Dataset Information

Selective RET inhibitors shift the treatment pattern of RET fusion-positive NSCLC and improve survival outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions are important genetic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selective RET inhibitors are setting a new paradigm in RET-driven NSCLC. However, the real-world treatment patterns, outcomes and toxicity remain largely unknown.

Methods

Data from RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients treated in our centre were retrospectively analysed. Of them, patients diagnosed before and after August 2018 were included in analysis of treatment patterns; and patients received selective RET inhibitors were eligible for analysis of adverse events (AEs).

Results

Patients diagnosed before August 2018 (n = 30) predominantly received chemotherapy and immunotherapy (83%) as initial therapy, while patients diagnosed after August 2018 (n = 39) mainly received selective RET inhibitors (38.5% at first-line; 50.0% at second-line). In the total 69 patients, overall survival (OS) was prolonged in patients treated with selective RET inhibitors versus untreated patients (median 34.3 versus 17.5 months; p = 0.002) during a median follow-up of 28.7 months. But there was no difference between patients treated with immunotherapy versus untreated patients. In the 38 patients received selective RET inhibition, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.9 months. AEs ≥ grade 3 occurred in 42.1% patients and were not associated with PFS (p = 0.63) or OS (p = 0.60). Haematological toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 31.6% patients and was the leading cause of drug discontinuation.

Conclusion

Selective RET inhibitors are increasingly being adopted into clinical practice and are associated with improved OS. However, treatment-related ≥ grade 3 AEs, especially haematologic AEs, occur frequently in real-world setting.

SUBMITTER: Lu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10314840 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selective RET inhibitors shift the treatment pattern of RET fusion-positive NSCLC and improve survival outcomes.

Lu Chang C Wei Xue-Wu XW Zhang Yi-Chen YC Chen Zhi-Hong ZH Xu Chong-Rui CR Zheng Ming-Ying MY Yang Jin-Ji JJ Zhang Xu-Chao XC Zhou Qing Q

Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 20220715 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>Rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions are important genetic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selective RET inhibitors are setting a new paradigm in RET-driven NSCLC. However, the real-world treatment patterns, outcomes and toxicity remain largely unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>Data from RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients treated in our centre were retrospectively analysed. Of them, patients diagnosed before and after August 2018 were included in analysis of treatmen ...[more]

PMID: 35838839

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRearranged during transfection (RET) gene fusions are a validated target in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RET-selective inhibitors selpercatinib (LOXO-292) and pralsetinib (BLU-667) recently demonstrated favorable antitumor activity and safety profiles in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and both have received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for this indication. Insights into mechanisms of resistance to selective RET inhibitors remain limited.Patients and methodsThis study was performed at five institutions. Tissue and/or cell-free DNA was obtained from patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC after treatment with selpercatinib or pralsetinib and assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) or MET FISH.ResultsWe analyzed a total of 23 post-treatment tissue and/or plasma biopsies from 18 RET fusion-positive patients who received an RET-selective inhibitor (selpercatinib, n = 10; pralsetinib, n = 7; pralsetinib followed by selpercatinib, n = 1, with biopsy after each inhibitor). Three cases had paired tissue and plasma samples, of which one also had two serial resistant tissue specimens. The median progression-free survival on RET inhibitors was 6.3 months [95% confidence interval 3.6-10.8 months]. Acquired RET mutations were identified in two cases (10%), both affecting the RET G810 residue in the kinase solvent front. Three resistant cases (15%) harbored acquired MET amplification without concurrent RET resistance mutations, and one specimen had acquired KRAS amplification. No other canonical driver alterations were identified by NGS. Among 16 resistant tumor specimens, none had evidence of squamous or small-cell histologic transformation.ConclusionsRET solvent front mutations are a recurrent mechanism of RET inhibitor resistance, although they occurred at a relatively low frequency. The majority of resistance to selective RET inhibition may be driven by RET-independent resistance such as acquired MET or KRAS amplification. Next-generation RET inhibitors with potency against RET resistance mutations and combination strategies are needed to effectively overcome resistance in these patients.

Project description:BackgroundRearranged during transfection (RET) fusion is a kind of uncommon mutation (about 1%) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although selective tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) (selpercatinib and pralsetinib) have been available, there are no real-world data about the difference in the efficacy between RET-TKI and other regimens in China.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of 49 patients with RET-fusion-positive NSCLC. The characteristics and the clinical outcomes with RET-TKI, multi-kinase inhibitor (MKI), systematic chemotherapy, and immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens were evaluated.ResultsOf the 92 treatments in patients included, RET-TKI was administered 24 times (26.1%), systematic chemotherapy was 35 times (38.0%), ICI-based regimens was 26 times (28.3%), and MKI was 7 times (7.6%). RET-TKI had a higher objective response rate than the chemotherapy and ICI-based regimens (63.6% vs. 14.3% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001). The median progress-free survival (mPFS) of RET-TKI, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and MKI was 16.9 (95% CI: 1.8-32.0) months, 11.9 (95% CI: 7.7-16.1) months, 6.7 (95% CI: 2.9-10.5) months, and 2.8 (95% CI: 1.1-4.4) months, respectively. The mPFS of RET-TKI was longer than MKI and immunotherapy (p < 0.001), while without difference with chemotherapy (p = 0.096). Moreover, chemotherapy had longer mPFS than MKI (p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, patients with brain metastases in RET-TKI treatment had worse mPFS than the one of patients without brain metastases (6.1 (95% CI: 0.0-13.9) months and 8.5 (95% CI: 6.3-10.6) months, p = 0.012). For patients having chemotherapy with or without angiogenesis inhibitors, the mPFS was 12.0 (95% CI: 11.05-13.02) months and 9.1 (95% CI: 8.31-9.89) months (p = 0.468). In the group of ICI-based regimens, the expression level of PD-L1 did not affect the mPFS of ICI [PD-L1 (+) vs. PD-L1 (-): 4.7 (95% CI: 1.8-9.0) months vs. 7.6 (95% CI: 1.1-14.0) months, p = 0.910]. For overall patients, ECOG PS score, therapy lines, and therapeutic regimens were the independent factors affecting the prognosis.ConclusionsIn RET-fusion-positive NSCLC, RET-TKI is the best choice for a better response rate and PFS. In addition, chemotherapy which may bring a good PFS, is still a good choice for this group of patients.

Dataset Information

Selective RET inhibitors shift the treatment pattern of RET fusion-positive NSCLC and improve survival outcomes.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Selective RET inhibitors shift the treatment pattern of RET fusion-positive NSCLC and improve survival outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets