Osimertinib and Selpercatinib Efficacy, Safety, and Resistance in a Multicenter, Prospectively Treated Cohort of EGFR-Mutant and RET Fusion-Positive Lung Cancers.

PURPOSE: Acquired RET fusions have been reported at resistance to treatment with EGFR inhibitors in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, a multicenter cohort of patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers treated with osimertinib and selpercatinib for RET fusion-mediated osimertinib resistance has not previously been published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who received selpercatinib in combination with osimertinib on a prospective expanded access clinical trial (NCT03906331) and single-patient compassionate use programs across five countries were centrally analyzed. All patients had advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC with a RET fusion detected from tissue or plasma following osimertinib therapy. Clinicopathologic and outcomes data were collected. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with EGFR-mutant and RET fusion-positive lung cancers who experienced prior progression on osimertinib received osimertinib and selpercatinib. EGFR exon 19 deletions (±T790M, 86%) and non-KIF5B fusions (CCDC6-RET 50%, NCOA4-RET 36%) predominated. Osimertinib 80 mg daily and selpercatinib 80 mg twice daily were the most commonly administered dosages. The response rate, disease control rate, and median treatment duration were 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 25%-75%, n = 12], 83% (95% CI, 55%-95%), and 7.9 months (range, 0.8-25+), respectively. Resistance was complex, involving EGFR on-target (EGFR C797S), RET on-target (RET G810S), and off-target (EML4-ALK/STRN-ALK, KRAS G12S, BRAF V600E) mechanisms; RET fusion loss; or polyclonal mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with an acquired RET fusion as a mechanism of EGFR inhibitor resistance, the addition of selpercatinib to osimertinib was feasible and safe and offered clinical benefit, supporting the prospective evaluation of this combination. See related commentary by Krebs and Popat, p. 2951.

Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus co-administered with adefovir dipivoxil to liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Adefovir dipivoxil has activity against wild-type and lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) and is frequently used to manage HBV infection in transplant recipients. Calcineurin inhibitors are a central component of immunosuppressive therapy. AIMS: Study GS-02-531 was an open-label, multicentre drug interaction trial to examine potential drug interactions between adefovir and tacrolimus in stable post-transplant recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen non-HBV-infected post-transplant recipients with median age 45.5 years (69% male, 44% Caucasian, 50% Hispanic and 6% Black) and stable hepatic and renal function on a stable daily dose of tacrolimus (2-10 mg total daily dose) were studied before (tacrolimus alone) and after co-administration of adefovir 10 mg daily for 14 days (Days 1-14). Pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses utilized non-compartmental methods. RESULTS: The median elimination half-life of tacrolimus was 14.47 and 12.59 h for Day 0 and Day 14 respectively. The geometric mean ratios for tacrolimus on Day 14 vs Day 0 were 105.2% [90% confidence interval (90% CI): 89.8-123%] for C(max) and 106.4% (90% CI: 92.9-122%) for AUC(tau). Both 90% CIs for the ratios were contained within the predefined lack of interaction bounds of 80 and 125% (i.e. within the bounds for the equivalence assessment), indicating that these PK parameters of tacrolimus are not significantly altered by co-administration of adefovir. Similarly, the observed adefovir PK parameters after 14 days of co-administration with tacrolimus were comparable to historical data in non-transplant patients receiving adefovir alone. Serum creatinine values were stable during the study period. CONCLUSION: There is no significant PK interaction between tacrolimus and adefovir co-administered to liver transplant recipients for 14 days.