Data from Comprehensive Genome Profiling in Patients With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Precision Medicine Phase II Randomized SAFIR02-Lung Trial

Stefan Michiels,Olivier Molinier,Hugues Morel,Alicia Tran-Dien,Nicolas Cloarec,Henri Janicot,Anne Madroszyk,Denis Moro-Sibilot,Fabrice Barlési ,Alexandra Jacquet,Maryam Karimi,Pierre-Jean Souquet,Benjamin Besse,Judith Raimbourg,Etienne Giroux-Leprieur,Alain Morel,Catherine Daniel,Ludovic Lacroix,Pascale Tomasini,François Chomy,Clarisse Audigier-Valette,Sandrine Boyault,Isabelle Soubeyran,Marta Jimenez,Josiane Otto,A Cortot ,Éric Pichon ,Filippo Gustavo Dall’olio ,Élisabeth Quoix ,Éric Dansin ,Julien Mazières ,Jean‐Charles Soria ,Ivan Bièche ,Valéry Attignon

doi:10.1158/1078-0432.c.6532554.v1

Abstract

<div>AbstractPurpose:Targeted therapies (TT) and immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have revolutionized the approach to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment in the era of precision medicine. Their impact as switch maintenance therapy based on molecular characterization is unknown.Patients and Methods:SAFIR02-Lung was an open-label, randomized, phase II trial, involving 33 centers in France. We investigated eight TT (substudy-1) and one ICB (substudy-2), compared with standard-of-care as a maintenance strategy in patients with advanced EGFR, ALK wild-type (wt) NSCLC without progression after first-line chemotherapy, based on high-throughput genome analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).Results:Among the 175 patients randomized in substudy-1, 116 received TT (selumetinib, vistusertib, capivasertib, AZD4547, AZD8931, vandetanib, olaparib, savolitinib) and 59 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6–2.9] with TT versus 2.7 months (1.6–4.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7–1.36; P = 0.87). There were no significant differences in PFS within any molecular subgroup. In substudy-2, 183 patients were randomized, 121 received durvalumab and 62 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 3.0 months (2.3–4.4) with durvalumab versus 3.0 months (2.0–5.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62–1.20; P = 0.38). Preplanned subgroup analysis showed an enhanced benefit with durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%, (n = 29; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11–0.75) as compared with PD-L1 <1% (n = 31; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.31–1.60; Pinteraction = 0.036).Conclusions:Molecular profiling can feasibly be implemented to guide treatment choice for the maintenance strategy in EGFR/ALK wt NSCLC; in this study it did not lead to substantial treatment benefits beyond durvalumab for PD-L1 ≥ 1 patients.</div>

Full Text