Virtual Library
Start Your Search
S. Lantuejoul
Author of
-
+
MINI 30 - New Kinase Targets (ID 157)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Treatment of Advanced Diseases - NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:K. Park, M. Villalona
- Coordinates: 9/09/2015, 18:30 - 20:00, Four Seasons Ballroom F3+F4
-
+
MINI30.07 - Crizotinib in Patients with ROS1 NSCLC. Preliminary Results of the AcSé Trial (ID 2426)
18:30 - 20:00 | Author(s): S. Lantuejoul
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
To avoid uncontrolled off-label use and allow for a nationwide safe access to crizotinib (crz) for patients (pts) with an ALK, MET or ROS1 positive (+) tumor, the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) launched the AcSé program, funding both access to tumor molecular diagnosis and an exploratory multi-tumor 2-stage design phase II trial. We report the preliminary results of the ROS1+ NSCLC cohort.
Methods:
ROS1 status was assessed in 28 regional INCa molecular genetic centers by break-apart FISH assays in tumor samples showing an IHC score of ≥1+. Pts with ROS1 rearrangements, progressing after at least one standard treatment (including a platinum-based doublet, unless pts were considered as unfit for chemotherapy) were proposed to receive crz 250 mg BID. Responses were centrally assessed using RECIST v1.1. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were assessed every 8 weeks.
Results:
From Aug. 5, 2013 to Mar. 1, 2015, 39 pts with ROS1+ NSCLC were enrolled. 37 pts had received crz, leading to 37 pts with clinical information. Median age: 62 years (range 33–81), 70% females, 95% non-squamous histology, and 94% metastatic disease at study entry. Median number of prior treatments: 2 (range 1 –7). Twenty four pts were still on treatment at the cut-off date, 13 have stopped crz (8 PD, 3 adverse events (AEs), 2 deaths). Among the 27 pts evaluable for response at 8 weeks, we observed 16 PR, 7 SD and 4 PD, leading to ORR=59% [95% CI:39-78], and DCR=85% [66-96]. DCR at 6 months was 57% (disease control was achieved in 12/21 evaluable pts). Crz was well tolerated with only 4 grade ≥3 (1 AE + 3 SAEs) and 9 grade 1-2 SAEs. Most common AEs, mainly grade 1, were visual disorders (54% of pts), peripheral edema (51%), diarrhea (48%), nausea (46%), and elevated transaminases (43%).
Conclusion:
Crz was well tolerated and achieved a robust treatment response rate in ROS1+ NSCLC. These results underline the interest of integrating ROS1 in biomarkers routine screening. Survival data and duration of response will be presented.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
ORAL 06 - Next Generation Sequencing and Testing Implications (ID 90)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Biology, Pathology, and Molecular Testing
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:G. De Lima Lopes, V. Miller
- Coordinates: 9/07/2015, 10:45 - 12:15, Mile High Ballroom 1a-1f
-
+
ORAL06.01 - Genomic Characterization of Large-Cell Neuroendocrine Lung Tumors (ID 1667)
10:45 - 12:15 | Author(s): S. Lantuejoul
- Abstract
Background:
Neuroendocrine lung tumours account for 25% of all lung cancer cases, and they range from low-aggressive pulmonary carcinoids (PCA) to highly malignant small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and large-cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma (LCNEC). The last two are strongly associated with heavy smoking and are typically detected at a clinically advanced stage, having a poor survival. Comprehensive genomic analyses in lung neuroendocrine tumours are difficult because of limited availability of tissue. While more effort has been done in the context of SCLC, the detailed molecular features of LCNEC remain largely unknown.
Methods:
We conducted 6.0 SNP array analyses of 60 LCNEC tumours, exome sequencing of 55 tumor-normal pairs, genome sequencing of 11 tumour-normal pairs, transcriptome sequencing of 69 tumours, and expression arrays on 60 tumors. Data analyses were performed using in house developed and published pipelines.
Results:
Analyses of chromosomal gene copy number revealed amplifications of MYCL1, FGFR1, MYC, IRS2 and TTF1. We also observed deletions of CDKN2A and PTPRD. TTF1 amplifications are characteristic of lung adenocarcinoma (AD); CDKN2A deletions are frequent alterations in both AD and squamous-cell lung carcinoma (SQ); FGFR1 amplifications are found in SQ and, less frequently, in SCLC; and MYCL1 and IRS2 amplifications are frequent events in SCLC. Similar to the copy number data, we found patterns of mutations characteristic of other lung cancer subtypes: TP53 was the most frequently mutated gene (75%) followed by RB1 (27%), and inactivation of both TP53 and RB1, which is the hallmark of SCLC, occurred in 20% of the cases. Mutations in STK11 and KEAP1-NFE2L2 (frequently seen in AD and SQ) were found in 23% and 22% of the specimens, respectively. Interestingly, mutations in RB1 and STK11/KEAP1 occurred in a mutually exclusive fashion (p-value=0.016). Despite the heterogeneity observed at the mutation level, analysis of the pattern of expression of LCNEC in comparison with the other lung cancer subtypes (AD, SQ, SCLC, and PCA) points to LCNEC as being an independent entity. An average mutation rate of 10.7 mutations per megabase was detected in LCNEC, which is in line with the rate observed in other lung tumours associated with smoking. We found that, similar to SCLC, the mutation signatures associated with APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases, smoking, and age (based on Alexandrov et al 2013) were the predominant ones in LCNEC. However, the contribution of the individual SCLC and LCNEC samples to these three signatures was quite different, and we are currently exploring it.
Conclusion:
Taking into account somatic copy number and mutation data, we distinguished two well-defined groups of LCNEC: an SCLC-like group, carrying alterations in MYCL1, ISR2, and in both RB1 and TP53; and a group resembling AD and SQ, with alterations in CDKN2A, TTF1, KEAP1-NFE2L2, and STK11. Although these results suggest that LCNEC might be a mix of different lung cancer subtypes, mutation clonality and expression analyses show that they are likely to be a separate entity, sharing molecular characteristics with the other lung cancer subtypes. Their heterogeneity suggests that LCNEC might represent an evolutionary trunk that can branch to SCLC or AD/SQ.
-
+
P3.04 - Poster Session/ Biology, Pathology, and Molecular Testing (ID 235)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Poster
- Track: Biology, Pathology, and Molecular Testing
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/09/2015, 09:30 - 17:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B+C)
-
+
P3.04-005 - Discrepancies between ALK FISH and Capture Based NGS Test NEOplus and Clinical Outcome with ALK TKI Therapy (ID 2748)
09:30 - 17:00 | Author(s): S. Lantuejoul
- Abstract
Background:
Research in recent years has unraveled several gene fusions driving tumor development in lung cancer. Especially adenocarcinomas of the lung harboring ALK and ROS1 gene fusions exhibit striking sensitivity to ALK and ROS1 kinase inhibitors respectively, translating to dramatic responses in the clinic. Several different technologies are available to detect aberrant genomic structures. The most frequently used technologies include fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), currently considered as the “gold standard”, immunohistochemistry (IHC), RT-PCR based approaches and hybrid capture based NGS sequencing.
Methods:
Here, we describe a selection of tumor samples showing discrepant results between fluorescent in situ hybridization and hybrid capture based NGS sequencing. These included samples with positive FISH but negative NEOplus as well as negative FISH and positive NEOplus results. In addition, we used response data of targeted therapies to evaluate the true genetic phenotype of the tumor.
Results:
Overall, several lung adenocarcinomas showed discrepant results when FISH and NEOplus data were compared. First, one sample was tested positive for ALK rearrangement using FISH which was not confirmed using NEOplus. In line with this finding, the tumor did not respond to ALK TKI treatment. Second, a total of 4 cases were fusion negative by FISH but positive by NEOplus. Three out of 4 ALK positive cases showed clinical response to ALK kinase inhibition, the clinical results for case number 4 are pending. Interestingly, one of these responding tumors was also negative for ALK expression using IHC.
Conclusion:
In summary, we describe a selection of tumor samples with discrepant results for fusion detecting using FISH and NEOplus. Overall, in all of the cases for which clinical response data was available, tumor sensitivity was in line with the initial diagnosis generated by the NEOplus assay.
