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.
The phase III CheckMate 722 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02864251) evaluated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after disease progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
Patients with disease progression after first- or second-generation EGFR TKI therapy (without EGFR T790M mutation) or osimertinib (with/without T790M mutation) were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab (360 mg once every 3 weeks) plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone (once every 3 weeks) for four cycles. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included 9- and 12-month PFS rates, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR).
Overall, 294 patients were randomly assigned. At final analysis (median follow-up, 38.1 months), PFS was not significantly improved with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (median, 5.6 v 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.00]; P = .0528), with 9- and 12-month PFS rates of 25.9% versus 19.8%, and 21.2% versus 15.9%, respectively. Post hoc PFS subgroup analyses showed a trend favoring nivolumab plus chemotherapy in patients with tumors harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97]), one line of previous EGFR TKI (0.72 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97]), or both (0.64 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88]). Median OS was 19.4 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus 15.9 months with chemotherapy, while ORR was 31.3% versus 26.7%, and median DOR was 6.7 versus 5.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 44.7% and 29.4% of patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone, respectively.
Nivolumab plus chemotherapy did not significantly improve PFS versus chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC previously treated with EGFR TKIs. No new safety signals were identified.
Superior to osi (23 vs 16 progression-free survival). This is more toxic though, but seems manageable. Could this be a new first line standard of care? Also, this includes brain penetration data.
Adding SBRT improves local control and disease progression in the brain but not overall survival. Do the radiation oncologists have input? Is it worth it to control symptoms?
Neoadjuvant Osimertinib did not have a significant impact on major pathologic response and there were no ypCR’s after a median of ~8 weeks of therapy. I do think this shows a measurable response, enough such that I would consider Osi in a patient with “borderline resectable” disease.
Bispecific (a bispecific antibody targeting programmed cell death 1 protein and vascular endothelial growth factor) and chemotherapy … and it worked … second line after EGFR therapy failure.
Osimertinib in adjuvant, now after chemotherapy and radiation, next… Neoadjuvant??? Trials are ongoing.
This is here till progression.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
