Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Afatinib versus Gefitinib for First-Line Treatment of Advanced EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancers

IntroductionThe irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib were compared in the multicenter, international, randomized, head-to-head phase 2b LUX-Lung 7 trial for first-line treatment of advanced EGFR mutation–positive NSCLCs. Afatinib and gefitinib costs and patients’ outcomes in France were assessed.MethodsA partitioned survival model was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of afatinib versus gefitinib for EGFR mutation–positive NSCLCs. Outcomes and safety were taken primarily from the LUX-Lung 7 trial. Resource use and utilities were derived from that trial, an expert-panel questionnaire, and published literature, limiting expenditures to direct costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a 10-year time horizon for the entire population, and EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation (L858R) subgroups. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor all EGFR mutation–positive NSCLCs, the afatinib-versus-gefitinib ICER of was €45,211 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (0.170 QALY gain for an incremental cost of €7697). ICERs for EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R populations were €38,970 and €52,518, respectively. Afatinib had 100% probability to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €70,000/QALY for patients with common EGFR mutations.ConclusionFirst-line afatinib appears cost-effective compared with gefitinib for patients with EGFR mutation–positive NSCLCs.     

Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic EGFR-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer—A Meta-Analysis

IntroductionWe performed a meta-analysis to assess the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors as second-line therapy in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.MethodsRandomized trials comparing immune checkpoint inhibitors against chemotherapy were identified. We retrieved the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival (OS) of the intention-to-treat population and EGFR mutation–defined subgroups. We used the fixed-effects inverse variance–weighted method to pool estimates of treatment efficacy. Statistical tests were two sided.ResultsIn the three included studies that compared immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab [n = 292], pembrolizumab [n = 691], and atezolizumab [n =144]) against docetaxel (n = 776), immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly prolonged OS over that with docetaxel overall (n = 1903, HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61–0.77, p < 0.0001) and in the EGFR wild-type subgroup (n = 1362, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.58–0.76, p < 0.0001) but not in the EGFR-mutant subgroup (n = 186, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.70–1.55, p < 0.81; treatment-mutation interaction p = 0.03).ConclusionIn EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC, immune checkpoint inhibitors do not improve OS over that with docetaxel. Mechanisms of acquired resistance to first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy should be elucidated to guide selection of second-line treatment for these patients.     

Dynamic Monitoring and Predictive Value of Circulating Tumor Cells in EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated With First-Line EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

BackgroundThere is an urgent need to develop a convenient and less invasive technique to monitor the efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with EGFR-mutated non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We proposed folate receptor–based assay to count circulating tumor cells (CTCs) to predict and dynamically monitor the therapeutic response to first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.Patients and MethodsEligible patients were enrolled, and 3 mL of blood was obtained before initial treatment, 1 month after treatment, and every 2 months thereafter. CTCs were isolated on the basis of negative enrichment by immunomagnetic beads and detected by a ligand-targeted PCR method.ResultsA total of 232 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and treated with first-line EGFR-TKIs were included. Patients with low baseline CTC count had a markedly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.48; P < .001) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.52; P = .002) than those with high count. This difference remained significant in multivariate analysis. Dynamic change of CTC count was significantly associated with partial response (P = .042) and stable disease/progressive disease (P = .032). Notably, dynamic monitoring of CTC provided evidence of resistance to EGFR-TKIs before computed tomographic scanning with a median lead time of 113 days (range, 45-169 days).ConclusionThe current evidence suggests that folate receptor–positive CTC counts can be used for both the dynamic monitoring and prediction of outcome in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients treated with EGFR-TKIs, which could serve as an alternative or supplement to computed tomographic scanning.     

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of EGFR Mutation-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Clash of the Generations

The availability of 3 generations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with different pharmacologic characteristics and clinical profiles has provided oncologists with a potentially confusing choice for the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer. Although recent head-to-head clinical trials have demonstrated improved efficacy with second-generation (ie, afatinib, dacomitinib) and third-generation (ie, osimertinib) TKIs compared with the first-generation TKIs (eg, erlotinib, gefitinib), acquired resistance has been inevitable, regardless of which agent has been chosen as first-line therapy. Thus, the potential availability of subsequent treatment options is an important consideration. Recent data have demonstrated that osimertinib confers an overall survival benefit compared with first-generation EGFR TKIs, and dacomitinib has shown an overall survival benefit compared with gefitinib in an exploratory analysis. However, the relative benefits of different sequential EGFR-TKI regimens, especially those involving second- and third-generation agents, have remained uncertain and require prospective evaluation. Few such data currently exist to inform treatment choices. In the present review, we examined the pharmacologic characteristics and current clinical data for EGFR TKIs, including emerging information on the molecular mechanisms of resistance across the different generations of TKIs. Given the uncertainties regarding the optimal treatment choice, we have focused on the factors that might help determine the treatment decisions, such as efficacy and safety in patient subgroups. We also discussed the emerging real-world data, which have provided some insights into the benefits of sequential regimens in everyday clinical practice.     

Clinical Outcome of ALK-Positive Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients with De Novo EGFR or KRAS Co-Mutations Receiving Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs)

IntroductionNSCLC with de novo anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangements and EGFR or KRAS mutations co-occur very rarely. Outcomes with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in these patients are poorly understood.MethodsOutcomes of patients with metastatic NSCLC de novo co-alterations of ALK/EGFR or ALK/KRAS detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (ALK) and sequencing (EGFR/KRAS) from six Swiss centers were analyzed.ResultsA total of 14 patients with adenocarcinoma were identified. Five patients had ALK/EGFR co-alterations and nine had ALK/KRAS co-alterations. Six of seven patients with ALK/KRAS co-alterations (86%) were primary refractory to crizotinib. One patient has had ongoing disease stabilization for 26 months. Of the patients with ALK/EGFR co-alterations, one immediately progressed after receiving crizotinib for 1.3 months and two had a partial response for 5.7 and 7.3 months, respectively. Three of four patients with ALK/EGFR co-alterations treated with an EGFR TKI achieved one or more responses in different lines of therapy: four patients had a partial response, three with afatinib and one with osimertinib. One patient achieved a complete remission with osimertinib, and one patient was primary refractory to erlotinib. Median PFS during treatment with a first EGFR TKI was 5.8 months (range 3.0–6.9 months).ConclusionsDe novo concurrent ALK/KRAS co-alterations were associated with resistance to ALK TKI treatment in seven out of eight patients. In patients with ALK/EGFR co-alterations, outcomes with ALK and EGFR TKIs seem inferior to what would be expected in patients with either alteration alone, but further studies are needed to clarify which patients with ALK/EGFR co-alterations may still benefit from the respective TKI.     

Timing of Surgery after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

IntroductionA subset of patients with potentially resectable clinical stage IIIA NSCLC are managed with trimodality therapy. However, little data exist to guide the timing of surgery after neoadjuvant therapy. This study examined whether the time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) and surgical resection affects overall survival.MethodsPatients with clinical stage IIIA disease (T1–3 N2) NSCLC who underwent NCRT were identified in the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) between 2004 and 2012 and categorized on the basis of the interval between chemoradiation and surgery (0 to ≤3, >3 to ≤6, >6 to ≤9, and >9 to ≤12 weeks). Other clinical stages were excluded. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare overall survival rates, and a bootstrapped Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine significant contributors to overall survival.ResultsOf the 1623 patients identified, 7.9% underwent an operation 0 to 3 weeks or less after NCRT, 50.5% underwent an operation greater than 3 and less than or equal to 6 weeks after NCRT, 31.9% underwent an operation greater than 6 and less than or equal to 9 weeks after NCRT, and 9.6% underwent an operation greater than 9 and less than or equal to 12 weeks after NCRT. Multivariate survival analysis demonstrated no significant difference in survival in those who underwent an operation within 6 weeks of NCRT. However, significant drops in overall survival were observed in those who had an operation greater than 6 and less than or equal to 9 weeks after NCRT (hazard ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.76, p = 0.043) and greater than 9 and less than or equal to 12 weeks after NCRT (hazard ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.04–2.01, p = 0.030).ConclusionsThe findings from this retrospective study suggest that overall survival may be significantly lower in patients with clinical stage IIIA N2 NSCLC who undergo an operation later than 6 weeks after NCRT. These results discourage unnecessary delays in surgery.     

Antiangiogenic Therapy in Advanced Non–small-cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Phase III Randomized Trials

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of adding any antiangiogenic therapy (AT) to the standard of care in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The electronic databases Ovid PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials. We included all phase III randomized trials with any line and type of treatment, histology. and AT dose. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and pooled odds ratio (OR) for overall response rates (RR) were calculated. We divided the population into 2 subgroups based on the bevacizumab dose. Data of 19,098 patients from 25 phase III trials were analyzed. Compared with the standard of care, the addition of AT did not prolong OS (HR 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.00; P = .1 and HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-1.00; P = .06 for groups 1 and 2, respectively). However, there was a significant improvement in PFS with the addition of AT (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91; P < .00001 and HR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88; P < .00001 for groups 1 and 2, respectively) and overall RR (OR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.30-2.01; P < .0001 and OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.39-2.14; P < .00001 for groups 1 and 2, respectively). This is the first meta-analysis including only all phase III trials with AT in NSCLC showing no significant effect on OS and an improvement in PFS and RR only. The role of AT in advanced NSCLC is still questionable; strong validated biomarkers are eagerly needed to predict which subgroup might benefit the most from such therapy.     

Combination Osimertinib and Gefitinib in C797S and T790M EGFR-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

IntroductionOsimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor has demonstrated efficacy in tumors harboring the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. Inevitably, resistance to third-generation inhibitors results in disease progression, with the EGFR C797S mutation being one of several resistance pathways identified to date. On the basis of preclinical data, we report what is the first known case of a patient harboring the T790M and C797S mutations in trans treated with combination gefitinib and osimertinib.MethodsOn development of progressive disease after multiple therapies, the patient’s plasma was sequenced using the Oncomine Lung cfDNA Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Subsequent monitoring of circulating tumor DNA in plasma was performed by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction.ResultsSequencing showed that the T790M and C797S mutations were in trans. Within 2 weeks of commencement of combination therapy, rapid clinical improvement occurred. Accompanying this, a rapid decline in the C797S mutation subclone in plasma was detected. However, the levels of the EGFR exon 19 deletion driver mutation and the T790M resistance mutation in the circulating tumor DNA continued to rise and the patient died from progressive disease 6 weeks after commencement of combination therapy. There were no adverse events seen with the combination therapy.ConclusionThis is, to the best of our knowledge, the first reported case of combination EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy tailored to the allelic conformation of T790M and C797S mutation that resulted in brief clinical improvement without toxicity.     

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Angiogenesis is essential for cancer growth and progression. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a crucial role in angiogenesis. The addition of bevacizumab, an antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), to paclitaxel and carboplatin improves survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR TKIs) are a new class of drugs that target the TK domain of the VEGF receptors. To evaluate the role of this class of agents in the treatment of NSCLC, some phase II and phase III studies using these agents alone or in combination with other agents have been completed. This review summarizes the currently available data on VEGFR TKIs in the treatment of NSCLC.     

Real-World Clinical Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced/Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer After Platinum Chemotherapy

BackgroundThe real-world effect of anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapies is unclear. We compared US patients who received second-line therapy for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and shortly after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of PD-L1 inhibitors.Patients and MethodsPatients in the Flatiron Health database (≥18 years; received first-line platinum therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC; ≥6 months of follow-up) were assessed before (“historical”: January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013) and after (“current”: January 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017) FDA approval of anti–PD-L1 therapies for NSCLC. Index was start of second-line therapy. Baseline variables, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) were reported.ResultsA greater proportion of patients in the current cohort received second-line treatment than in the historical cohort (n = 4240 [57.0%] vs. n = 2357 [37.4%]); 48.8% [n = 2071] of the current second-line patients received anti–PD-L1 therapy. Current patients were more likely to receive second-line anti–PD-L1 therapy if they had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (≥2), had squamous histology, or had no epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), or ROS proto-oncogene 1 mutations. Median OS from index was higher in the current cohort (9.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.9-9.9] months) than the historical cohort (7.3 [95% CI, 6.9-7.8] months). Adjusted for sex, race, ECOG performance status, disease stage, and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog, EGFR, and ALK status, OS was improved by 15% in the current cohort.ConclusionContemporary patients are more likely to receive second-line therapy and have longer OS than patients who received care before approval of anti–PD-L1 therapies.