Dataset Information

Efficacy of Osimertinib Plus Bevacizumab vs Osimertinib in Patients With EGFR T790M-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: West Japan Oncology Group 8715L Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although treatment with first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus antiangiogenic inhibitor has shown promising efficacies in patients with EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma, recent single-arm studies have suggested that osimertinib plus antiangiogenic inhibitor might not work synergistically.

Objective

To explore the efficacy and safety of osimertinib plus bevacizumab compared with osimertinib alone in patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR T790M mutation.

Design, setting, and participants

Patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma that progressed with prior EGFR-TKI treatment (other than third-generation TKI) and acquired EGFR T790M mutation were enrolled. This study comprises a lead-in part with 6 patients and a subsequent phase 2 part. In phase 2, patients were randomized to osimertinib plus bevacizumab or osimertinib alone in a 1:1 ratio.

Interventions

The combination arm received oral osimertinib (80 mg, every day) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The control arm received osimertinib monotherapy.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by investigators. Secondary end points consisted of overall response rate, time to treatment failure, overall survival, and safety.

Results

From August 2017 through September 2018, a total of 87 patients were registered (6 in the lead-in part and 81 in the phase 2 part [intention-to-treat population]). Among those randomized, the median (range) age was 68 (41-82) years; 33 (41%) were male; 37 (46%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0; and 21 (26%) had brain metastasis. Although the overall response rate was better with osimertinib plus bevacizumab than osimertinib alone (68% vs 54%), median PFS was not longer with osimertinib plus bevacizumab (9.4 months vs 13.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44; 80% CI, 1.00 to 2.08; P = .20). Median time to treatment failure was also shorter in the combination arm vs the osimertinib arm (8.4 months vs 11.2 months; P = .12). Median overall survival was not different in the combination arm vs osimertinib arm (not reached vs 22.1 months; P = .96). In the combination arm, common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were proteinuria (n = 9; 23%), hypertension (n = 8; 20%).

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial comparing osimertinib plus bevacizumab vs osimertinib alone, the combination arm failed to show prolongation of PFS in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR T790M mutation.

Trial registration

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000023761.

SUBMITTER: Akamatsu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7791398 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrequent failures observed in some trials comparing the efficacy and safety of osimertinib plus bevacizumab to osimertinib monotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) alterations have brought questions.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of these two treatment regimens in advanced NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations.DesignThis study is a systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources and methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases were extensively searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 14 May 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, assessed quality, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). The secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs) and PFS stratified by patients' characteristics. STATA 17.0 software (StataCorp LLC, USA) was adopted for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of four RCTs involving 390 patients were included. Overall, the risk of bias across the studies was moderate to low. Pooled results showed that compared to osimertinib alone, the addition of bevacizumab to osimertinib failed to show prolongation of PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.27], OS (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.73-1.41), or improvement of the ORR (risk ratio = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.38), while an increased incidence of some AEs was observed, such as nausea, oral mucositis, hypertension, and proteinuria. Notably, combination treatment did significantly prolong the PFS in the subset of smokers (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.94). A mild trend toward PFS benefit under the combined regimen was also noted in patients with brain metastases and first-line treatment, though not reaching statistical significance.ConclusionBased on the available evidence, the addition of bevacizumab to osimertinib could not provide additional survival benefits with higher but manageable toxicity for EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Osimertinib monotherapy remains the prioritized treatment. Further investigation is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundOsimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown.MethodsIn this randomized, international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.ResultsThe median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression-free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%).ConclusionsOsimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981 .).

Project description:BackgroundLeptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is a catastrophic complication for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and carries an extremely poor prognosis. The efficacy of osimertinib 80 mg once daily for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) NSCLC with LM has yet to be fully assessed. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of osimertinib in such patients and their genetic profiles at the time of LM diagnosis.MethodsFrom January 2016 to April 2020, pretreated EGFRm NSCLC patients who had progressed with cytologically confirmed symptomatic LM and received osimertinib 80 mg once daily were enrolled retrospectively. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were evaluated, along with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Next-generation sequencing of paired samples of cerebrospinal fluid and plasma collected at LM diagnosis was performed simultaneously.ResultsForty cases of EGFRm lung adenocarcinoma with LM were analyzed. Females accounted for 75.0% of enrollees. Of the patients, 37.5% had a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (≥2). Twelve patients had received at least 2 prior lines of treatment. All patients received osimertinib treatment regardless of their T790M status. According to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO)-LM criteria, the ORR and DCR were 20.0% and 95.0%, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 10.0 (95% CI: 7.7-12.3) and 15.1 months (95% CI: 11.0-19.4), respectively. No significant difference was observed between T790M-negative patients (n=24) and T790M-positive patients (n=16) with respect to PFS [median, 10.8 (95% CI: 7.7-13.8) vs. 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.3-10.3), HR=0.595, P=0.158] or OS [median, 17.2 (95% CI: 8.7-25.7) vs. 11.4 months (95% CI: 3.9-19.0), HR=0.913, P=0.822]. The detection rate of EGFR sensitizing mutations in cerebrospinal fluid was higher than that in plasma (97.5% vs. 50%, P=0.311), whereas the incidence of T790M detection in cerebrospinal fluid was significantly lower than that in plasma (20.0% vs. 32.5%, P=0.043).ConclusionsOsimertinib 80 mg once daily shows good efficacy in pretreated EGFRm NSCLC patients with LM regardless of their T790M status. Combining cerebrospinal fluid and plasma testing can aid in revealing more genetic information.