Virtual Library

 x 
My Library Virtual Library FAQ

Start Your Search

E. Tan



Author of

  • +

    Poster Display Session (ID 63)

    • Event: ELCC 2017
    • Type: Poster Display Session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 2
    • Moderators:
    • Coordinates: 5/07/2017, 12:30 - 13:00, Hall 1
    • +

      100P - Afatinib vs gefitinib for treatment-naïve patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC (LUX-Lung 7): Analysis of time to treatment failure and impact of afatinib dose adjustment (ID 356)

      12:30 - 13:00  |  Author(s): E. Tan

      • Abstract

      Background:
      PFS was significantly improved in LUX-Lung 7 with afatinib (A) vs gefitinib (G). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was a co-primary endpoint to reflect clinical practice of continuing TKI tx beyond radiologic progression in the absence of clinical deterioration. An analysis of TTF and a post-hoc analysis of the impact of dose adjustment of A on PFS and AEs are reported here.

      Methods:
      Patients (pts) were randomized to A 40mg/d or G 250mg/d until progressive disease (PD) or beyond if deemed beneficial. The dose of A could be reduced by 10mg decrements to a minimum of 20mg in the event of selected drug-related (DR) AEs. TTF was analyzed using a stratified log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier methods. PFS was compared between pts who had a dose reduction within 6 mos and those who received ≥40mg for 6 mos. Incidence/severity of common AEs before/after dose reduction was assessed.

      Results:
      319 pts were randomized (160 A, 159 G). At data cut-off (21 Aug 2015), 87.5% A and 93.7% G pts had discontinued tx, mostly due to radiologic PD (69.4 vs 74.8%) or toxicity (11.3 vs 10.7%). 35.0% A and 29.6% G pts with clinical benefit continued tx beyond radiologic PD. Pts remained on tx significantly longer with A vs G (median TTF 13.7 vs 11.5 mos; HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58–0.92]; p = 0.007; pts on tx at 2 yrs: 25.0 vs 13.2%). TTF subgroup analyses favored A. Risk of tx failure was reduced with A vs G regardless of EGFRm type or race. Median tx duration beyond PD with A and G was 2.7 and 2.0 mos, respectively. 63 pts (39%) treated with A had a dose reduction to 30mg; 21 (13%) had further reduction to 20mg. There was no significant difference in PFS in pts who received <40 mg or ≥ 40 mg (median 12.8 vs 11.0 mos; HR 1.3 [95% CI 0.9–2.0]; p = 0.14). Dose reduction of A reduced the incidence/severity of DR AEs: grade ≥3 diarrhea, rash/acne and stomatitis were reduced from 25.4%, 20.6% and 7.9%, to 9.5%, 3.2% and 3.2%, respectively.

      Conclusions:
      TTF was significantly improved with first-line A vs G in EGFRm+ NSCLC, which testifies to the tolerability of A, and suggests that it may confer additional clinical benefit in pts who continue tx beyond PD. Dose adjustment of A reduced the frequency/intensity of DR AEs without compromising efficacy.

      Clinical trial identification:
      LUX-Lung 7: EudraCT No: 2011-001814-33

      Legal entity responsible for the study:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Funding:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Disclosure:
      J.C-H. Yang: Ad board and honoraria: BI, Lilly, Bayer, Roche/Genentech/Chugai, Astellas, MSD, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis, Celgene, Merrimack, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Ono pharmaceutical Daiichi, Sankyo, and AZ. L. Paz-Ares: Honoraria from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer lngelheim, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Amgem. K. O\'Byrne: Ad board, speaker bureau, travel to international conferences and honoraria: AZ, BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Pfizer, BI. Ad board and speaker bureau: Novartis. 3 Patents: 1 on novel drugs, 2 on biomarkers, IP held by Queensland University of Technology. M. Boyer: Ad board: BMS, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer Board of Directors: IASLC Research: Pfizer, Genentech, BI, AZ, Novartis, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Clovis Honoraria: Merck Sharpe and Dohme, BI, BMS, AZ. T. Mok: Receipt of grants/research supports: AstraZeneca, BI, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ, Roche, MSD, Clovis Oncology, BMS; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, Merck Serono, MSD, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, BioMarin, GSK, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceutical, ACEA Biosciences, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, BMS, AVEO & Biodesix, Prime Oncology, Amgen; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, MSD, Amgen, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Novartis, BMS, PrIME Oncology; Stock shareholder: Sanomics Limited. V. Hirsh: Honoraria for participating on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. K. Park: Participated on advisory boards for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

    • +

      131P - T790M co-exists with other secondary resistance mechanisms in EGFR mutation positive NSCLC and are associated with inferior outcomes (ID 159)

      12:30 - 13:00  |  Author(s): E. Tan

      • Abstract

      Background:
      Compared to conventional chemotherapy, NSCLC adenocarcinoma patients with EGFR-activating mutations (M+) have superior response to EGFR TKIs. However, all patients develop acquired resistance (AR) to TKIs, most commonly through T790M mutation. Due to intratumour heterogeneity, additional non-T790M mechanisms of AR could coexist with the T790M mutation. Little is known about the prevalence and clinical outcomes of patients with co-existing mechanisms of AR.

      Methods:
      145 patients with EGFR M+ NSCLC underwent a repeat biopsy after developing AR to TKI therapy. All specimens underwent histological review, while 116 (80%) underwent molecular profiling with multiple parallel high-sensitivity assays (including a 29-gene NGS panel) to detect genetic aberrations linked to TKI resistance. Kaplan Meier survival curves were plotted and compared with the log-rank test.

      Results:
      53.4% TKI-resistant patients (n = 57/106) were T790M-positive, while 61% patients had a non-T790M mechanism of AR including CMET polysomy or amplification, PTEN Loss, PIK3CA substitution and small cell change. 10 patients had lost their original EGFR-activating mutation. Up to 42% (n = 34/80) had a mutation in an NSCLC driver gene (including BRAF, DDR2, NRAS) detected by a 29-gene panel. 51% patients treated with 1[st]-generation gefitinib or erlotinib (n = 101) were T790M-positive, compared to only 20% of patients treated with 2[nd]-generation afatinib (n = 15). There was also a difference (p = 0.071) in T790M prevalence between patients treated with TKI post-progression (37/67, 55%) and those treated with chemotherapy (15/41, 36.5%). Notably, almost half the T790M-positive subjects harboured co-existing non-T790M mechanisms of AR (28/57, 49.1%). These patients had inferior OS of 42 months (95% CI 36.9-47.1) compared to patients with solely T790M (58 months, 95% CI 36.5-132.8).

      Conclusions:
      While T790M is widely-accepted as the predominant mechanism of AR, the spectrum of mutations can vary greatly depending on the type of prior therapy. Moreover, other mechanisms of AR could coexist with T790M and portend inferior clinical outcomes, suggesting that targeting other mechanisms of AR beyond T790M may be clinically-relevant.

      Clinical trial identification:


      Legal entity responsible for the study:
      Ministry of Health Singapore

      Funding:
      National Cancer Centre Singapore

      Disclosure:
      All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

  • +

    Targeted therapies and immunotherapies (ID 46)

    • Event: ELCC 2017
    • Type: Poster Discussion session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      93PD - Afatinib (A) vs gefitinib (G) in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm+) NSCLC: Updated OS data from the phase IIb trial LUX-Lung 7 (LL7) (ID 301)

      14:45 - 15:45  |  Author(s): E. Tan

      • Abstract

      Background:
      A, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, and G, a reversible EGFR TKI, are approved for 1st-line treatment (tx) of advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC. In LL7, A (40 mg/d) significantly improved PFS (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.57–0.95], p = 0.017), ORR (70 vs 56%, p = 0.008) and time to tx failure (TTF; HR 0.73 [0.58–0.92], p = 0.007) vs G (250 mg/d) in this setting; the primary OS analyses (data cut-off 8 Apr 16) showed a non-significant difference in OS between A and G (median 27.9 vs 24.5 mos; HR 0.86 [0.66–1.12], p = 0.258) that was consistent across subgroups. Here, we present updated OS data.

      Methods:
      LL7 assessed A vs G in tx-naïve pts with EGFRm+ (Del19/L858R) stage IIIb/IV NSCLC. Co-primary endpoints were PFS, TTF and OS. Other endpoints: ORR and AEs.

      Results:
      Data cut-off for the updated OS analysis was 12 Dec 16. Median follow-up for OS was 49.2 mos. 73/77% (A/G) of pts had ≥1 subsequent systemic anti-cancer tx after discontinuation of A/G. 48/56% (A/G) received a subsequent EGFR TKI; 31 (19%)/26 (16%) pts (A/G) received a 3[rd]-gen EGFR TKI. Updated median OS was 27.9 vs 24.5 mos with A vs G (HR 0.85 [0.66–1.09], p = 0.1950). Landmark 24-mo and 30-mo OS with A vs G was 61 vs 51% and 48 vs 40%, respectively; 48-mo OS was 28% with A vs 20% with G. In patients treated with A, ≥30-mo survival rates were generally similar across countries of origin and mean average dose received. Similar OS trends were observed with A vs G in pts with Del19 (30.7 vs 26.4 mos; HR 0.82 [0.59–1.15]) and L858R (25.0 vs 21.2 mos; HR 0.89 [0.61–1.31]) mutations. There was a trend towards improved OS with A vs G in pts who received a 3[rd]-gen EGFR TKI (NE vs 48.3 mos; HR 0.49 [0.20–1.19]). In patients treated with A, consistent OS outcomes were observed across age groups (median, mos: 28.9 [<60 years]; 30.1 [<65 years]; 28.9 [<75 years]; 27.9 [≥75 years]). Updated PFS, TTF and ORR (at primary OS data cut-off, 8 Apr 16) were similar to the primary analyses, and all were significantly improved with A vs G; the AE profile of A and G was virtually unchanged since the primary analysis.

      Conclusions:
      In this updated OS analysis, there was no significant difference in OS with A vs G. A trend favouring A, generally consistent across subgroups, was observed.

      Clinical trial identification:
      Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01466660

      Legal entity responsible for the study:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Funding:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Disclosure:
      K. Park: Participated on advisory boards for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis, and Roche. J.C-H. Yang: Ad board and honoraria: BI, Lilly, Bayer, Roche/Genentech/Chugai, Astellas, MSD, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis, Celgene, Merrimack, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Ono pharmaceutical Daiichi, Sankyo, AZ. T. Mok: Receipt of grants/research supports: AstraZeneca, BI, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ, Roche, MSD, Clovis Oncology, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, Merck Serono, MSD, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, BioMarin, GSK, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceutical, ACEA Biosciences, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, BMS, AVEO & Biodesix, Prime Oncology, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, MSD, Amgen, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Novartis, BMS, PrIME Oncology. Stock shareholder: Sanomics Limited. K. O\'Byrne: Ad board, speaker bureau, travel to international conferences and honoraria: AZ, BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Pfizer, BI. Ad board and speaker bureau: Novartis. 3 Patents: 1 on novel drugs, 2 on biomarkers, IP held by Queensland University of Technology. V. Hirsh: Has received advisory board honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. M. Boyer: Ad board: BMS, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer Board of Directors: IASLC Research: Pfizer, Genentech, BI, AZ, Novartis, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Clovis Honoraria: Merck Sharpe and Dohme, BI, BMS, AZ. J. Fan: Boehringer Ingelheim employee. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.