Virtual Library
Start Your Search
V. Papadimitrakopoulou
Author of
-
+
MA04 - HER2, P53, KRAS and Other Targets in Advanced NSCLC (ID 380)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Mini Oral Session
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
-
+
MA04.07 - Impact of Major Co-Mutations on the Immune Contexture and Response of KRAS-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma to Immunotherapy (ID 6343)
16:00 - 17:30 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Activating mutations in the KRAS proto-oncogene define a prevalent and clinically heterogeneous molecular subset of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAC). We previously identified three major subgroups of KRAS-mutant LUAC on the basis of co-occurring genetic events in TP53 (KP), STK11/LKB1 (KL) and CDKN2A/B (KC) and reported that LKB1-deficient tumors exhibit a “cold” tumor immune microenvironment, with reduced expression of several immune checkpoint effector/mediator molecules, including PD-L1 (CD274). Here, we extend these findings and examine the clinical outcome of co-mutation defined KRAS subgroups to therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Methods:
We conducted a single-institution analysis of clinical and molecular data (PCR-based next generation sequencing of panels of 50, 134 or 409 genes) prospectively collected from patients enrolled into the MD Anderson Lung Cancer Moon Shot GEMINI database. KRAS-mutant LUAC were separated into KP, KL and K (wild-type for TP53 and STK11) groups. The log- rank test and Fisher’s exact test were used for comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) respectively between the groups. In addition, automated IF-based enumeration of lymphocyte subsets was performed in 40 surgically resected LUAC (PROSPECT cohort) with available whole exome sequencing data.
Results:
Among 229 patients with KRAS-mutant LUAC who consented to the protocol we identified 35 patients with metastatic disease (17 KP, 6 KL, 12 K) that received immunotherapy with nivolumab (N=29), pembrolizumab (N=3), nivolumab/urelumab (N=1) and durvalumab/tremelimumab (N=2) and had robust clinical outcome data. There was no impact of different KRAS alleles (G12C/G12V/G12D) on PFS (P=0.6149, log-rank test) or ORR to immune checkpoint inhibitors (P=0.88, Fisher’s exact test, 2x3 contingency table). In contrast, co-mutation defined KRAS subgroups exhibited significantly different median PFS to immunotherapy (KP: 18 weeks, KL: 6 weeks, K: 16 weeks, P=0.0014, log-rank test). Objective responses were observed in 9/17 (52.9%) KP and 3/12 (25%) K tumors compared to 0/6 (0%) KL tumors (P=0.049, Fisher’s exact test, 2x3 contingency table). In the PROSPECT cohort of surgically resected LUACs with available whole exome sequencing data, somatic mutation in STK11 was associated with reduced intra-tumoral densities of CD3+ (P=0.0016), CD8+ (P=0.0125) and CD4+ (P=0.0036) lymphocytes.
Conclusion:
Mutations in STK11/LKB1 are associated with an inert tumor immune microenvironment and poor clinical response of KRAS-mutant LUAC to immune checkpoint blockade. The mechanism that underlies this phenotype and strategies to overcome it are under investigation. The impact of additional co-mutations on the immune profile and response of KRAS-mutant LUAC to immunotherapy is also being explored.
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.
-
+
MA08 - Treatment Monitoring in Advanced NSCLC (ID 386)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Mini Oral Session
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:R. Perez-Soler, T. Reungwetwattana
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 11:00 - 12:30, Lehar 3-4
-
+
MA08.01 - A Highly Sensitive Next-Generation Sequencing Platform for Detection of NSCLC EGFR T790M Mutation in Urine and Plasma (ID 4637)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Non-invasive genotyping of NSCLC patients by circulating tumor (ct)DNA is a promising alternative to tissue biopsies. However, ctDNA EGFR analysis remains challenging in patients with intrathoracic disease, with a reported 26-57% T790M mutation detection rate in plasma (Karlovich et al., Clin Cancer Res 2016; Wakelee et al., ASCO 2016). We investigated whether a mutation enrichment NGS could improve mutation detection in plasma and urine from TIGER-X, a phase 1/2 study of rociletinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC.
Methods:
The therascreen (Qiagen) or cobas (Roche) EGFR test was used for EGFR T790M analysis in tumor biopsies. Urine and plasma were analyzed by trovera mutation enrichment NGS assay (Trovagene).
Results:
Of 174 matched tissue, plasma and urine specimens, 145 (83.3%) were T790M+ by central tissue testing, 142 (81.6%) were T790M+ by plasma, and 139 (79.9%) were T790M+ by urine. Urine and plasma combined identified 165 cases (94.8%) as T790M+. Of 25 cases positive by ctDNA but negative/inadequate by tissue, 16 were double-positive in plasma and urine, unlikely to be false positive (Figure 1). T790M detection rate was higher for extrathoracic (n=119) vs intrathoracic (n=55) disease in plasma (87.4% vs 69.1%, p=0.006) but not urine (81.5% vs 76.4%, p=0.42). Combination of urine and plasma identified T790M in 92.7% of intrathoracic and 95.8% of extrathoracic cases (p=0.47). In T790M+ patients, objective response rate was similar whether T790M mutation was identified by tissue, plasma or urine: 37.4%, 33.1% and 36.6%, respectively. 4 of 9 patients T790M+ by urine but negative by tissue responded, and 2 of 8 patients T790M+ by plasma but negative by tissue responded.
Conclusion:
Mutation enrichment NGS testing by urine and plasma combined identified 94.8% of T790M+ cases. Combination of urine and plasma may be considered before tissue testing in EGFR TKI resistant NSCLC, including patients without extrathoracic metastases. Figure 1
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.
-
+
MA08.03 - Osimertinib vs Platinum-Pemetrexed for T790M-Mutation Positive Advanced NSCLC (AURA3): Plasma ctDNA Analysis (ID 4733)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
AURA3 (NCT02151981) is a Phase III, open-label, randomised study assessing the efficacy and safety of osimertinib, a T790M directed EGFR-TKI, vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with EGFR T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, whose tumours progressed on previous EGFR-TKI therapy. Concordance between plasma and tissue testing, and efficacy outcomes by baseline plasma T790M status, were evaluated.
Methods:
Eligible patients were randomised 2:1 to osimertinib 80 mg orally once daily or platinum-pemetrexed (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 + cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC5) every three weeks for up to six cycles. Patients were tumour tissue T790M-positive (by cobas[®] EGFR Mutation Test v2) from a biopsy after disease progression prior to study entry. Blood samples were taken at baseline for retrospective analysis of T790M mutation status by plasma ctDNA using the cobas[®] EGFR Mutation Test v2.
Results:
Concordance data are reported in the table. Within the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n=419), patients plasma T790M-positive and randomised to treatment (n=172) had markedly improved progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment (IA) with osimertinib vs platinum-pemetrexed: hazard ratio 0.42 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.61); median 8.2 vs 4.2 months. Objective response rate (ORR) by IA was also distinctly improved with osimertinib vs platinum-pemetrexed: 77% vs 39% (odds ratio 4.96 [95% CI: 2.49, 10.15]; p<0.001). This is consistent with the ITT population: PFS hazard ratio 0.30 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.41); p<0.001 (median 10.1 vs 4.4 months); ORR 71% vs 31% (odds ratio 5.39 [95% CI: 3.47, 8.48]; p<0.001). Figure 1
Conclusion:
In plasma T790M-positive patients the clinical benefit of osimertinib was superior to platinum-pemetrexed, consistent with the ITT T790M-positive population selected by tumour tissue test. PFS with osimertinib was similar regardless of selection by tissue or plasma T790M-positive status. Based on these, and AURA Phase II data, routine biopsy testing is recommended for patients with a plasma T790M-negative test where feasible.
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.
-
+
MA09 - Immunotherapy Combinations (ID 390)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Mini Oral Session
- Track: Chemotherapy/Targeted Therapy/Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:M. Sebastian, E.B. Garon
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 14:20 - 15:50, Strauss 2
-
+
MA09.02 - Pembrolizumab + Carboplatin and Pemetrexed as 1st-Line Therapy for Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: KEYNOTE-021 Cohort G (ID 5787)
14:20 - 15:50 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Platinum doublet chemotherapy ± bevacizumab is standard first-line therapy for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without genetic aberrations. Single-agent pembrolizumab exhibits robust antitumor activity in PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC. Cohort G of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 multicohort KEYNOTE-021 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02039674) evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab + carboplatin and pemetrexed compared with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with treatment-naive advanced nonsquamous NSCLC with any PD-L1 expression.
Methods:
Cohort G enrollment criteria included patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC, no activating EGFR mutation or ALK translocation, no prior systemic therapy, measurable disease, ECOG performance status 0-1, and adequate tumor sample for assessment of PD-L1 status, regardless of PD-L1 expression. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 4 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W + carboplatin AUC 5 (5 mg/mL/min) + pemetrexed 500 mg/m[2] Q3W or carboplatin AUC 5 (5 mg/mL/min) + pemetrexed 500 mg/m[2] Q3W alone, followed by maintenance pemetrexed ± pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab was given for ≤35 cycles. Randomization was stratified by PD-L1 expression (positive [tumor proportion score, or TPS, ≥1%] vs negative [TPS <1%]). Crossover to pembrolizumab monotherapy was allowed for eligible patients who experienced disease progression (RECIST v1.1) on chemotherapy. Response was assessed by central imaging vendor review every 6 weeks for first 18 weeks, every 9 weeks through year 1, and every 12 weeks in year 2. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and overall survival (OS). Comparison between arms was assessed using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method (ORR) and stratified log-rank test (PFS, OS).
Results:
As of January 2016, 123 patients (60 in the pembrolizumab + chemotherapy arm, 63 in the chemotherapy arm) had been enrolled in cohort G. Data on ORR, duration of response, safety, and preliminary PFS and OS results will be available by August 2016.
Conclusion:
The conclusion will be updated at the late-breaking submission stage.
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.
-
+
MA16 - Novel Strategies in Targeted Therapy (ID 407)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Mini Oral Session
- Track: Chemotherapy/Targeted Therapy/Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:G. Purkalne, J. Von Pawel
- Coordinates: 12/07/2016, 14:20 - 15:50, Strauss 2
-
+
MA16.10 - Lung-MAP (S1400) Lung Master Protocol: Accrual and Genomic Screening Updates (ID 3995)
14:20 - 15:50 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Lung-MAP (S1400), is a master protocol that incorporates genomic testing of tumors through a next generation sequencing (NGS) platform (Foundation Medicine) and biomarker-driven (matched) therapies for patients with squamous cell lung cancer (SCCA) after progression on first-line chemotherapy.
Methods:
The Lung-MAP trial, activated June 16, 2014, includes 3 matched- and 1 non-match study. Matched studies include: S1400B evaluating taselisib, a PI3K inhibitor, S1400C evaluating palbociclib, a CDK 4/6 inhibitor and, S1400D evaluating AZD4547, an FGFR inhibitor. The non-match study S1400I tests nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab. Two studies have closed: S1400E evaluating rilotumumab an HGF monoclonal antibody + erlotinib closed 11/26/2014 and S1400A evaluating MEDI4736 in non-match pts, closed 12/18/2015.
Results:
From June 16, 2014 to June 15, 2016, 812 pts were screened and 292 pts registered to a study: 116 to S1400A, 27 to S1400B, 53 to S1400C, 32 to S1400D, 9 to S1400E and 55 to S1400I. Demographics: Screening was successful for 705 (87%) of screened eligible pts. Median age 67 (range 35-92); male 68%; ECOG PS 0-1 88%, PS 2 10%; Caucasian 85%, Black 9%, other 5%; never/former/current smokers 4%/58%/36%. Table 1 displays biomarker prevalence; 39% of pts matched; 33.9%, 4.8%, and 0.3% with 1, 2, and all 3 biomarkers, respectively. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) was available for 636 (90.4%) of eligible pts. The distribution of TMB is: 126 (19.8%) low (≤5 mutations Mb), 415 (65.1%) intermediate (6-19 mutations/Mb), and 96 (15.1%) high (≥20 mutations/Mb). The median TMB was 10.1.
Conclusion:
Genomic screening is feasible as part of this master protocol designed to expedite drug registration, confirm anticipated prevalence of targeted alterations in SCCA and reveal intermediate or high TMB in most (80.2%) pts. Treatment results are not yet available as patients continue to accrue. Clinical trial information: NCT02154490Total FGFR CDK PIK3CA FGFR (15.9%) 12.9% 2.4% 0.6% CDK (18.8%) 14.6% 1.8% PIK3CA (8.8%) 6.4% Biomarker prevalence and overlap.
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.
-
+
P2.03b - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 465)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P2.03b-023 - Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA)-Based Genomic Profiling of Known Cancer Genes in Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma (LUSC) (ID 5393)
14:30 - 15:45 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
Background:
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of ctDNA is increasingly used for non-invasive genomic profiling of human cancers. However, studies to date have not detailed the ctDNA genomic landscape in LUSC.
Methods:
From June 2014 to June 2016, ctDNA from 467 patients with stage 3 or 4 (AJCC 7[th] edition) LUSC (60% male, 40% female; median age of 69 [range 27-96]) were tested with Guardant 360[TM], a ctDNA NGS assay that detects single nucleotide variants (SNVs) of 54-70 cancer genes and certain copy number amplifications (CNAs), indels, and fusions. The median time between diagnosis and ctDNA testing was 238 days. Somatic alterations were compared with those in the 2016 LUSC TCGA dataset.
Results:
426 patients (92.2%) had at least one somatic alteration detected. The most commonly observed SNVs (> 5% frequency) were TP53 (64.8%), PIK3CA (7.8%), CDKN2A (6.1%), and KRAS (5.9%). Frequencies of SNVs known to be significant in LUSC correlated well between our cohort and the TCGA (Spearman r = 0.93) but were generally lower in our cohort (Table 1). Several of our most frequently observed CNAs are strongly associated with LUSC (EGFR, CDK6, MYC, ERBB2, PDGFRA, KIT, CCND1). In addition, MET exon 14 skipping (1.3%), EGFR exon 19 deletion (1.9%), EGFR exon 20 insertion (0.5%), ERBB2 exon 20 insertion (0.3%) and EML4-ALK fusion (0.7%) were detected. These alterations have rarely been reported in LUSC.
Conclusion:
Patterns of SNVs and CNAs in LUSC obtained by ctDNA profiling are largely consistent with those from TCGA tissue profiling, although the frequency of key SNVs is lower. The presence of actionable alterations atypical for LUSC in 4.7% of this clinical cohort may represent underappreciated treatment options. Further investigation is warranted to evaluate whether these findings reflect a distinct mutational landscape in heavily treated advanced disease (which is under-represented in the TCGA) and/or challenges in histopathological classification. Figure 1
-
+
P2.03b-030 - Retrospective Review Clinical Use of a cfDNA Blood Test for Identification of Targetable Molecular Alterations in Patients with Lung Cancer (ID 5969)
14:30 - 15:45 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
Background:
The availability of tumor genomic information from simple, minimally invasive blood collection may lead to significant impact in patient(pt) care. We report a retrospective review the clinical utility of a CLIA-certified cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next generation sequencing (NGS) blood test in our pts with lung cancers.
Methods:
From April 2015 to May 2016, blood samples from 250 consecutive pts were collected and sent for molecular profiling at a CLIA-certified lab (Guardant360, Guardant Health, Redwood City, CA) using cfDNA NGS with a panel of 70 cancer-related genes with reported high sensitivity (able to detect mutations of < 0.1% mutant allele fraction) with high specificity (> 99.9999%) (PLoS One, 10(10), 2015).
Results:
254 Guardant360 tests were completed in 250 pts (144/F:106/M); histology: adenocarcinoma(200), squamous(7), sarcomatoid(5), small cell(4) and others(34). Rationale for blood tests: addition to tissue analysis(39%), alternative to tissue biopsy(25%), treatment evaluation/resistant(18%), insufficient tissue(11%), no documentation(7%). Based on Guardant360 results, 77 pt samples (30.3%) demonstrated targetable alterations with FDA-approved agents; concordance with at least 1 genomic alteration (targetable with FDA-approved agent) from paired tissue analysis in 21pts; and in another 29 pts, new genomic alterations provided evaluation for potential change in therapies pts: EGFR T790M(n=21), EML4-ALK fusion(n=4), MET Exon 14 Skipping (3), EGFR ex19del(n=2), EGFR L858R(n=2), other targets(n=6). Significantly, detection of EGFR T790M in cfDNA lead to change in therapy with osimertinib 19 cases and eligibility to clinical studies in 2 cases with alterations in KIF5B-RET and NOTCH1,respectively. Additional clinical outcomes are pending and will be updated.
Conclusion:
Molecular testing of cfDNA is a simple, minimally invasive test. It has utility to obviate a repeat invasive tissue biopsy when the initial tissue sample is not available or inadequate for molecular analysis. It is particularly useful in the long-term management of patients at progression for detection of emergent resistance-associated molecular alterations; such as EGFR T790M.
-
+
P3.02b - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 494)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/07/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P3.02b-115 - Clinical Activity of Osimertinib in EGFR Mutation Positive Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients (Pts) Previously Treated with Rociletinib (ID 4893)
14:30 - 15:45 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
Background:
Both osimertinib and rociletinib were developed to target the EGFR resistance mutation T790M. Sequist, et al reported clinical activity with osimertinib in 9 pts previously treated with rociletinib[1]. We conducted a retrospective analysis at 8 institutions of pts treated with rociletinib, who discontinued the drug due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity and subsequently received osimertinib.
Methods:
We identified pts treated with rociletinib followed by osimertinib, as part of osimertinib's US expanded access program or via commercial supply. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were assessed. Frequency of clinical and radiologic assessments on osimertinib was at the discretion of the treating physician. For this retrospective review, reverse KM method was used to calculate the median follow-up; KM method was used for time-to-event endpoints.
Results:
45 pts were included in this analysis. Median age at the start of osimertinib was 66 years (43-86) and 71% were female. 28 pts had exon 19 deletions and 16 had L858R. Median duration of therapy on front line EGFR TKI was 18 months (5-54). Median starting dose of rociletinib was 625 mg bid (range 500-1000). The response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR; Response+Stable Disease) with rociletinib were 38% and 91%; median duration of rociletinib therapy was 6.2 months. 32 (71%) pts discontinued rociletinib for disease progression. 23 (51%) pts received other therapies (1-4) before starting osimertinib. 25 (56%) pts were known to have brain metastases at osimertinib initiation. RR and DCR with osimertinib were 33% and 82%. DCR in the brain was 88%. With a median follow-up of 7.1 months, median duration of osimertinib therapy in all patients was 8 months (95%CI- 6.6-NR; 64% censored). The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate on osimertinib was 70% (54%-91%). In the 32 pts who discontinued rociletinib due to progression, DCR with osimertinib was 75% and median duration of therapy was 7.8 months (4.6-NR). Neither duration of,or response to rociletinib treatment, nor interval between the two the drugs was associated with duration of osimertinib or OS after osimertinib using a Cox model adjusted for age and sex.
Conclusion:
Osimertinib can provide clinical benefit in EGFR mutation positive NSCLC patients previously treated with rociletinib. The clinical activity of osimertinib in these patients may be related to more potent inhibition of T790M mutation or ability to overcome resistance to rociletinib. Reference- 1. Sequist, et al. JAMA Oncology 2016
-
+
P3.02c - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 472)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/07/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P3.02c-038 - First-Line Atezolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Chemotherapy-Naïve Patients with Advanced NSCLC: A Phase III Clinical Program (ID 4956)
14:30 - 15:45 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
Background:
First-line treatments for patients with advanced NSCLC include targeted therapies and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy±bevacizumab and/or pemetrexed. Although immunotherapies targeting the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway are available for advanced NSCLC beyond the first line, chemotherapy is a key first-line option for patients, despite poor survival outcomes, highlighting the need for additional treatment options. Atezolizumab, a monoclonal anti–PD-L1 antibody, inhibits the binding of PD-L1 to its receptors PD-1 and B7.1, restoring tumor-specific T-cell immunity. Clinical efficacy has been reported with atezolizumab monotherapy in patients with squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC, with a survival benefit observed across all PD-L1 expression levels. Additionally, Phase Ib data showed the potential for chemotherapy to further enhance responses to atezolizumab, with tolerable safety, in patients with NSCLC. Bevacizumab in combination with atezolizumab may enhance efficacy in non-squamous NSCLC by inhibiting VEGF-mediated immunosuppression. Four global, Phase III, randomized, open-label trials are evaluating atezolizumab+platinum-based chemotherapy±bevacizumab in chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV NSCLC.
Methods:
Eligible patients must have stage IV NSCLC, measurable disease (RECIST v1.1) and ECOG PS 0-1 and be chemotherapy naive. Exclusion criteria include untreated CNS metastases, autoimmune disease and prior exposure to immunotherapy. Patients will be enrolled regardless of PD-L1 expression status. Patients randomized to the experimental arm will receive atezolizumab 1200 mg with standard platinum-based chemotherapy in IMpower130 and 131 and also ±bevacizumab in IMpower150 for four or six 21-day cycles, then maintenance with atezolizumab in IMpower130 and 131 and atezolizumab+bevacizumab in IMpower150. In IMpower132, experimental-arm patients will receive atezolizumab+platinum-based chemotherapy+pemetrexed, then maintenance with atezolizumab+pemetrexed. Patients receiving atezolizumab may continue until loss of clinical benefit. Co-primary endpoints are progression-free survival and overall survival. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate and safety. Evaluation of predictive biomarkers associated with efficacy will be performed.
ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; IHC, immunohistochemistry.Trial IMpower130 IMpower131 IMpower132 IMpower150 Histology Nonsquamous Squamous Nonsquamous Nonsquamous Planned enrollment(N) 650 1025 568 1200 Experimental Atezolizuma +carboplatin +nab-paclitaxel Atezolizuma +carboplatin +paclitaxel or Atezolizumab +carboplatin +nab-paclitaxel Atezolizuma +carboplatin or cisplatin +pemetrexed Atezolizumab +carboplatin +paclitaxel or Atezolizumab +carboplatin +paclitaxel +bevacizumab Comparator Carboplatin +nab-paclitaxel Carboplatin +nab-paclitaxel Carboplatin or cisplatin +pemetrexed Carboplatin +paclitaxel +bevacizumab Stratification factors Sex Liver metastases Centrally assessed PD-L1 expression by IHC Sex Liver metastases Centrally assessed PD-L1 expression by IHC Sex ECOG PS Chemotherapy type (carboplatin vs cisplatin) Smoking status Sex Liver metastases Centrally assessed PD-L1 expression by IHC Identifier NCT02367781 NCT02367794 NCT02657434 NCT02366143
Results:
Section not applicable
Conclusion:
Section not applicable
-
+
P3.02c-070 - Combination Immunotherapy with MEK Inhibitor for Treatment of Kras-Mutant Lung Cancer in Animal Model (ID 5503)
14:30 - 15:45 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
Background:
Lung cancer remains a major cause of cancer mortality. Malignant lesions are normally endogenously corrected by the immune surveillance system. However, tumors evade this immunity by inducing immunosuppressive microenvironments during cancer progression. Recent studies demonstrate that multiple cancer types, including melanoma, lung, kidney, bladder, and stomach, respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as PD-L1 and PD-1 with 11-30% response rates and durable responses. However, a substantial number of patients still fail to respond to immunotherapy and the refractory mechanisms are largely unknown. In this study, we focus on KRas-driven lung cancers, as there are no clinically effective targeted drugs available for treating this type of lung cancer.
Methods:
We examined tumor infiltrated immune cells using FACS, CyTOF2, and Immunostaining of lung sections during the progression of lung tumors in KRas mutation and p53 knockout-driven lung cancer mouse models; KRas[G12D/+];p53[-/-] (KP). Using this mouse model, we determined the anti-cancer efficacy of combined inhibition of MEK and immune checkpoint molecules.
Results:
We demonstrate that there is a gradual increase in the number of myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and that the combination of either anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody along with a MEK inhibitor shows anticancer efficacy in these animal models. These combinations, in comparison to either single agent alone, effectively blocks the growth of subcutaneously injected syngeneic mouse lung cancer cells in immune competent transgenic KP mice, significantly increasing the survival rates: 37.5% (for anti-PD-1 antibody and MEK inhibitor), 62.5% (for anti-PD-L1 antibody and MEK inhibitor) vs. 0% single agents or control at the end of treatment. We find that the tumors in the control treated group harbor a substantial number of immune cells, including PD-L1 expressing MDSC.
Conclusion:
The combination treatment with either an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody along with a MEK inhibitor dramatically modulates the composition and the activity of tumor infiltrated immune cells. Tumors in the combination treatment group show a significant decrease in PD-L1 expressing MDSC in comparison with control tumors. Additionally, combination treatment blocks PD-L1 activity of the infiltrated PD-L1 expressing MDSC in malignant tumors and thus lead to improved survival. These results point to a potential therapeutic opportunity for currently untargetable KRas-driven lung cancers.
-
+
PL03 - Presidential Symposium (ID 428)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Plenary
- Track:
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:D.P. Carbone, R. Pirker
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 08:35 - 10:25, Hall D (Plenary Hall)
-
+
PL03.03 - Randomised Phase III Study of Osimertinib vs Platinum-Pemetrexed for EGFR T790M-Positive Advanced NSCLC (AURA3) (Abstract under Embargo until December 6, 7:00 CET) (ID 4452)
08:35 - 10:25 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Osimertinib is a potent, irreversible, CNS active, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) selective for sensitising (EGFRm) and T790M resistance mutations. Osimertinib is indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC. AURA3 (NCT02151981) is a Phase III, open-label, randomised study assessing the efficacy and safety of osimertinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy plus pemetrexed in patients with EGFR T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, whose tumours progressed on first-line EGFR-TKI therapy.
Methods:
Eligible patients were ≥18 years with documented EGFRm, radiological disease progression following first-line EGFR-TKI and centrally confirmed T790M-positive (by cobas® EGFR Mutation Test) from a tissue biopsy after disease progression. Asymptomatic, stable CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomised 2:1 to osimertinib 80 mg orally, once daily or platinum-pemetrexed (pemetrexed 500 mg/m[2] plus either cisplatin 75 mg/m[2] or carboplatin AUC5) every three weeks for up to six cycles; pemetrexed could be continued as maintenance treatment. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment according to RECIST v1.1; sensitivity analysis was by blinded independent central review (BICR).
Results:
A total of 419 patients were randomised to treatment (osimertinib, n=279; platinum-pemetrexed, n=140). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced across treatment groups: female 64%, Asian 65%, never smoker 68%, CNS metastases 34%, EGFR exon 19 deletion 66%. Osimertinib significantly improved PFS compared with platinum-pemetrexed: hazard ratio [HR] 0.30; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.41; p<0.001 (median 10.1 months vs 4.4 months). The result was consistent with PFS analysis by BICR: HR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.38; p<0.001 (11.0 months vs 4.2 months). Objective response rate was significantly improved with osimertinib (71%) vs platinum-pemetrexed (31%); odds ratio 5.39 (95% CI: 3.47, 8.48; p<0.001). Median duration of response was 9.7 months (95% CI 8.3, 11.6) with osimertinib and 4.1 months (95% CI 3.0, 5.6) with platinum-pemetrexed. Grade ≥3 causally-related adverse events (AEs) as assessed by the investigator were reported in 6% of patients (n=16) treated with osimertinib and 34% (n=46) treated with platinum-pemetrexed. Most common causally-related AEs in the osimertinib group: diarrhoea (29% [grade ≥3, 1%]), rash (28% [<1%]); in the platinum-pemetrexed group: nausea (47% [3%]), decreased appetite (32% [3%]).
Conclusion:
In patients with EGFR T790M-positive advanced NSCLC following progression on EGFR-TKI treatment, osimertinib demonstrated a superior clinically-meaningful efficacy over platinum-pemetrexed, with a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression, and well-characterised safety profile, establishing the new standard of care for these patients.
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.
-
+
PR03 - Press Conference: Accurate Diagnosis (ID 477)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Press Conference
- Track:
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:T. Mok
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 10:30 - 11:45, Schubert 1
-
+
PR03.02 - Randomised Phase III Study of Osimertinib vs Platinum-Pemetrexed for EGFR T790M-Positive Advanced NSCLC (AURA3) (ID 7210)
10:30 - 11:45 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
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.
-
+
SC28 - Novel Clinical Trial Designs (ID 352)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Science Session
- Track: Trial Design/Statistics
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:S. Michiels, L.R. Pilz
- Coordinates: 12/07/2016, 11:00 - 12:30, Lehar 1-2
-
+
SC28.04 - Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs (ID 6720)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): V. Papadimitrakopoulou
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Interest in adaptive design study methods stems from the principle that these methods hold promise for improving drug development compared to conventional study design (i.e., non-adaptive) methods. The theoretical advantages of adaptive designs are that (1) they provide similar information more efficiently by reducing sample size and total cost, (2) increase the likelihood of success on the study objective, treating more patients with more effective treatments or (3) lead to better improved appreciation of the effects of therapy such as dose-response relationship or subgroup effects, for example identifying efficacious drugs for specific subgroups of patients based on their biomarker profiles, which may also lead to more impactful subsequent studies). Adaptive designs use accumulating data to modify the ongoing trial without undermining the integrity and validity of the trial. They also hold the potential for shortening the time for drug development. Several aspects of these trials including the dose-finding scheme, interim analysis, adaptive randomization, biomarker-guided randomization, and seamless designs will be discussed. Many, but not all adaptive designs are devised under the Bayesian framework incorporating principles such as (I) obtaining the prior distribution; (II) collecting data to calculate the data likelihood; and then (III) computing the posterior distribution. The Bayesian framework provides an ideal statistical framework for adaptive trial designs (1, 2). Examples of trials conducted with adaptive designs include the BATTLE and BATTLE-2 trials and ISPY-2. The basic principle is that patients enrolling earlier in a trial are used to inform how subsequent patients are treated, thus improving the efficiency of the study; this means that fewer patients are required to achieve the same answers regarding safe dosing and/or efficacy. The BATTLE and BATTLE-2 trials are prime examples of this approach. Both trials have implemented adaptive randomization schemes to assign patients to the more efficacious treatments based on their biomarker-guided profiles, and use interim analyses to monitor the efficacy outcomes during the trial. The BATTLE trial (3, 4) enrolled patients with stage IV recurrent non-small cell lung cancer, employing a primary endpoint of eight-week disease control rate, as a binary outcome. Four targeted therapies, erlotinib, vandetanib, erlotinib plus bexarotene, and sorafenib, were evaluated, with one therapy targeting each one of four biomarker profiles and it used an adaptive randomization scheme to allocate patients to the different treatments; hence, patients had higher probabilities of being assigned to better treatments based on their biomarker profiles. The trial showed that adaptive design could work in a complex trial that assessed multiple drugs and biomarkers and required tissue collection and biomarker analysis. Based on the findings of the BATTLE trial, a follow-up BATTLE-2 trial (5) was started, that evaluated four treatment regimens, erlotinib, sorafenib, erlotinib + MK2206, and MK2206 + AZD6244, in a two-stage design with adaptive randomization. The first stage was completed with 200 patients. Biomarker selection was planned in 3 steps: training, testing and validation. In the training step, 10–15 potential prognostic and predictive markers were selected from the previous BATTLE experience, cell line data, and relevant literature information. In the testing step, the selected markers are tested using the data acquired from stage 1 of the BATTLE-2 trial. In the validation step, the markers selected in the first stage of the BATTLE-2 trial are used for adaptive randomization in the second stage of BATTLE-2. In BATTLE-2, we pre-specified an extremely limited set of markers and our intent was to use the first half of the study (200 patients) to conduct prospective testing of biomarkers/gene signatures. Predictive markers were to be used to guide patient assignments in the second half of the study. Although the design theoretically provided advantages, since clear predictive markers did not exist for any of the treatment Arms, activity was modest yielding no new predictive markers and not warranting further exploration. The ISPY-2 trial (6) is a multicenter phase II trial in the neoadjuvant setting for patients with breast cancer. The primary end point is pathologic complete response (PCR) at the time of surgery. The patient population is partitioned into ten subgroups depending on hormone-receptor (HR) status, HER2 status and Mamma Print signature. Experimental drugs are added to neoadjuvant therapy with the overall goal to prospectively learn as efficiently as possible which patients respond to each experimental treatment based on their biomarker profiles. Adaptive randomization with interim analysis is used within each biomarker subgroup, with the treatments that are performing better within a subgroup being assigned with greater probability to patients belonging to that subgroup. The phase II drug-screening stage is followed by a phase III confirmatory stage. The ISPY-2 trial has recently shown that two promising drugs improve response rates in specific biomarker subsets and has graduated these two drugs veliparib and neratinib for further development (7). The pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies are therefore very interested in adaptive designs because of their potential advantages and because they reflect medical practice in the real world. To recapitulate, incorporation of adaptive designs in carefully designed and executed trials can enhance drug development, provide greater benefit to the enrolled patients, and effectively address many research questions of interest. These designs require deep understanding of theoretical statistical methodology, extensive modeling with simulations, specialized software and robust databases. Continued implementation in trials with guidance from regulatory agencies and innovative methods will contribute towards progress in therapies. 1.Berry DA. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:27–36. 2.Lee JJ, Chu CT. Bayesian clinical trials in action. Stat Med. 2012;31:2955–2972. 3. Zhou X, Liu S, Kim ES, et al. Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer-a step toward personalized medicine. Clin Trials. 2008;5:181–193. 4. Kim ES, Herbst RS, Wistuba II, et al. The BATTLE Trial: Personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011;1:44–53. 5.Papadimitrakopoulou V, Lee JJ, Wistuba II et al. The BATTLE-2 Study: A Biomarker-integrated targeted therapy study in previously treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol Aug 1,2016 Epub ahead of print 6.Barker AD, Sigman CC, Kelloff GJ, et al. I-SPY 2: An adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:97–100. 7.Quantum Leap. I-SPY 2 Trial graduates 2 new drugs. 2013 Available online:http://www.quantumleaphealth.org/spy-2-trial-graduates-2-new-drugs-press-release/
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.
