Early irAEs are associated with a better outcome after treatment with immunotherapy. We predicted responses to nivolumab by using early irAEs. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of these associations.

IMPORTANCE Although treatment with first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus antiangiogenic inhibitor has shown promising efficacies in patients with EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma, recent single-arm studies have suggested that osimertinib plus antiangiogenic inhibitor might not work synergistically. OBJECTIVE To explore the efficacy and safety of osimertinib plus bevacizumab compared with osimertinib alone in patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR T790M mutation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma that progressed with prior EGFR-TKI treatment (other than third-generation TKI) and acquired EGFR T790M mutation were enrolled. This study comprises a lead-in part with 6 patients and a subsequent phase 2 part. In phase 2, patients were randomized to osimertinib plus bevacizumab or osimertinib alone in a 1:1 ratio. INTERVENTIONS The combination arm received oral osimertinib (80 mg, every day) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The control arm received osimertinib monotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by investigators. Secondary end points consisted of overall response rate, time to treatment failure, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS From August 2017 through September 2018, a total of 87 patients were registered (6 in the lead-in part and 81 in the phase 2 part [intention-to-treat population]). Among those randomized, the median (range) age was 68 (41-82) years; 33 (41%) were male; 37 (46%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0; and 21 (26%) had brain metastasis. Although the overall response rate was better with osimertinib plus bevacizumab than osimertinib alone (68% vs 54%), median PFS was not longer with osimertinib plus bevacizumab (9.4 months vs 13.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44; 80% CI, 1.00 to 2.08; P = .20). Median time to treatment failure was also shorter in the combination arm vs the osimertinib arm (8.4 months vs 11.2 months; P = .12). Median overall survival was not different in the combination arm vs osimertinib arm (not reached vs 22.1 months; P = .96). In the combination arm, common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were proteinuria (n = 9; 23%), hypertension (n = 8; 20%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial comparing osimertinib plus bevacizumab vs osimertinib alone, the combination arm failed to show prolongation of PFS in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR T790M mutation.

The study did not demonstrate noninferiority of gefitinib compared with erlotinib in terms of PFS in patients with lung adenocarcinoma according to the predefined criteria.

Different clones, protocol conditions, instruments, and scoring/readout methods may pose challenges in introducing different PD-L1 assays for immunotherapy. The diagnostic accuracy of using different PD-L1 assays interchangeably for various purposes is unknown. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to address PD-L1 assay interchangeability based on assay diagnostic accuracy for established clinical uses/purposes. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database using PubMed platform was conducted using “PD-L1” as a search term for 01/01/2015 to 31/08/2018, with limitations “English” and “human”. 2,515 abstracts were reviewed to select for original contributions only. 57 studies on comparison of two or more PD-L1 assays were fully reviewed. 22 publications were selected for meta-analysis. Additional data were requested from authors of 20/22 studies in order to enable the meta-analysis. Modified GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria were used for grading published evidence and designing data abstraction templates for extraction by reviewers. PRISMA was used to guide reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis and STARD 2015 for reporting diagnostic accuracy study. CLSI EP12-A2 was used to guide test comparisons. Data were pooled using random-effects model. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of various PD-L1 assays. The 22 included studies provided 376 2×2 contingency tables for analyses. Results of our study suggest that, when the testing laboratory is not able to use an Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic(s) for PD-L1 assessment for its specific clinical purpose(s), it is better to develop a properly validated laboratory developed test for the same purpose(s) as the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic, than to replace the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic with a another PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic that was developed for a different purpose.