治疗egfr突变的非小细胞肺癌不再是一刀切的方法。

IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Lauren J. Antrim MD, Jyoti Malhotra MD, MPH
{"title":"治疗egfr突变的非小细胞肺癌不再是一刀切的方法。","authors":"Lauren J. Antrim MD,&nbsp;Jyoti Malhotra MD, MPH","doi":"10.3322/caac.70027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Just over 2 decades ago, Lynch et al. published a landmark article in which they elucidated that activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (<i>EGFR</i>) positively correlated with clinical responses to the first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), gefitinib, in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).<span><sup>1</sup></span> Although estimates vary, it is believed that up to one third of cases of NSCLC may harbor these mutations.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Over the last 20 years, great strides have been made to improve both the efficacy and the tolerability of therapies targeting EGFR, with fourth-generation EGFR TKIs in development. In this edition of <i>CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians</i>, Borgeaud et al. provide an exceptionally detailed review of <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC that describes the molecular underpinnings of this oncogenic driver, discusses modern treatment approaches, and explores the gamut of clinical situations that can be encountered while treating a patient with <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>Although Borgeaud and colleagues explicitly do not cover the management of <i>EGFR</i> exon 20 insertions, they do provide some brief insights into P-loop and αC-helix compressing (PACC or <i>uncommon</i>) mutations and present a comprehensive review that can be a useful tool for clinicians treating patients with <i>common</i> <i>EGFR</i> mutations (L858R, exon 19 deletions) across all stages of presentation. Studies investigating the effectiveness of immunotherapy and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors to early phase trials targeting potential acquired mutations on EGFR TKIs are detailed. For clinicians treating patients with early stage or locally advanced NSCLC, their article analyzes pivotal studies, such as ADAURA and LAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT02511106 and NCT03521154, respectively), which led to osimertinib (third-generation TKI) becoming the standard of care in the adjuvant and postchemoradiation setting, respectively.<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span> Furthermore, crucial ongoing studies are highlighted, such as NeoADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04351555), which is investigating the incorporation of osimertinib in the neoadjuvant setting.<span><sup>6</sup></span> Potential considerations for less straight-forward situations, such as metastatic recurrence while on or after adjuvant osimertinib, are also discussed.</p><p>In recent years, treatment of <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC in the metastatic setting has grown increasingly complex, with multiple treatment regimens now approved. Borgeaud et al. provide a detailed overview of available first-line regimens and important treatment considerations. With the initial publication of the FLAURA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02296125) in 2017 and subsequent study updates, osimertinib became the clear choice for first-line systemic therapy in the metastatic setting, with an improvement in median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) compared with first-generation TKIs and, importantly, a favorable toxicity profile.<span><sup>7</sup></span> Subsequently, in 2023, FLAURA2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04035486) demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival using the combination of osimertinib plus chemotherapy (platinum and pemetrexed) compared with osimertinib monotherapy in the first-line setting,<span><sup>8</sup></span> as did MARIPOSA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04487080) in 2024 using the combination of amivantamab (an EGFR and MET bispecific antibody) plus lazertinib (third-generation EGFR TKI).<span><sup>9</sup></span> While long-term follow-up and survival data are maturing in both combination regimens, there has been a trend toward an OS benefit with the FLAURA2 regimen<span><sup>10</sup></span> and an improvement in median OS with the MARIPOSA regimen (predicted to exceed 1 year over the osimertinib monotherapy regimen).<span><sup>11</sup></span> With a potential OS benefit, will combination therapy be the new go-to front-line therapy?</p><p>Identifying which patients may benefit most from combination therapy is of great importance. There are various disease-related factors that may be considered <i>high-risk</i> for earlier progression on osimertinib monotherapy, such as the presence of brain metastasis or the L858R mutation, which Borgeaud et al. describe at length and provide an excellent visual representation (see Figure 5). However, a patient is not an amalgamation of their disease, and the potential impact of toxicity of proposed regimens should be taken in to account as part of shared decision making.</p><p>Although osimertinib has less toxicity than EGFR TKIs from earlier generations, grade 3 or greater adverse events were still reported in 27%–43% of patients on osimertinib monotherapy in FLAURA, FLAURA2, and MARIPOSA.<span><sup>7-9</sup></span> On the osimertinib monotherapy arm in those studies, 26%–40% of study participants did not go on to receive subsequent therapy.<span><sup>7-9</sup></span> However, patients on clinical trials may not reflect the real-world patient population in which patients with lung cancer may have higher incidence of comorbidities and worse performance status. One single-institution, real-world study reported that over one half of patients who received front-line osimertinib would not have met eligibility for inclusion in the FLAURA trial.<span><sup>12</sup></span> Another real-world, retrospective study in the United States demonstrated that only 39% of patients with metastatic NSCLC on first-line osimertinib went on to receive a second line of therapy.<span><sup>13</sup></span> Therefore, it is crucial to make efforts to ensure the success of whatever regimen is used because it very well may be the only systemic therapy many patients ever receive.</p><p>One treatment-agnostic intervention that is known to support patients with metastatic NSCLC is early integration of the palliative care team, which improves quality of life and symptom control for many patients. Moreover, the median OS is longer with the incorporation of early palliative care despite reduced aggressive end-of-life care in these patients.<span><sup>14</sup></span> Because both combination regimens were found to have increased rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events than their comparator arm (64% in FLAURA2 and 75% in MARIPOSA), additional considerations should be made to manage toxicity.<span><sup>8, 9</sup></span> Supportive care to mitigate side effects from chemotherapy should be administered with the FLAURA2 regimen as clinically indicated, such as antinausea medications and granulocyte-colony–stimulating factor for neutropenia prophylaxis in patients with high risk. With the MARIPOSA regimen, significant efforts have been made to make the regimen more tolerable, with studies such as SKIPPirr (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05663866), which used steroids to minimize infusion reactions during initial infusion administration, as well as COCOON (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06120140), which combined oral antibiotics and topical agents to prevent dermatologic toxicities.<span><sup>15, 16</sup></span> These supplemental therapies present their own challenges, such as polypharmacy, but should be taken in to account in the care of in any patient initiating treatment on amivantamab and lazertinib.</p><p>In addition to side effects, additional psychosocial stressors are important aspects of care as well. In choice of therapy, time toxicity varies greatly between the first-line regimens. The amount of time a patient has to interact with the health care system on an oral TKI is significantly less than with regular intravenous infusion treatments on the FLAURA2 regimen and, to an even a greater extent, with the MARIPOSA regimen. These long and frequent visits potentially affect time off work for patients and caregivers and may contribute to health care fatigue. Furthermore, financial toxicity is an important aspect of treatment. One recent study evaluated the comprehensive cost per patient for the first year of treatment with the MARIPOSA and FLAURA2 regimens, including the costs of treatment acquisition, administration, disease management, and adverse event management in patients with locally advanced or metastatic, <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC treated in the United States. The MARIPOSA regimen was identified as roughly three times the cost of the FLAURA2 regimen with both Medicare ($220,129 vs. $79,348) and private insurance ($662,200 vs. $235,709).<span><sup>17</sup></span></p><p>In conclusion, with the evolving landscape of EGFR-directed therapies, there is no longer a clear first-line choice in the metastatic setting for <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC. A clinician must weigh efficacy with toxicity and actively support patients throughout their treatment journey. The outstanding review from Borgeaud and colleagues provides a high-yield reference for these treatment considerations as well as a plethora of other clinical scenarios that clinicians may face while treating patients with <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC.</p><p>Jyoti Malhotra reports personal/consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Johnson &amp; Johnson outside the submitted work. Lauren J. Antrim disclosed no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"75 5","pages":"373-375"},"PeriodicalIF":232.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70027","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treating EGFR-mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer is no longer a one-size-fits-all approach\",\"authors\":\"Lauren J. Antrim MD,&nbsp;Jyoti Malhotra MD, MPH\",\"doi\":\"10.3322/caac.70027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Just over 2 decades ago, Lynch et al. published a landmark article in which they elucidated that activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (<i>EGFR</i>) positively correlated with clinical responses to the first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), gefitinib, in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).<span><sup>1</sup></span> Although estimates vary, it is believed that up to one third of cases of NSCLC may harbor these mutations.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Over the last 20 years, great strides have been made to improve both the efficacy and the tolerability of therapies targeting EGFR, with fourth-generation EGFR TKIs in development. In this edition of <i>CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians</i>, Borgeaud et al. provide an exceptionally detailed review of <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC that describes the molecular underpinnings of this oncogenic driver, discusses modern treatment approaches, and explores the gamut of clinical situations that can be encountered while treating a patient with <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>Although Borgeaud and colleagues explicitly do not cover the management of <i>EGFR</i> exon 20 insertions, they do provide some brief insights into P-loop and αC-helix compressing (PACC or <i>uncommon</i>) mutations and present a comprehensive review that can be a useful tool for clinicians treating patients with <i>common</i> <i>EGFR</i> mutations (L858R, exon 19 deletions) across all stages of presentation. Studies investigating the effectiveness of immunotherapy and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors to early phase trials targeting potential acquired mutations on EGFR TKIs are detailed. For clinicians treating patients with early stage or locally advanced NSCLC, their article analyzes pivotal studies, such as ADAURA and LAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT02511106 and NCT03521154, respectively), which led to osimertinib (third-generation TKI) becoming the standard of care in the adjuvant and postchemoradiation setting, respectively.<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span> Furthermore, crucial ongoing studies are highlighted, such as NeoADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04351555), which is investigating the incorporation of osimertinib in the neoadjuvant setting.<span><sup>6</sup></span> Potential considerations for less straight-forward situations, such as metastatic recurrence while on or after adjuvant osimertinib, are also discussed.</p><p>In recent years, treatment of <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC in the metastatic setting has grown increasingly complex, with multiple treatment regimens now approved. Borgeaud et al. provide a detailed overview of available first-line regimens and important treatment considerations. With the initial publication of the FLAURA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02296125) in 2017 and subsequent study updates, osimertinib became the clear choice for first-line systemic therapy in the metastatic setting, with an improvement in median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) compared with first-generation TKIs and, importantly, a favorable toxicity profile.<span><sup>7</sup></span> Subsequently, in 2023, FLAURA2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04035486) demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival using the combination of osimertinib plus chemotherapy (platinum and pemetrexed) compared with osimertinib monotherapy in the first-line setting,<span><sup>8</sup></span> as did MARIPOSA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04487080) in 2024 using the combination of amivantamab (an EGFR and MET bispecific antibody) plus lazertinib (third-generation EGFR TKI).<span><sup>9</sup></span> While long-term follow-up and survival data are maturing in both combination regimens, there has been a trend toward an OS benefit with the FLAURA2 regimen<span><sup>10</sup></span> and an improvement in median OS with the MARIPOSA regimen (predicted to exceed 1 year over the osimertinib monotherapy regimen).<span><sup>11</sup></span> With a potential OS benefit, will combination therapy be the new go-to front-line therapy?</p><p>Identifying which patients may benefit most from combination therapy is of great importance. There are various disease-related factors that may be considered <i>high-risk</i> for earlier progression on osimertinib monotherapy, such as the presence of brain metastasis or the L858R mutation, which Borgeaud et al. describe at length and provide an excellent visual representation (see Figure 5). However, a patient is not an amalgamation of their disease, and the potential impact of toxicity of proposed regimens should be taken in to account as part of shared decision making.</p><p>Although osimertinib has less toxicity than EGFR TKIs from earlier generations, grade 3 or greater adverse events were still reported in 27%–43% of patients on osimertinib monotherapy in FLAURA, FLAURA2, and MARIPOSA.<span><sup>7-9</sup></span> On the osimertinib monotherapy arm in those studies, 26%–40% of study participants did not go on to receive subsequent therapy.<span><sup>7-9</sup></span> However, patients on clinical trials may not reflect the real-world patient population in which patients with lung cancer may have higher incidence of comorbidities and worse performance status. One single-institution, real-world study reported that over one half of patients who received front-line osimertinib would not have met eligibility for inclusion in the FLAURA trial.<span><sup>12</sup></span> Another real-world, retrospective study in the United States demonstrated that only 39% of patients with metastatic NSCLC on first-line osimertinib went on to receive a second line of therapy.<span><sup>13</sup></span> Therefore, it is crucial to make efforts to ensure the success of whatever regimen is used because it very well may be the only systemic therapy many patients ever receive.</p><p>One treatment-agnostic intervention that is known to support patients with metastatic NSCLC is early integration of the palliative care team, which improves quality of life and symptom control for many patients. Moreover, the median OS is longer with the incorporation of early palliative care despite reduced aggressive end-of-life care in these patients.<span><sup>14</sup></span> Because both combination regimens were found to have increased rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events than their comparator arm (64% in FLAURA2 and 75% in MARIPOSA), additional considerations should be made to manage toxicity.<span><sup>8, 9</sup></span> Supportive care to mitigate side effects from chemotherapy should be administered with the FLAURA2 regimen as clinically indicated, such as antinausea medications and granulocyte-colony–stimulating factor for neutropenia prophylaxis in patients with high risk. With the MARIPOSA regimen, significant efforts have been made to make the regimen more tolerable, with studies such as SKIPPirr (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05663866), which used steroids to minimize infusion reactions during initial infusion administration, as well as COCOON (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06120140), which combined oral antibiotics and topical agents to prevent dermatologic toxicities.<span><sup>15, 16</sup></span> These supplemental therapies present their own challenges, such as polypharmacy, but should be taken in to account in the care of in any patient initiating treatment on amivantamab and lazertinib.</p><p>In addition to side effects, additional psychosocial stressors are important aspects of care as well. In choice of therapy, time toxicity varies greatly between the first-line regimens. The amount of time a patient has to interact with the health care system on an oral TKI is significantly less than with regular intravenous infusion treatments on the FLAURA2 regimen and, to an even a greater extent, with the MARIPOSA regimen. These long and frequent visits potentially affect time off work for patients and caregivers and may contribute to health care fatigue. Furthermore, financial toxicity is an important aspect of treatment. One recent study evaluated the comprehensive cost per patient for the first year of treatment with the MARIPOSA and FLAURA2 regimens, including the costs of treatment acquisition, administration, disease management, and adverse event management in patients with locally advanced or metastatic, <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC treated in the United States. The MARIPOSA regimen was identified as roughly three times the cost of the FLAURA2 regimen with both Medicare ($220,129 vs. $79,348) and private insurance ($662,200 vs. $235,709).<span><sup>17</sup></span></p><p>In conclusion, with the evolving landscape of EGFR-directed therapies, there is no longer a clear first-line choice in the metastatic setting for <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC. A clinician must weigh efficacy with toxicity and actively support patients throughout their treatment journey. The outstanding review from Borgeaud and colleagues provides a high-yield reference for these treatment considerations as well as a plethora of other clinical scenarios that clinicians may face while treating patients with <i>EGFR</i>-mutant NSCLC.</p><p>Jyoti Malhotra reports personal/consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Johnson &amp; Johnson outside the submitted work. Lauren J. Antrim disclosed no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians\",\"volume\":\"75 5\",\"pages\":\"373-375\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":232.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70027\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.70027\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.70027","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

就在20多年前,Lynch等人发表了一篇具有里程碑意义的文章,阐明了表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)的激活突变与非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者对第一代酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKI)吉非替尼的临床反应呈正相关尽管估计不同,但据信高达三分之一的NSCLC病例可能携带这些突变在过去的20年里,随着第四代EGFR TKIs的开发,在提高靶向EGFR治疗的疗效和耐受性方面取得了巨大进展。在本期CA中:在《临床医生癌症杂志》上,Borgeaud等人对EGFR突变型非小细胞肺癌进行了非常详细的回顾,描述了这种致癌驱动因素的分子基础,讨论了现代治疗方法,并探讨了治疗EGFR突变型非小细胞肺癌患者时可能遇到的临床情况。他们确实提供了一些关于p环和α c -螺旋压缩(PACC或不常见)突变的简要见解,并提供了一个全面的回顾,可以成为临床医生治疗所有阶段常见EGFR突变(L858R,外显子19缺失)患者的有用工具。研究了免疫疗法和血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)抑制剂对EGFR TKIs潜在获得性突变的早期试验的有效性。对于临床医生治疗早期或局部晚期NSCLC患者,他们的文章分析了关键研究,如ADAURA和LAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov标识号分别为NCT02511106和NCT03521154),这些研究导致奥西替尼(第三代TKI)分别成为辅助治疗和放化疗后的标准治疗。此外,重要的正在进行的研究也得到了强调,如NeoADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT04351555),该研究正在研究奥西替尼在新辅助治疗中的应用潜在的考虑不太直接的情况,如转移性复发时,辅助奥希替尼或之后,也进行了讨论。近年来,转移性egfr突变型NSCLC的治疗变得越来越复杂,目前已批准多种治疗方案。Borgeaud等人提供了可用一线方案和重要治疗注意事项的详细概述。随着2017年FLAURA试验(ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT02296125)的首次发表以及随后的研究更新,奥西替尼成为转移性疾病一线全身治疗的明确选择,与第一代TKIs相比,奥西替尼的中位无进展生存期和中位总生存期(OS)有所改善,重要的是,它具有良好的毒性随后,在2023年,FLAURA2 (ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT04035486)在一线环境中,与奥西替尼单药治疗相比,使用奥西替尼联合化疗(铂和培美曲塞)的中位无进展生存期得到改善,8而MARIPOSA (ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT04487080)在2024年使用amivantamab(一种EGFR和MET双特异性抗体)联合lazertinib(第三代EGFR TKI)的中位无进展生存期也得到改善虽然两种联合治疗方案的长期随访和生存数据都在不断成熟,但FLAURA2方案的总生存期有改善的趋势,而MARIPOSA方案的中位总生存期也有改善(预计比奥西替尼单药治疗方案超过1年)有了潜在的OS益处,联合疗法会成为新的一线疗法吗?确定哪些患者可能从联合治疗中获益最多是非常重要的。有多种疾病相关因素可能被认为是奥西替尼单药治疗早期进展的高风险因素,如脑转移或L858R突变的存在,Borgeaud等人对此进行了详细描述,并提供了很好的视觉表现(见图5)。然而,患者并不是他们疾病的混合体,建议的方案的潜在毒性影响应作为共同决策的一部分加以考虑。尽管奥西替尼的毒性低于早期的EGFR TKIs,但在FLAURA、FLAURA2和mariposa中,27%-43%的患者接受奥西替尼单药治疗仍报告了3级或更严重的不良事件。7-9在这些研究的奥西替尼单药治疗组中,26%-40%的研究参与者没有继续接受后续治疗。7-9然而,临床试验的患者可能不能反映现实世界的患者群体,在现实世界中,肺癌患者可能有更高的合并症发生率和更差的表现状态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Treating EGFR-mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer is no longer a one-size-fits-all approach

Treating EGFR-mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer is no longer a one-size-fits-all approach

Treating EGFR-mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer is no longer a one-size-fits-all approach

Treating EGFR-mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer is no longer a one-size-fits-all approach

Just over 2 decades ago, Lynch et al. published a landmark article in which they elucidated that activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) positively correlated with clinical responses to the first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), gefitinib, in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).1 Although estimates vary, it is believed that up to one third of cases of NSCLC may harbor these mutations.2 Over the last 20 years, great strides have been made to improve both the efficacy and the tolerability of therapies targeting EGFR, with fourth-generation EGFR TKIs in development. In this edition of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Borgeaud et al. provide an exceptionally detailed review of EGFR-mutant NSCLC that describes the molecular underpinnings of this oncogenic driver, discusses modern treatment approaches, and explores the gamut of clinical situations that can be encountered while treating a patient with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.3

Although Borgeaud and colleagues explicitly do not cover the management of EGFR exon 20 insertions, they do provide some brief insights into P-loop and αC-helix compressing (PACC or uncommon) mutations and present a comprehensive review that can be a useful tool for clinicians treating patients with common EGFR mutations (L858R, exon 19 deletions) across all stages of presentation. Studies investigating the effectiveness of immunotherapy and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors to early phase trials targeting potential acquired mutations on EGFR TKIs are detailed. For clinicians treating patients with early stage or locally advanced NSCLC, their article analyzes pivotal studies, such as ADAURA and LAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT02511106 and NCT03521154, respectively), which led to osimertinib (third-generation TKI) becoming the standard of care in the adjuvant and postchemoradiation setting, respectively.4, 5 Furthermore, crucial ongoing studies are highlighted, such as NeoADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04351555), which is investigating the incorporation of osimertinib in the neoadjuvant setting.6 Potential considerations for less straight-forward situations, such as metastatic recurrence while on or after adjuvant osimertinib, are also discussed.

In recent years, treatment of EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the metastatic setting has grown increasingly complex, with multiple treatment regimens now approved. Borgeaud et al. provide a detailed overview of available first-line regimens and important treatment considerations. With the initial publication of the FLAURA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02296125) in 2017 and subsequent study updates, osimertinib became the clear choice for first-line systemic therapy in the metastatic setting, with an improvement in median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) compared with first-generation TKIs and, importantly, a favorable toxicity profile.7 Subsequently, in 2023, FLAURA2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04035486) demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival using the combination of osimertinib plus chemotherapy (platinum and pemetrexed) compared with osimertinib monotherapy in the first-line setting,8 as did MARIPOSA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04487080) in 2024 using the combination of amivantamab (an EGFR and MET bispecific antibody) plus lazertinib (third-generation EGFR TKI).9 While long-term follow-up and survival data are maturing in both combination regimens, there has been a trend toward an OS benefit with the FLAURA2 regimen10 and an improvement in median OS with the MARIPOSA regimen (predicted to exceed 1 year over the osimertinib monotherapy regimen).11 With a potential OS benefit, will combination therapy be the new go-to front-line therapy?

Identifying which patients may benefit most from combination therapy is of great importance. There are various disease-related factors that may be considered high-risk for earlier progression on osimertinib monotherapy, such as the presence of brain metastasis or the L858R mutation, which Borgeaud et al. describe at length and provide an excellent visual representation (see Figure 5). However, a patient is not an amalgamation of their disease, and the potential impact of toxicity of proposed regimens should be taken in to account as part of shared decision making.

Although osimertinib has less toxicity than EGFR TKIs from earlier generations, grade 3 or greater adverse events were still reported in 27%–43% of patients on osimertinib monotherapy in FLAURA, FLAURA2, and MARIPOSA.7-9 On the osimertinib monotherapy arm in those studies, 26%–40% of study participants did not go on to receive subsequent therapy.7-9 However, patients on clinical trials may not reflect the real-world patient population in which patients with lung cancer may have higher incidence of comorbidities and worse performance status. One single-institution, real-world study reported that over one half of patients who received front-line osimertinib would not have met eligibility for inclusion in the FLAURA trial.12 Another real-world, retrospective study in the United States demonstrated that only 39% of patients with metastatic NSCLC on first-line osimertinib went on to receive a second line of therapy.13 Therefore, it is crucial to make efforts to ensure the success of whatever regimen is used because it very well may be the only systemic therapy many patients ever receive.

One treatment-agnostic intervention that is known to support patients with metastatic NSCLC is early integration of the palliative care team, which improves quality of life and symptom control for many patients. Moreover, the median OS is longer with the incorporation of early palliative care despite reduced aggressive end-of-life care in these patients.14 Because both combination regimens were found to have increased rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events than their comparator arm (64% in FLAURA2 and 75% in MARIPOSA), additional considerations should be made to manage toxicity.8, 9 Supportive care to mitigate side effects from chemotherapy should be administered with the FLAURA2 regimen as clinically indicated, such as antinausea medications and granulocyte-colony–stimulating factor for neutropenia prophylaxis in patients with high risk. With the MARIPOSA regimen, significant efforts have been made to make the regimen more tolerable, with studies such as SKIPPirr (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05663866), which used steroids to minimize infusion reactions during initial infusion administration, as well as COCOON (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06120140), which combined oral antibiotics and topical agents to prevent dermatologic toxicities.15, 16 These supplemental therapies present their own challenges, such as polypharmacy, but should be taken in to account in the care of in any patient initiating treatment on amivantamab and lazertinib.

In addition to side effects, additional psychosocial stressors are important aspects of care as well. In choice of therapy, time toxicity varies greatly between the first-line regimens. The amount of time a patient has to interact with the health care system on an oral TKI is significantly less than with regular intravenous infusion treatments on the FLAURA2 regimen and, to an even a greater extent, with the MARIPOSA regimen. These long and frequent visits potentially affect time off work for patients and caregivers and may contribute to health care fatigue. Furthermore, financial toxicity is an important aspect of treatment. One recent study evaluated the comprehensive cost per patient for the first year of treatment with the MARIPOSA and FLAURA2 regimens, including the costs of treatment acquisition, administration, disease management, and adverse event management in patients with locally advanced or metastatic, EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated in the United States. The MARIPOSA regimen was identified as roughly three times the cost of the FLAURA2 regimen with both Medicare ($220,129 vs. $79,348) and private insurance ($662,200 vs. $235,709).17

In conclusion, with the evolving landscape of EGFR-directed therapies, there is no longer a clear first-line choice in the metastatic setting for EGFR-mutant NSCLC. A clinician must weigh efficacy with toxicity and actively support patients throughout their treatment journey. The outstanding review from Borgeaud and colleagues provides a high-yield reference for these treatment considerations as well as a plethora of other clinical scenarios that clinicians may face while treating patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Jyoti Malhotra reports personal/consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. Lauren J. Antrim disclosed no conflicts of interest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
873.20
自引率
0.10%
发文量
51
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians" has been published by the American Cancer Society since 1950, making it one of the oldest peer-reviewed journals in oncology. It maintains the highest impact factor among all ISI-ranked journals. The journal effectively reaches a broad and diverse audience of health professionals, offering a unique platform to disseminate information on cancer prevention, early detection, various treatment modalities, palliative care, advocacy matters, quality-of-life topics, and more. As the premier journal of the American Cancer Society, it publishes mission-driven content that significantly influences patient care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信