Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Advanced KRASG12C-Mutated NSCLC Treated With Sotorasib.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC who are treated with sotorasib, there is a lack of biomarkers to guide treatment decisions. We therefore investigated the clinical utility of pretreatment and on-treatment circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and treatment-emergent alterations on disease progression. METHODS: Patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC treated with sotorasib were prospectively enrolled in our biomarker study (NCT05221372). Plasma samples were collected before sotorasib treatment, at first-response evaluation and at disease progression. The TruSight Oncology 500 panel was used for ctDNA and variant allele frequency analysis. Tumor response and progression-free survival were assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Pretreatment KRASG12C ctDNA was detected in 50 of 66 patients (76%). Patients with detectable KRASG12C had inferior progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-4.30], p = 0.031) and overall survival (HR 2.61 [95% CI: 1.16-5.91], p = 0.017). At first-response evaluation (n = 40), 29 patients (73%) had a molecular response. Molecular nonresponders had inferior overall survival (HR 3.58 [95% CI: 1.65-7.74], p = 0.00059). The disease control rate was significantly higher in those with a molecular response (97% versus 64%, p = 0.015). KRAS amplifications were identified as recurrent treatment-emergent alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest detectable pretreatment KRASG12C ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis and on-treatment ctDNA clearance as a marker for treatment response. We identified KRAS amplifications as a potential recurring resistance mechanism to sotorasib. Identifying patients with superior prognosis could aid in optimizing time of treatment initiation, and identifying patients at risk of early progression could allow for earlier treatment decisions.

Hepatotoxicity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with sotorasib after prior immunotherapy: a comprehensive clinical and pharmacokinetic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib given after immunotherapy could put patients at increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Therefore, there is a need to gain insight into the potential correlation between anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, anti-PD-(L)1 concentrations, sotorasib concentrations, and the incidence of hepatotoxicity during sotorasib. METHODS: Patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC treated with sotorasib were prospectively enrolled in our biomarker cohort study (NCT05221372). Plasma samples were collected prior and during sotorasib treatment for anti-PD-1 and sotorasib concentrations. ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increases were collected prospectively and graded according to CTCAEv5.0. Severe hepatotoxicity was defined as grade ≥3 ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increase. FINDINGS: Of the 91 included patients, 80 (88%) received prior anti-PD-(L)1. Prior anti-PD-(L)1 and prior immune-related hepatotoxicity were associated with a higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity (35% versus 0%, p = 0.016 and 75% versus 31%, p = 0.019, respectively). Patients with an interval of ≤6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib (n = 18) had a significantly higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity than those with a 6-12 week (n = 24) and ≥12 week (n = 38) interval (83% versus 33% versus 13%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Sotorasib trough concentrations did not differ significantly between those with or without severe hepatotoxicity (106 versus 126 ng/mL, p = 0.16). Pembrolizumab concentrations were higher in those with severe hepatotoxicity versus those without (25.6 versus 6.1 µg/mL, p < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In this preliminary prospective study, sotorasib after PD-(L)1 blockade was associated with severe hepatotoxicity, especially in patients with a short interval between treatments, prior immune-related hepatitis and higher anti-PD-1 plasma concentrations. Our results suggest a minimum interval of 6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib to minimize the risk of hepatotoxicity. FUNDING: None.

Chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after progression on EGFR-TKI's: Exploration of efficacy of unselected treatment in a multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung (NSCLC) chemotherapy remains standard of care after progression on EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). With the development of anti-angiogenic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors the landscape of systemic regimens has changed significantly. This cohort study aims to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy regimens after progression on EGFR-TKI in a European population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with chemotherapy after progression on EGFR-TKI for EGFR-mutated NSCLC, were identified in two tertiary centers in the Netherlands. Data on best response, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted from medical records. RESULTS: In total, 171 lines of chemotherapy were identified: platinum/pemetrexed (PP, n = 95), carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab/atezolizumab (CPBA, n = 32), paclitaxel/bevacizumab (PB, n = 36) and carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab (CPB, n = 8). Of the 171 lines, 106 were given as first-line after EGFR-TKI. Median PFS did not differ significantly between the first-line regimens (p = 0.50), with the highest PFS in PP (5.2 months [95% CI 4.5-5.9]) and CPBA (5.9 months [95% CI 3.8-80]). The majority of the PB group (n = 32) received this regimen in a second- or later line with a median PFS of 4.9 months (95% CI 3.3-6.6). First-line regimens had a median OS of 15.3 months (95% CI 11.6-18.9) with no significant difference between regimens (p = 0.85). CONCLUSION: After progression on EGFR-TKI, patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC show substantial benefit on different chemotherapy regimens. In particular, favorable outcomes were seen in patients treated with PP and CPBA as first-line chemotherapy, and PB in further lines of chemotherapy.

Prevalence, clinical and molecular characteristics of early stage EGFR-mutated lung cancer in a real-life West-European cohort: Implications for adjuvant therapy.

OBJECTIVES: The landmark ADAURA study recently demonstrated a significant disease-free survival benefit of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma. However, data on prevalence rates and stage distribution of EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer in Western populations are limited since upfront EGFR testing in early stage lung adenocarcinoma is not common practice. Here, we present a unique, real-world, unselected cohort of lung adenocarcinoma to aid in providing a rationale for routine testing of early stage lung cancers for EGFR mutations in the West-European population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed routine unbiased testing of all cases, regardless of TNM stage, with targeted next-generation sequencing on 486 lung adenocarcinoma cases between 01- January 2014 and 01 February 2020. Clinical and pathological data, including co-mutations and morphology, were collected. EGFR-mutated cases were compared to KRAS-mutated cases to investigate EGFR-specific characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 53 of 486 lung adenocarcinomas (11%) harboured an EGFR mutation. In early stages (stage 0-IIIA), the prevalence was 13%, versus 9% in stage IIIB-IV. Nine out of 130 (7%) stage IB-IIIA patients fit the ADAURA criteria. Early stage cases harboured more L858R mutations (p = 0.02), fewer exon 20 insertions (p = 0.048), fewer TP53 co-mutations (p = 0.007), and were more frequently never smokers (p = 0.04) compared to late stage cases with EGFR mutations. The KRAS-mutated cases were distributed more evenly across TNM stages compared to the EGFR-mutated cases. CONCLUSION: As (neo-)adjuvant targeted therapy regimes enter the field of lung cancer treatment, molecular analysis of early stage non-small cell lung cancer becomes relevant. Testing for EGFR mutations in early stage lung adenocarcinoma holds a substantial yield in our population, as our number needed to test ratio for adjuvant osimertinib was 14.4. The observed differences between early and late stage disease warrant further analysis to work towards better prognostic stratification and more personalised treatment.

Tobacco Smoking-Related Mutational Signatures in Classifying Smoking-Associated and Nonsmoking-Associated NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported smoking history is frequently used as a stratification factor in NSCLC-directed clinical research. Nevertheless, this classification does not fully reflect the mutational processes in a tumor. Next-generation sequencing can identify mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking, such as single-base signature 4 and indel-based signature 3. This provides an opportunity to redefine the classification of smoking- and nonsmoking-associated NSCLC on the basis of individual genomic tumor characteristics and could contribute to reducing the lung cancer stigma. METHODS: Whole genome sequencing data and clinical records were obtained from three prospective cohorts of metastatic NSCLC (N = 316). Relative contributions and absolute counts of single-base signature 4 and indel-based signature 3 were combined with relative contributions of age-related signatures to divide the cohort into smoking-associated ("smoking high") and nonsmoking-associated ("smoking low") clusters. RESULTS: The smoking high (n = 169) and smoking low (n = 147) clusters differed considerably in tumor mutational burden, signature contribution, and mutational landscape. This signature-based classification overlapped considerably with smoking history. Yet, 26% of patients with an active smoking history were included in the smoking low cluster, of which 52% harbored an EGFR/ALK/RET/ROS1 alteration, and 4% of patients without smoking history were included in the smoking high cluster. These discordant samples had similar genomic contexts to the rest of their respective cluster. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial subset of metastatic NSCLC is differently classified into smoking- and nonsmoking-associated tumors on the basis of smoking-related mutational signatures than on the basis of smoking history. This signature-based classification more accurately classifies patients on the basis of genome-wide context and should therefore be considered as a stratification factor in clinical research.