Abstract
Background
This study aimed to evaluate possible treatment strategies for patients with de novo T790M mutation‐positive (T790M+) non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods
Patients diagnosed with de novo T790M+ NSCLC and treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR‐TKIs) between 2011 and 2018 at a regional hospital in Taiwan were retrospectively reviewed. Their clinicopathological characteristics and subsequent treatment information were collected, and potential prognostic factors were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results
All tumors with T790M mutations coexisted with sensitizing mutations. Through the last follow‐up in May 2021, afatinib and osimertinib demonstrated better progression‐free survival (PFS, p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS, p < 0.01) than gefitinib and erlotinib. Additionally, patients with low T790M ratios had better PFS than those with high T790M ratios, implying that the proportion of T790M+ tumors determined the response to EGFR‐TKIs. Multivariate analysis confirmed that both EGFR‐TKI treatment (osimertinib hazard ratio [HR] 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01–0.30; afatinib HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–0.39) and a low T790M ratio (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12–0.69) were independently favorable prognostic factors for patients with de novo T790M+ NSCLC. Median PFS was 6.1 (95% CI 4.4–7.8) months. In addition, patients treated with first‐generation (1G)/second‐generation (2G) EGFR‐TKIs followed by osimertinib (n = 8) demonstrated the best OS compared with patients treated with frontline osimertinib (n = 5) or 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs without osimertinib (n = 28, p < 0.01).
Conclusion
Sequential TKIs may represent an alternative option for de novo T790M mutation, particularly frontline afatinib and tumors with low T790M ratios.
Keywords: afatinib, lung cancer, osimertinib, T790M mutation
Patients with high T790M ratios had better progression‐free survival than patients with low T790M ratios. Osimertinib, afatinib, and low T790M ratios were favorable prognostic factors. Patients with a particularly low de novo T790M mutation ratio should be treated by afatinib followed by osimertinib rather than frontline osimertinib. A subclone of T790M mutation tumors may influence the response to EGFR‐TKIs.
INTRODUCTION
Molecular targeting using epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR‐TKIs), including first‐generation (1G) TKIs, such as gefitinib and erlotinib, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 second‐generation (2G) TKIs, such as afatinib and dacomitinib, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and the third‐generation (3G) TKI, osimertinib, 9 , 10 have become the first‐line treatment for patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor activating EGFR mutations (EGFRm+). 11 , 12 In patients with T790M mutation, the amino acid at position 790, typically a threonine residue, is replaced by a methionine, thereby reducing the binding affinity of TKI to EGFR. 13 The acquired T790M mutation represents a major resistance mechanism that develops in more than half of NSCLC patients undergoing treatment with 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs. 14 Osimertinib was developed to overcome the T790M resistance mutation and is selective for both EGFR‐TKI sensitizing mutations and T790M resistance mutations, with demonstrated activity in patients who acquired T790M mutations following previous EGFR‐TKI treatment. 15
In contrast to the acquired T790M mutation, de novo T790M mutations are found in treatment‐naïve NSCLC, and the frequency of de novo T790M mutations depends on the sensitivity of the methods used for mutation detection. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 Osimertinib may be considered the first‐line choice for treatment in patients with a de novo T790M mutation. In the AURA study, which examined the effects of first‐line osimertinib treatment in EGFRm+ NSCLC, six of the seven patients (harboring the L858R mutation) with de novo T790M demonstrated a partial response (PR), the duration of response ranging from 6.9 to 27.7 months. 20 However, in the IPASS study, five patients with de novo T790M mutation were treated with the 1G TKI gefitinib. Of them, three (60%) (harboring L858R) achieved PR, one (20%) achieved stable disease (SD, harboring the exon 19 deletion), and one (20%) experienced progressive disease (PD, no additional mutation), implying that a compound T790M mutation might be sensitive to EGFR‐TKIs other than osimertinib. 21 Although previous studies showed that the presence of a de novo T790M mutation was associated with worse progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC treated with 1G 16 , 22 , 23 , 24 and 2G 25 , 26 EGFR‐TKIs, most of these studies were performed prior to the development of osimertinib. Osimertinib treatment may be associated with better PFS than 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs but may not be advantageous over 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs in terms of OS due to the ability to use osimertinib in patients who progress following 1G/2G EGFR‐TKI treatment.
Previous studies have demonstrated conflicting results, and no direct comparison has been performed among EGFR‐TKIs due to the low prevalence of the de novo T790M mutation. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of different EGFR‐TKIs in de novo T790M mutation‐positive (T790M+) NSCLC patients to identify an alternative therapeutic strategy for the de novo T790M mutation.
METHODS
Patients and data collection
Patient data were obtained from the Cancer Registry System using the Chang Gung Research Database, 27 an integrated and comprehensive database comprising multi‐institutional, standardized, and electronic medical records from all Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals (CGMHs) in Taiwan. A total of 44 de novo T790M+ NSCLC patients were identified who received EGFR‐TKI treatment from January 2011 to January 2018. Patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy, concurrent bevacizumab, and second‐line systemic or neoadjuvant treatments were excluded. The EGFR mutation status was retrospectively reviewed.
The clinical data of 44 patients who received EGFR‐TKIs as the first‐line treatment were retrospectively reviewed. Furthermore, the clinicopathological features, including age, sex, smoking history, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, tumor involvement, EGFR mutation, such as concurrent exon 19 deletion, L858R, or uncommon mutation, tumor response, and subsequent treatment, were obtained. The last follow‐up time point collected in this study was May 2021.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of CGMH (201901395B0). Patient consent to participate was not required due to the retrospective nature of this study.
EGFR mutation detection
Sanger sequencing was the only method for detecting EGFR mutation prior to 2012. The development of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) increased the sensitivity of EGFR mutation detection, and after 2012 most patients' EGFR mutations have been detected using ARMS, such as QIAGEN and TaqMan assays unless the physicians required other methods. Using ARMS, delta CT (dCT) values could be obtained for T790M and other sensitizing mutations. Differences in the dCT values for the T790M mutation and sensitizing mutations (i.e. dCT [T790M] − dCT [sensitizing mutation]) indicated the ratio between the T790M mutation and other EGFR sensitizing mutations (T790M ratio) within the tumor sample. For more than two sensitizing mutations detected within the same tumor, the mutation with lower dCT was used as the reference. Due to the relatively low sensitivity of Sanger sequencing, any T790M mutation detected by Sanger sequencing was categorized as having a high T790M ratio in the present study. The present study evaluated the prognostic value of the T790M ratio for estimating PFS. The T790M ratio was found to be relatively variable, therefore it was classified into two subgroups, high and low T790M ratio, according to the median value.
Treatment and response evaluation
All patients were administered EGFR‐TKIs once daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The tumor response was evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria. The best clinical tumor response was recorded based on the radiological findings: the complete response (CR), PR, SD, or progressive disease (PD). Any tumor response that was not assessed before death or discontinuation due to intolerance was recorded as not assessed (NA). The objective response rate (ORR) was the sum of CR and PR, and the disease control rate (DCR) was the sum of CR, PR, and SD. In the survival analysis, PFS was defined as the duration from the first day of EGFR‐TKI treatment until the first radiological evidence of disease progression, EGFR‐TKI discontinuance due to toxicity or other reasons, death, or the latest follow‐up time point. Those patients who experienced no progression or death during the treatment were censored during PFS analysis. Patients with radiological progression or death within 1 month after EGFR‐TKI discontinuation and who received no sequential treatment were counted as an event. OS was defined as the duration from the first day of EGFR‐TKI treatment until the date of death or the last follow‐up. Data of patients who did not experience death were censored during survival analysis.
Statistical analyses
The PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log‐rank test. Univariate analysis was performed to evaluate possible prognostic factors, including age, sex, staging, T790M ratio, ECOG PS, smoking history, and tumor involvement. Multivariate analysis was performed, including all variables with p < 0.1 on univariate analysis, to evaluate the independent prognostic factors. The results are presented as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) based on Cox regression analyses. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 23.0, Armonk) was used to perform all statistical analyses, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. We used the R packages “survival” and “survminer” to plot the survival curves.
RESULTS
Patient characteristics
A total of 2420 patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC treated with frontline EGFR‐TKIs were reviewed. Among them, 2190 (90.5%) patients had a common mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations), 186 (7.7%) had an uncommon mutation other than T790M, and 44 (1.8%) had de novo T790M mutation. The de novo T790M mutations were detected using the AMRS (23 by QIAGEN, 15 by TaqMan) in 38 patients, the cobas® EGFR Mutation Test in one patient, Sanger sequencing in four patients, and an unknown assay in one.
A total of 44 patients with T790M mutation retained for this study had a mean age of 71 years, and 32 (72.7%) patients were women. All but one patient presented metastatic NSCLC (stage IV). Among this population, 21 (47.7%), six (13.6%), 12 (27.3%), and five (11.4%) patients were treated with gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib, respectively, as first‐line treatments. Patients who received osimertinib and erlotinib were more likely to have experienced metastasis to the brain (p = 0.032; Table 1) prior to treatment. The ORR and DCR were 31.8% and 52.3%, respectively. Afatinib (ORR 50.0%, DCR 83.3%) and osimertinib (ORR 60.0%, DCR 80.0%) had numerically higher ORR and DCR than gefitinib (ORR 19.0%, DCR 38%) and erlotinib (ORR 16.7%, DCR, 16.7%); however, statistical significance was not noted due to limited sample size.
TABLE 1.
Baseline characteristics
| Variables | All patients (n = 44) | Gefitinib (n = 21) | Erlotinib (n = 6) | Afatinib (n = 12) | Osimertinib (n = 5) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 71 (18) | 70 (17) | 74.5 (34) | 68 (19) | 75 (23) | 0.788 |
| <70 | 21 (47.7) | 11 (52.4) | 2 (33.3) | 6 (50.0) | 2 (40.0) | 0.885 |
| ≥70 | 23 (52.3) | 10 (47.6) | 4 (66.7) | 6 (50.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| Sex | 0.847 | |||||
| Male | 12 (27.3) | 6 (28.6) | 1 (16.7) | 3 (25.0) | 2 (40.0) | |
| Female | 32 (72.7) | 15 (71.4) | 5 (83.3) | 9 (75.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| ECOG PS | 0.644 | |||||
| 0–1 | 30 (68.2) | 15 (71.4) | 3 (50.0) | 9 (75.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| 2–4 | 14 (31.8) | 6 (28.6) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (25.0) | 2 (40.0) | |
| Smoking status | 0.408 | |||||
| Ever | 9 (20.5) | 3 (14.3) | 2 (33.3) | 2 (16.7) | 2 (40.0) | |
| Never | 35 (79.5) | 18 (85.7) | 4 (66.7) | 10 (83.3) | 3 (60.0) | |
| Mutation type | 0.563 | |||||
| Del19 | 7 (15.9) | 3 (14.3) | 1 (16.7) | 2 (16.7) | 1 (20.0) | |
| L858R | 8 (18.2) | 5 (23.8) | 2 (33.3) | 1 (8.3) | 0 | |
| L858R/Del19 | 24 (54.5) | 12 (57.1) | 3 (50.0) | 7 (58.3) | 2 (40.0) | |
| Others | 5 (11.4) | 1 (4.8) | 0 | 2 (16.7) | 2 (40.0) | |
| Metastatic sites | ||||||
| Lung | 21 (47.7) | 10 (47.6) | 4 (66.7) | 5 (41.7) | 2 (40.0) | 0.813 |
| Liver | 4 (9.1) | 2 (9.5) | 1 (16.7) | 0 | 1 (20.0) | 0.300 |
| Brain | 10 (22.7) | 3 (14.3) | 3 (50.0) | 1 (8.3) | 3 (60.0) | 0.032 |
| Bone | 21 (47.7) | 10 (47.6) | 4 (66.7) | 5 (41.7) | 2 (40.0) | 0.813 |
| Pleura | 26 (59.1) | 15 (71.4) | 4 (66.7) | 6 (50.0) | 1 (20.0) | 0.194 |
| T790M ratio | 0.082 | |||||
| ≥Median | 21 (47.7) | 12 (57.1) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (25.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| <Median | 20 (45.5) | 8 (38.1) | 1 (16.7) | 9 (75.0) | 2 (40.0) | |
| Unknown | 3 (6.8) | 1 (4.8) | 2 (33.3) | 0 | 0 | |
| Response | 0.128 | |||||
| PR | 14 (31.8) | 4 (19.0) | 1 (16.7) | 6 (50.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| SD | 9 (20.5) | 4 (19.0) | 0 | 4 (33.3) | 1 (20.0) | |
| PD | 15 (34.1) | 10 (47.6) | 3 (50.0) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (20.0) | |
| NA | 6 (13.6) | 3 (14.3) | 2 (33.3) | 1 (8.3) | 0 | |
| Subsequential treatment | ||||||
| Chemotherapy | 20 (45.5) | 12 (57.1) | 2 (33.3) | 4 (33.3) | 2 (40.0) | 0.559 |
| Osimertinib | 9 (20.5) | 3 (14.3) | 0 | 5 (41.7) | 1 (20.0) | 0.166 |
| 1G/2G TKIs | 10 (22.7) | 5 (23.8) | 1 (16.7) | 2 (16.7) | 2 (40.0) | 0.786 |
| Bevacizumab | 3 (6.8) | 1 (4.8) | 0 | 0 | 2 (40.0) | 0.051 |
| Immunotherapy | 1 (2.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (20.0) | 0.114 |
Note: Data are presented as the number (percentage) unless otherwise stated.
Abbreviations: 1G/2G TKIs, first‐generation/second‐generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; IQR, interquartile range; NA, not assessed; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.
Influence of TKIs and other variables on PFS
On an individual basis, the TKI used and the T790M ratio were significantly associated with PFS (all p < 0.05). Patients who received afatinib (median PFS 21.4 months, 95% CI 3.5–39.3 months) and osimertinib (median PFS 5.1 months, 95% CI 4.8–5.5 months) had significantly longer PFS than patients who received erlotinib (median PFS 2.2 months, 95% CI 1.9–2.5 months, p = 0.002; Figure 1a). Furthermore, patients whose T790M ratio was lower than the median (low T790M ratio, median PFS 6.1 months, 95% CI 4.4–7.8 months) were less likely to experience disease progression than those with a high T790M ratio (median PFS 2.1 months, 95% CI 1.3–2.8 months, p = 0.037; Figure 1b).
FIGURE 1.
Kaplan–Meier curves showing progression‐free survival (PFS) for a group of 44 patients treated with different epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR‐TKIs) (a) and based on the T790M ratio (b). The survival curves were compared across the groups using the log‐rank test. The vertical dotted lines represent the median time to disease progression
On multivariate regression, after enrolling factors with p value <0.1 according to the univariate analysis, TKI, T790M ratio, and liver metastasis were independently associated with PFS. Patients who received afatinib (adjusted HR [AHR] 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–0.39, p = 0.001) and osimertinib (AHR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01–0.30, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with lower risks of disease progression relative to the patients who received erlotinib. Similarly, patients with a low T790M ratio were less likely to experience disease progression than those with a high T790M ratio (AHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12–0.69, p = 0.005). Moreover, patients with no liver metastasis had a reduced risk of disease progression compared with those who experienced liver metastasis (AHR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.69, p = 0.010; Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of progression‐free survival
| Variables | Total no. | Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (months) | 95% CI of median | p value | HR (95% CI) | p value | ||
| Age (years) | 0.976 | |||||
| <70 | 21 | 5.09 | 1.16–9.03 | |||
| ≥70 | 23 | 4.60 | 2.06–7.14 | |||
| Sex | 0.531 | |||||
| Male | 12 | 5.0 | 2.2–7.7 | |||
| Female | 32 | 4.6 | 1.4–7.8 | |||
| ECOG PS | 0.524 | |||||
| 0–1 | 30 | 5.0. | 2.3–7.6 | |||
| 2–4 | 14 | 3.5 | 0.1–7.2 | |||
| Smoking status | 0.175 | |||||
| Ever | 9 | 5.0 | 1.4–8.5 | |||
| Never | 35 | 5.1 | 2.3–7.8 | |||
| Mutation type | 0.102 | |||||
| Del19 | 7 | 6.1 | 3.2–8.9 | |||
| L858R | 8 | 1.7 | 0.5–2.9 | |||
| L858R/Del19 | 24 | 5.1 | 2.1–8.1 | |||
| Others | 5 | 5.1 | 0.1–15.2 | |||
| Lung metastasis | 0.206 | |||||
| Yes | 21 | 4.6 | 0.8–8.4 | |||
| No | 23 | 5.3 | 1.8–8.8 | |||
| Liver metastasis | 0.074 | |||||
| Yes | 4 | 2.0 | 0.1–4.4 | Reference | ||
| No | 40 | 5.1 | 3.0–7.2 | 0.21 (0.06–0.69) | 0.010 | |
| Brain metastasis | 0.379 | |||||
| Yes | 10 | 6.1 | 4.1–8.1 | |||
| No | 34 | 3.5 | 0.9–6.1 | |||
| Bone metastasis | 0.848 | |||||
| Yes | 21 | 4.6 | 2.0–7.2 | |||
| No | 23 | 5.1 | 1.3–8.9 | |||
| Pleural metastasis | 0.100 | |||||
| Yes | 26 | 2.5 | 0.1–5.4 | |||
| No | 18 | 5.1 | 0.1–14.5 | |||
| T790M ratio | 0.037 | |||||
| ≥Median | 21 | 2.1 | 1.3–2.8 | Reference | ||
| <Median | 20 | 6.1 | 4.4–7.8 | 0.29 (0.12–0.69) | 0.005 | |
| Unknown | 3 | 6.4 | 0.1–13.5 | 0.11 (0.03–0.48) | 0.003 | |
| TKI | 0.002 | |||||
| Gefitinib | 21 | 3.0 | 1.3–4.6 | 0.52 (0.19–1.47) | 0.216 | |
| Erlotinib | 6 | 2.2 | 1.9–2.5 | Reference | ||
| Afatinib | 12 | 21.4 | 3.5–39.3 | 0.09 (0.02–0.39) | 0.001 | |
| Osimertinib | 5 | 5.1 | 4.8–5.5 | 0.06 (0.01–0.30) | <0.001 | |
| Response | <0.0001 | – | ||||
| PR | 14 | 7.6 | 0.1–15.7 | |||
| SD | 9 | 11.2 | 2.2–20.3 | |||
| PD | 15 | 2.1 | 1.4–2.7 | |||
| NA | 6 | 1.2 | 0.1–2.3 | |||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR, hazard ratio; NA, not assessed; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
Influence of TKIs and other variables on OS
TKI, sex, smoking status, and ECOG PS were individually associated with OS in the univariate regression analysis. Patients treated with afatinib (median OS 22.4 months, 95% CI 1.7–43.2 months), osimertinib (median OS 23.0 months, 95% CI 8.9–37.1 months), and gefitinib (median OS 12.2 months, 95% CI 6.0–18.3 months) were significantly associated with a lower risk of death compared with those treated with erlotinib (median OS 2.2 months, 95% CI 0.1–6.0 months, p = 0.002) (Figure 2a). Male sex, smoking, and ECOG PS of 2–4 were associated with a higher risk of death (all p < 0.05). Unlike the contribution of the T790M ratio to PFS, the T790M ratio had no impact on OS (Figure 2b; log‐rank p = 0.5).
FIGURE 2.
Kaplan–Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) for a group of 41 patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR‐TKIs) (a) and based on the T790M ratio (b). The survival curves were compared across the groups using the log‐rank test. The vertical dotted lines represent the median time to death
Including all factors with a p value <0.1 according to the univariate analysis, TKI, ECOG PS, and lung metastasis were independently associated with OS after adjusting for smoking status and sex in the multivariate regression analysis. Patients treated with afatinib (AHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07–0.81, p = 0.022) and osimertinib (AHR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.8, p = 0.025) were significantly associated with lower risks of death, whereas those with lung metastasis (AHR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19–0.92, p = 0.029) and ECOG PS of 2–4 (AHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14–0.74, p = 0.007) were significantly associated with a higher risk of death after adjusting for potential confounders (Table 3).
TABLE 3.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival
| Variables | Total no. | Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (months) | 95% CI of median | p value | HR (95% CI) | p value | ||
| Age (years) | 0.510 | |||||
| <70 | 21 | 12.9 | 9.7–16.1 | |||
| ≥70 | 23 | 14.9 | 4.4–25.4 | |||
| Sex | 0.042 | |||||
| Male | 12 | 5.2 | 0.1–13.8 | 0.45 (0.12–1.67) | 0.233 | |
| Female | 32 | 14.9 | 5.8–24.0 | Reference | ||
| ECOG PS | 0.002 | |||||
| 0–1 | 30 | 19.8 | 9.3–30.4 | 0.32 (0.14–0.74) | 0.007 | |
| 2–4 | 14 | 7.8 | 0.1–18.5 | Reference | ||
| Smoking status | 0.049 | |||||
| Ever | 9 | 5.2 | 4.9–5.5 | Reference | ||
| Never | 35 | 15.3 | 10.3–20.3 | 0.61 (0.15–2.43) | 0.483 | |
| Mutation type | 0.281 | |||||
| Del19 | 7 | 22.4 | 15.1–29.8 | |||
| L858R | 8 | 2.9 | 0.4–5.3 | |||
| L858R/Del19 | 24 | 12.9 | 8.2–17.6 | |||
| Others | 5 | 5.1 | 0.1–17.3 | |||
| Lung metastasis | 0.052 | |||||
| Yes | 21 | 12.7 | 6.7–18.8 | Reference | ||
| No | 23 | 15.3 | 3.2–27.3 | 0.42 (0.19–0.92) | 0.029 | |
| Liver metastasis | 0.105 | |||||
| Yes | 4 | 2.0 | 0.1–4.5 | |||
| No | 40 | 13.2 | 9.4–17.0 | |||
| Brain metastasis | 0.642 | |||||
| Yes | 10 | 12.9 | 8.0–17.7 | |||
| No | 34 | 12.7 | 5.8–19.6 | |||
| Bone metastasis | 0.475 | |||||
| Yes | 21 | 14.9 | 7.1–22.7 | |||
| No | 23 | 12.7 | 8.0–17.4 | |||
| Pleural metastasis | 0.242 | |||||
| Yes | 26 | 12.7 | 8.9–16.5 | |||
| No | 18 | 15.3 | 4.9–25.6 | |||
| T790M ratio | 0.773 | |||||
| ≥Median | 21 | 5.2 | 0.1–15.6 | |||
| <Median | 20 | 19.6 | 12.5–26.6 | |||
| Unknown | 3 | 12.9 | 0.1–30.2 | |||
| TKI | ||||||
| Gefitinib | 21 | 12.2 | 6.0–18.3 | 0.002 | 0.61 (0.22–1.74) | 0.355 |
| Erlotinib | 6 | 2.2 | 0.1–6.0 | Reference | ||
| Afatinib | 12 | 22.4 | 1.7–43.2 | 0.23 (0.07–0.81) | 0.022 | |
| Osimertinib | 5 | 23.0 | 8.9–37.1 | 0.21 (0.06–0.83) | 0.025 | |
| Response | <0.0001 | – | ||||
| PR | 14 | 22.4 | 8.0–36.8 | |||
| SD | 9 | 16.4 | 13.1–19.7 | |||
| PD | 15 | 4.7 | 3.1–6.3 | |||
| NA | 6 | 1.2 | 0.1–2.7 | |||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR, hazard ratio; NA, not assessed; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
Subsequent osimertinib after first‐line treatment
Through the most recent follow‐up, only one patient treated with afatinib was found to remain on first‐line treatment, characterized as PR and progression‐free for 43.5 months. Osimertinib is the standard treatment for patients with acquired T790M, and eight patients received subsequent osimertinib, whereas 28 patients did not receive subsequent osimertinib. Two patients had unknown subsequent treatments due to loss to follow‐up during first‐line treatment.
Further analysis of OS was performed according to subsequent treatment. Patients who received subsequent osimertinib treatment following 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs (median OS 37.3 months, 95% CI 35.0–not reached, NR) had longer OS than patients without subsequent osimertinib (median OS 23.0 months, 95% CI 16.4–NR) and patients treated with osimertinib alone (median OS 8.2 months, 95% CI 3.9–13.2, p < 0.001).
DISCUSSION
In the present study, 44 patients with de novo T790M+ NSCLC treated with EGFR‐TKIs were retrospectively reviewed. Both afatinib and osimertinib demonstrated compatible clinical activities based on ORR, DCR, and PFS analyses. In addition, the T790M ratio was significantly associated with PFS in de novo T790M+ NSCLC patients treated with EGFR‐TKIs, implying that a subclone of T790M mutation tumors influenced the response to EGFR‐TKIs. Furthermore, patients who received sequential treatment (1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs followed by osimertinib) experienced better survival than patients who received frontline line osimertinib or 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs without subsequent osimertinib treatment.
The rate of de novo T790M mutation detection depends on the sensitivity of the methods used for mutation detection. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 A meta‐analysis by Chen et al., 19 including 15 observational studies and three randomized controlled trials, analyzed and classified all reported detection methods into three categories based on the detection limit. Low‐sensitivity methods with T790M detection limits ≥5%, such as direct sequencing/ARMS, present a pooled detection rate of 3.92%. In contrast, intermediate‐sensitivity methods with detection limits of T790M equal to 0.1%–5% present a pooled detection rate of 27.62%, while high‐sensitivity methods with detection limits of T790M < 0.1% display the pooled detection rate of 63.99%. These findings imply that more than half of all EGFRm+ NSCLC tumors are likely to harbor an extremely low proportion (<0.1%) of T790M mutations even before EGFR‐TKI treatment. Although previous studies have shown that de novo T790M mutation is associated with worse PFS and OS in patients with advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC treated with 1G EGFR‐TKIs, 22 , 23 , 28 not all patients have exhibited no response to 1G EGFR‐TKIs. In a study including 95 patients from the EURTAC trial, T790M has been detected using a highly sensitive method based on laser microdissection and peptide‐nucleic acid‐clamping PCR in 65.26% of patients. Although patients with a concurrent de novo T790M mutation have significantly shorter PFS than those without the T790M mutation (9.7 vs. 15.8 months, p = 0.0185), 28 the response rates are 47.1% versus 68.75% for patients with and without T790M mutation, respectively, suggesting that some patients with very low frequency of T790M mutations can benefit with erlotinib treatment.
Although osimertinib can target both T790M and EGFR‐sensitizing mutations, the activity of osimertinib against EGFR sensitizing mutations may not be as good as 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs. 29 , 30 In 33 treatment‐naïve NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib, the T790M ratio assessed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in tumors has been shown to correlate with the osimertinib response, and patients with higher T790M ratios have a longer treatment history than those with lower T790M ratios. 31 In 111 NSCLC patients with acquired T790M mutation treated with osimertinib after progression on 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs, the T790M ratio assessed by ddPCR has shown a significant correlation with the osimertinib response. 32 A similar study reported that a high T790M ratio, as determined by next‐generation sequencing (NGS), is associated with better osimertinib outcomes than a low T790M ratio.33 These findings suggest that a high T790M ratio may represent a good prognostic factor for patients with either de novo or acquired T790M mutations, indicating that osimertinib may be more active for T790M mutations than EGFR‐sensitizing mutations, consistent with the findings from in vitro cell lines. 29 , 30
Therefore, a current dilemma is whether frontline osimertinib or 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs represent a better treatment for de novo T790M+ NSCLC patients. The latter treatment could present the opportunity for switching to osimertinib following progression on previous EGFR‐TKI treatment and lead to the best survival outcome, based on the results from our cohort (Figure 3). Theoretically, a T790M mutation should exist in tumors that progress after 1G/2G EGFR‐TKI treatment because of little TKI activity in the presence of the T790M mutation. Therefore, patients with a de novo T790M mutation, particularly patients with a low T790M ratio, should be treated using sequential TKIs (afatinib followed by osimertinib) rather than frontline osimertinib, based on the results of the present study (Figures 1 and 3).
FIGURE 3.
Kaplan–Meier curves showing progression‐free survival (PFS) (a) and overall survival (OS) (b) for a group of 41 patients based on the use of osimertinib as the first‐line treatment, as a subsequent treatment, or not at all. The survival curves were compared across the groups using the log‐rank test. The vertical dotted lines represent the median time to progression or death
This study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study enrolling limited cases, which also reflected the relative rarity of de novo T790M detection when using traditional detection methods in clinical practice. Second, limited cases treated with frontline osimertinib were included because osimertinib has only been available for the last few years and is not reimbursed by Taiwan national health insurance. Third, the T790M ratio was only a relative value estimated using ARMS, a semiquantitative method of detection; the T790M ratio evaluation using more sensitive methods, such as NGS or ddPCR (quantitative methods), is important and is warranted in the future. Fourth, only five and eight patients received osimertinib as frontline and subsequential treatment, respectively; hence, the survival benefit should be interpreted with caution. In addition, patients treated with frontline osimertinib tended to have brain metastasis, which might lead to worse OS than patients without brain metastasis. However, despite these limitations, this study was able to provide an alternative view based on the clinical findings when treating de novo T790M mutations with treatments other than osimertinib.
Our study provided evidence that sequential treatment with 1G/2G EGFR‐TKIs followed by osimertinib was effective in de novo T790M+ NSCLC patients. Afatinib was the best choice among the EGFK‐TKIs, particularly for patients with a low T790M ratio (Figure 4).
FIGURE 4.
A proposed model of the treatment strategy for non‐small‐cell lung cancer harboring a de novo T790M mutation. For tumors with a low T790M ratio, treatment with second‐generation (2G) epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR‐TKIs) followed by third‐generation (3G) EGFR‐TKIs is recommended. In contrast, for tumors with a high T790M ratio, frontline 3G EGFR‐TKI treatment might be suitable
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the Chang Gung Research Database and was supported by grants from the Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CIRPG3H0061~2 and CORPG3J0151~2 to J.W‐C.C.; CMRPG3J0971~3, CRRPG3K0021~2, NMRPG3K6201~3, and CMRPG3K0601 to C‐E.W.]. The funding sources had no involvement in the preparation of the article or research procedure. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Nova Journal Experts.
Chang JW‐C, Huang C‐Y, Fang Y‐F, Chang C‐F, Yang C‐T, Kuo C‐HS, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for de novo T790M mutation: A retrospective study of 44 patients. Thorac Cancer. 2022;13:1888–1897. 10.1111/1759-7714.14272
Funding information Chang Gung Research Database; Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Grant/Award Numbers: CIRPG3H0061~2, CORPG3J0151~2, CMRPG3J0971~3, CRRPG3K0021~2, NMRPG3K6201~3, CMRPG3K0601
Contributor Information
John Wen‐Cheng Chang, Email: wen1902@hotmail.com.
Chen‐Yang Huang, Email: 9202070@cgmh.org.tw.
Yueh‐Fu Fang, Email: yuehfu.fang@cgmh.org.tw.
Ching‐Fu Chang, Email: mr0826@cgmh.org.tw.
Cheng‐Ta Yang, Email: 8902049@cgmh.org.tw.
Chih‐Hsi Scott Kuo, Email: r5245@cgmh.org.tw.
Ping‐Chih Hsu, Email: 8902049@cgmh.org.tw.
Chiao‐En Wu, Email: jiaoen@gmail.com.
REFERENCES
- 1. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Sugawara S, Oizumi S, Isobe H, et al. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non‐small‐cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2380–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, Feng J, Liu XQ, Wang C, et al. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first‐line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG‐0802): a multicentre, open‐label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:735–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A, Massuti B, Felip E, et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first‐line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open‐label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;12:239–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y, Negoro S, Okamoto I, Tsurutani J, et al. Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:121–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, O'Byrne K, Hirsh V, Mok T, et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Wu YL, Zhou C, Hu CP, Feng J, Lu S, Huang Y, et al. Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first‐line treatment of Asian patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX‐Lung 6): an open‐label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:213–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Park K, Tan EH, O'Byrne K, Zhang L, Boyer M, Mok T, et al. Afatinib versus gefitinib as first‐line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer (LUX‐Lung 7): a phase 2B, open‐label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:577–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Wu YL, Cheng Y, Zhou X, Lee KH, Nakagawa K, Niho S, et al. Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first‐line treatment for patients with EGFR‐mutation‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open‐label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1454–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, Reungwetwattana T, Chewaskulyong B, Lee KH, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR‐mutated advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:113–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Ramalingam SS, Vansteenkiste J, Planchard D, Cho BC, Gray JE, Ohe Y, et al. Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR‐mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:41–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, Gurubhagavatula S, Okimoto RA, Brannigan BW, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non‐small‐cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2129–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, Saijo N, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin‐paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:947–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Kobayashi S, Boggon TJ, Dayaram T, Jänne PA, Kocher O, Meyerson M, et al. EGFR mutation and resistance of non‐small‐cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:786–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Wu SG, Chiang CL, Liu CY, Wang CC, Su PL, Hsia TC, et al. An observational study of acquired EGFR T790M‐dependent resistance to EGFR‐TKI treatment in lung adenocarcinoma patients in Taiwan. Front Oncol. 2020;10:1481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Mok TS, Wu Y‐L, Ahn M‐J, Garassino MC, Kim HR, Ramalingam SS, et al. Osimertinib or platinum‐pemetrexed in EGFR T790M‐positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:629–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Yu HA, Arcila ME, Hellmann MD. Poor response to erlotinib in patients with tumors containing baseline EGFR T790M mutations found by routine clinical molecular testing. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:423–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Fujita Y, Suda K, Kimura H, Matsumoto K, Arao T, Nagai T, et al. Highly sensitive detection of EGFR T790M mutation using colony hybridization predicts favorable prognosis of patients with lung cancer harboring activating EGFR mutation. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:1640–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Su KY, Chen HY, Li KC, Kuo ML, Yang JCH, Chan WK, et al. Pretreatment epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation predicts shorter EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor response duration in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:433–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Chen LY, Molina‐Vila MA, Ruan SY, Su KY, Liao WY, Yu KL, et al. Coexistence of EGFR T790M mutation and common activating mutations in pretreatment non‐small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lung Cancer. 2016;94:46–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Ramalingam SS, Yang JC, Lee CK, Kurata T, Kim DW, John T, et al. Osimertinib as first‐line treatment of EGFR mutation‐positive advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:841–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Fukuoka M, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Sunpaweravong P, Leong SS, Sriuranpong V, et al. Biomarker analyses and final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, open‐label, first‐line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer in Asia (IPASS). J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2866–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Ding D, Yu Y, Li Z, Niu X, Lu S. The predictive role of pretreatment epidermal growth factor receptor T790M mutation on the progression‐free survival of tyrosine‐kinase inhibitor‐treated non‐small cell lung cancer patients: a meta‐analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2014;7:387–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Liu Y, Sun L, Xiong ZC, Sun X, Zhang SL, Ma JT, et al. Meta‐analysis of the impact of de novo and acquired EGFR T790M mutations on the prognosis of patients with non‐small cell lung cancer receiving EGFR‐TKIs. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:2267–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Costa C, Molina MA, Drozdowskyj A, Giménez‐Capitán A, Bertran‐Alamillo J, Karachaliou N, et al. The impact of EGFR T790M mutations and BIM mRNA expression on outcome in patients with EGFR‐mutant NSCLC treated with erlotinib or chemotherapy in the randomized phase III EURTAC trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:2001–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Yang JC, Schuler M, Popat S, Miura S, Heeke S, Park K, et al. Afatinib for the treatment of NSCLC harboring uncommon EGFR mutations: a database of 693 cases. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15:803–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Yang JC, Schuler M, Popat S, Miura S, Heeke S, Passaro A, et al. Afatinib in Asian and non‐Asian patients (pts) with EGFR mutation‐positive (EGFRm plus ) NSCLC harboring major uncommon mutations. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:S31. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Tsai MS, Lin MH, Lee CP, Yang YH, Chen WC, Chang GH, et al. Chang Gung Research Database: a multi‐institutional database consisting of original medical records. Biom J. 2017;40:263–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Kobayashi Y, Mitsudomi T. Not all epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer are created equal: perspectives for individualized treatment strategy. Cancer Sci. 2016;107:1179–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Cross DA, Ashton SE, Ghiorghiu S, Eberlein C, Nebhan CA, Spitzler PJ, et al. AZD9291, an irreversible EGFR TKI, overcomes T790M‐mediated resistance to EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:1046–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Ariyasu R, Nishikawa S, Uchibori K, Oh‐hara T, Yoshizawa T, Dotsu Y, et al. High ratio of T790M to EGFR activating mutations correlate with the osimertinib response in non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2018;117:1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Tamiya M, Tamiya A, Okamoto N, Taniguchi Y, Nishino K, Atagi S, et al. The ratio of T790M to EGFR‐activating mutation predicts response of osimertinib in 1st or 2nd generation EGFR‐TKI‐refractory NSCLC. Sci Rep. 2021;11:9629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Li Y, Zhang F, Yuan P, Guo L, Jianming Y, He J. High MAF of EGFR mutations and high ratio of T790M sensitizing mutations in ctDNA predict better third‐generation TKI outcomes. Thorac Cancer. 2020;11:1503–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Li Y, Zhang F, Yuan P, Guo L, Jianming Y, He J: High MAF of EGFR mutations and high ratio of T790M sensitizing mutations in ctDNA predict better third‐generation TKI outcomes. Thorac Cancer 2020, 11(6):1503‐1511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]