EGFR exon 20 insertions (Ex20Ins) account for 4% to 10% of EGFR activating mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). EGFR Ex20Ins tumors are generally unresponsive to first- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors, and current standard of care for NSCLC patients with EGFR Ex20Ins is conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. Therefore, the development of an EGFR TKI that can more effectively target NSCLC with EGFR Ex20Ins mutations represents a major advance for this patient subset. Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR TKI approved for the treatment of advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR T790M; however, the activity of osimertinib in EGFR Ex20Ins NSCLC has yet to be fully assessed. Using CRISPR-Cas 9 engineered cell lines carrying the most prevalent Ex20Ins mutations, namely Ex20Ins D770_N771InsSVD (22%) or Ex20Ins V769_D770InsASV (17%), and a series of patient-derived xenografts, we have characterized osimertinib and AZ5104 (a circulating metabolite of osimertinib) activities against NSCLC harboring Ex20Ins. We report that osimertinib and AZ5104 inhibit signaling pathways and cellular growth in Ex20Ins mutant cell lines and demonstrate sustained tumor growth inhibition of EGFR-mutant tumor xenograft harboring the most prevalent Ex20Ins The antitumor activity of osimertinib and AZ5104 in NSCLC harboring EGFR Ex20Ins is further described herein using a series of patient-derived xenograft models. Together these data support clinical testing of osimertinib in patients with EGFR Ex20Ins NSCLC. .

BackgroundL-BLP25 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapeutic agent is currently in phase III clinical trials for non-small cell lung cancer. Using a novel human MUC1 transgenic (hMUC1.Tg) lung cancer mouse model, we evaluated effects of L-BLP25 combined with low-dose cyclophosphamide (CPA) pretreatment on Th1/Th2 cytokine production and antitumor activity.MethodsA chemically-induced lung tumor model was developed in hMUC1.Tg C57BL/6 mice by administering 10 weekly 0.75-mg/g doses of the chemical carcinogen urethane by intraperitoneal injection. Serum cytokines associated with Th1/Th2 polarization and inflammation were measured by multiplex cytokine assay during tumorigenesis. Antitumor activity of L-BLP25 (10 μg) with CPA (100 mg/kg) pretreatment was evaluated following either one or two eight-week cycles of treatment by preparing lung whole mounts and counting tumor foci, and assessing IFN-γ production by ELISpot assay.ResultsDuring the carcinogenesis phase, no detectable Th1- or Th2-associated cytokine responses were observed, but levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were increased with distinctive kinetics. A single cycle of L-BLP25 consisting of eight weekly doses was ineffective, whereas adding a second cycle given during tumor progression showed a significant reduction in the incidence of tumor foci. Administering two cycles of L-BLP25 induced Th1 cytokines IL-12, IL-2 and IFNγ at 24 h after the last dose, while Th2 and inflammatory cytokines were elevated to a lesser extent.ConclusionsUrethane-induced lung tumors in hMUC1.Tg mice can be used as a model to assess the efficacy of the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapeutic agent L-BLP25. The results indicate that the antitumor response to L-BLP25 requires at least two cycles and pre-treatment with CPA. In addition, monitoring pro-inflammatory serum cytokines may be useful as a biomarker of L-BLP25 response. Taken together, the preclinical lung tumor model can be utilized for determining effective combinations of L-BLP25 with chemotherapy and/or other immunotherapies.

The goals of the present study were to define the effects of simultaneous cisplatin/tecemotide therapy on tumor development in a human mucin 1 (MUC1) transgenic lung cancer mouse model and to examine the effects of radiotherapy (RTX) on splenocytes, serum cytokines, and immune response to tecemotide. Two hundred twenty-six human MUC1 transgenic C57BL/6 mice were used in five studies designed to assess (i) serum cytokine and immune responses following four weekly 10-mg doses of tecemotide; (ii) the effects of simultaneous administration of cisplatin (2.5 mg/kg  2 doses/cycle  4 cycles) and tecemotide (2 cycles  8 weekly 10-mg doses/cycle) therapy on tumor development, serum cytokines, and immune response; (iii) the dose-response effects of RTX on lymphocyte counts 16 hours following doses of 2 to 8 Gy; (iv) the time course of lymphocyte recovery from 16 hours to 20 days following 8-Gy RTX; and (v) the effects of simultaneous administration of RTX (8 Gy) and tecemotide on the immune response to tecemotide (four weekly 10-mg doses). Serum cytokines were analyzed by multiplex immunoassay, IFNg immune responses by enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot), and lung tumor foci by lung whole mounts. Simultaneous cisplatin/tecemotide therapy resulted in significant and additive reduction in lung tumor foci compared with control mice, with significantly elevated serum IFNg levels and specific IFNg immune responses observed in both tecemotide and tecemotide þ cisplatin-treated mice. Finally, neither cisplatin nor radiation interfered with the immune response to tecemotide.

PURPOSE MET dysregulation is an oncogenic driver in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as well as a mechanism of TKI (tyrosine kinase inhibitor) resistance in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR)–mutated disease. This study was conducted to determine safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination EGFR and MET inhibitors as a strategy to overcome and/or delay EGFR-TKI resistance. METHODS A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation trial of capmatinib in combination with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive NSCLC was used. Eighteen patients in the dose-escalation cohort received 100-600 mg twice daily of capmatinib with 100-150 mg daily of erlotinib. There were two dose-expansion cohorts. Cohort A included 12 patients with EGFR-mutant tumors resistant to TKIs. Cohort B included five patients with EGFR wild-type tumors. The primary outcome was to assess safety and determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of the combination. RESULTS The most common adverse events of any grade were rash (62.9%), fatigue (51%), and nausea (45.7%). Capmatinib exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics combined with erlotinib, while showing no significant drug interactions. The RP2D was 400 mg twice daily capmatinib tablets with 150 mg daily erlotinib. The overall response rate (ORR) and DCR in dose-expansion cohort A was 50% and 50%, respectively. In cohort B, the ORR and disease control rate were 75% and 75%. CONCLUSION Capmatinib in combination with erlotinib demonstrated safety profiles consistent with prior studies. We observed efficacy in specific patient populations. Continued evaluation of capmatinib plus EGFR-TKIs is warranted in patients with EGFR activating mutations.