Start Your Search
MINI 17 - WT EGFR, Angiogenesis and OMD (ID 131)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Treatment of Advanced Diseases - NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
MINI17.03 - Prognostic and Predictive Value of the VeriStrat Classifier in Chemo-Naive NSCLC Patients Treated with Erlotinib or Placebo (TOPICAL Trial) (ID 699)
16:45 - 18:15 | Author(s): S. Nash
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines recommend using VeriStrat, a blood proteomics test to determine using erlotinib instead of chemotherapy as second-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, VeriStrat has not been evaluated in a first-line setting within a randomized trial.
TOPICAL was a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial, for 670 chemotherapy-naive NSCLC patients (stage IIIb/IV) considered unsuitable for chemotherapy, mainly due to poor performance status (ECOG ≥2) or co-morbidities. They were randomized to receive best supportive care plus oral placebo or erlotinib (150mg/day) until disease progression/toxicity. Although there was no overall survival (OS) benefit among all patients, patients on erlotinib who developed first-cycle rash had improved OS, compared to placebo: hazard ratio (HR 0.76), p=0.006; unlike those without rash (HR 1.30, p=0.017). Pre-treatment serum samples were available for 477 of 670 (70%) TOPICAL patients. They were sent as anonymised aliquots to Biodesix for VeriStrat testing.
VeriStrat testing classified 52% (250/477) as having good outcomes, 46% (221) poor outcomes, and 6 unknown. In all patients, VeriStrat classification was associated with OS (good vs. poor: HR=0.58, 95%CI 0.47-0.73; P<0.0001) and PFS (HR=0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.97; P=0.002), after allowing for gender, histology, stage, treatment and first-cycle rash (unadjusted HRs were similar, as were those ignoring rash). In all erlotinib patients, median OS was 4.9 (good) vs. 3.1 months (poor); HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.85, p=0.002. The corresponding results among all placebo patients were: 5.3 (good) vs. 2.9 months (poor), HR=0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.73, p<0.001. Similar results were found for PFS: median 3.1 (good) vs. 2.2 (poor) months (HR=0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.96, P=0.027) for erlotinib patients; and 2.8 vs. 2.4 months for placebo patients (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.97, p=0.033). Among all patients, VeriStrat was not predictive: OS HR for erlotinib vs. placebo was 1.02 (95% CI 0.79-1.31) in the ‘good’ group, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.66-1.12) for ‘poor’; interaction p-value=0.38. Corresponding PFS HRs were 0.86 (95% CI 0.67-1.10) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.65-1.10); interaction p-value=0.92. VeriStrat was also not predictive when allowing for first-cycle rash (Table 1). However, among patients who had rash, those with ‘good’ classification had longer OS (p<0.001) and PFS (p=0.001) than those classified as ‘poor’. Figure 1
Our large randomized trial among NSCLC patients considered unsuitable for chemotherapy shows that VeriStrat status was prognostic for OS and PFS; but it was not predictive for OS nor PFS, in relation to erlotinib vs. placebo as first-line treatment.
Only Active 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 or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.