Central Nervous System Outcomes of Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: A LASER301 Subset Analysis

Author(s): Ross A. Soo, MBBS, PhD¹; Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD²; Joo-Hang Kim, MD³; Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, PhD⁴; Ki Hyeong Lee, MD⁵; Anastasia Zimina, MD⁶; Sergey Orlov, MD⁷; Igor Bondarenko, MD, PhD⁸; Yun-Gyoo Lee, MD⁹; Yueh Ni Lim, MD¹⁰; Sung Sook Lee, MD¹¹; Kyung-Hee Lee, MD, PhD¹²; Yong Kek Pang, MD¹³; Chin Heng Fong, MD¹⁴; Jin Hyoung Kang, MD¹⁵; Chun Sen Lim, MD¹⁶; Pongwut Danchaivijitr, MD¹⁷; Saadettin Kilickap, MD¹⁸; James Chih-Hsin Yang, MD, PhD¹⁹; Cagatay Arslan, MD²⁰; Hana Lee, MS²¹; Seong Nam Park, MPH²¹; Irfan Cicin, MD²²

Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2023.08.017

Dr. Maen Hussein's Thoughts

Lazertinib, third generation EGFR inhibitor, has good activity in patients with brain mets promising…

INTRODUCTION

Lazertinib, a third-generation mutant-selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved progression-free survival compared with gefitinib in the phase 3 LASER301 study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248829). Here, we report the efficacy of lazertinib and gefitinib in patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) metastases.

METHODS

Treatment-naive patients with EGFR–mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response.

RESULTS

Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8–28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7–not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20–0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3–NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8–NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.

Author Affiliations

¹Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore; ²Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ³CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea; ⁴Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ⁵Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Republic of Korea; ⁶State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of Omsk Region, Omsk, Russia; ⁷Pavlov State Medical University, Ulitsa L’va Tolstogo, St. Petersburg, Russia; ⁸Oncology and Medical Radiology Department, Dnipropetrovsk Medical Academy, Dnipro, Ukraine; ⁹Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ¹⁰Hospital Umum Sarawak, Jalan Hospital, Kuching, Malaysia; ¹¹Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea; ¹²Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Republic of Korea; ¹³University Malaya Medical Centre, University of Malaya, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia; ¹⁴Hospital Pulau Pinang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia; ¹⁵Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ¹⁶Oncology Department, Hospital Sultan Ismail, Jalan Mutiara Emas Utama, Johor, Malaysia; ¹⁷Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; ¹⁸Department of Medical Oncology, İstinye University Faculty of Medicine, Liv Hospital Ankara, Ankara, Turkey; ¹⁹National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University Cancer Center, Taipei City, Taiwan; ²⁰Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir University of Economics Medical Point Hospital, İzmir, Turkey; ²¹Yuhan Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ²²Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University Medical Center, Edirne, Turkey

Plasma Proteome–Based Test for First-Line Treatment Selection in Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

FCS medical oncologist and hematologist Ernesto Bustinza-Linares, MD has co-authored an abstract published in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Journal, JCO Precision Oncology, that uncovers a new testing method to determine personalized care options for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The abstract’s authors address the limitations of existing guidelines that recommend checkpoint immunotherapy, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, for treating NSCLC, which often discounts patient variability and immune factors. The findings from the study show that by incorporating additional plasma proteome-based testing, combined with the standard protein inhibitor testing, clear differences in patient outcomes were observed after applying targeted treatments based on the testing results.

Selective Personalized RadioImmunotherapy for Locally Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Trial (SPRINT)

This is a small trial but really promising in patients with tumors expressing PDL-1 > 50%. We need larger randomized trials and longer follow up. Look at the rate of controlled release (CR) just by induction therapy. Do we really need radiation for those patients? This should be another area to study. Thoughts from radiation oncologists are welcomed.

Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Mutated Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Disease Progression on Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Final Results of CheckMate 722

For our NSCLC patients who carry a driver EGFR mutation, there seems to be little/no benefit of the addition of IO therapy to standard chemotherapy in the second line setting. Prior post hoc analyses showed a trend favoring immunotherapy (IO) therapy in those only having received one prior line of therapy and those with sensitizing EGFR mutations, however this was not confirmed in this randomized phase III study.

First-Line Osimertinib for Previously Untreated Patients With NSCLC and Uncommon EGFR Mutations – The UNICORN Phase 2 Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

This study demonstrates activity of osimertinib in uncommon EGFR mutations. Of note, these were non-exon-20 mutations and included some with compound mutations. Response rates were reasonable and this justifies using targeted therapy in these uncommon subgroups.

Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion–Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

The old cliche of more agents than patients seems to be true in the small group of ROS1+ NSCLC. Repotrectinib is one of the newer ones out there and worthy of our consideration.