Activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) are a driving force for some lung adenocarcinomas. Several randomized phase III studies have revealed that treatment with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) results in an improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to standard chemotherapy in chemonaive patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), selected based on the presence of EGFR mutations. Patients treated with second-generation EGFR-TKIs have also shown an improved PFS relative to those treated with first-generation EGRF-TKIs. Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-TKI that still irreversibly inhibits the activity of EGFR after it has acquired the secondary T790M mutation that confers resistance to first- and second-generation drugs. Its efficacy has been validated for patients whose tumors have developed T790M-mediated resistance, as well as for first-line treatment of those patients with EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC. Although there are five EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib) currently available for the treatment of EGFR-mutated lung cancer, the optimal sequence for administration of these drugs remains to be determined. In this review, we addressed this issue with regard to maximizing the duration of the EGFR-TKI treatment.

Background Implementation of personalized medicine requires the accessibility of tumor molecular profiling in order to allow prioritization of appropriate targeted therapies for individual patients. Our aim was to study the role of comprehensive genomic profiling assays that may inform treatment recommendations for patients with solid tumors. Materials and Methods We performed a prospective study to evaluate the feasibility of application of the FoundationOne CDx panel—which detects substitutions, insertions and deletions, and copy number alterations in 324 genes, select gene rearrangements, and genomic signatures including microsatellite instability and tumor mutation burden (TMB)—to patients with advanced or recurrent solid tumors before its approval in Japan. Results A total of 181 samples were processed for genomic testing between September 2018 and June 2019, with data being successfully obtained for 175 of these samples, yielding a success rate of 96.7%. The median turnaround time was 41 days (range, 21–126 days). The most common known or likely pathogenic variants were TP53 mutations (n = 113), PIK3CA mutations (n = 33), APC mutations (n = 32), and KRAS mutations (n = 29). Among the 153 patients assessed for TMB, the median TMB was 4 mutations/Mb, and tumors with a high TMB (≥10 mutations/Mb) were more prevalent for lung cancer (11/32) than for other solid tumor types (9/121, Fisher's exact test p < .01). No clear trend toward increased efficacy for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy or ICI combination chemotherapy in patients with a high programmed cell death–ligand 1 tumor proportion score or a high TMB was apparent. Among the 174 patients found to harbor known or likely pathogenic actionable alterations, 24 individuals (14%) received matched targeted therapy. Conclusion The FoundationOne CDx assay was performed with formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tumor specimens with a success rate of >95%. Such testing may inform the matching of patients with cancer with investigational or approved targeted drugs. Implications for Practice This prospective cohort study was initiated to investigate the feasibility and utility of clinical application of FoundationOne CDx. A total of 181 samples were processed for genomic testing between September 2018 and June 2019, with data being successfully obtained for 175 of these samples, yielding a success rate of 96.7%, and 24 individuals (14%) received matched targeted therapy.

Immunotherapy targeting programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) induces durable antitumor efficacy in many types of cancer. However, such clinical benefit is limited because of the insufficient reinvigoration of antitumor immunity with the drug alone; therefore, rational therapeutic combinations are required to improve its efficacy. In our preclinical study, we evaluated the antitumor effect of U3-1402, a human epidermal growth factor receptor 3–targeting (HER3–targeting) antibody-drug conjugate, and its potential synergism with PD-1 inhibition. Using a syngeneic mouse tumor model that is refractory to anti–PD-1 therapy, we found that treatment with U3-1402 exhibited an obvious antitumor effect via direct lysis of tumor cells. Disruption of tumor cells by U3-1402 enhanced the infiltration of innate and adaptive immune cells. Chemotherapy with exatecan derivative (Dxd, the drug payload of U3-1402) revealed that the enhanced antitumor immunity produced by U3-1402 was associated with the induction of alarmins, including high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB-1), via tumor-specific cytotoxicity. Notably, U3-1402 significantly sensitized the tumor to PD-1 blockade, as a combination of U3-1402 and the PD-1 inhibitor significantly enhanced antitumor immunity. Further, clinical analyses indicated that tumor-specific HER3 expression was frequently observed in patients with PD-1 inhibitor–resistant solid tumors. Overall, U3-1402 is a promising candidate as a partner of immunotherapy for such patients.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosnetupitant (FosNTP) versus fosaprepitant (FosAPR) for preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This phase III study was the first head-to-head comparison between two different neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to FosNTP 235 mg or FosAPR 150 mg in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone. The primary end point was overall (0-120 hours) complete response (CR; no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, to show the noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR (noninferiority margin, –10% for the difference in the overall CR rate). RESULTS: Overall, 795 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 785 received the study drug (FosNTP [N = 392] v FosAPR [N = 393]) and were evaluated for efficacy and safety. The overall CR rate was 75.2% versus 71.0%, respectively (Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, –2.1% to 10.3%), demonstrating noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR. The CR rates in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and beyond delayed (120-168 hours) phases, and at 0-168 hours were 93.9% versus 92.6%, 76.8% versus 72.8%, 86.5% versus 81.4%, and 73.2% versus 66.9%, respectively. The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events with FosNTP versus FosAPR were 22.2% versus 25.4%, whereas adverse events or treatment-related adverse events relevant to injection site reactions were 11.0% versus 20.6% ( P < .001) and 0.3% versus 3.6% ( P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: FosNTP demonstrated noninferiority to FosAPR, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for injection site reactions. Thus, FosNTP is valuable in the prophylaxis of acute, delayed, and beyond delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Precise stratification of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is needed for appropriate application of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy. METHODS: We measured soluble forms of the immune-checkpoint molecules PD-L1, PD-1, and CTLA-4 in plasma of patients with advanced NSCLC before PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. A prospective biomarker-finding trial (cohort A) included 50 previously treated patients who received nivolumab. A retrospective observational study was performed for patients treated with any PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy (cohorts B and C), cytotoxic chemotherapy (cohort D), or targeted therapy (cohort E). Plasma samples from all patients were assayed for soluble immune-checkpoint molecules with a highly sensitive chemiluminescence-based assay. RESULTS: Nonresponsiveness to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy was associated with higher concentrations of these soluble immune factors among patients with immune-reactive (hot) tumors. Such an association was not apparent for patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Integrative analysis of tumor size, PD-L1 expression in tumor tissue (tPD-L1), and gene expression in tumor tissue and peripheral CD8 ⁺ T cells revealed that high concentrations of the 3 soluble immune factors were associated with hyper or terminal exhaustion of antitumor immunity. The combination of soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) and sCTLA-4 efficiently discriminated responsiveness to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade among patients with immune-reactive tumors. CONCLUSION: Combinations of soluble immune factors might be able to identify patients unlikely to respond to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade as a result of terminal exhaustion of antitumor immunity. Our data suggest that such a combination better predicts, along with tPD-L1, for the response of patients with NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000019674. FUNDING: This study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Sysmex Corporation.