Cargando…
Phase II open‐label multicenter study to assess the antitumor activity of afatinib in lung cancer patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation from circulating tumor DNA: Liquid‐Lung‐A
BACKGROUND: Mutation analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is used for diagnosing lung cancer. This trial aimed to assess the efficacy of afatinib in treatment‐naïve patients with lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (EGFRm, exon 19 deletions or exon 21 point mutation...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7882376/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33270375 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13763 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Mutation analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is used for diagnosing lung cancer. This trial aimed to assess the efficacy of afatinib in treatment‐naïve patients with lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (EGFRm, exon 19 deletions or exon 21 point mutations) detected based on ctDNA. METHODS: The primary objective was the objective response rate (ORR) in the response evaluable (RE) population. EGFRm analysis of ctDNA was performed using PANA Mutype. Of the 331 patients screened, ctDNA was positive in 21% (68/331) in the detection of activating EGFRm. Among 81 subjects with tumor EGFRm, 48 showed matched EGFRm in their ctDNA (59% sensitivity). RESULTS: Therapy with afatinib 40 mg was initiated in 21 (female, 17; adenocarcinoma, 20) patients (intention‐to‐treat, ITT); dose modifications were made in 15 (71%). The ORR was 74% in the RE population (14/19); 11 patients showed EGFRm only in ctDNA (Group A), whereas 10 exhibited the same EGFRm in their ctDNA and tumor DNA (Group B). There was no significant difference in ORR between Groups A and B (80% and 67% RE, respectively). Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 12.0 months, and no significant difference was observed according to the final afatinib dose, type of EGFRm, and Group A versus B. After progression, T790M mutation was found in 40% (6/15) of patients, and osimertinib was used as a second‐line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib showed similar ORR and PFS in patients with lung cancer harboring EGFRm in their ctDNA regardless of tumor EGFRm results. KEY POINTS: SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: Afatinib showed favorable ORR and PFS regardless of the tumor EGFR mutation status results, similar to the findings of previous trials assessing afatinib as first‐line treatment of EGFR‐mutated non‐small cell lung cancer based on tumor genotyping. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Our findings emphasize that the survival benefit of afatinib treatment can be achieved not only by appropriate dose reduction with frequent and detailed monitoring of toxicities, but also by using noninvasive (ctDNA) assays in a real‐world setting. |
---|