Background Identification of variable epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is important for the selection of appropriate targeted therapies. This meta-analysis was conducted to provide a worldwide overview of EGFR mutation and submutation (specifically exon 19 deletions, exon 21 L858R substitutions, and others) prevalence, and identify important covariates that influence EGFR mutation status in patients with advanced NSCLC to address this clinical data gap. Methods Embase^® and MEDLINE^® in Ovid were searched for studies published between 2004 and 2019 with cohorts of ≥ 50 adults with EGFR mutations, focusing on stage III/IV NSCLC (≤ 20% of patients with stage I/II NSCLC). Linear mixed-effects models were fitted to EGFR mutation endpoints using logistic transformation (logit), assuming a binomial distribution. The model included terms for an intercept reflecting European studies and further additive terms for other continents. EGFR submutations examined were exon 19 deletions, exon 21 L858R substitutions, and others. Results Of 3969 abstracts screened, 57 studies were included in the overall EGFR mutation analysis and 74 were included in the submutation analysis relative to the overall EGFR mutation population (Europe, n = 12; Asia, n = 51; North America, n = 5; Central America, n = 1; South America, n = 1; Oceania, n = 1; Global, n = 3). The final overall EGFR mutations model estimated Asian and European prevalence of 49.1% and 12.8%, respectively, and included an additive covariate for the proportion of male patients in a study. There were no significant covariates in the submutation analyses. Most submutations were actionable: exon 19 deletions (49.2% [Asia]; 48.4% [Europe]); exon 21 L858R substitutions (41.1% [Asia]; 29.9% [Europe]). Conclusions Although EGFR mutation prevalence was higher in Asian than Western countries, data support worldwide testing for EGFR overall and submutations to inform appropriate targeted treatment decisions.

Purpose: Erlotinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor approved for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose epidermal growth factor receptor expression status is positive or unknown. Although it is efficacious, erlotinib can cause skin toxicity. This prospective, randomized phase III trial examined the effect of prophylactic treatment of erlotinib-induced skin rash. Patients and Methods: Patients receiving erlotinib in the second- or third-line setting for advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to prophylactic minocycline (100 mg twice per day for 4 weeks), reactive treatment (after rash developed, per grade of rash), or no treatment unless severe (grade 3). Rash incidence and severity, time to maximal rash, time to resolution, and overall survival (OS) were compared among treatment groups. Results: In all, 150 patients were randomly assigned, 50 to each of three treatment arms. The incidence of skin toxicity was 84% regardless of treatment arm. Prophylactic treatment with minocycline significantly lengthened the time to the most severe grade of rash. Grade 3 rash was significantly higher in the no-treatment arm. OS was not significantly different among treatment arms, but patients receiving prophylactic or reactive treatments had a longer OS (7.6 and 8 months, respectively) than those who received no rash treatment (6 months). Rash was not self-limiting. Conclusion: The incidence of all grades of rash did not differ statistically among the three arms, so the trial was negative. The incidence of grade 3 skin toxicities was reduced in patients who were treated with prophylactic minocycline or reactive treatment. Efficacy was not compromised. Prophylactic minocycline and reactive treatment are both acceptable options for the necessary treatment of erlotinib-induced rash in the second- or third-line setting of metastatic NSCLC.

In the LUX-Lung clinical trials of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, tolerability-guided dose adjustment reduced the incidence and severity of adverse events while maintaining efficacy. The RealGiDo study evaluated the impact of afatinib dose adjustment in a real-world setting. This non-interventional, observational study used medical records of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients treated with first-line afatinib. Primary outcomes were adverse drug reaction (ADR) incidence and severity, time to treatment failure (TTF), and time to progression (TTP), relative to LUX-Lung 3 (LL3). 228 patients were enrolled from 13 countries. Baseline characteristics were in line with LL3 but with more Del19 patients (78.1% vs. 49.0%) and fewer Asian patients (43.9% vs. 72.2%); 11.8% had ECOG performance status 2-3. A total of 71 (31.1%) received a modified starting dose of ≤30 mg. Of patients who started with 40 mg, 67.1% underwent dose reductions, 86.5% of which were in the first 6 months. Dose reductions were mainly due to ADRs and were more common in female, East Asian, and low body-weight patients. There were no new safety signals and fewer ≥grade 3 ADRs (28.4% vs. 48.9%) and serious adverse events (5.2% vs. 14.0%) than in LL3. Median TTF and TTP were 18.7 and 20.8 months, respectively, and were not impacted by reduced starting dose or dose modification. Real-world data show that afatinib dose adjustments reduced the frequency and intensity of ADRs without compromising effectiveness, highlighting the benefit of tailoring afatinib dose to optimise treatment outcomes and supporting clinical decision-making. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02751879).

Purpose Non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is globally prevalent and associated with high rates of mortality. Immune checkpoint pathways are often exploited by tumors to evade immunity-mediated destruction, and checkpoint inhibitors can reactivate tumor-related immune responses. This review considers available clinical evidence for the use of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of second-line advanced NSCLC. Methods Our systematic search revealed 20 clinical trials evaluating checkpoint inhibitors in the second-line setting, three of which were randomized trials comparing programmed cell death protein 1 and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors to docetaxel, the current standard of care in this setting. Results A randomized phase II trial comparing the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab to docetaxel did not demonstrate improved survival for atezolizumab in patients overall, although a trend toward improved survival with increased PD-L1 expression was apparent. Twin phase III trials showed significantly improved survival for the programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor nivolumab compared with docetaxel in patients with both squamous and nonsquamous disease. PD-L1 expression correlated with improved survival in patients with nonsquamous disease, and patients with low levels of PD-L1 expression (< 10%) and those with EGFR mutations are unlikely to benefit. Checkpoint inhibitor therapy is generally well tolerated and associated with low rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events compared with standard care. Conclusion Level 1 evidence exists to support the use of nivolumab as second-line treatment of patients with squamous advanced NSCLC, as well as in select patients with nonsquamous disease. Benefits remain unknown in patients with targetable driver mutations, and use of PD-L1 expression to guide therapy remains controversial. Results from ongoing randomized trials evaluating biomarkers and other checkpoint inhibitors will further our understanding of this rapidly evolving area of oncology.

Targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway has become standard practice for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Compared with chemotherapy, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIS) have been associated with improved efficacy in patients with an EGFR mutation. Together with the increase in efficacy comes an adverse event (AE) profile different from that of chemotherapy. That profile includes three of the most commonly occurring dermatologic AES: acneiform rash, stomatitis, and paronychia. Currently, no randomized clinical trials have evaluated the treatments for the dermatologic AES that patients experience when taking EGFR TKIS. Based on the expert opinion of the authors, some basic strategies have been developed to manage those key dermatologic AES. Those strategies have the potential to improve patient quality of life and compliance and to prevent inappropriate dose reductions.