P1.01-92 Underlying Mechanisms That Potentially Affect Prognosis to EGFR-TKI in EGFR-Positive Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Y. Cheng,L. Ma,Y. Liu,Y. Xin,Y. Chen,J. Zhu,L. Zhang,C. Yang,C. Wu,T. Zhang,S. Wang,Z. Li,L. Bai,X. Mao,J. Lin,L. Shi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2019.08.807
IF: 20.121
2019-01-01
Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Abstract:Conventional detection methods cannot fully reflect the overall landscape of tumor, which misguide the use of targeted drugs and lead to poor prognosis. Here, based on the results of genomic profiling obtained by NGS, we interrogate the underlying mechanism of differential response to EGFR-TKI in EGFR-positive patients with lung cancer. 207 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) carrying EGFR_L858 or 19del (identified by conventional methods) from 7 clinical trials (such as FLAURA, CTONG1405 and CTONG1509) were enrolled. 457 plasma (n=335) or tissue (n=122) samples from baseline and follow-up points of the cohort were profiled using 168-/520-cancer-related gene panels. Molecular characteristics in patients with rapid progression (PFS<3 months, n=10) and durable response (PFS>24 months, n=6) to EGFR-TKI treatment were analyzed. The accuracy of NGS and conventional methods for identifying EGFR driver mutations in tissue samples was 97.1%, and that of driver mutation detection in plasma and tissue samples was 81.9%. Using NGS, several alterations at baseline that may potentially affect prognosis were identified, in addition to EGFR oncogenic mutations revealed by traditional methods. Ten patients progressed rapidly on EGFR-TKI therapy (no response, n=4; stable disease, SD, n=2; partial response, PR, n=4). Of the 4 patients who did not respond to EGFR-TKI, ALK fusion, NTRK fusion, MET amplification (METamp) and EGFR_E709A were identified at baseline using NGS. Of the 2 patients received SD, NGS revealed that one case carried mutations in TP53, PMS2, PALB2 and ARID1A, while another case carried TP53_R213* and ERBB2amp. As to the 4 patients achieved PR, NGS results showed that one patient carried TP53_R342* and EGFR_L62R; one patient with CDK4amp and RET pathogenic mutation; one patient had TP53_V216L, CDK4amp, ERBB2amp and EGFRamp; and another patient harbored CDK4amp. In contrast, of the 6 patients achieved durable response to EGFR-TKI, NGS revealed that 4 patients did not carry any alteration or well-established factor associated with poor prognosis other than EGFR driver mutations. The other 2 patients with TP53 mutation and EGFRamp received combination treatment of EGFR TKI and chemotherapy. NGS had good consistency with conventional methods in identifying EGFR-driver mutation. Compared with traditional methods, NGS can represent more comprehensive landscape of tumor and provide more reliable guidance for treatment. For patients with EGFR-driver mutations along with tumor suppressor or oncogene mutations, combination therapy of TKI and chemotherapy might be a better option than TKI alone. In addition, we revealed that EGFR_E709A and EGFR_L62R may be potential resistance mechanisms of EGFR TKI.