PurposeCisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting.Patients and MethodsThis noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles.ResultsOverall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common.ConclusionIn advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Introduction Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression may help identify patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who would benefit from immunotherapy. We assessed PD-L1 expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and V-Ki-Ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations in NSCLC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods Data for stage IB/II/IIIA NSCLC patients (diagnosed: 2001–2012) were retrieved from Danish population-based registries. Tumor tissue samples were tested for PD-L1 expression using VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay in tumor cells (TC) at ≥25% cutoff and immune cells (IC) at ≥1% and ≥25% cutoffs. KRAS and EGFR mutations were tested using PCR-based assays. Follow-up began 120 days after diagnosis until death/emigration/January 1, 2015, whichever came first. Using Cox proportional hazard regression, hazard ratios (HRs) were computed for overall survival (OS) for each biomarker, adjusting for age, sex, histology, comorbidities, and tissue specimen age. Results Among 391 patients identified, 40.4% had stage IIIA disease, 49.9% stage II, and 8.7% stage IB. PD-L1-TC was observed in 38% of patients, EGFR mutations in 4%, and KRAS mutations in 29%. KRAS mutations were more frequent among patients with PD-L1 TC≥25% versus TC<25% (37% versus 24%). OS was not associated with PD-L1 TC≥25% versus TC<25% (stage II: adjusted HR = 1.15 [95% confidence interval: 0.66–2.01]; stage IIIA: 0.72 [0.44–1.19]). No significant association was observed with OS and PD-L1-IC ≥1% and ≥25%. EGFR and KRAS mutations were not associated with a prognostic impact. Conclusion A prognostic impact for NSCLC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with PD-L1 expression, or with EGFR and KRAS mutations.

Background: Clinical factors have an impact on the planning and completion of lung cancer treatment, but it is not well documented how psychological factors such as self-efficacy, that is, a person's belief in his or her own ability to respond to and control challenges in life, might affect completion of lung cancer treatment. We explored the association between general self-efficacy and completion of planned first-line treatment among newly referred patients with lung cancer. Methods: A total of 137 patients with lung cancer newly referred to the Oncology Department at Herlev University Hospital, Denmark, participated in this study. Data were prospectively collected through questionnaires and medical records. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale was used to assess self-efficacy at the time of diagnosis. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between self-efficacy and completion of planned first-line treatment with adjustment for age, sex, education, marital status, disease stage, and comorbidity. Results: Patients with high self-efficacy had significantly higher odds for completing first-line treatment (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 1.03–1.19) after adjustments. Conclusions: Patients who reported having higher self-efficacy were more likely to complete first-line treatment than patients with lower self-efficacy. This finding suggests that taking patients' psychological resources into account when planning for treatment may have potential to improve treatment for vulnerable patients with lung cancer. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Background Osimertinib is standard of care for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The efficacy of the drug in patients with mutations other than the common deletion in exon 19 and L858R in exon 21 is largely unknown. Methods We identified patients with uncommon EGFR-mutations from two prospective clinical phase II, single-arm studies for previously treated patients and untreated patients, respectively, and pooled data for this analysis. All patients received treatment with osimertinib 80 mg daily until radiological progression or death. The primary endpoint of both trials was objective response rate (ORR), with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and intracranial efficacy as key secondary endpoints. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) was analysed before and two weeks after treatment initiation in the first line cohort. Results Of 299 enrolled patients in the two trials, 21 patients with uncommon mutations were identified; 12 patients had a single mutation (G719X or L861Q), one patient had L861Q and an exon 20 insertion, and 8 patients had compound mutations with G719X and either L861Q or S768I. Three of the 10 pretreated patients had the T790M resistance mutation. ORR was 47.6% and disease control rate (DCR) 85.7%. The median duration of response (DoR) was 7.9 months. Among 11 patients treated with osimertinib in first line, ORR was 63.6% vs. 30.0% of 10 previously treated patients. The median PFS was 5.5 months in both groups. Patients with G719X-compound mutations had a higher response rate (62.5% vs. 38.5%), a longer median PFS (13.7 vs. 3.5 months) and median OS (29.3 vs. 7.5 months) than patients with other mutations. Most first line treated patients (81.8%) displayed a reduction in ctDNA after two weeks of treatment. Conclusions Osimertinib demonstrates activity in patients with uncommon EGFR-mutations, and especially for G719X-compound mutations.

Experts recommend assessing lung cancer patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the diagnostic evaluation. We investigated the association between HRQOL and completion of first-line treatment among lung cancer patients in a prospective cohort study. Clinical information on lung cancer patients was obtained from medical records, and information on quality of life and lung cancer-related symptoms was obtained through questionnaires at time of diagnosis. We used directed acyclic graphs to identify potential confounders and mediators between HRQOL and completion of first-line treatment. The association between functioning levels and symptoms and completion of first-line oncological treatment was estimated as odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, in logistic regression models. In all, 137 patients (52% men, mean age: 69 years) participated, out of 216 invited. Patients who reported reduced functioning had significantly increased ORs for not completing first-line treatment: poor physical function (OR 4.44), role function (OR 6.09), emotional function (OR 5.86), and social function (OR 3.13). Patients with fatigue (OR 7.55), pain (OR 6.07), appetite loss (OR 4.66), and financial difficulties (OR 17.23) had significantly increased ORs for not completing the first-line treatment. Reduced functioning and presence of symptoms were associated with not completing first-line treatment. An assessment of HRQOL could potentially aid the diagnostic evaluation and treatment planning for lung cancer patients.

Preliminary data suggest that combining savolitinib, a potent and highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), with osimertinib, a third-generation, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor-TKI (EGFR-TKI), may overcome MET-based resistance to EGFR-TKIs. To investigate the safety and tolerability of savolitinib in Japanese patients with advanced solid malignancies. In Part C of the phase Ib, multi-arm, open-label, multicenter TATTON study, two cohorts of Japanese adult patients were evaluated across six study centers in Japan. Patients with advanced solid malignancies received oral savolitinib monotherapy 400 mg once daily (qd), escalating to 600 mg; patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) who progressed on prior EGFR-TKI received oral osimertinib 80 mg+savolitinib 300/400/600 mg qd combination therapy. Primary endpoints: safety/tolerability of savolitinib±osimertinib, and maximum tolerated dose(s) (MTD) definition. Seventeen patients received monotherapy; 12 received combination. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs): with monotherapy, 400 mg, none reported; 600 mg, n = 3/9 evaluable patients (33%) reported DLTs (grade 3 and 4 alanine aminotransferase and aspartate transaminase increased, and grade 4 drug-induced liver injury). With combination: 400 mg, 1/6 (17%) reported DLTs (grade 2 fatigue, nausea, and myalgia); 300 mg, none reported; 600 mg, 3/4 (75%) reported DLTs (grade 2 pyrexia, grade 3 skin reaction, and anaphylactic shock). Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 41% of patients receiving monotherapy and 33% receiving combination. TATTON is no longer recruiting patients. The MTD of savolitinib was 400 mg qd in both cohorts. Data demonstrate an acceptable safety profile for savolitinib alone, or with osimertinib. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02143466; 21 May 2014. For patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, like osimertinib, are the standard treatment. However, for most patients, these treatments eventually stop working, as tumors develop resistance to them. Early studies suggest that combining osimertinib with savolitinib can overcome this resistance. We report Part C of the four-part TATTON study, in which two groups of Japanese adult patients received treatment. One group received savolitinib 400 mg once daily, then 600 mg. The other group received osimertinib 80 mg with savolitinib 300/400/600 mg once daily. The main objective of the study was to determine the maximum dose of savolitinib that patients could receive (maximum tolerated dose) and to monitor the safety of the combination. Overall, 17 patients received savolitinib alone and 12 received the combination. The maximum tolerated dose of savolitinib was found to be 400 mg once daily in both groups of patients. The data demonstrated that savolitinib had acceptable safety outcomes either alone, or in combination with osimertinib.

Abstract Programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, KRAS (KRASm) and EGFR (EGFRm) mutations may influence non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prognosis. We aimed to evaluate PD-L1 expression, KRASm, and EGFRm and survival among stage III unresected NSCLC patients. Using Danish registries, we collected data on stage III unresected NSCLC patients diagnosed 2001–2012 and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue from pathology archives. We assessed PD-L1 expression in tumors and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) by immunohistochemistry ( $$\ge$$ ≥ 1% threshold for PD-L1+). We genotyped KRAS and EGFR. Follow-up extended from 120 days post-diagnosis to death, emigration, or 31/12/2014. We computed median survival using Kaplan–Meier methods, and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression associating the biomarkers with death, adjusting for confounders. Among 305 patients, 48% had adenocarcinoma; 38% squamous cell carcinoma. Forty-nine percent had PD-L1+ tumors—51% stage IIIA and 26% KRASm. Few (2%) patients had EGFRm. Median survival in months was 14.7 (95% CI = 11.8–17.9) and 13.4 (95% CI = 9.5–16.3) in PD-L1+ and PD-L1− tumors, respectively. KRASm was not associated with death (HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.74–1.51 versus wildtype). PD-L1+ tumors yielded a HR = 0.83 (95% CI = 0.63–1.10); PD-L1+ ICs a HR = 0.51 (95% CI = 0.39–0.68). Tumor expression of PD-L1 did not influence survival. PD-L1+ ICs may confer survival benefit in stage III unresected NSCLC patients.

Savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib) is an oral, bioavailable, selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This randomized, double-blind, 3-way, crossover phase 1 study of savolitinib versus moxifloxacin (positive control) and placebo-evaluated effects on the QT interval after a single savolitinib dose. Healthy non-Japanese men were randomized to 1 of 6 treatment sequences, receiving single doses of savolitinib 600 mg, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and placebo. The primary end point was time-matched, placebo-adjusted change from baseline in the QT interval corrected for the time between corresponding points on 2 consecutive R waves on electrocardiogram (RR) by the Fridericia formula (ΔΔQTcF). Secondary end points included 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) variables, pharmacokinetics, and safety. All 3 treatment periods were completed by 44 of 45 participants (98%). Baseline demographics were balanced across treatment groups. After a single savolitinib 600-mg dose, the highest least-squares mean ΔΔQTcF of 12 milliseconds was observed 5 hours postdose. Upper limits of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval for ΔΔQTcF exceeded 10 milliseconds (the prespecified International Council for Harmonisation limit) 3-6 hours postsavolitinib but otherwise remained less than the threshold. Savolitinib showed no additional effect on PR, QRS, QT, or RR intervals. A positive ΔΔQTcF signal from the moxifloxacin group confirmed study validity. Savolitinib was well tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse events. In this thorough QT/QTc study, QTcF prolongation was observed with a single savolitinib 600-mg dose. ECG monitoring will be implemented in ongoing and future studies of savolitinib to assess the clinical relevance of the observed QT changes from this study.

In the phase III AURA3 trial (NCT02151981), osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI), demonstrated superior efficacy compared with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (platinum-pemetrexed) in patients with EGFR TKI-sensitizing mutation-positive (EGFRm) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and T790M-mediated resistance to first- or second-generation EGFR-TKI. Herein, we further explore the association between early EGFR-mutation circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) clearance and clinical outcomes in both the osimertinib and chemotherapy arms.

Non-invasive approaches for cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assessment provide an opportunity for cancer detection and intervention. Here, we use a machine learning model for detecting tumor-derived cfDNA through genome-wide analyses of cfDNA fragmentation in a prospective study of 365 individuals at risk for lung cancer. We validate the cancer detection model using an independent cohort of 385 non-cancer individuals and 46 lung cancer patients. Combining fragmentation features, clinical risk factors, and CEA levels, followed by CT imaging, detected 94% of patients with cancer across stages and subtypes, including 91% of stage I/II and 96% of stage III/IV, at 80% specificity. Genome-wide fragmentation profiles across ~13,000 ASCL1 transcription factor binding sites distinguished individuals with small cell lung cancer from those with non-small cell lung cancer with high accuracy (AUC = 0.98). A higher fragmentation score represented an independent prognostic indicator of survival. This approach provides a facile avenue for non-invasive detection of lung cancer.

Background: PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TCs) or immune cells (ICs) may be used as a prognostic marker for survival in patients with NSCLC. We characterized PD-L1 expression on TCs or ICs in a patient cohort with NSCLC to determine associations between PD-L1 expression and overall survival (OS), according to EGFR and KRAS mutation status. Methods: Danish patients aged >18 years diagnosed with NSCLC before 2014 on first- (N = 491), second(N = 368), or third-line (N = 498) therapy were included. Data were extracted from population-based medical registries. Tumor samples from pathology archives were tested for biomarkers. High PD-L1 expression was defined as expression on >25 % of TCs or ICs based on first diagnostic biopsy or surgical resection. KRAS and EGFR mutation status were tested using PCR-based assays. Cox regression analysis was used to compute adjusted HRs and associated 95 % CIs. Results: PD-L1 TC and IC > 25 % were observed in 24.3 %-31.0 % and 11.7-14.7 % of patients, respectively. EGFR and KRAS mutations were detected in 4.7 %-8.8 % and 26.5 %-30.7 % of patients, respectively. PD-L1 TC > 25 % was not associated with survival advantage in first- (HR = 0.96, 95 % CI: 0.75-1.22), second(1.08, 0.81-1.42), or third-line (0.94, 0.74-1.20) therapy. PD-L1 IC > 25 % was associated with survival advantage in second-line (HR = 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.36-0.86) and third-line (0.69, 0.49-0.97) but not first-line (1.00, 0.70-1.41) therapy. Conclusion: No association was observed between PD-L1 TC > 25 % and OS in any therapy line. PD-L1 IC > 25 % may confer survival benefit among some patients who reach second-line therapy.

Anti-PD-L1 therapy improves the prognosis in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined the association between PD-L1 expression and survival in unresectable stage III NSCLC patients treated with standard of care therapy. We obtained data on unresectable stage III NSCLC patients (defined via American Joint Committee on Cancer staging and without surgery up to 120 days after diagnosis) diagnosed from 2001 to 2012 from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry. We retrieved clinical data from Danish population-based registries and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue from pathology archives. We assessed PD-L1 expression in tumors and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes using the Ventana IHC (SP263) validated assay (≥1% threshold for positivity). Follow-up began at time of NSCLC diagnosis and continued to death, emigration, or 31/12/2014. We used Cox regression to compute hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the association of PD-L1 expression with death, adjusting for age, sex, histology, Charlson comorbidity score, and age of the tumor specimen. Of 305 patients, 183 (60%) were men, 167 (55%) were >65 years at diagnosis. Overall, 148 (49%) patients had adenocarcinoma, 117 (38%) had squamous histology. 149 (49%) had PD-L1 positive tumors (≥1%). Among PD-L1 positive tumors, 51% had stage IIIA, 49% had stage IIIB disease. Among PD-L1 negative tumors, 58% had stage IIIA and 42% had stage IIIB tumors. Tumor cell positivity for PD-L1 ≥1% vs PD-L1 <1% yielded an HR=0.83 (95%CI=0.63-1.10), while PD-L1 measured as a continuous variable yielded a HR=1.00 (95%CI=0.99-1.00). Immune cell positivity for PD-L1 ≥1% yielded HR of 0.51 (95%CI=0.39-0.68), compared with PD-L1 <1%. Tumor infiltration by immune cells measured as a continuous variable yielded an HR=0.96 (95% CI=0.93-0.99). Findings from this Danish registry-based study suggests that PD-L1 expression in tumor-infiltrating immune cells may be associated with improved survival in unresectable stage III NSCLC patients. The implications of these findings on the effectiveness of PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy could not be investigated in this historical cohort.

Background Preclinical data suggest that EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus MET TKIs are a possible treatment for EGFR mutation-positive lung cancers with MET-driven acquired resistance. Phase 1 safety data of savolitinib (also known as AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a potent, selective MET TKI, plus osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, have provided recommended doses for study. Here, we report the assessment of osimertinib plus savolitinib in two global expansion cohorts of the TATTON study. Methods In this multi-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study, we enrolled adult patients (aged =18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic, MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, who had progressed on EGFR TKIs. We considered two expansion cohorts: parts B and D. Part B consisted of three cohorts of patients: those who had been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI (B1) and those who had not been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI who were either Thr790Met negative (B2) or Thr790Met positive (B3). In part B, patients received oral osimertinib 80 mg and savolitinib 600 mg daily; after a protocol amendment (March 12, 2018), patients who weighed no more than 55 kg received a 300 mg dose of savolitinib. Part D enrolled patients who had not previously received a third-generation EGFR TKI and were Thr790Met negative; these patients received osimertinib 80 mg plus savolitinib 300 mg. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, which were assessed in all dosed patients. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who had an objective response per RECIST 1.1 and was assessed in all dosed patients and all patients with centrally confirmed MET amplification. Here, we present an interim analysis with data cutoff on March 29, 2019. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02143466. Findings Between May 26, 2015, and Feb 14, 2019, we enrolled 144 patients into part B and 42 patients into part D. In part B, 138 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 600 mg (n=130) or 300 mg (n=8). In part D, 42 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 300 mg. 79 (57%) of 138 patients in part B and 16 (38%) of 42 patients in part D had adverse events of grade 3 or worse. 115 (83%) patients in part B and 25 (60%) patients in part D had adverse events possibly related to savolitinib and serious adverse events were reported in 62 (45%) patients in part B and 11 (26%) patients in part D; two adverse events leading to death (acute renal failure and death, cause unknown) were possibly related to treatment in part B. Objective partial responses were observed in 66 (48%; 95% CI 3956) patients in part B and 23 (64%; 4679) in part D. Interpretation The combination of osimertinib and savolitinib has acceptable riskbenefit profile and encouraging antitumour activity in patients with MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive, advanced NSCLC, who had disease progression on a previous EGFR TKI. This combination might be a potential treatment option for patients with MET-driven resistance to EGFR TKIs. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Importance Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) is the most common type of non-clear cell RCC. Because some cases of PRCC are MET-driven, MET inhibition could be a targeted treatment approach. In previous studies, savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in this patient group. Objective To determine whether savolitinib is a better treatment option for this patient population, vs standard of care, sunitinib. Design, Setting, and Participants The SAVOIR phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial was a multicenter study carried out in 32 centers in 7 countries between July 2017 and the data cutoff in August 2019. Overall, 360 to 450 patients were to be screened to randomize approximately 180 patients. Patients were adults with MET-driven (centrally confirmed), metastatic PRCC, with 1 or more measurable lesions. Exclusion criteria included prior receipt of sunitinib or MET inhibitor treatment. Overall, 254 patients were screened. Interventions Patients received 600 mg of savolitinib orally once daily (qd), or 50 mg of sunitinib orally qd for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS, assessed by investigator and confirmed by blinded independent central review). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and safety/tolerability. Results At data cutoff, 60 patients were randomized (savolitinib n = 33; sunitinib n = 27); most patients had chromosome 7 gain (savolitinib, 30 [91%]; sunitinib, 26 [96%]) and no prior therapy (savolitinib, 28 [85%]; sunitinib, 25 [93%]). For savolitinib and sunitinib, 4 (12%) and 10 (37%) patients were women, and the median (range) age was 60 (23-78) and 65 (31-77) years, respectively. Following availability of external data on PFS with sunitinib in patients with MET-driven disease, study enrollment was closed. Progression-free survival, OS, and ORR were numerically greater with savolitinib vs sunitinib. Median PFS was not statistically different between the 2 groups: 7.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-not calculated) for savolitinib and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.37-1.36; P = .31). For savolitinib and sunitinib respectively, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were reported in 14 (42%) and 22 (81%) of patients and AE-related dose modifications in 10 (30%) and 20 (74%). After discontinuation, 12 (36%) and 5 (19%) of patients on savolitinib and sunitinib respectively, received subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions and Relevance Although patient numbers and follow-up were limited, savolitinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy vs sunitinib, with fewer grade 3 or higher AEs and dose modifications. Further investigation of savolitinib as a treatment option for MET-driven PRCC is warranted. This randomized clinical trial examines the effect of savolitinib monotherapy compared with sunitinib monotherapy on progression-free survival in patients with MET-driven, unresectable and locally advanced, or metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma. Question Is savolitinib monotherapy more effective than sunitinib monotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with MET-driven, unresectable and locally advanced, or metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC)? Findings In this phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical multicenter study including 60 patients with MET-driven PRCC, the primary end point was PFS. Although study enrollment was closed early, PFS was not statistically different for patients who received savolitinib or sunitinib, and the safety profile was superior with savolitinib. Meaning Further investigation of savolitinib as a treatment option for MET-driven PRCC is warranted.

Preliminary data suggest that combining savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a potent and highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), with osimertinib, a 3rd generation, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) TKI that potently and selectively inhibits both EGFR mutations (EGFRm) and EGFR T790M, may overcome MET-driven resistance to EGFR-TKIs. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of savolitinib regimens in Japanese pts was evaluated in Part C of the phase Ib, multi-arm, open-label, multicenter TATTON study (NCT02143466). Two dose-finding cohorts of pts (≥20 years) received savolitinib monotherapy (pts with advanced solid malignancies; savolitinib 400/600 mg once daily [QD]) or savolitinib/osimertinib combination therapy (pts with EGFRm non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] who progressed on 1st/2nd-generation EGFR-TKI; osimertinib 80 mg + savolitinib 300/400/600 mg QD). Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability and to define the combination dose(s) for further clinical evaluation. Secondary endpoints for combination included evaluation of tumor response. Seventeen pts received savolitinib monotherapy (400 mg, n=7/17; 600 mg, n=10/17) and 12 received the combination (savolitinib dose 300 mg, n=2/12; 400 mg, n=6/12; 600 mg, n=4/12). Serious adverse events (AE) were reported in 5/17 and 3/12 of pts, and AEs possibly causally related to savolitinib leading to its discontinuation were reported in 3/17 and 6/12 respectively. Dose-limiting toxicities data are included in the table, all except one were reversible. Pts receiving the combination (across doses) had an objective response rate of 42% (95% confidence interval 15.2, 72.3). The MTD of savolitinib was 400 mg QD in both monotherapy and combination cohorts. Preliminary data demonstrate an acceptable safety profile for savolitinib and suggest antitumor activity in combination with osimertinib in Japanese pts with EGFRm NSCLCTable: 387PDoseEvaluable patients with DLTDLT*MonotherapySavolitinib 400 mg0/6Savolitinib 600 mg3/9Grade 3 ALT increase, Grade 3 AST increaseGrade 4 ALT increase, Grade 4 AST increaseGrade 4 drug-induced liver injury#Combination therapySavolitinib 300 mg + Osimertinib 80 mg0/2Savolitinib 400 mg + Osimertinib 80 mg1/6Grade 2 fatigue, Grade 2 nausea, Grade 2 myalgiaSavolitinib 600 mg + Osimertinib 80 mg3/4Grade 2 pyrexia†Grade 3 skin reactionGrade 3 anaphylactic shock†*n=1 for all events #Not recovered/not resolved †Guidelines are now in place regarding hypersensitivity-related AEs ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; DLT, Dose-limiting toxicity Open table in a new tab .

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are recommended first-line treatments in EGFR- mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, acquired resistance (e.g. MET amplification) is common. Savolitinib (volitinib, HMPL-504, AZD6094) is an oral, potent, and highly selective MET-TKI.Methods: In this phase 1b, open-label, multicentre study, we enrolled Chinese patients with EGFR-mutated, advanced NSCLC, whose disease progressed during or after treatment with prior EGFR-TKIs. In the safety run-in, patients received savolitinib 600 or 800 mg plus gefitinib 250 mg orally, once-daily and dose-limiting toxicities were recorded. In the expansion phase, patients with MET amplification received savolitinib plus gefitinib. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included antitumour activity and pharmacokinetics.Findings: No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in either dose group during the safety run-in (n=13). Savolitinib 600 mg plus gefitinib 250 mg once daily was selected as the recommended phase 2 dose and evaluated in the expansion phase (n=51). The objective response rates in EGFR T790M-negative, -positive and -unknown patients were 52% (12/23), 9% (2/23), and 40% (2/5), respectively. Thirty-five patients (69%) were evaluable for longitudinal circulating tumour DNA analysis. Pharmacokinetic parameters for savolitinib plus gefitinib were consistent with previous monotherapy studies, showing no evidence of drug-drug interactions. Adverse events of grade 3 or more in the safety run-in and expansion phases (n=57) were reported in 21 (37%) patients. The most common adverse events (all grades) were: vomiting (n=26, 46%), nausea (n=23, 40%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (n=22, 39%). There were four deaths, none treatment-related.Interpretation: Savolitinib 600 mg plus gefitinib 250 mg once daily had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated promising antitumour activity in EGFR-mutated, MET- amplified advanced NSCLC patients who had progressed on EGFR-TKIs.Trial Registration: NCT02374645.Funding Statement: The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK, the manufacturer of savolitinib and gefitinib. Hutchison MediPharma authorised AstraZeneca to conduct this study.Declaration of Interests: MF, RH, GFA, CE, SM, RBV and AM are AstraZeneca employees and shareholders. RH also owns shares in Foundation medicine, and has a patent pending for Foundation Medicine. MF is also a patent holder for AstraZeneca. Y-LW has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingeiheim, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi; and grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim. J-JY, JF, Y-QS, J-HC, G-YC, J-XH, WL, X-QL, NY, CZ, J-AH and LY declare no conflicts of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by Institutional Review Boards/Independent Ethics Committees at each study centre, and by the Human Genetics Resources Administration of China. The trial was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guidelines, the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki, applicable regulatory requirements, and the AstraZeneca policy on Bioethics and Human Biological Samples. All patients provided written informed consent before study procedures.

Objectives In non-small cell lung cancer patients with acquired resistance to first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib is approved in the presence of the T790 M resistance mutation. We assessed the efficacy of osimertinib in both T790M-positive and T790M-negative patients. Materials and methods The TREM-study is an investigator-initiated, multi-centre, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial conducted in five Northern European countries. Patients with progression on at least one previous EGFR-TKI were assigned to treatment with 80 mg of osimertinib daily until radiological progression or death. Patients were included regardless of the presence of T790 M. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Results Of 199 included patients, 120 (60 %) were T790M-positive, 52 (26 %) were T790M-negative and 27 (14 %) had unknown T790M-status. 24 % had brain metastases and 15 % had an ECOG performance status of 2. Overall ORR was 48 % (95 % CI, 41 %–55 %), 60 % (51 %–69 %) for T790M-positive patients and 28 % (15 %–41 %) for T790M-negative patients, p < 0.001. ORR for patients with co-occurring del19 vs L858R was 61 % vs 32 %, p = 0.001. Duration of response was similar between the T790M-positive and –negative groups (11.8 vs 10.7 months, p = 0.229). Overall median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.9 months (95 % CI, 7.4–10.5), and 10.8 vs 5.1 months for T790M-positive vs –negative patients (HR 0.62, p = 0.007). Median overall survival (OS) was 17.9 months (95 % CI, 14.4–21.3). For T790M-positive vs –negative median OS was 22.5 vs 13.4 months, (HR 0.55, p = 0.002). Conclusions This study confirms the efficacy of osimertinib for T790M-positive patients. There was also clinically significant activity of osimertinib in a proportion of T790M-negative patients. Clinical trial registration This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02504346).

e19321 Background: PRCC accounts for 10–15% of RCCs, but there are limited biomarker-based data to inform targeted treatment. Treatments for patients (pts) with advanced/metastatic PRCC include those approved for clear cell RCC such as sunitinib or everolimus, however their activity in PRCC can be limited. A subset of PRCCs are MET-driven, and it has been suggested that this may be a negative prognostic factor, although the role of MET activation in advanced/metastatic disease is unclear. We explored the prevalance of MET status in pts with advanced/metastatic PRCC treated with targeted therapies and impact on clinical outcomes. Methods: This large, international, retrospective, observational study included pts with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic PRCC. MET status was determined retrospectively by NGS of archival tissue. MET-driven disease was defined as MET and/or HGF amplification, chromosome 7 gain (requiring > 30% tumor content) and/or MET kinase domain mutations. Study objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) by MET status. Results: 305/308 pts (International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium, n = 72; The Asan Genito-Urinary Cancer Center, n = 40; Groupe Français d’Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales, n = 196) received first-line (1L) treatment; sunitinib was most common (68%). 214 (69%) pts received 2L therapy; everolimus was most common (20%). Of 179 pts with valid NGS results, 38%, 49% and 13% had MET-driven, MET-independent (ind) tumors and chromosome 7 ploidy unevaluable, respectively. Baseline demographics were mostly balanced among groups. In sunitinib-treated pts, PFS and TTF were numerically longer in pts with MET-driven tumors vs pts with MET-ind tumors, but OS was similar (Table). In everolimus-treated pts, PFS and TTF were similar for both MET groups; however the sample size was small. Conclusions: MET alterations are frequent in advanced/metastatic PRCC and have potential to impact PFS and TTF, although our results show limited effect on OS. These data show that MET-driven tumours may not predict for poorer outcome vs MET-ind tumours and there is a need for suitable therapies for MET-driven PRCC. [Table: see text]