Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Justin F Gainor
Author of
-
+
MA 05 - Immuno-Oncology: Novel Biomarker Candidates (ID 658)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Yoichi Nakanishi, P. Mitchell
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 303 + 304
-
+
MA 05.02 - STK11/LKB1 Loss of Function Genomic Alterations Predict Primary Resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 Axis Blockade in KRAS-Mutant NSCLC (ID 10367)
15:45 - 17:30 | Author(s): Justin F Gainor
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
The genomic landscape of primary resistance to PD-1 blockade in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is largely unknown. We previously reported that co-mutations in STK11/LKB1 (KL) or TP53 (KP) define subgroups of KRAS-mutant LUAD with distinct therapeutic vulnerabilities and immune profiles. Here, we present updated data on the clinical efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in co-mutation defined KRAS mutant and wild-type LUAD patients and examine the relationship between genetic alterations in individual genes, tumor cell PD-L1 expression and tumor mutational burden (TMB) using cohorts form the SU2C/ACS Lung Cancer Dream Team and Foundation Medicine (FM).
Method:
The cohorts included 924 LUAD with NGS (FM cohort) and 188 patients with KRAS non-squamous NSCLC (SU2C cohort) who received at least one cycle of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy and had available molecular profiling. Tumor cell PD-L1 expression was tested using E1L3N IHC (SU2C) and the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay (FM). TMB was defined as previously described and was classified as high (TMB-H), intermediate (TMB-I) or low (TMB-L).
Result:
188 immunotherapy-treated (83.5% nivolumab, 11.7% pembrolizumab, 4.8% anti-PD1/PD-L1 plus anti-CTLA-4) pts with KRAS-mutant NSCLC were included in the efficacy analysis. The ORR differed significantly between the KL (8.8%), KP (35.9%) and K-only sub-groups (27.3%) (P=0.0011, Fisher’s exact test). KL LUAC exhibited significantly shorter PFS (mPFS 1.8m vs 2.7m, HR=0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.84, P<0.001, log-rank test) and OS (mOS 6.8m vs 15.6m, HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84, P=0.0072, log rank test) compared to KRAS-mutant NSCLC with wild-type STK11. Loss-of function (LOF) genetic alterations in STK11 were the only significantly enriched event in PD-L1 negative, TMB-I/H compared to PD-L1 high positive (TPS≥50%), TMB-I/H tumors in the overall FMI cohort (Bonferroni adjusted P=2.38x10[-4], Fisher’s exact test) and among KRAS-mutant tumors (adjusted P=0.05, Fisher’s exact test) . Notably, PD-1 blockade demonstrated activity among 10 PD-L1-negative KP tumors, with 3 PRs and 4SDs recorded. In syngeneic isogenic murine models PD-1 blockade significantly inhibited the growth of Kras mutant tumors with wild-type LKB1 (K), but not those with LKB1 loss (KL), providing evidence that LKB1 loss can play a causative role in promoting PD-1 inhibitor resistance.
Conclusion:
Loss of function genomic alterations in STK11 represent a dominant driver of de novo resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in KRAS-mutant NSCLC. In addition to tumor PD-L1 status and tumor mutational burden precision immunotherapy approaches should take into consideration the STK11 status of individual tumors.
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.
-
+
MA 07 - ALK, ROS and HER2 (ID 673)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Robert C. Doebele, J.C. Ho
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 316
-
+
MA 07.07 - Clinical Outcomes and ALK Resistance Mutations in ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer According to EML4-ALK Variant (ID 8255)
15:45 - 17:30 | Author(s): Justin F Gainor
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) are effectively treated with ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, clinical outcomes among patients treated with ALK TKIs vary, and the clinical benefit of TKI therapy is limited due to acquired resistance. To date, emerging data suggest that the specific EML4-ALK variant may impact clinical outcome, but whether variant is associated with mechanisms of TKI resistance is unknown.
Method:
We identified 108 advanced ALK+ NSCLC cases with known ALK fusion variants. Progression-free survival (PFS) on ALK TKIs and resistance mechanisms were retrospectively evaluated according to ALK variant.
Result:
The 108 ALK+ cases consisted of: 42 (39%) EML4-ALK v1 (E13;A20), 8 (7.4%) v2 (E20;A20), 45 (41.7%) v3 (E6;A20), 3 (2.8%) v5 (E2;A20), 4 (3.7%) v5’ (E18;A20), 1 (0.9%) v7 (E14;A20), and 5 (4.6%) non-EML4-ALK variants. Given the small numbers of non-v1/v3 cases, v1 and v3 cases were selected for further analysis. Among the 21 v1 and 25 v3 cases treated with first-line crizotinib, there was no significant difference in PFS (HR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.42-1.57], p = 0.526). Similarly, there was no difference in PFS on second-generation ALK TKIs among 35 v1 and 35 v3 patients who received ceritinib, alectinib, or brigatinib following first- or later-line crizotinib (HR = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.77-2.26], p = 0.308). Interestingly, among 12 v1 and 17 v3 patients who received the third-generation TKI lorlatinib after failure of a second-generation TKI, v3 was associated with significantly longer PFS than v1 (HR = 0.250 [95% CI, 0.09-0.72], p = 0.006). From our cohort, we identified 11 v3 and 14 v1 post-crizotinib biopsies. No difference was noted in the presence of ALK resistance mutations (27% and 21%, respectively; p = 1.000). In contrast, among 30 v3 and 18 v1 post-second generation TKI biopsies, ALK resistance mutations were more common among v3 vs v1 cases (66% vs 44%, respectively; p = 0.147). Furthermore, the ALK G1202R solvent front mutation occurred more frequently in v3 vs v1 (47% vs 0%, respectively; p = 0.001).
Conclusion:
Our findings suggest that EML4-ALK variants 1 and 3 may not be associated with significantly different PFS outcomes on crizotinib or second-generation ALK TKIs. However, ALK resistance mutations, particularly G1202R, occur more frequently in v3 vs v1 post–second generation TKI. Patients with this variant may therefore derive particular benefit from third-generation, pan-inhibitory ALK TKIs. Larger, prospective studies will be needed to confirm these findings.
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.
-
+
MA 11 - Emerging Diagnostic/Biomarkers in NSCLC (ID 668)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:M.I. Abdul Wahid, Martin Reck
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 313 + 314
-
+
MA 11.08 - Discussant - MA 11.05, MA 11.06, MA 11.07 (ID 10812)
11:00 - 12:30 | Presenting Author(s): Justin F Gainor
- 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.
-
+
OA 07 - Biomarker for Lung Cancer (ID 659)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Biology/Pathology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Philip Christopher Mack, Shinichi Toyooka
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 503
-
+
OA 07.05 - Serial Biopsies in Patients with EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Highlight the Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity of Resistance Mechanisms (ID 10181)
15:45 - 17:30 | Author(s): Justin F Gainor
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) limits treatment outcomes among patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Resistance mechanisms have previously been conceptualized as binary “positive/negative” variables, but emerging evidence suggests resistant cancers are heterogeneous, and subclones may be appreciated through multiple biopsies.
Method:
We retrospectively analyzed 221 EGFR mutant pts at MGH who had >1 biopsy after progression on their initial EGFR inhibitor. Data on acquired resistance (AR) mechanisms observed at each biopsy, adverse events, and treatment were collected.
Result:
Among 221 pts with a total of 355 post-AR tissue biopsies, median age was 59 (range, 28-88), 69% were female, 64% had EGFR del19, 33% L858R and 3% other activating mutations. Median number of biopsies per patient was 1 (range, 1-4). Biopsies at first resistance to EGFR TKI showed 61% T790M, 5% MET amplification (amp), 3% SCLC transformation, 2% acquired PIK3CA and 1% acquired BRAF mutations. 83 pts had two biopsies during their post-resistance course; 43/83 (52%) had heterogeneity between biopsy 1 and 2. In particular, 20% “lost” T790M, while 11% “gained” T790M. Among 17 pts who lost T790M, 3 gained a separate resistance mechanism, including MET amp and BRAF V600E. In some cases, synchronous biopsies identified spatial heterogeneity. For example, an osimertinib-resistant patient had a T790M/C797S lung nodule, while a concurrent mediastinal lymph node was wild-type at both loci (both sites retained the activating EGFR mutation). Similarly, another osimertinib-resistant patient with MET amp in a pleural effusion cell block had a lung nodule biopsy which lacked MET amp; the patient was treated with combination EGFR and MET inhibitors with a partial response. Additional details regarding concurrent liquid biopsies, treatment histories and clinical outcomes will be presented.
Conclusion:
In this large cohort of EGFR mutant NSCLC patients, we frequently observed variations in resistance mechanisms in patients with > 1 post-AR biopsy. Our data highlights the heterogeneity of resistant cancers and the limitations of a single biopsy in fully capturing the spectrum of resistance mechanisms in each patient. Serial biopsies or non-invasive methods may be required to characterize resistance and identify potential therapeutic targets.
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.
-
+
OA 12 - Emerging Genomic Targets (ID 679)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:H. Akita, Maurice Pérol
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, F203 + F204 (Annex Hall)
-
+
OA 12.02 - Final Results of a Phase 2 Study of the hsp90 Inhibitor Luminespib (AUY922) in NSCLC Patients Harboring EGFR Exon 20 Insertions (ID 10182)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): Justin F Gainor
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
EGFR exon 20 insertions (ins20) comprise 4-10% of EGFR mutations in NSCLC and are refractory to 1[st]/2[nd] generation EGFR TKIs. No effective targeted therapies exist for patients with EGFR ins20. EGFR is a client protein of the molecular chaperone Heat Shock Protein 90 (hsp90). Here, we present the final results of a phase II investigator-initiated trial to assess the activity of the Hsp90 inhibitor luminespib (AUY922) in NSCLC patients with EGFR ins20 (NCT01854034).
Method:
Between 8/2013 and 10/2016, the study enrolled 29 patients with stage IV NSCLC, EGFR ins20 identified on local testing, ECOG PS 0-2, at least one prior line of therapy and no untreated brain metastases. The study was closed on 2/28/17 when the available drug supply was exhausted. Luminespib was given at 70mg/m2 IV weekly. Response was assessed by RECIST 1.1 every 6 weeks; treatment beyond progression was allowed. Dose interruptions and dose reductions were allowed as needed for toxicity management. Primary endpoint was ORR with a target disease control rate (DCR; PR/CR plus SD lasting > 3 mos) of > 20%. Secondary endpoints were PFS, OS, safety and response by EGFR ins20 subtype.
Result:
29 patients (18 female/11 male, median age 60 (range, 31-79)) were enrolled. Median number of prior therapies = 1 (range, 1-5.) 4/29 achieved PR and 1 CR (ORR 5/29; 17%). 15 patients had SD and 9 had PD as their best response. mPFS was 2.9 mos (95% CI, 1.4-5.6,) mOS was 13 mos (95% CI, 4.9-19.5.) DCR was 11/29 (38%). Among 19 patients with baseline PS 0-1 and < 2 prior therapies, ORR = 21% and mPFS = 5.1 mos (95% CI, 2.1-11.8.) The most common luminespib-related toxicities were visual changes (22/29; 76%) diarrhea (21/29; 72%) and fatigue (13/29; 45%). Treatment-related grade 3 toxicities included ocular toxicity (1/29; 3%), hypertension (3/29; 10%) and hypophosphatemia (1/29; 3%). All study treatment was stopped on 2/28/17 due to lack of drug availability; 3 patients were on treatment without progression at study termination.
Conclusion:
The study met its primary endpoint and suggests that luminespib may be an active therapy for advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR ins20. Luminespib is generally well-tolerated, though reversible low-grade ocular toxicity is common. Further study of luminespib and other Hsp90 inhibitors in this population is warranted, as are novel systems to continue drug supply for benefitting patients when availability of experimental compounds is limited.
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.
-
+
P1.07 - Immunology and Immunotherapy (ID 693)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.07-033 - Differential Expression of Immune Inhibitory Markers in Association with the Immune Microenvironment in Resected Lung Adenocarcinomas (ID 10196)
09:30 - 16:00 | Author(s): Justin F Gainor
- Abstract
Background:
Similar to programed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is known to exert immunosuppressive effects and be variably expressed in human lung cancer. However, IDO1 expression has not been well-studied in lung adenocarcinoma (ADC).
Method:
PD-L1 and IDO1 expression were evaluated in 261 resected ADC using tissue microarrays and H-scores (cutoff 5). We compared IDO1 with PD-L1 expression in association with clinical features, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), HLA class I (β-2 microglobulin; B2M) expression, molecular alterations, and patient outcomes.
Result:
There was expression of PD-L1 in 89 (34.1%) and IDO1 in 74 (28.5%) cases, with co-expression in 49 (18.8%). Both PD-L1 and IDO1 were significantly associated with smoking, aggressive pathologic features, and abundant CD8+ and T-bet+ (Th1 marker) TILs. PD-L1 expression and abundant CD8+ were inversely associated with a loss of B2M membranous expression (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively). Compared to PD-L1+/IDO1+ and PD-L1+ only cases, significantly fewer IDO1+ only cases had abundant CD8+ and T-bet+ TILs (p<0.001, respectively). PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with EGFR wild-type (p<0.001) and KRAS mutants (p=0.021), whereas there was no difference in IDO1 expression between different molecular alterations. As for survival, PD-L1 was significantly associated with decreased progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while IDO1 was associated only with decreased OS. Interestingly, there was a significant difference in the 5-year PFS and OS (p=0.004 and 0.038, respectively), where cases without PD-L1 or IDO1 expression had the longest survival, and those with PD-L1 alone had the shortest survival.
Conclusion:
While PD-L1 +/- IDO1 expression is observed in association with B2M expression, CTL/Th1 microenvironments, EGFR wild-type, and KRAS mutations, isolated IDO1 expression does not demonstrate these associations. These results suggest that IDO1 may serve a distinct immunosuppressive role in ADC. Thus, blockade of IDO1 may represent an alternative and/or complementary therapeutic strategy to reactivate anti-tumor immunity. Additional study to examine a larger number of immunoregulatory markers is ongoing.
-
+
P3.07 - Immunology and Immunotherapy (ID 723)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P3.07-012 - Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Liver Metastases (ID 8484)
09:30 - 16:00 | Author(s): Justin F Gainor
- Abstract
Background:
Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have metastasis to the liver have poor prognosis. The phase 3 trials CheckMate 017 and 057 demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with nivolumab, an anti-programmed death-1 antibody, versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, respectively. A prior subgroup analysis from these trials evaluated and demonstrated efficacy and safety with nivolumab in patients with asymptomatic central nervous system metastases (Goldman J. ASCO 2016). Here we report subgroup analyses from these trials of patients with baseline liver metastases.
Method:
In both trials, patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m[2] every 3 weeks until progression or discontinuation. The primary endpoint of each study was OS. Patients from CheckMate 017 and 057 with baseline liver metastases reported as either target or non-target lesions were identified and pooled across studies by treatment.
Result:
Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients with liver metastases randomized to nivolumab (n=99) and docetaxel (n=94). In the nivolumab group, 26% of patients had squamous and 74% had non-squamous NSCLC; in the docetaxel group, 36% had squamous and 64% had non-squamous NSCLC. The minimum follow-up was 24.2 months (Feb 2016 database locks). Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio [HR]=0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50, 0.91), similar to findings from the ITT group (HR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.84). Median OS in patients with liver metastases was 6.83 months with nivolumab versus 5.93 months with docetaxel, both of which were lower than those observed in the overall pooled intent-to-treat (ITT) population (11.14 months vs 8.11 months). Two-year OS rates were 18% with nivolumab versus 6% with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases. Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events in patients with liver metastases were lower with nivolumab compared with docetaxel (7% vs 53%), and similar to those in the ITT population (10% vs 55%).
Conclusion:
The lower median OS observed in this subgroup of patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC and baseline liver metastases corroborates previous findings that metastasis to the liver is an unfavorable prognostic factor. However, nivolumab demonstrated sustained OS benefit versus docetaxel in these patients, similar to the ITT population. The safety profile of nivolumab was favorable versus docetaxel in this subgroup, with no new safety concerns identified.
