| Literature DB >> 35770100 |
Hong-Shuai Li1, Guang-Jian Yang2, Yi Cai3, Jun-Ling Li1, Hai-Yan Xu1, Tao Zhang1, Li-Qiang Zhou1, Yu-Ying Wang4, Jin-Liang Wang4, Xing-Sheng Hu1, Xiang Yan4, Yan Wang1.
Abstract
Objective: Dacomitinib has been approved for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring classical epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations; however, clinical evidence of its activity on major uncommon EGFR mutations is currently limited. Materials and methods: This was a dual-center, single-arm, ambispective cohort study in China. Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic or recurrent NSCLC harboring major uncommon EGFR mutations were eligible for the study. The objective response rate and disease control rate were determined by RECIST 1.1 every 1-2 months. Adverse events were assessed by CTCAE 5.0.Entities:
Keywords: dacomitinib; efficacy; major uncommon EGFR mutations; non-small cell lung cancer; safety
Year: 2022 PMID: 35770100 PMCID: PMC9234690 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.919652
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.988
Baseline characteristics (N = 32).
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
|
| 64 (41–83) |
|
| |
| Female | 20 (62.5) |
| Male | |
|
| |
| Current smoker | 10 (31.3) |
| Former smoker | |
| Never smoker | |
|
| |
| AC | 31 (96.9) |
| ASC | |
|
| |
| Relapsed | 9 (28.1) |
| IV | |
|
| |
| Yes | 15 (46.9) |
| No | |
|
| |
| <3 metastatic organs | 24 (75.0) |
| ≥3 metastatic organs | |
|
| |
| 0 | 8 (25.0) |
| 1 | 20 (62.5) |
| 2 | 4 (12.5) |
|
| |
| G719X | 24 (75) |
| G719A/C | 13 |
| G719A+L861Q | 2 |
| G719A+L861R | 1 |
| G719A+S768I | 2 |
| G719C+S768I | 4 |
| G719S+S768I | 2 |
| L861X | 10 (31.3) |
| L861Q | 7 |
| L861R | 1 |
| L861Q+G719A | 2 |
| S768I | 8 (25) |
| S768I+G719A | 2 |
| S768I+G719C | 4 |
| S768I+G719S | 2 |
|
| Median (range): 1 (1–6) |
| 1 | 18 (56.3) |
| 2 | 9 (28.1) |
| ≥3 | 5 (15.6) |
|
| |
| 45 mg | 9 (28.1) |
| 30 mg | 21 (65.6) |
| 15 mg | 2 (6.3) |
AC, adenocarcinoma; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.
* Uncommon mutation categories overlap with compound mutations, so each patient might belong to more than one group.
FIGURE 1Best shrinkage of target lesion size and corresponding mutation profile by patient (N = 32). (A) Treatment responses of dacomitinib in all 32 patients are shown in the waterfall plot. Patients with compound mutations and brain metastases were marked with colored pentagrams. *Brain metastases not evaluated due to patient’s poor condition. #The patients also received whole brain radiotherapy before dacomitinib initiation. Dashed lines represent 20% progression (progressive disease) and 30% tumor regression (partial response). (B) The corresponding mutation profile of each patient was displayed under the waterfall plot. CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; amp, amplification.
FIGURE 2Previous treatments before dacomitinib initiation and duration of dacomitinib treatment by patient (N = 32). (A) Treatment history of each patient was displayed. (B) Duration of dacomitinib treatment of each patient was demonstrated correspondingly. Afa, afatinib; Gefi, gefitinib; Erlo, erlotinib; Ico, icotinib; Osi, osimertinib; Chemo, chemotherapy; BRT, whole brain radiotherapy.
FIGURE 3Kaplan-Meier analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (N= 32). The Kaplan-Meier curves were shown for PFS (Figure 3A) and OS (Figure 3B). Significant difference was observed (p = 0.015) in the median PFS (mPFS) of patients treated with dacomitinib in different lines (Figure 3C). Significant unfavorable effect of brain metastases on PFS (p = 0.036) (Figure 3D) was shown. Patients harboring different mutation subtypes demonstrated different mPFS (Figures 3E,F), though no significant difference was observed. No significant difference between compound mutations and non-compound mutations groups was found (p = 0.879) (Figure 3G). Patients received different dacomitinib doses showed no different mPFS (p = 0.192) (Figure 3H).
Treatment responses and prognosis of different mutation subgroups.
| Mutation Subgroups | n | ORR (%) |
| DCR (%) |
| PFS (months) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.737 |
| 0.830 | ||||
| | 56.5 | 100 | 10.3 | ||||
| G719A/C | 13 | ||||||
| G719A/C/S+S768I | 8 | ||||||
| G719A+L861Q/R | 3 | ||||||
| | 44.4 | 66.7 | NR | ||||
| L861Q | 7 | ||||||
| L861Q+G719A | 2 | ||||||
| L861R | 1 | ||||||
| | 62.5 | 100 | 6.5 | ||||
| S768I+G719A/C/S | 8 | ||||||
|
| 0.325 | 0.269 | 0.665 | ||||
| | 66.7 | 100 | NR | ||||
| G719A/C | 7 | ||||||
| G719C/S+S768I | 4 | ||||||
| G719A+L861Q | 2 | ||||||
| | 50 | 83.3 | NR | ||||
| L861Q | 4 | ||||||
| L861Q+G719A | 2 | ||||||
| L861R | 1 | ||||||
| | 100 | 100 | NR | ||||
| S768I+G719C/S | 4 |
ORR, objective response rate; DCR, disease control rate; PFS, progression-free survival; NR, not reached. * p-value was calculated using the chi-squared test. # p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Uncommon mutation categories overlap with compound mutations, so each patient might belong to more than one group.
Bold font indicates a statistically significant difference.
FIGURE 4Enhanced MRI confirmed intracranial metastasis control before and after dacomitinib treatment in six representative patients. The patient number is consistent with Figure 1 but not Figure 2.
Treatment-emergent AEs (N = 32).
| AEs | G1 | G2 | G3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diarrhea | 20 (62.5) | 4 (12.5) | 2 (6.3) |
| Rash | 17 (53.1) | 9 (28.1) | 2 (6.3) |
| Oral mucositis | 13 (40.6) | 5 (15.6) | 2 (6.3) |
| Dry skin | 9 (28.1) | 3 (9.4) | 1 (3.1) |
| Paronychia | 5 (15.6) | 3 (9.4) | 0 |
| Nausea | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 |
| Hemorrhinia | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
Data are presented as n (%). AEs, adverse events. No grade 4–5 treatment-emergent AEs were observed.