ANTONIO PASSARO

Dr. ANTONIO PASSARO

Division of Thoracic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
15 April 2021 in Nature Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
APANTONIO PASSARO
ANTONIO PASSARO
PJPasi A. Jänne
Pasi A. Jänne
TMTony Mok
Tony Mok
SPSolange Peters
Solange Peters

24 October 2024 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BCByoung Chul Cho
Byoung Chul Cho
SLShun Lu
Shun Lu
EFEnriqueta Felip
Enriqueta Felip
ASAlexander I. Spira
Alexander I. Spira
NGNicolas Girard
Nicolas Girard
HHHidetoshi Hayashi
Hidetoshi Hayashi
Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review. Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR-related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib. Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.).

23 October 2023 in Annals of Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
APANTONIO PASSARO
ANTONIO PASSARO
JWJ. Wang
J. Wang
YWY. Wang
Y. Wang
SLS.-H. Lee
S.-H. Lee
BMB. Melosky
B. Melosky
BCB.C. Cho
B.C. Cho
Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy) with and without lazertinib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with refractory EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase 1 studies. These combinations were evaluated in a global phase 3 trial. A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2:2:1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion. All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the 3 arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. Progression-free survival was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death [HR], 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P<0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR, 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P<0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P<0.001 for both). Median intracranial progression-free survival was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio for intracranial disease progression or death, 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic adverse events than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy. Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved progression-free survival and intracranial progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.

20 February 2022 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
APANTONIO PASSARO
ANTONIO PASSARO
JBJulie Brahmer
Julie Brahmer
SAScott Antonia
Scott Antonia
TMTony Mok
Tony Mok
SPSolange Peters
Solange Peters
A proportion of patients with lung cancer experience long-term clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, most patients develop disease progression during treatment or after treatment discontinuation. Definitions of immune resistance are heterogeneous according to different clinical and biologic features. Primary resistance and acquired resistance, related to tumor-intrinsic and tumor-extrinsic mechanisms, are identified according to previous response patterns and timing of occurrence. The clinical resistance patterns determine differential clinical approaches. To date, several combination therapies are under development to delay or prevent the occurrence of resistance to ICIs, including the blockade of immune coinhibitory signals, the activation of those with costimulatory functions, the modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and the targeting T-cell priming. Tailoring the specific treatments with distinctive biologic resistance mechanisms would be ideal to improve the design and results of clinical trial. In this review, we reviewed the available evidence on immune resistance mechanisms, clinical definitions, and management of resistance to ICIs in lung cancer. We also reviewed data on novel strategies under investigation in this setting.

14 February 2022 in Annals of Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
APANTONIO PASSARO
ANTONIO PASSARO
NLN. Leighl
N. Leighl
FBF. Blackhall
F. Blackhall
SPS. Popat
S. Popat
KKK. Kerr
K. Kerr
SPS. Peters
S. Peters

1 May 2021 in Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
APANTONIO PASSARO
ANTONIO PASSARO
TMTony Mok
Tony Mok
SPSolange Peters
Solange Peters
SPSanjay Popat
Sanjay Popat
MAMyung-Ju Ahn
Myung-Ju Ahn
FMFilippo de Marinis
Filippo de Marinis
The first-line treatment of choice for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), of which five as follows are predominantly available in practice: gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib. Most prospective clinical trial data with these agents are limited to patients with the common activating and sensitizing EGFR mutations as follows: exon 19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations. However, 10% to 20% of patients with NSCLC harbor uncommon EGFR mutations that have variable sensitivity to different EGFR TKIs. Owing to their molecular structures, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib have broader inhibitory profiles than the first-generation agents, gefitinib and erlotinib. Nevertheless, the paucity of prospective clinical data, the wide heterogeneity of uncommon mutations, and the existence of compound mutations in up to 25% of the cases complicate treatment decisions in this patient subgroup. Here, we collate the latest preclinical and clinical data regarding the activity of different TKIs against major uncommon EGFR mutations including compound mutations, but excluding exon 20 insertions which are generally insensitive to TKIs. On the basis of these data, we offer suggestions regarding treatment strategies for uncommon EGFR mutations. Moving forward, it will be important to include uncommon EGFR mutations in the first-line molecular analysis of all patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung, as this will help optimize patient outcomes according to their precise genotype.