Abstract CT559: Capmatinib plus osimertinib vs platinum-pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy as second-line therapy in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV EGFR-mutant, T790M-negative NSCLC harboring MET amplification

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Abstract Background: MET amplification can arise as a bypass resistance mechanism to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and occurs in ~5-26% of EGFR TKI resistant EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These patients (pts) have limited treatment options, particularly in the EGFR T790M negative (T790M−) setting. Capmatinib, a MET inhibitor, is approved in more than 10 countries for the treatment of metastatic MET exon 14 skipping NSCLC. In preliminary studies, capmatinib plus EGFR TKIs showed antitumor activity in the post-EGFR TKI, EGFR-mutant NSCLC setting. GEOMETRY-E (NCT04816214) is a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of capmatinib + osimertinib vs platinum-pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy as second line treatment in the advanced NSCLC setting. Methods: This ongoing study began enrollment in September 2021 and is recruiting adult pts with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV EGFR-mutant, T790M−, MET-amplified NSCLC who had progressed on either 1st/2nd generation EGFR TKIs, osimertinib or other 3rd generation EGFR TKIs. Pts with neurologically unstable, symptomatic CNS metastases or those requiring increasing doses of steroids ≤2 weeks prior to study entry to manage CNS symptoms are ineligible. This is a 2-part study where Part 1 (initial run-in, ~10 pts) will confirm the recommended dose for the randomized Part 2 and evaluate the safety and tolerability of capmatinib + osimertinib. In Part 1, pts will receive oral capmatinib 400 mg twice daily + osimertinib 80 mg once daily in 21-day cycles. Part 2 will evaluate the efficacy and safety of capmatinib + osimertinib vs platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin)-pemetrexed. Part 2 will enroll ~225 pts, in 2:1 randomization, stratified by the presence of brain metastases (yes/no) and prior treatment with 3rd generation EGFR TKIs (yes/no). In Part 1, the primary endpoint is the incidence of dose limiting toxicities during the first 21 days of treatment. Secondary endpoints include safety; tolerability; pharmacokinetics (PK); investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), time to response (TTR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). In Part 2, the primary endpoint is blinded independent review committee (BIRC)-assessed PFS per RECIST 1.1. The key secondary endpoints are ORR by BIRC per RECIST 1.1 and overall intracranial response rate (OiRR) by BIRC per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (RANO-BM). Other secondary endpoints include DOR, TTR and DCR by BIRC; investigator-assessed PFS after next line of treatment; PK; safety; overall survival; patient-reported outcomes; intracranial DCR, duration of and time to intracranial response by BIRC per RANO-BM. Citation Format: Yi-Long Wu, Ji-Youn Han, Terufumi Kato, Fabrice Barlesi, Edward B. Garon, Federico Cappuzzo, Yuji Shibata, Nathalie Smith, Sadhvi Khanna, Riccardo Belli, Alejandro Yovine, Daniel Tan. Capmatinib plus osimertinib vs platinum-pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy as second-line therapy in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV EGFR-mutant, T790M-negative NSCLC harboring MET amplification [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT559.