Sandip P. Patel, MD, discusses treatment options available for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who progress on EGFR TKIs and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Treatment Options for EGFR-Mutated NSCLC Following Progression

This is a synopsis of an Insights series featuring Ticiana Leal, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, and Sandip P. Patel, MD, of UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center.

Associate Professor and Director of the Thoracic Medical Oncology Program at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University Ticiana Leal, MD and Professor of Medical Oncology at the University of California, San Diego Sandip P. Patel, MD discussed treatment options for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Dr. Patel emphasized the importance of comprehensive biomarker testing, noting it is insufficient to just state a patient has an EGFR mutation without specifying the exact mutation like exon 19 deletion or L858R point mutation. For canonical sensitizing EGFR mutations in exons 19 and 21, next-generation sequencing of tissue or liquid biopsy is commonly used to detect targetable aberrations. Typically these patients receive osimertinib first-line based on overall survival benefit shown in FLAURA, then platinum doublet chemotherapy second-line.

Dr. Patel highlighted biomarker-guided clinical trials are key at progression, and repeat tissue biopsy should be considered over liquid biopsy to assess for small cell transformation which happens in around 15% of cases. Outside of targetable alterations, additional chemotherapy or regimens like carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab/atezolizumab may be utilized, but immunotherapy cannot be safely combined with or followed shortly after EGFR TKIs due to pneumonitis risk.

Ultimately, Dr. Patel emphasized precision oncology guided by molecular profiling is important not only at initial diagnosis but also at progression to match patients with clinical trials or targeted therapies based on emerging resistance alterations detected. Dr. Leal agreed, concluding progress has been made but resistance remains a challenge warranting further research into novel combinatorial strategies that overcome bypass pathway activation or phenotypic transformation.

*Video synopsis is AI-generated and reviewed by OncLive editorial staff.

Videos

Medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer give an overview of the current treatment landscape for patients with EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer.

Current Treatment Landscape for EGFR-Mutated NSCLC

Associate Professor and Director of the Thoracic Medical Oncology Program at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University Ticiana Leal, MD and Professor of Medical Oncology at the University of California, San Diego Sandip P. Patel, MD discussed targeting HER3 in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Dr. Leal noted current guidelines recommend treatment with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) like osimertinib in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic EGFR mutated NSCLC based on the FLAURA trial. Osimertinib led to improved outcomes and favorable safety compared to first-generation EGFR TKIs. However, resistance develops through mechanisms like the C797S mutation, bypass tracks, and small cell transformation. The FLAURA2 trial studied osimertinib plus carboplatin/pemetrexed in the frontline setting, showing improved progression-free survival but increased side effects. Recently, the ADAURA trial demonstrated improved outcomes with adjuvant osimertinib after resection in early-stage EGFR mutated NSCLC.

Key unmet needs include comprehensive biomarker testing access for all NSCLC patients and determining if osimertinib combinations have a role for subsets of patients. Further study is needed in specific EGFR mutated populations like those with brain metastases and L858R mutations. Understanding resistance mechanisms like small cell transformation is critical.

Dr. Patel discussed apparent HER3 upregulation seen after progression on osimertinib. The anti-HER3 antibody-drug conjugates patritumab deruxtecan (U3-1402) and HER3-DXd are being studied to target this. Early results from the phase 1 HERTHENA-Lung01 and phase 2 HERTHENA-Lung02 trials studying patritumab deruxtecan showed promising activity. Ongoing work is investigating optimal positioning for these HER3 targeting strategies.

Dr. Leal agreed studying ways to overcome resistance is key. She highlighted interest in studying patritumab deruxtecan plus osimertinib upfront in EGFR mutated NSCLC with brain metastases based on preclinical data. Both speakers emphasized the importance of continued research and clinical trials to provide more treatment options for patients with EGFR mutated NSCLC.

Medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer give an overview of the current treatment landscape for patients with EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PD-(L)1 inhibitor-based regimens have been established as the standard-of-care 1L treatment for mNSCLC,1,2 and novel combination therapies are needed to further improve outcomes

Sacituzumab govitecan is a Trop-2–directed ADC approved in the United States for the treatment of
2L+ mTNBC and pretreated HR+/HER2– mBC, and received accelerated approval for 2L mUC3

Sacituzumab govitecan has previously demonstrated clinical activity and manageable safety in heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC4

EVOKE-02 (NCT05186974) is an ongoing, multicohort phase 2 study of sacituzumab govitecan + pembrolizumab ± platinum agent in patients with untreated 1L mNSCLC

Here, we report preliminary results of patients treated with sacituzumab govitecan + pembrolizumab in Cohorts A and B from the EVOKE-02 study

The preliminary efficacy data reported in this presentation are results by investigator assessment.

Only patients enrolled ≥ 13 weeks prior to the data cutoff date (16 June 2023) were included in the efficacy analysis.

All patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis.

At data cutoff (16 June 2023), median (range) follow-up for Cohorts A and B was 5.0 (1.7-12.0) and 5.8 (1.0-12.2) months, respectively

Across both cohorts, the most common reason for discontinuation of sacituzumab govitecan was progressive disease

The most common any-grade TEAEs were diarrhea (54%), anemia (48%), and asthenia (38%)

Immune-mediated TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of pembrolizumab.

SG + Pembro demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in patients with 1L mNSCLC across PD-L1 subgroups.

Median DOR was not reached, and DOR rate at 6 months was 88% in both cohorts.

The safety profile of SG + Pembro was manageable and consistent with the known safety of each agent.

The most common any-grade TEAEs were diarrhea, anemia, and asthenia

TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were low (18%)

These preliminary results warrant further investigation of SG + Pembro for the 1L treatment of mNSCLC

The ongoing, open-label, global, randomized, phase 3 EVOKE-03 study (NCT05609968) is evaluating SG + Pembro versus Pembro monotherapy in patients with untreated 1L mNSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%

Cho BC, Cobo Dols M, Reyes Cabanillas R, et al. Sacituzumab Govitecan + Pembrolizumab in 1L Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Preliminary Results of the EVOKE-02 Study. Abstract presented at: World Conference on Lung Cancer, September 9-12, 2023.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, reviews data from the preliminary results of the EVOKE-02 study investigating sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab in first-line metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.

Sacituzumab Govitecan + Pembrolizumab in 1L Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Preliminary Results of the EVOKE-02 Study

The therapeutic landscape for first-line treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) contains many options. Progress made in the area of targeted therapies has pushed treatment with small-molecule inhibitors to the front-line setting for patients with aberrations in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, MET, and RET. Despite these advances, the best treatment options for patients with nondriver met-astatic NSCLC remain unclear. Recent studies have demonstrated a role for immuno-oncology (IO) agents in the first line, but the added benefit of combining them with chemotherapy (chemo IO) is not clear in all populations. Data from completed studies evaluating IO alone or in combination with chemotherapy show that a breakdown of populations by PD-L1 status and additional considerations such as toxicity profiles should guide treatment decisions.

PD-L1–High Metastatic NSCLC: Immunotherapy Alone

Several studies have evaluated the role of immunotherapy as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. In KEYNOTE-024 (NCT02142738),

 pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was com-pared with platinum-based chemotherapy. Investigators reported a median over-all survival (OS) of 30.0 months (95% CI, 18.3–not reached [NR]) in the pembrolizumab arm and 14.2 months (95% CI, 9.8-19.0) in the chemotherapy arm with a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.47-0.86) in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50% by immunohistochemistry (IHC) 22C3 pharmDX assay.

 open-label, phase 3 study was conducted in 213 medical centers in 32 countries. Eligible patients were adults (≥18 years). The study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in the population of patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, also evaluated by IHC 22C3. Data showed a median OS of 20.0 months (95% CI, 15.4-24.9) for pembrolizumab versus 12.2 months (95% CI, 10.4-14.2) for chemotherapy with a hazard ratio of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.56-0.85). Of note, the pembrolizumab regimen included up to 2 years of IO and reported a 31% survival rate for those who received IO at 3 years. These data indicate a durable effect at 1 year following completion of treatment.

A population of patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% also demonstrated benefit with IO in the IMpower110 study (NCT02409342), in which investigators evaluated the efficacy of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) versus chemotherapy.

 The OS for patients with high PD-L1 expression was 20.2 months with atezolizumab (95% CI, 16.5-not evaluable [NE]) com-pared with 13.1 months in the chemotherapy arm (95% CI, 7.4-16.5) with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40-0.89). High PD-L1 expression in IMpower110 was defined as PD-L1 tumor cell expression of at least 50% or tumor-infiltrating immune cell expression of at least 10% by SP142 IHC.

 study compared pembrolizumab plus chemo-therapy with chemotherapy alone in a nonsquamous NSCLC population. Final analysis data presented at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Virtual Scientific Program showed a median OS of 27.7 months for the population of patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, evaluated by IHC 22C3 (95% CI, 20.4-NR) compared with 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.5-22.0) in the chemotherapy group with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40-0.86).

Ipilimumab-Based Immunotherapy Combinations

 nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) was compared with chemo-therapy. In the subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, those who received dual immunotherapy had an OS of 21.2 months (95% CI, 15.5-38.2) compared with 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.0-18.6) in the chemotherapy- alone population with a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.90). In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706),

 which compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemo-therapy with chemotherapy alone, investigators reported a median OS of 18 months compared with 12.6 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.66 for patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, assessed by 28-8 IHC.

The relative parity in the findings from these studies is summarized in FIGURES 1A AND 1B. Given that the survival advantages provided by IO compared with chemo IO and chemotherapy alone are minimal, the decision for first-line therapy may be guided by disease burden and safety considerations from these agents.

KEYNOTE-024 showed 31.2% of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) in the pembrolizumab group compared with 53.3% in the chemotherapy group. Similarly, in the IMpower110 study, 30.1% of patients treated with atezolizumab experienced grade 3 or 4 AEs, compared with 52.5% for chemotherapy.

Further, the objective response rates report-ed for the KEYNOTE-189 study in the population of patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 50% were 62.1% (95% CI, 53.3%-70.4%) compared with 25.7% (95% CI, 16.0%-37.6%) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and chemo-therapy-alone cohorts, respectively.

 Given the improved objective response rate, it would be reasonable to treat a patient with a higher disease burden and PD-L1 TPS of at least 50% with the KEYNOTE-189 regimen, but given the more mature data and durable responses and improved safety profile seen with pembrolizumab monotherapy in the KEYNOTE-024 study, IO alone is a reasonable first-line choice in patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% with a lower disease burden.

PD-L1–Low Metastatic NSCLC: Chemoimmunotherapy

In patients with nonsquamous NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS less than 1%, data from KEYNOTE-189 showed an OS of 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8-22.8) for combined pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with 10.2 months (95% CI, 7.0-13.5) with a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36-0.71).

 In KEYNOTE-407 (NCT02775435), patients with squamous NSCLC were treated with either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. In the population of patients with PD-L1 TPS less than 1%, the OS with combined therapy was 15.9 months (95% CI, 13.1-NE) versus 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.6-13.8) for chemotherapy alone, with a hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.38-0.98).

The primary statistical analysis for CheckMate 227 for patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 1% supported the FDA approval for nivolumab and ipilimumab in this patient population. However, the more interesting result was seen in the population with PD-L1 TPS less than 1%. Data showed an OS of 17.2 months in the immunotherapy group versus 12.2 months for those who received chemotherapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.51-0.81).

 Similarly, in data from the population of patients with PD-L1 TPS less than 1% in the CheckMate 9LA study, the OS for the dual immunotherapy plus chemotherapy group was 16.8 months compared with 9.8 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.85).

The findings from these studies are summarized in FIGURES 1C AND 1D. CheckMate 227 reported a similar safety profile for both regimens, with 33% of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs with immunotherapy and 36% experiencing AEs with chemotherapy. However, immune-related AEs (irAEs) related to ipilimumab-based combinations, in particular colitis, require careful monitoring. The rates of colitis were nearly twice as high with immunotherapy compared with chemo-therapy in CheckMate 227, with 17.0% of patients experiencing any-grade diarrhea compared with 9.6%, respectively. Further, grade 3 or higher AEs were reported in 1.7% and 0.7%, respectively.

Although it is difficult to compare across trials, the rate of grade 3 or greater AEs were less frequent than reported in the combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy arm of the CheckMate 9LA trial (47%). Both event rates are lower than those reported in KEYNOTE-189 results—71.9% and 66.8% for grade 3 or higher AEs for patients with combination therapy and chemotherapy alone, respectively. Some of these differences are likely secondary to a longer follow-up period, but it is reasonable to suspect a lower rate of AEs if chemotherapy is removed from the treatment regimen. Data from both KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 present reasonable first-line therapy options for patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1%.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is a particularly attractive option for patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1%. However, selecting nivolumab and ipilimumab in combination with chemotherapy per the data from CheckMate 9LA is a reasonable approach, and more mature data are pending.

PD-L1–Intermediate Metastatic NSCLC: Immunotherapy Alone 

In the KEYNOTE-042 trial, patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 1% had a reported OS of 16.7 months (95% CI, 13.9-19.7) in the pembrolizumab group compared with 12.1 months (95% CI, 11.3-13.3) with chemotherapy (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93). In a subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 TPS of 1% to 49%, no significant median OS advantage was seen between the 2 treatments (13.4 vs 12.1; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77-1.11).

Atezolizumab monotherapy in the population of patients with PD-L1 of at least 1% in IMpower110 led to an OS of 17.5 months (95% CI, 12.8-23.1) compared with 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.0- 16.6) in patients receiving chemotherapy alone, with a hazard ratio of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.651.07). It is important to note that in this study population, patients had at least 1% of tumor cells (TC) or tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) expressing PD-L1 (TC1/2/3 or IC 1/2/3). However, no significant median OS advantage was seen in the subgroup analyses for TC1/2 or IC1/2 (< 50% TC PD-L1 versus < 10% IC PD-L1; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76-1.44), TPS 1% to 49% by IHC 22C3 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58) or TC 1% to 49% by SP263 (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.58-1.53).

In KEYNOTE-189, in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and a PD-L1 TPS 1% to 49%, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy led to an OS of 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.7-25.9) compared with 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.7-19.4) for chemotherapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.42-0.92). Combined pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the squamous NSCLC population of KEYNOTE-407 with PD-L1 TPS of at least 1% led to an OS of 18.1 months (95% CI, 14.9 -22.2) versus 12.8 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.7) for chemotherapy alone, with a hazard ratio of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87). In the patients with PD-L1 1% to 49% subgroup, combined treatment led to significant improvement in OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42-0.84).

CheckMate 227 compared the dual IO approach of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 1%. The combination led to an OS of 17.1 months versus 14.9 months with a hazard ratio of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67-0.93). The subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 TPS 1% to 49% failed to show an OS advantage, with a hazard ratio of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.75-1.18). Adding nivolumab and ipilimumab to chemotherapy in CheckMate 9LA for patients with PD-L1 TPS of at least 1% led to an OS of 15.8 months compared with 10.9 months with chemotherapy alone, with a hazard ratio of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82). In the subgroup with PD-L1 1% to 49%, the combined approach led to an OS of 15.4 months compared with 10.4 months, (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84).

These data are summarized in FIGURES 1E AND 1G. It is important to note that subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 1% to 49% failed to demonstrate an OS benefit to IO alone over chemotherapy alone. However, in the chemo IO trials, there was a significant benefit in these groups. As a result, chemoimmunotherapy is the standard of care for this subgroup of patients.

Importance of Molecular Diagnosis Prior to Initiation of Immunotherapy 

As mentioned above, targeted therapy has an increasing role in the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. These approaches must be integrated into the management of patients with NSCLC. It is critical to establish the presence or absence of targetable driver mutations as soon as possible.

Blood-based and tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels have emerged as the most comprehensive and efficient way to obtain this information. However, if a patient is in extremis and cannot wait the 1 to 3 weeks needed to complete this analysis, it is reasonable to initiate chemotherapy alone. Due to an increased risk of IO-mediated AEs, including pneumonitis and hepatitis, in patients treated with IO followed by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), IO should be held until mutational status is known.

This is supported by 6 of 7 patients experiencing a TKI-induced AE following immunotherapy in a phase 2 study (NCT02879994) evaluating response of EGFR- mutant PD-L1–positive patients assigned to pembrolizumab prior to treatment with a TKI.11 This analysis included 1 case of fatal pneumonitis. Our work has also shown 3 of 9 patients with grade 3 transaminitis and 1 patient with grade 4 pneumonitis when crizotinib (Xalkori) was combined with pembrolizumab in a phase 1b study (NCT02511184) of previously untreated advanced NSCLC patients with ALK aberrations.12 The study was terminated based on low enrollment, but it is noted that the agents demonstrated high efficacy in first-line ALK-positive NSCLC. Following the initial cycle of chemotherapy, a targeted agent or IO can be implemented as directed by the NGS results.

The treatment landscape for metastatic NSCLC without a targetable alteration is complex. IO has a role in the first-line treatment of all patients with no targetable driver mutations. Although we have presented favored options for each specific PD-L1 population above, each patient should be evaluated in a personalized fashion.

Patients who are heavily symptomatic should be treated with chemotherapy-based combinations, with the addition of IO following a determination of targetable gene alteration. An asymptomatic patient with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% should receive IO alone. Given the durable OS response from KEYNOTE-024, one may be able to discontinue IO after 2 years per the data from frontline studies. It is reasonable to suspect that the patient’s immune system can maintain the antitumor effect at this point, a hypothesis that is potentially supported by the 31% survival data at 3 years.

In our practice, we typically restage the patient at 2 years and consider biopsy of positron emission tomography–avid lesions. We offer the option to stop IO therapy to patients who have no evidence of disease or a negative biopsy. We offer stereotactic body radiation therapy to patients who are oligometastatic and continue IO in patients with persistent active multifocal cancer. In a patient with PD-L1 expression less than 1%, ipilimumab-based combinations may be a reasonable option for squamous and nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC. The agent has shown comparable OS and an improved AE profile compared with chemo IO. The addition of chemotherapy to this regimen continues to be evaluated and may be a good option based on the findings from CheckMate 9LA.

It is notable that ipilimumab was given 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks in these trials, and nivolumab varied from 240 mg every 2 weeks to 360 mg every 3 weeks in CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA, respectively. This dosing differs from combined regimens of these agents when used for other malignancies, such as melanoma, which may contribute to lower rates of irAEs secondary to lower doses of ipilimumab. The ongoing CheckMate 9LA study will help us understand if chemo IO with ipilimumab outperforms the current PD-L1–based chemo IO approaches, but for now regimens guided by KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 have longer-term follow-up. In January 2020, ASCO updated their clinical practice guidelines to reflect data from the KEYNOTE-042, KEYNOTE-189, and KEYNOTE-407 trials, among others (FIGURE 2).

Ultimately, having more options in the treat-ment of nondriver metastatic NSCLC benefits both the patient and practitioner by providing the best therapeutic regimen to try to maximize the benefit to the patient. Patient selection for IO utilizing PD-L1 IHC is a pertinent but limit-ing factor in optimal treatment selection.

Reck, M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al; KEYNOTE-024 Investigators. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1606774

Brahmer J, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. KEYNOTE-024 5-year OS update: first-line (1L) pembrolizumab (pembro) vs platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with metastatic NSCLC and PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) ≥50%. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(suppl 4):S1181-S1182. doi:

Mok TSK, Wu Y-L, Kudaba I, et al; KEYNOTE-042 Investigators. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10183):1819-1830. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32409-7

Herbst RS, Giaccone G, de Marinis F, et al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(14):1328-1339. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1917346

Gandhi L, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Gadgeel S, et al; KEYNOTE-189 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2078-2092. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801005

Rodríguez-Abreu D, Powell SF, Hochmair M, et al. Final analysis of KEYNOTE-189: pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy (chemo) with or without pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(suppl 15):9582. doi:10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.9582

Hellmann MD, Paz-Ares L, Caro RB, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(21):2020-2031. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910231 

Reck M, Ciuleanu T-E, Cobo Dols M, et al. Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) + 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (chemo) vs 4 cycles chemo as first-line (1L) treatment (tx) for stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): CheckMate 9LA. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(suppl 15):9501. doi:10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.9501

 Paz-Ares LG, Luft A, Tafreshi A, et al. Phase 3 study of carboplatin-paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel (chemo) with or without pembrolizumab (Pembro) for patients (Pts) with metastatic squamous (Sq) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(suppl 15):105. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.105

Ramalingam SS, Ciuleanu TE, Pluzanski P, et al. Nivolumab + ipilimumab versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: three-year update from CheckMate 227 part 1. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(suppl 15):9500. doi:10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.9500

Lisberg A, Cummings A, Goldman JW, et al. A phase II study of pembrolizumab in EGFR-mutant, PD-L1+, tyrosine kinase inhibitor naïve patients with advanced NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(8):1138-1145. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2018.03.035

Patel SP, Pakkala S, Pennell NA, et al. Phase Ib study of crizotinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer with ALK translocation. Oncologist. 2020;25(7):562-e1012. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0034

Hanna NH, Schneider BJ, Temin S, et al. Therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(14):1608-1632. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03022

Articles

Data from completed studies evaluating immunotherapy in lung cancer alone or in combination with chemotherapy show that a breakdown of populations by PD-L1 status and additional considerations such as toxicity profiles should guide treatment decisions.

PD-L1 Status Stratifies Immunotherapy Treatment in NSCLC

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, discusses the role of immunotherapy combinations in lung cancer.

Patient selection is critical to determine whether a patient is best suited to receive chemoimmunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy/VEGF inhibitor combinations, ​says Patel.

Molecular testing plays an important role in terms of treatment selection​, Patel adds.

Similar to how histological diagnoses can influence treatment selection, molecular profiling should be obtained prior to therapy initiation for patients with stage IV lung cancer, concludes Patel.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, discusses the role of immunotherapy combinations in lung cancer.

Dr. Patel on the Role of Immunotherapy Combinations in Lung Cancer

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, assistant professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, discusses primary and adaptive resistance to immunotherapy in non—small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Resistance to anti—PD-1 strategies in NSCLC recapitulate some of the data from metastatic melanoma. Oftentimes patients who initially have a response to these strategies, but ultimately develop adaptive resistance have similar downregulation in the human leukocyte antigen and beta-2 microglobulin. These are characteristic in metastatic melanoma as well, says Patel.

However, the majority of patients with NSCLC who benefit from PD-1 inhibition have what is called primary resistance. These are patients who lack the T-cell infiltrate. For these patients, vaccination strategies and other modalities to best determine which therapeutic strategy makes the most sense to inflame an otherwise cold tumor microenvironment will be key. This is one of the biggest areas of research in cancer immunotherapy, in particular for NSCLC, concludes Patel.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, assistant professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, discusses primary and adaptive resistance to immunotherapy in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Dr. Patel on Primary and Adaptive Resistance to Immunotherapy in NSCLC

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, assistant professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, discusses the impact of immunotherapy on the treatment of patients with non—small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of many cancers, including NSCLC. Historically, the only option for this population was chemotherapy, says Patel. There are now a wealth of options in various settings of the disease, including anti—PD-1 therapy.

In stage III NSCLC, durvalumab (Imfinzi) was approved by the FDA based on findings from the PACIFIC study. In the phase III PACIFIC study, the PD-L1 inhibitor improved median progression-free survival (PFS) by 11.2 months compared with placebo. The 12-month PFS rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month PFS rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%, favoring the durvalumab arm. As a result of these findings, patients in this setting can receive 1 year of durvalumab consolidation therapy after chemoradiation.

In the metastatic setting, findings from the KEYNOTE-189 study showed that combining pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with standard chemotherapy in the frontline setting reduced the risk of death by over 50% in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC without 

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, assistant professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, discusses the impact of immunotherapy on the treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Dr. Patel Discusses Impact of Immunotherapy on NSCLC

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, assistant professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, discusses novel agents for the treatment of patients with non—small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The majority of agents that are being investigated in the post—PD-1 setting will lead to novel immunologic approaches, says Patel. These are drugs that target the IDO pathway. Although, there have been questions in light of the recent negative melanoma data with epacadostat and pembrolizumab (Keytruda). There are a variety of other novel agents such as NKTR-214 which is an IL-2 immuno-conjugate, CSF1R, and OX40. These immunologically targeted agents show preliminary signals of efficacy, states Patel. It remains to be seen if these agents induce durable responses.

Resistance comes in 2 forms in the post—PD-1 setting. There are patients who have primary resistance to PD-1–directed strategies as a result of "cold" tumor environments. These patients may benefit from vaccination strategies such as tumor infiltrating lymphocyte therapies, this and other novel approaches can make "cold" tumors "hot." Patients who have adaptive resistance may benefit from strategies that upregulate interferon gamma and increase antigen presentation. It’s very likely that in the post–PD-1 setting, there are at least 2 different pathways of resistance mechanisms that will require novel agents, concludes Patel.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, assistant professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, discusses novel agents for the treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Sandip P. Patel, MD