use of pembrolizumab in fit, elderly patients, Dr. Popat said.

The study was funded by MSD. The investigators reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Taiho, Chugai, and others.

SOURCE: Nosaki et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 103O_PR.

GENEVA – Pembrolizumab monotherapy is as safe and effective in elderly patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as it is younger patients, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

They reached this conclusion after analyzing pooled data from 264 patients 75 years or older involved in the KEYNOTE-010, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 phase 3 trials, reported lead author Kaname Nosaki, MD, of the National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center in Fukuoka, Japan, and his colleagues.

“Approximately 70% of newly-diagnosed NSCLC cases occur in the elderly, and more than half are locally advanced or metastatic,” the investigators noted in their abstract. Despite this, patients aged 75 years or older are underrepresented in clinical trials, Dr. Nosaki said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

All patients in the three KEYNOTE trials had PD-L1 positive NSCLC, with variations between studies with respect to PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) and dosing regimen. While KEYNOTE-010 and KEYNOTE-042 involved patients with a TPS of at least 1%, KEYNOTE-024 raised the minimum TPS threshold to 50%. KEYNOTE-010 pembrolizumab dose was set at 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, compared with the other two studies, which set a consistent dose of the checkpoint inhibitor at 200 mg.

As with younger patients, higher TPS expression generally predicted better outcomes. Independent of treatment line, elderly patients with a TPS of at least 50% had a hazard ratio of 0.40 in favor of pembrolizumab over chemotherapy, compared with all PD-L1-positive elderly patients, who had a hazard ratio of 0.76.

Generally, adverse events were comparable between age groups, with 68% of elderly patients experiencing at least one treatment-related adverse event, compared with 65% of younger patients. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were slightly more common among elderly patients than younger patients (23% vs. 16%), with a mild concomitant increase in adverse event–related treatment discontinuations (11% vs. 7%). The rate of immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions, however, held steady regardless of age group, occurring in one out of four patients (25%). In contrast with these similarities, almost all elderly patients receiving chemotherapy (94%) had adverse events, compared with two out of three elderly patients receiving pembrolizumab. Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events also favored pembrolizumab over chemotherapy (23% vs. 59%).

“These data support the use of pembrolizumab monotherapy in elderly patients more than 75 years old with advanced PD-L1-expressing NSCLC,” Dr. Nosaki concluded.

Invited discussant Sanjay Popat, PhD, of Imperial College London, described the knowledge gap addressed by this study. “If we look at U.S. statistics, we see that lung cancer is the leading cause of death for patients above the age of 80, both for males and females,” Dr. Popat said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The real question is should this group of patients be getting any form of checkpoint inhibitors at all, and if so, what is the benefit to risk ratio?

Will Pass/MDedge News

“Our patients are getting older, we’re all living slightly longer, and the burden of geriatric oncology is predicted to rise quite markedly with age, so it’s important to get a good feel for how we should be managing our senior population,” he added.

According to Dr. Popat, elderly patients naturally undergo immune senescence, meaning the immune system deteriorates with age, and this phenomenon could theoretically mitigate efficacy of immunotherapies; however, previous studies have not found decreased efficacy among elderly patients. Still, some “so-called elderly population subsets we’ve been analyzing are actually around the median age [of diagnosis with NSCLC],” Dr. Popat said, noting that among these studies, those with wider age ranges offer more reliable data.

“Today we looked at the novel cutoff, this 75-year group cutoff, which I very much welcome,” Dr. Popat said, “because this much more reflects what we see in routine clinical care.”

Regarding the results, Dr. Popat suggested that chemotherapy leads to an “excess of mortality” among elderly patients, “likely due to toxicities,” thereby explaining part of the relative advantage provided by pembrolizumab. Considering these findings in addition to previous experiences with pembrolizumab in the elderly, Dr. Popat said that “if you choose your patient population well, fit patients well enough to go to a trial, they don’t have an excess of toxicities regardless of their age.”

Taken as a whole, the present analysis supports the routine use of pembrolizumab in fit, elderly patients, Dr. Popat said.

The study was funded by MSD. The investigators reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Taiho, Chugai, and others.

SOURCE: Nosaki et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 103O_PR.

GENEVA – For patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, adding tumor-treating fields (TTFields) to standard pemetrexed plus platinum compound chemotherapy could boost median overall survival by about 6 months, according to final results from the phase 2 STELLAR trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The survival benefit of TTFields was greatest among patients with epithelioid mesothelioma, reported lead author Giovanni Luca Ceresoli, MD, of Humanitas Gavazzeni in Bergamo, Italy. According to Dr. Ceresoli, who presented findings at the at the European Lung Cancer Conference, TTFields offer a safe way to improve mesothelioma outcomes without increasing the risk of serious adverse events.

“TTFields are a locoregional treatment comprising low-intensity alternating electric fields delivered through a portable medical device,” Dr. Ceresoli explained at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “Their main mode of action is an anti-mitotic mechanism.” He noted that TTFields are already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

The STELLAR trial involved 80 patients with mesothelioma who were treated with TTFields in combination with standard first-line chemotherapy, a combination of pemetrexed with cisplatin or carboplatin. Patients were instructed to self-administer continuous 150 kHz TTFields for at least 18 hours a day. Eligibility required an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 1. Both ECOG status and cancer-related pain were followed with a visual analog scale until disease progression. Median overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint.

The patient population was predominantly male (84%), with median age of 67 years. About 44% of the patients had an ECOG performance status of 1 and 66% had epithelioid histology. Median treatment time per day was 16.3 hours.

After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, patients treated with TTFields in combination with standard chemotherapy had a median overall survival of 18.2 months, compared with 12.1 months for standard chemotherapy alone, which Dr. Ceresoli cited as the historical benchmark. The survival benefit was 3 months longer among patients with epithelioid mesothelioma, who had a median overall survival of 21.2 months.

In addition to survival benefits, the investigators found that median time to decreased performance status was just over 1 year (13.1 months), and that pain did not increase to a clinically significant degree (33%) until an average of 8.4 months. Although no device-related serious adverse events occurred, 37 patients (46%) experienced TTFields-related dermatitis; 4 of these patients had grade 3 dermatitis. Dr. Ceresoli noted that dermatitis was typically “easily managed” with topical application of a corticosteroid, while patients with severe dermatitis took short treatment breaks.

“In conclusion, in the STELLAR trial, TTFields in combination with standard chemotherapy were effective and safe for first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma, and median overall survival was significantly longer as compared to historical controls,” Dr. Ceresoli said, pointing out better survival than in recent trials MAPS and LUME-Meso.

When asked by the invited discussant about future research, Dr. Ceresoli described a narrower focus for upcoming TTFields studies for mesothelioma. “As you well know, most patients have epithelioid histology, and in our hands, the patients with epithelioid histology had better prognoses,” he said. “So, in the future, I think we will focus on epithelioid tumors.”

Dr. Ceresoli disclosed travel funding from Novocure.

SOURCE: Ceresoli et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 55O.

GENEVA – For patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, adding tumor-treating fields (TTFields) to standard pemetrexed plus platinum compound chemotherapy could boost median overall survival by about 6 months, according to final results from the phase 2 STELLAR trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The survival benefit of TTFields was greatest among patients with epithelioid mesothelioma, reported lead author Giovanni Luca Ceresoli, MD, of Humanitas Gavazzeni in Bergamo, Italy. According to Dr. Ceresoli, who presented findings at the at the European Lung Cancer Conference, TTFields offer a safe way to improve mesothelioma outcomes without increasing the risk of serious adverse events.

“TTFields are a locoregional treatment comprising low-intensity alternating electric fields delivered through a portable medical device,” Dr. Ceresoli explained at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “Their main mode of action is an anti-mitotic mechanism.” He noted that TTFields are already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

The STELLAR trial involved 80 patients with mesothelioma who were treated with TTFields in combination with standard first-line chemotherapy, a combination of pemetrexed with cisplatin or carboplatin. Patients were instructed to self-administer continuous 150 kHz TTFields for at least 18 hours a day. Eligibility required an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 1. Both ECOG status and cancer-related pain were followed with a visual analog scale until disease progression. Median overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint.

The patient population was predominantly male (84%), with median age of 67 years. About 44% of the patients had an ECOG performance status of 1 and 66% had epithelioid histology. Median treatment time per day was 16.3 hours.

After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, patients treated with TTFields in combination with standard chemotherapy had a median overall survival of 18.2 months, compared with 12.1 months for standard chemotherapy alone, which Dr. Ceresoli cited as the historical benchmark. The survival benefit was 3 months longer among patients with epithelioid mesothelioma, who had a median overall survival of 21.2 months.

In addition to survival benefits, the investigators found that median time to decreased performance status was just over 1 year (13.1 months), and that pain did not increase to a clinically significant degree (33%) until an average of 8.4 months. Although no device-related serious adverse events occurred, 37 patients (46%) experienced TTFields-related dermatitis; 4 of these patients had grade 3 dermatitis. Dr. Ceresoli noted that dermatitis was typically “easily managed” with topical application of a corticosteroid, while patients with severe dermatitis took short treatment breaks.

“In conclusion, in the STELLAR trial, TTFields in combination with standard chemotherapy were effective and safe for first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma, and median overall survival was significantly longer as compared to historical controls,” Dr. Ceresoli said, pointing out better survival than in recent trials MAPS and LUME-Meso.

When asked by the invited discussant about future research, Dr. Ceresoli described a narrower focus for upcoming TTFields studies for mesothelioma. “As you well know, most patients have epithelioid histology, and in our hands, the patients with epithelioid histology had better prognoses,” he said. “So, in the future, I think we will focus on epithelioid tumors.”

Dr. Ceresoli disclosed travel funding from Novocure.

SOURCE: Ceresoli et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 55O.

GENEVA – For patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, adding tumor-treating fields (TTFields) to standard pemetrexed plus platinum compound chemotherapy could boost median overall survival by about 6 months, according to final results from the phase 2 STELLAR trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The survival benefit of TTFields was greatest among patients with epithelioid mesothelioma, reported lead author Giovanni Luca Ceresoli, MD, of Humanitas Gavazzeni in Bergamo, Italy. According to Dr. Ceresoli, who presented findings at the at the European Lung Cancer Conference, TTFields offer a safe way to improve mesothelioma outcomes without increasing the risk of serious adverse events.

“TTFields are a locoregional treatment comprising low-intensity alternating electric fields delivered through a portable medical device,” Dr. Ceresoli explained at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “Their main mode of action is an anti-mitotic mechanism.” He noted that TTFields are already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

The STELLAR trial involved 80 patients with mesothelioma who were treated with TTFields in combination with standard first-line chemotherapy, a combination of pemetrexed with cisplatin or carboplatin. Patients were instructed to self-administer continuous 150 kHz TTFields for at least 18 hours a day. Eligibility required an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 1. Both ECOG status and cancer-related pain were followed with a visual analog scale until disease progression. Median overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint.

The patient population was predominantly male (84%), with median age of 67 years. About 44% of the patients had an ECOG performance status of 1 and 66% had epithelioid histology. Median treatment time per day was 16.3 hours.

After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, patients treated with TTFields in combination with standard chemotherapy had a median overall survival of 18.2 months, compared with 12.1 months for standard chemotherapy alone, which Dr. Ceresoli cited as the historical benchmark. The survival benefit was 3 months longer among patients with epithelioid mesothelioma, who had a median overall survival of 21.2 months.

In addition to survival benefits, the investigators found that median time to decreased performance status was just over 1 year (13.1 months), and that pain did not increase to a clinically significant degree (33%) until an average of 8.4 months. Although no device-related serious adverse events occurred, 37 patients (46%) experienced TTFields-related dermatitis; 4 of these patients had grade 3 dermatitis. Dr. Ceresoli noted that dermatitis was typically “easily managed” with topical application of a corticosteroid, while patients with severe dermatitis took short treatment breaks.

“In conclusion, in the STELLAR trial, TTFields in combination with standard chemotherapy were effective and safe for first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma, and median overall survival was significantly longer as compared to historical controls,” Dr. Ceresoli said, pointing out better survival than in recent trials MAPS and LUME-Meso.

When asked by the invited discussant about future research, Dr. Ceresoli described a narrower focus for upcoming TTFields studies for mesothelioma. “As you well know, most patients have epithelioid histology, and in our hands, the patients with epithelioid histology had better prognoses,” he said. “So, in the future, I think we will focus on epithelioid tumors.”

Dr. Ceresoli disclosed travel funding from Novocure.

SOURCE: Ceresoli et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 55O.

GENEVA – Radiogenomic MRI signatures may be able to identify anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive brain metastases in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), offering a minimally invasive option that could allow for initiation of treatment while waiting for molecular results, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In the future, artificial intelligence may be able to detect these imaging patterns, allowing for rapid and accurate mutation subtyping, reported lead author Shweta Wadhwa, MD, of Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, India, who presented the findings at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

“Radiogenomics is a concept used to associate genetic information with medical images,” Dr. Wadhwa explained at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “It creates imaging biomarkers noninvasively without using biopsy. … The aim of my study was to analyze certain MRI data genomic parameters and correlate with the ALK mutation status.”

Dr. Wadhwa and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from 75 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who underwent multiparametric MRI at the time of diagnosis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to look for associations between ALK mutation status and various clinical factors, including sex, age, smoking, histology, TNM stage, and imaging characteristics.

Out of 75 patients, 46 were ALK positive and 29 were ALK negative. Analysis showed that ALK positivity was associated with a variety of lesion morphology characteristics. ALK-positive lesions more often exhibited a fuzzy and infiltrative T2w border with hypointense peripheral solid rim, compared with ALK-negative lesions, which frequently had a well-defined T2w border with no solid rim (P less than .001). On T1w, most ALK-positive lesions were heterogeneous, whereas ALK-negative lesions were predominantly hypointense (P less than .001). Diffusion-weighted images showed that ALK-positive lesions often had peripheral restriction of the solid rim, compared with ALK-negative lesions, which were associated with central restriction (P = .001). MRI also revealed that about half of ALK-positive patients (54.3%) had meningeal involvement, compared with just 17.2% of ALK-negative patients (P = .02). ALK positivity was also associated with younger age and lack of smoking history. Considering these findings, Dr. Wadhwa concluded that “radiogenomics has a potential role in personalized management of ALK-positive NSCLC brain metastases.”

In an interview, Dr. Wadhwa provided more insight regarding the clinical need for this technology. “We have to wait for 10 days [for molecular diagnostic results], and ALK is usually aggressive disease, so if we wait for 10 days, patients can undergo rapid progression.”

Dr. Wadhwa noted that these results are similar to that of her colleague, Abhishek Mahajan, MD, who recently published results showing potential for radiogenomic detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status. According to Dr. Wadhwa, the two investigators plan to build on their collective findings in an effort to automate radiogenomic detection of NSCLC mutation subtypes.

“My upcoming project with my coinvestigator is to take a bigger sample,” Dr. Wadhwa said. “We will be further generalizing [this process] to all patients in a prospective study. We will also be sending this to the University of Pennsylvania for automatic brain segmentation.” Dr. Wadhwa estimated that adding automation will provide an accuracy rate of around 90%.

“We will train the computer accordingly,” Dr. Wadhwa said, “and then the computer will tell us, yes, this is ALK positive, this is EGFR positive.”

The investigators reported no external study funding and reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wadhwa S et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 55O.

GENEVA – Radiogenomic MRI signatures may be able to identify anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive brain metastases in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), offering a minimally invasive option that could allow for initiation of treatment while waiting for molecular results, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In the future, artificial intelligence may be able to detect these imaging patterns, allowing for rapid and accurate mutation subtyping, reported lead author Shweta Wadhwa, MD, of Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, India, who presented the findings at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

“Radiogenomics is a concept used to associate genetic information with medical images,” Dr. Wadhwa explained at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “It creates imaging biomarkers noninvasively without using biopsy. … The aim of my study was to analyze certain MRI data genomic parameters and correlate with the ALK mutation status.”

Dr. Wadhwa and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from 75 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who underwent multiparametric MRI at the time of diagnosis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to look for associations between ALK mutation status and various clinical factors, including sex, age, smoking, histology, TNM stage, and imaging characteristics.

Out of 75 patients, 46 were ALK positive and 29 were ALK negative. Analysis showed that ALK positivity was associated with a variety of lesion morphology characteristics. ALK-positive lesions more often exhibited a fuzzy and infiltrative T2w border with hypointense peripheral solid rim, compared with ALK-negative lesions, which frequently had a well-defined T2w border with no solid rim (P less than .001). On T1w, most ALK-positive lesions were heterogeneous, whereas ALK-negative lesions were predominantly hypointense (P less than .001). Diffusion-weighted images showed that ALK-positive lesions often had peripheral restriction of the solid rim, compared with ALK-negative lesions, which were associated with central restriction (P = .001). MRI also revealed that about half of ALK-positive patients (54.3%) had meningeal involvement, compared with just 17.2% of ALK-negative patients (P = .02). ALK positivity was also associated with younger age and lack of smoking history. Considering these findings, Dr. Wadhwa concluded that “radiogenomics has a potential role in personalized management of ALK-positive NSCLC brain metastases.”

In an interview, Dr. Wadhwa provided more insight regarding the clinical need for this technology. “We have to wait for 10 days [for molecular diagnostic results], and ALK is usually aggressive disease, so if we wait for 10 days, patients can undergo rapid progression.”

Dr. Wadhwa noted that these results are similar to that of her colleague, Abhishek Mahajan, MD, who recently published results showing potential for radiogenomic detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status. According to Dr. Wadhwa, the two investigators plan to build on their collective findings in an effort to automate radiogenomic detection of NSCLC mutation subtypes.

“My upcoming project with my coinvestigator is to take a bigger sample,” Dr. Wadhwa said. “We will be further generalizing [this process] to all patients in a prospective study. We will also be sending this to the University of Pennsylvania for automatic brain segmentation.” Dr. Wadhwa estimated that adding automation will provide an accuracy rate of around 90%.

“We will train the computer accordingly,” Dr. Wadhwa said, “and then the computer will tell us, yes, this is ALK positive, this is EGFR positive.”

The investigators reported no external study funding and reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wadhwa S et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 55O.

GENEVA – Radiogenomic MRI signatures may be able to identify anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive brain metastases in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), offering a minimally invasive option that could allow for initiation of treatment while waiting for molecular results, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In the future, artificial intelligence may be able to detect these imaging patterns, allowing for rapid and accurate mutation subtyping, reported lead author Shweta Wadhwa, MD, of Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, India, who presented the findings at the European Lung Cancer Conference.

“Radiogenomics is a concept used to associate genetic information with medical images,” Dr. Wadhwa explained at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “It creates imaging biomarkers noninvasively without using biopsy. … The aim of my study was to analyze certain MRI data genomic parameters and correlate with the ALK mutation status.”

Dr. Wadhwa and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from 75 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who underwent multiparametric MRI at the time of diagnosis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to look for associations between ALK mutation status and various clinical factors, including sex, age, smoking, histology, TNM stage, and imaging characteristics.

Out of 75 patients, 46 were ALK positive and 29 were ALK negative. Analysis showed that ALK positivity was associated with a variety of lesion morphology characteristics. ALK-positive lesions more often exhibited a fuzzy and infiltrative T2w border with hypointense peripheral solid rim, compared with ALK-negative lesions, which frequently had a well-defined T2w border with no solid rim (P less than .001). On T1w, most ALK-positive lesions were heterogeneous, whereas ALK-negative lesions were predominantly hypointense (P less than .001). Diffusion-weighted images showed that ALK-positive lesions often had peripheral restriction of the solid rim, compared with ALK-negative lesions, which were associated with central restriction (P = .001). MRI also revealed that about half of ALK-positive patients (54.3%) had meningeal involvement, compared with just 17.2% of ALK-negative patients (P = .02). ALK positivity was also associated with younger age and lack of smoking history. Considering these findings, Dr. Wadhwa concluded that “radiogenomics has a potential role in personalized management of ALK-positive NSCLC brain metastases.”

In an interview, Dr. Wadhwa provided more insight regarding the clinical need for this technology. “We have to wait for 10 days [for molecular diagnostic results], and ALK is usually aggressive disease, so if we wait for 10 days, patients can undergo rapid progression.”

Dr. Wadhwa noted that these results are similar to that of her colleague, Abhishek Mahajan, MD, who recently published results showing potential for radiogenomic detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status. According to Dr. Wadhwa, the two investigators plan to build on their collective findings in an effort to automate radiogenomic detection of NSCLC mutation subtypes.

“My upcoming project with my coinvestigator is to take a bigger sample,” Dr. Wadhwa said. “We will be further generalizing [this process] to all patients in a prospective study. We will also be sending this to the University of Pennsylvania for automatic brain segmentation.” Dr. Wadhwa estimated that adding automation will provide an accuracy rate of around 90%.

“We will train the computer accordingly,” Dr. Wadhwa said, “and then the computer will tell us, yes, this is ALK positive, this is EGFR positive.”

The investigators reported no external study funding and reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wadhwa S et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 55O.