Uncommon EGFR mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Accepted Manuscript Title: Uncommon EGFR mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer Author: Grainne M. O’Kane Penelope A. Bradbury Ronald Feld Natasha B. Leighl Geoffrey Liu Katherine Pisters Suzanne Kamel-Reid Ming Tsao Frances A. Shepherd PII: DOI: Reference:

S0169-5002(17)30303-3 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.016 LUNG 5354

To appear in:

Lung Cancer

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

14-2-2017 3-4-2017 21-4-2017

Please cite this article as: O’Kane GM, Bradbury PA, Feld R, Leighl NB, Liu G, Pisters K, Kamel-Reid S, Tsao M, Shepherd FA, Uncommon EGFR mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, Lung Cancer (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.016 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

*Highlights (for review)

Highlights ‘Uncommon EGFR Mutations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer’

ip t cr us an M d

  

Uncommon or ‘non-classical’ EGFR mutations, including complex mutations are increasingly reported. Exon 20 insertions have a poor response to EGFR-TKIs Mutations in L861Q, S768I and G718X have an inferior response to EGFR-TKIs Complex mutations harboring an uncommon mutation have a better response than single mutations.

Ac ce pt e



Page 1 of 27

*Revised manuscript with changes made but not highlighted (i.e. a clean version)

Uncommon EGFR mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Grainne M O’Kane, Penelope A Bradbury, Ronald Feld, Natasha B Leighl, Geoffrey Liu, Katherine Pisters, Suzanne Kamel-Reid, Ming Tsao, Frances A Shepherd Princess Margaret Cancer Centre

ip t

610 Univeristy Avenue

cr

Toronto On, M5G 2M9

us

Corresponding author

an

Dr. Grainne M O’Kane Princess Margaret Cancer Centre

Ac ce pt e

Acknowledgments: none

d

Toronto On, M5G 1Z5

M

700 University Avenue, OPG Building

Funding : No funding was required for this article

Conflict of Interest: None

Abstract word count: 133 Word count: 3636 Tables : 5 References: 80

Abstract

1

Page 2 of 27

Molecular profiling in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has allowed for the detection of actionable mutations, which has revolutionized the treatment paradigm in this highly fatal disease. Mutations involving the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are most common and the ‘classical mutations’, exon 19 deletions and the point mutation

ip t

L858R at exon 21, predict response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The ‘uncommon’ EGFR mutations account for 10%-18% of all EGFR mutations and primarily

cr

consist of exon 20 insertions, exon 18 point mutations and complex mutations. Improved

us

detection techniques have broadened the spectrum of reported aberrations within the ‘uncommon group’ but response to TKIs is variable and not fully elucidated. This review

an

provides an overview of the biology and incidence of uncommon EGFR mutations and

Ac ce pt e

d

M

summarizes reported outcomes when treated with EGFR-TKIs.

2

Page 3 of 27

Introduction Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents over 85% of all lung cancers and is associated with a high mortality. 1 Five–year survival for all stages is approximately 17% and in stage IV disease, less than five percent of patients are alive at five years. The identification of specific

ip t

somatic aberrations has led to a personalized therapeutic approach and has resulted in improved outcomes. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)

cr

gene were first identified in 2004, 2-4 and can be detected in approximately 10-15% of

us

Caucasians and up to 50% of Asian patients with NSCLC.5

an

In frame deletions of amino acids LREA of exon 19 and the exon 21 L858R point mutation are considered the ‘classical’ mutations, accounting for 85% of EGFR mutations 6 and are

M

associated generally with being female, a non-smoker and having adenocarcinoma histology.7,8 In patients with advanced NSCLC, both first and second-generation EGFR

d

tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are standard first-line treatment options.9 This evidence

Ac ce pt e

arises from a number of phase III trials, which demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs) together with improved tolerability when compared to first line platinum doublet chemotherapy. 7,8,10-15 In the pooled analysis from the Lux-Lung 3 and Lux-Lung 6 studies, afatanib has also been shown to improve overall survival in the exon 19 deletion population. 16 Most of these trials randomized patients with classical mutations and only four included patients with uncommon EGFR mutations, defined as all mutations excluding del19 and L858R. In these trials, uncommon mutations represented approximately 10% of the EGFR population. 8,10,13,14 In other studies they have accounted for up to 18% of the EGFR mutated cohort.17 The predictive value of the uncommon mutations to TKIs in these large trials could not be determined due the small

3

Page 4 of 27

numbers enrolled. Thus, we are thus reliant on pooled analyses and small case series to evaluate EGFR-TKI response in this highly heterogeneous group.

An understanding of TKI response is imperative for physicians in treatment decision-making.

ip t

This review aims to provide an overview of the biology of the epidermal growth factor receptor and its associated driver mutations. We assess the prevalence and outcomes of

cr

EGFR mutations, excluding deletion 19 and L858R and the most common resistance

us

mutation, T790M.

an

Literature Search

PubMed was searched using the following key words: non small cell lung cancer, epidermal

M

growth factor receptor, uncommon mutation, rare mutation, exon 20, exon 18, exon 19, exon 21, erlotinib, gefitinib, afatanib and osimertinib. Only articles in English were included. If

Ac ce pt e

d

uncommon mutations were grouped together in publications, individual exon mutations were reported where possible and grouped separately from complex mutations unless stated. T790M mutations were not included either as single or complex mutations unless stated. PFS and overall survival (OS) are only reported if calculated from the time of advanced disease or commencement of EGFR-TKI.

The Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and mechanism of TKI response. EGFR or HER1/ErbB1 is a member of the ERbB tyrosine kinase (TK) family and structurally has four domains: an extracellular ligand binding domain, an alpha-helix transmembrane domain, a cytoplasmic TK domain and a carboxy – terminal signaling domain. 18 Binding of EGFR to its ligands causes homo and hetrodimerization, culminating in autophosporylation of the TK receptor. Downstream cascade activation of pathways such as

4

Page 5 of 27

phosphatidylinositol-3-kinases (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) and extracellular-signalregulated kinase (ERK)/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), results in cellular proliferation and survival. 19,20 The TK binding domain is tightly regulated so that in its inactive state, its structure is altered to prevent autoactivation. EGFR gene mutations,

ip t

increased gene copy number and overexpression of EGFR proteins can however lead to

cr

constitutive TK activity and carcinogenesis.21

us

In NSCLC, mutations found within exons 18 – 21 (93% of mutations), which code the TK domain can lead to kinase activation in the absence of ligand binding. 22 Three types of

an

mutation exist, Class I mutations are represented by short exon 19 in-frame deletions, class II mutations are depicted by single-nucleotide substitutions and class III mutations include

M

insertions or duplications. 6 Complex or compound mutations, defined as more than one EGFR mutation within the same tumor specimen also are apparent in NSCLC.23-25 More

Ac ce pt e

d

recently comprehensive profiling also has revealed rare genomic variants including duplications in the EGFR exon 18-25 domain (EGFR-KDD) and EGFR rearrangements. 26,27

The classical EGFR mutations (del19 and L858R) are known to decrease the affinity of the kinase for ATP allowing for preferential EFGR-TKI binding. 28 The first-generation TKIs reversibly bind to the ATP site and prevent phosphorylation, inhibiting both wild-type and mutated EGFR.29 Despite this, first generation TKIs have a higher binding affinity to mutated EGFR ensuring a potent response.30 Afatanib, a second-generation TKI, irreversibly binds to the ATP site of both EGFR, HER2 and HER4. 31 Response rates to EGFR-TKIs in patients with classical mutations are approximately 60-80%, but acquired resistance develops in the majority of patients. 8,10 The emergence of the T790M mutation in exon 20 is the cause of resistance in over 50% of cases, remaining molecular mechanisms include MET

5

Page 6 of 27

amplification, PI3K mutations or epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) signaling, but are not fully known. 32-35 The T790M mutation returns preferential binding of the receptor to ATP, rendering the first generation TKIs less effective.36 De novo T790M mutations confer resistance to first generation TKIs. 37Afatinib initially showed promise in pre-clinical models

ip t

in targeting T790M but in the clinical setting has failed. In order to achieve clinical efficacy with afatinib, much higher doses are required which is not attainable given the associated

cr

toxicity. 31,38 Third generation TKIs including osimertinib are potent inhibitors of T790M and

us

to a large extent, spare WT EGFR.39 Osimertinib has demonstrated an ORR of 60% in patients with the secondary T790M resistance mutation. 40 Other third generation TKIs under

an

evaluation include nazartinib (EGF816) and ASP8273. Despite the promise of 3rd generation

Ac ce pt e

Molecular testing for EGFR mutations.

d

the EGFR mutational landscape.41

M

TKIs, mutations in EGFR - C797X can escape these therapies, highlighting the complexity of

Testing for EGFR mutations is DNA based and can be performed on tissue obtained from diagnostic biopsies, surgical resections and even cytology specimens. Success rates for obtaining adequate sample for institutional analysis has ranged from 30-80% and is influenced by the quality of the sample, the assay used and resources within institutional molecular laboratories.42 Initial testing utilized Sanger’s sequencing in isolated DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue but required at least 25% tumor cellularity. Direct sequencing of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genomic DNA corresponding to exons 18-22 of the EGFR gene is the minimum standard for mutation detection, however more sensitive PCR–based methods exist.43,44 Commercial assays such as Therascreen (Qiagen Manchester, UK) and Cobas (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), which consider ‘hot spots’ thought predictive of TKI response, are widely utilized. 45 More recently, droplet digital PCR

6

Page 7 of 27

(ddPCR) and next generation sequencing (NGS) coupled with exon-capture strategies have been shown to have increased sensitivity down to 0.01% tumor cellularity. Liquid biopsies currently are being evaluated as a mechanism of detecting EGFR mutations in circulating tumor (ct) DNA and have the potential to replace or at least complement repeat tissue

us

cr

biases in the reported incidence of less common EGFR mutations.

ip t

biopsies. The heterogeneity in detection techniques likely has resulted in inaccuracies and

The Uncommon mutations and response to TKIs.

an

Exon 20 insertions

Exon 20 insertions in EGFR are the most prevalent of the uncommon EGFR mutations and

M

can be found in approximately 1.5-2.5% of all non-small cell lung cancers but account for

d

approximately 10% (1-17%) of the mutated EGFR population.6,24,46-49 Similar to classical

Ac ce pt e

mutations, exon 20 insertions are associated with female sex, Asian ethnicity and neversmoking patients. 49-53 There have been over 100 exon 20 insertions reported in the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute catalogue of somatic mutations in cancer (COSMIC), the most commonly detected mutations include: V769_D770insASV, D770_N771insNPG, D770_N771insSVD, H773_V774insH and A763_Y764insFQEA.

Preclinical evidence

In vitro studies have shown differences in the affinity of exon 20 insertions to EGFR-TKIs, which may be due to the location of the insertion within the C-helix. Arcila et al demonstrated through in silico modeling that insertions between codons 769 to 775 predict TKI resistance whereas insertions in more proximal codons may remain sensitive.52 The 7

Page 8 of 27

A763_Y764insFQEA has demonstrated sensitivity to erlotinib in cell lines at concentrations less than 0.1uM.51 This particular mutation is thought to cause a structural change in the ATP binding cleft similar to EGFR-L858R mutation. Hirano et al reported higher potency for afatinib in this particular mutation with an IC50 of 8nM where IC50 values for erlotinib and

ip t

osimertinib were 45 and 40nM, respectively. In contrast to A763_Y764insFQEA the majority of exon 20 insertions differ structurally from the classical mutations and in fact do not affect

cr

ATP binding but instead induce kinase activation by forming a wedge at the end of the C-

us

helix. Affinity to TKIs in these cases is, therefore, similar to wild-type (WT) EGFR and

resulting in resistant to first generation TKIs. 51 Interestingly one study did show that

an

osimertinib had a higher specificity than afatanib with a wide therapeutic window in the exon 20 insertions studied (Y764_V765insHH, A767V769dupASV, and D770_N771insNPG).

M

The IC50 values were much higher than those of T790M, suggesting dosing differences may be required for efficacy. A further exon 20 variant was tested in a patient derived xenograft

Ac ce pt e

d

model (PDX) (EGFR H773-V774insNPH) and only showed partial sensitivity to afatinib and osimertinib. In contrast, EGF816 has shown both in vitro and in vivo efficacy in variants D770_N771insSVD, V769_D770insASV, and H773_V774insNPH. Specifically in a PDX model, higher dosing (100mg/kg) resulted in tumour regression of 81%. 54 AP32788 is a potent selective inhibitor of EGFR and Her2 which is also been shown to inhibit exon20 insertions in BA/3 cell lines. 55 More recently, it has been revealed that EGFR amplification may occur in a subset of exon 20 insertions. The dual EGFR blockade with osimertinib and cetuximab has demonstrated significant growth inhibition in in vivo models. 56 Other classes of drugs tested preclinically include Heat Shock Protein (HSP) inhibitors.57 HSP90 is a chaperone protein integral to correct folding and stabilisation of cellular proteins including mutant EGFR.58,59

Clinical evidence

8

Page 9 of 27

Retrospective studies have evaluated patients with advanced disease, whose tumors harbor exon 20 insertions and have demonstrated primary resistance to TKIs (Table 1). The only prospective data arises from the post-hoc analysis of LUX-Lung 2, LUX-Lung 3 and LUX -Lung

ip t

6 which revealed that among 23 patients, objective response rates (ORR) to afatinib were only 8.7% and the median OS was 9.2 months. Although there were no responses (n=4) to

cr

platinum- based chemotherapy, exon 20 insertions treated with platinum doublets had a

us

superior median OS of 31months (9.3-42.3months). 60Higher response rates to

chemotherapy in exon 20 insertions have been revealed in other retrospective studies.

an

Naidoo et al reported an ORR of 63% (22 of 35) to platinum doublet chemotherapy compared to an ORR of 27% (3 of 11) in patients treated with erlotinib. Overall survival was

M

19.5 months in all patients treated. Another small study reported RRs of 58% (5 of 12 pts.) when chemotherapy was used vs. 0% when patients were treated with EGFR-TKIs and also

Ac ce pt e

d

showed an improved time to treatment failure (TTF) of 5.9 vs. 2.4 months 53

The A763_Y764insFQEA appears to be predictive of TKI response both preclinically and clinically. In the recent study by Klughammer et al, one patient with an A763_Y764insFQEA mutation treated with second-line erlotinib had a partial response (PR) lasting 17.5 months and an OS of 24 months. Others report PFS of 3.2 months 61 and 9 months50 despite favorable survival of 25 and 17.5 months, respectively. Other insertions with evidence of TKI response include EGFR V769_D770insASV (TTP =19.8 months, OS = 24 months)61, and EGFR-N771 delinsKPP (TTP = 8 months and OS 10 months). Two patients with EGFR-D770_N771insSVD enrolled in the SATURN study and treated with erlotinib had short PFS intervals of 2.8 and 4.2 months but an extended OS of 19.7 and 29 months. The TKI resistance but favorable survival outcome associated with this variant has been corroborated by other studies.50 The

9

Page 10 of 27

activity of third generation TKIs in preclinical models has led to clinical trials for exon 20 insertions including the phase I/II study of AP32788 (NCT02716116). HSP90 inhibitors such as AUY-922 are also promising with a median PFS of 6.1 months reported in a small study.62 A phase II study is recruiting (NCT01854034).

ip t

. In summary, exon 20 insertions, the third most common EGFR mutation, exist as a very

cr

heterogeneous group with the majority resistant to EGFR-TKIs. Newer generation TKIs may

us

be more active in this subgroup and a concerted effort to align these patients in a trial is

an

required.

M

Exon 20-point mutations

The single S768I mutation represents approximately 1% of all EGFR mutations but are the

Ac ce pt e

d

next most frequent mutation within exon 20. These mutations, however, often exist within compound mutations. A number of other point mutations within exon 20 have been reported but are rare.

Preclinical

NSCLC cell lines harboring mutations in S768I are not available. In vitro studies investigating TKI affinity have used Ba/F3 cell lines, which are thought, to be representative and have for the mutation S768I, demonstrated superiority with afatinib compared to erlotinib and osimertinib, with IC50 values 0.7nM, 146nM and 49nM respectively. 63 Relative resistance to first generation TKIs has also been demonstrated in a further in vitro study.64

Clinical

10

Page 11 of 27

Point mutations in S768I have been reported as partially sensitive to EGFR-TKIs.65 It is notable that most retrospective studies reporting response to first generation TKIs in patients harboring S768I also included complex mutations. In the Yang et al post hoc analysis of LUX-Lung 2, LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 although 100% of the patients with S768I

ip t

included, responded to afatinib, seven of eight patients had complex mutations including five co-occurring G719X and two L858R.60 In the small retrospective study by Chiu et al superior

cr

responses were seen in patients harboring the complex mutation G719X;S768I (N=10, 50%)

us

compared to 33% in single S768I mutations. 66 In contrast, in the study by Chen et al, despite the presence of a classical mutation in seven of 10 patients with S768I, the response rate to

an

first generation TKIs overall was only 20%. 67 Single mutations may have inferior outcomes compared to tumors with complex S768I mutations. Afatinib could be considered as the first

M

choice of EGFR-TKI in this cohort. Other point mutations in exon 20 with reported sensitivity

Ac ce pt e

d

include V765A, V774A and T783A although the PFS described was short.68,69

Exon 18 point mutations

Exon 18 point mutations are thought to represent 3-4% of all EGFR mutations.70 50 The most common involve a Gly719 change to Ser, Ala or Cys together with the E709A mutation. Most of the literature on exon 18 mutations comes from small retrospective studies; it appears that these may be associated with current or former smokers with no sex predeliction.50,71

Preclinical evidence The sensitivity of G719X mutations to TKIs is much less than that of classical mutations in vitro.

36,72

This may be due to the conformational change induced by the switch from G to A,

11

Page 12 of 27

C or S, which challenges binding of gefitinib. 73Afatanib and other second-generation TKIs in vitro have demonstrated much lower IC50 values, suggesting an upfront role in these mutations.74 It has been further shown that E709X mutations are less sensitive than G719X.64

ip t

Clinical evidence of response to TKIs Studies reporting outcomes in exon 18 mutations often have included complex mutations.

cr

Table 2 primarily reports outcomes in single exon 18 mutations unless stated otherwise. The

us

largest study of TKI response in this population, was published by Chiu et al, who described an ORR of 37% and a disease control rate of 72.4%.66 The median PFS was shorter in patients

an

with exon 18 mutations compared to patients with classical mutations (6.3 months vs. 11.1 months). Notably 10 patients with a complex mutation of G719X + S768I and nine patients

M

harboring complex G719X + L819Q mutations had ORRs of 50% and 89%, respectively. In the post hoc analysis of the LUX-Lung studies afatinib was reported to provide a median PFS

d

of 13.8 months and an OS of 26.9 months in the 18 patients with G719X mutations, however

Ac ce pt e

half of patients had tumours harboring complex exon 18 mutations. 60 The ORR of single exon 18 point mutations in this study is unknown. Strikingly a phase II study of the second generation TKI neratinib, included four patients with G719X mutations of which three responded with a median PFS of 12.1 months. The multicenter observational study by BeauFaller provides extensive epidemiological data on patients with exon 18 mutations and of the 15 patients treated with EGFR-TKIs, only one responded. This patient was treated with erlotinib in the second line setting and time to progression was only 3 months (G719S). 50 Klughammer et al reviewed participants from the MERIT, SATURN, TITAN, TRUST, ATLAS, BeTa and FASTACT-2 trials. Most patients with exon 18 mutations were treated in first or second line. Again only one patient with a G719C mutation had a response, which lasted 16 months. Many of the patients included were treated with erlotinib and bevacizumab.

12

Page 13 of 27

Interestingly, two patients with G719X mutations treated with carboplatin/gemcitabine had a PFS of 4.3 and 7 months but OS of 33 and 36 months. The number of patients in the literature treated with chemotherapy is small; however, favorable outcomes are noted with a median OS of 40.8 months versus 26.9mths (afatinib) in the study by Yang et al. 60,71

ip t

Recently, the response to afatinib after failure of first generation TKIs has been reported. Of six single G719X mutations, none responded to first generation TKIs and none were reported

us

cr

to respond to subsequent afatinib. 75

M

an

Exon 21 L861Q

Ac ce pt e

Preclinical and clinical evidence

d

The exon 21 point mutation, L861Q, is thought to represent 2% of EGFR mutations.

In in vitro preclinical models resistance to first generation TKIs has been found, however sensitivity to afatinib and osimertinib has been demonstrated. 63,64 By far the largest cohort of patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR-L861Q mutations was reported by Chiu et al in a retrospective analysis. 66 Fifty-four patients were eligible for assessment of response to first generation TKIs erlotinib or gefitinib. The ORR was 40% and PFS 8.1 months. The reported RR to afatanib was slightly greater (56%) in a post hoc analysis by Yang; however, four of 16 patients (25%) had complex mutations. The PFS was similar and it is likely that L861Q is somewhat sensitive to TKIs but to a lesser extent than classical mutations. Afatanib could be considered first line in these patients.

Complex Mutations 13

Page 14 of 27

The variation in platforms used to detect EGFR mutations previously may have underestimated complex mutations and these have been reported in up to 14% of the EGFR mutated population. 76 It has also been observed that the tissue quantity may be important

ip t

for the detection of complex mutations.77

Preclinical evidence

cr

In vitro, where cell lines have represented complex mutations with co-occurring classical

us

mutations (del19+L858R), inhibition by TKIs was more potent than either of the single mutations.23 On the other hand other complex mutations in vitro despite the presence of a

an

single L858R mutation have demonstrated inferior sensitivity to gefitinib compared to single

Clinical evidence

M

classical missense mutations.78

d

Where possible if a complex mutation included a T790M exon 20 mutation these were

Ac ce pt e

excluded from the individual reports in Table 5. In available studies of complex mutations, ORRs generally were higher than individual uncommon single mutations and as expected, compound mutations with co-occurring with classical mutations had the best survival outcomes.79(Table 5) Wu et al reported the largest cohort of complex mutations from which 32 patients were evaluable for TKI response (first generation); the ORR was 56%. Of 10 patients with a PFS greater than 10 months, seven harbored one classical mutation. The median PFS was 3.5 months and overall survival 8.5 months. In six patients within this group with EGFR mutation combinations of G719X, S768I, L861Q and L858R the ORR was 67%, median PFS was 9 months and median OS 12.4 months. The analysis by Chiu et al included the largest cohort of single exon 18 mutations but also reported 19 exon 18 complex mutations. The response rate differed according to the second co-occurring mutation. Those

14

Page 15 of 27

with G719X and S768I co-mutations had an ORR of 50% compared to 89% in those with cooccurring G719X and L861Q. Notably the PFS for the complex 18 mutations was significantly longer than the single point mutations (11.5 vs. 6.3 months, p=0.01).66 In a similar study by Cheng et al, which also focused on exon 18 mutations, those with complex mutations had a

ip t

significantly longer relapse free survival and OS than patients with single exon 18 mutations. Remarkably, one patient with a double point mutation G719S+L861Q achieved a relapse free

cr

survival (RFS) of 65.0 months.80 The post hoc analysis by Yang et al did not report

us

differences in response to afatinib in complex mutations versus single mutations. However, as stated previously, the S768I EGFR mutation cohort contained 8 patients in whom seven

an

had complex mutations co-occurring with either L858R or G719X; the RR was 100% and

Conclusion

M

median PFS 14.7 months.60

Ac ce pt e

d

Uncommon EGFR mutations including complex EGFR mutations are increasingly reported, given the use of more comprehensive profiling. The studies we have summarized are variable in the line of treatment TKI therapy was used and frequently group uncommon mutations together. Complex mutations are often included with single mutation groupings but appear more sensitive to TKIs. Exon 20 insertions generally should be treated with upfront chemotherapy, however a minority may respond to first line TKIs and we would consider afatinib the most appropriate option. Afatinib may be considered for EGFR mutations G719X, L861Q and S768I but does not consistently provide good response rates. Expanding genomic profiling panels in NSCLC to include less common mutations may further help determine patient responses to targeted therapies. It is imperative that we collaborate internationally to collect outcomes in this heterogeneous group of patients.

15

Page 16 of 27

16

Page 17 of 27

d

Ac ce pt e us

an

M

cr

ip t

References 2008

1.

Herbst RS, Heymach JV, Lippman SM: Lung cancer. N Engl J Med 359:1367-80,

Ac ce pt e

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

2. Pao W, Miller V, Zakowski M, et al: EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from "never smokers" and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:13306-11, 2004 3. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, et al: EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 304:1497-500, 2004 4. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al: Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 350:2129-39, 2004 5. Shi Y, Au JS, Thongprasert S, et al: A prospective, molecular epidemiology study of EGFR mutations in Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology (PIONEER). J Thorac Oncol 9:154-62, 2014 6. Shigematsu H, Gazdar AF: Somatic mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor signaling pathway in lung cancers. Int J Cancer 118:257-62, 2006 7. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, et al: Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive nonsmall-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:239-46, 2012 8. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al: Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 361:947-57, 2009 9. Ettinger DS, Wood DE, Akerley W, et al: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 6.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 13:515-24, 2015 10. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, et al: Gefitinib or chemotherapy for nonsmall-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med 362:2380-8, 2010 11. Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y, 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 11:1218, 2010 12. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, et al: Final overall survival results from a randomised, phase III study of erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of EGFR mutationpositive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802). Ann Oncol 26:187783, 2015 13. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, et al: Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol 31:3327-34, 2013 14. Wu YL, Zhou C, Hu CP, et al: Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for firstline 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 15:213-22, 2014 15. Wu YL, Zhou C, Liam CK, et al: First-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses from the phase III, randomized, open-label, ENSURE study. Ann Oncol 26:1883-9, 2015 16. Yang JC, Wu YL, Schuler M, et al: Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol 16:141-51, 2015

17

Page 18 of 27

Ac ce pt e

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

17. De Pas T, Toffalorio F, Manzotti M, et al: Activity of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring rare epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. J Thorac Oncol 6:1895-901, 2011 18. Wells A: EGF receptor. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 31:637-43, 1999 19. Herbst RS: Review of epidermal growth factor receptor biology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:21-6, 2004 20. Mosesson Y, Yarden Y: Oncogenic growth factor receptors: implications for signal transduction therapy. Semin Cancer Biol 14:262-70, 2004 21. Ciardiello F, Tortora G: EGFR antagonists in cancer treatment. N Engl J Med 358:1160-74, 2008 22. Kobayashi Y, Mitsudomi T: Not all epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer are created equal: Perspectives for individualized treatment strategy. Cancer Sci 107:1179-86, 2016 23. Zhang GC, Lin JY, Wang Z, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptor double activating mutations involving both exons 19 and 21 exist in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer patients. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19:499-506, 2007 24. Huang SF, Liu HP, Li LH, et al: High frequency of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations with complex patterns in non-small cell lung cancers related to gefitinib responsiveness in Taiwan. Clin Cancer Res 10:8195-203, 2004 25. Hsieh MH, Fang YF, Chang WC, et al: Complex mutation patterns of epidermal growth factor receptor gene associated with variable responses to gefitinib treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 53:311-22, 2006 26. Gallant JN, Sheehan JH, Shaver TM, et al: EGFR Kinase Domain Duplication (EGFR-KDD) Is a Novel Oncogenic Driver in Lung Cancer That Is Clinically Responsive to Afatinib. Cancer Discov 5:1155-63, 2015 27. Konduri K, Gallant JN, Chae YK, et al: EGFR Fusions as Novel Therapeutic Targets in Lung Cancer. Cancer Discov 6:601-11, 2016 28. Eck MJ, Yun CH: Structural and mechanistic underpinnings of the differential drug sensitivity of EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1804:559-66, 2010 29. Riely GJ, Politi KA, Miller VA, et al: Update on epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 12:7232-41, 2006 30. da Cunha Santos G, Shepherd FA, Tsao MS: EGFR mutations and lung cancer. Annu Rev Pathol 6:49-69, 2011 31. Li D, Ambrogio L, Shimamura T, et al: BIBW2992, an irreversible EGFR/HER2 inhibitor highly effective in preclinical lung cancer models. Oncogene 27:4702-11, 2008 32. Pao W, Miller VA, Politi KA, et al: Acquired resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib is associated with a second mutation in the EGFR kinase domain. PLoS Med 2:e73, 2005 33. Inukai M, Toyooka S, Ito S, et al: Presence of epidermal growth factor receptor gene T790M mutation as a minor clone in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 66:7854-8, 2006 34. Stewart EL, Tan SZ, Liu G, et al: Known and putative mechanisms of resistance to EGFR targeted therapies in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations-a review. Transl Lung Cancer Res 4:67-81, 2015 35. Sequist LV, Waltman BA, Dias-Santagata D, et al: Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Sci Transl Med 3:75ra26, 2011

18

Page 19 of 27

Ac ce pt e

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

36. Yun CH, Boggon TJ, Li Y, et al: Structures of lung cancer-derived EGFR mutants and inhibitor complexes: mechanism of activation and insights into differential inhibitor sensitivity. Cancer Cell 11:217-27, 2007 37. Yu HA, Arcila ME, Hellmann MD, et al: Poor response to erlotinib in patients with tumors containing baseline EGFR T790M mutations found by routine clinical molecular testing. Ann Oncol 25:423-8, 2014 38. Miller VA, Hirsh V, Cadranel J, et al: Afatinib versus placebo for patients with advanced, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of erlotinib, gefitinib, or both, and one or two lines of chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): a phase 2b/3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 13:528-38, 2012 39. Zhou W, Ercan D, Chen L, et al: Novel mutant-selective EGFR kinase inhibitors against EGFR T790M. Nature 462:1070-4, 2009 40. Janne PA, Yang JC, Kim DW, et al: AZD9291 in EGFR inhibitor-resistant nonsmall-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1689-99, 2015 41. Thress KS, Paweletz CP, Felip E, et al: Acquired EGFR C797S mutation mediates resistance to AZD9291 in non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR T790M. Nat Med 21:560-2, 2015 42. Hirsch FR, Bunn PA, Jr.: EGFR testing in lung cancer is ready for prime time. Lancet Oncol 10:432-3, 2009 43. Eberhard DA, Giaccone G, Johnson BE, et al: Biomarkers of response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Working Group: standardization for use in the clinical trial setting. J Clin Oncol 26:983-94, 2008 44. Angulo B, Conde E, Suarez-Gauthier A, et al: A comparison of EGFR mutation testing methods in lung carcinoma: direct sequencing, real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry. PLoS One 7:e43842, 2012 45. Khoo C, Rogers TM, Fellowes A, et al: Molecular methods for somatic mutation testing in lung adenocarcinoma: EGFR and beyond. Transl Lung Cancer Res 4:126-41, 2015 46. Sasaki H, Endo K, Takada M, et al: EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation in Japanese lung cancer. Lung Cancer 58:324-8, 2007 47. Sequist LV, Bell DW, Lynch TJ, et al: Molecular predictors of response to epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:587-95, 2007 48. Wu JY, Wu SG, Yang CH, et al: Lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 mutations is associated with poor gefitinib treatment response. Clin Cancer Res 14:4877-82, 2008 49. Kosaka T, Yatabe Y, Endoh H, et al: Mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in lung cancer: biological and clinical implications. Cancer Res 64:8919-23, 2004 50. Beau-Faller M, Prim N, Ruppert AM, et al: Rare EGFR exon 18 and exon 20 mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer on 10 117 patients: a multicentre observational study by the French ERMETIC-IFCT network. Ann Oncol 25:126-31, 2014 51. Yasuda H, Park E, Yun CH, et al: Structural, biochemical, and clinical characterization of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations in lung cancer. Sci Transl Med 5:216ra177, 2013 52. Arcila ME, Chaft JE, Nafa K, et al: Prevalence, clinicopathologic associations, and molecular spectrum of ERBB2 (HER2) tyrosine kinase mutations in lung adenocarcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 18:4910-8, 2012

19

Page 20 of 27

Ac ce pt e

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

53. Oxnard GR, Lo PC, Nishino M, et al: Natural history and molecular characteristics of lung cancers harboring EGFR exon 20 insertions. J Thorac Oncol 8:179-84, 2013 54. Jia Y, Juarez J, Li J, et al: EGF816 Exerts Anticancer Effects in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer by Irreversibly and Selectively Targeting Primary and Acquired Activating Mutations in the EGF Receptor. Cancer Res 76:1591-602, 2016 55. Gonzalvez F, et al. : "AP32788, a potent, selective inhibitor of EGFR and HER2 oncogenic mutants, including exon 20 insertions, in preclinical models." Cancer Research 76.14 Supplement (2016): 2644-2644. 56. Riess J.W. GDR, Frampton G.M. et al.: Comprehensive Genomic Profiling and PDX Modeling of EGFR Exon 20 Insertions: Evidence for Osimertinib Based Dual EGFR Blockade, abstract 4375, WCLC 2016. 57. Xu W, Soga S, Beebe K, et al: Sensitivity of epidermal growth factor receptor and ErbB2 exon 20 insertion mutants to Hsp90 inhibition. Br J Cancer 97:741-4, 2007 58. Mahalingam D, Swords R, Carew JS, et al: Targeting HSP90 for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer 100:1523-9, 2009 59. Shimamura T, Lowell AM, Engelman JA, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptors harboring kinase domain mutations associate with the heat shock protein 90 chaperone and are destabilized following exposure to geldanamycins. Cancer Res 65:6401-8, 2005 60. Yang JC, Sequist LV, Geater SL, et al: Clinical activity of afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring uncommon EGFR mutations: a combined post-hoc analysis of LUX-Lung 2, LUX-Lung 3, and LUX-Lung 6. Lancet Oncol 16:830-8, 2015 61. Naidoo J, Sima CS, Rodriguez K, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertions in advanced lung adenocarcinomas: Clinical outcomes and response to erlotinib. Cancer 121:3212-20, 2015 62. Piotrowska Z, et al. : "Activity of AUY922 in NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions." ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. Vol. 33. No. 15_suppl. 2015. 63. Banno E, Togashi Y, Nakamura Y, et al: Sensitivities to various epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors of uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor mutations L861Q and S768I: What is the optimal epidermal growth factor receptortyrosine kinase inhibitor? Cancer Sci 107:1134-40, 2016 64. Kancha RK, von Bubnoff N, Peschel C, et al: Functional analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and potential implications for EGFR targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res 15:460-7, 2009 65. Hellmann MD, Reva B, Yu H, et al: Clinical and in vivo evidence that EGFR S768I mutant lung adenocarcinomas are sensitive to erlotinib. J Thorac Oncol 9:e73-4, 2014 66. Chiu CH, Yang CT, Shih JY, et al: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment Response in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinomas with G719X/L861Q/S768I Mutations. J Thorac Oncol 10:793-9, 2015 67. Chen D, Song Z, Cheng G: Clinical efficacy of first-generation EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFR exon 20 mutations. Onco Targets Ther 9:4181-6, 2016 68. Chou TY, Chiu CH, Li LH, et al: Mutation in the tyrosine kinase domain of epidermal growth factor receptor is a predictive and prognostic factor for gefitinib treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 11:3750-7, 2005 69. Wu JY, Shih JY, Chen KY, et al: Gefitinib therapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer with or without testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Medicine (Baltimore) 90:159-67, 2011

20

Page 21 of 27

Ac ce pt e

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

70. Mitsudomi T, Kosaka T, Yatabe Y: Biological and clinical implications of EGFR mutations in lung cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 11:190-8, 2006 71. Klughammer B, Brugger W, Cappuzzo F, et al: Examining Treatment Outcomes with Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Whose Tumors Harbor Uncommon EGFR Mutations. J Thorac Oncol 11:545-55, 2016 72. Furuyama K, Harada T, Iwama E, et al: Sensitivity and kinase activity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 and others to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cancer Sci 104:584-9, 2013 73. Jiang J, Greulich H, Janne PA, et al: Epidermal growth factor-independent transformation of Ba/F3 cells with cancer-derived epidermal growth factor receptor mutants induces gefitinib-sensitive cell cycle progression. Cancer Res 65:8968-74, 2005 74. Kobayashi Y, Togashi Y, Yatabe Y, et al: EGFR Exon 18 Mutations in Lung Cancer: Molecular Predictors of Augmented Sensitivity to Afatinib or Neratinib as Compared with First- or Third-Generation TKIs. Clin Cancer Res 21:5305-13, 2015 75. Heigener DF, Schumann C, Sebastian M, et al: Afatinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Uncommon EGFR Mutations Pretreated With Reversible EGFR Inhibitors. Oncologist 20:1167-74, 2015 76. Kobayashi S, Canepa HM, Bailey AS, et al: Compound EGFR mutations and response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Thorac Oncol 8:45-51, 2013 77. Peng L, Song ZG, Jiao SC: Efficacy analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors on rare non-small cell lung cancer patients harboring complex EGFR mutations. Sci Rep 4:6104, 2014 78. Tam IY, Leung EL, Tin VP, et al: Double EGFR mutants containing rare EGFR mutant types show reduced in vitro response to gefitinib compared with common activating missense mutations. Mol Cancer Ther 8:2142-51, 2009 79. Keam B, Kim DW, Park JH, et al: Rare and complex mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor, and efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 19:594-600, 2014 80. Cheng C, Wang R, Li Y, et al: EGFR Exon 18 Mutations in East Asian Patients with Lung Adenocarcinomas: A Comprehensive Investigation of Prevalence, Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Prognosis. Sci Rep 5:13959, 2015

21

Page 22 of 27

Table

Table 1: Clinical outcomes in Exon 20 insertions/duplications to EGFR-TKIs No. evaluable TKI TKI used

ORR (%) Mutation with response

Median PFS (months) (range)

27

23 Afatinib

8.7% UK

2.7 mths (1.8-4.2)

Chen 2016 65a

29a

NR

29 erlotinib, gefitinib, icotinib

6.9% UK

1.9 mths

Klughammer 2016 69

9

8

7 erlotinib

29% D770_N771insSVD A763_Y764insFQEA

2.7mths (0.6-21)

Naidoo 58 2015

46

17

11 erlotinib

Woo79 2014

7

6

6 erlotinib , gefitinib

27% A763_Y764insFQEA V769_D770insASV Unknown ins 0% UK

Beau-Faller48 2014

38

20

25 gefitinib/erlotinib

Arcila 201350

33

15

4 erlotinib and chemo (2) erlotinib (2)

Yasuda49 2013

19

13

19 gefitinib/erlotinib

Oxnard 201351

27

13

5 erlotinib

Wu 201180

25

NR

Lund-Iverson 201281

7

Sasaki44 2007

7

cr

ip t

Yang 201663

No. Variants reporte d NR

us

TTP 2.5mths

NR

2 mths (1-not estimated)

11% A763_Y764insFQEA (2)

2.0 mths (0.9-18)

0% NA

TTF 2.4mths (1-4.5)

11 gefitinib (10) erlotinib (1)

0% NA

1.4mths

NA

4 2 gefitinib, 2erlotinib

0% NA

NR

NR

2 gefitinib

0% NA

NR

d

M

an

8% N771delinsKPP A763 Y764insFQEA 50% b V774_C775insHV A763_Y764insFQEA

Ac ce pt e

N, number in study

NR

NA; not applicable, NR; not reported, TTP; time to treatment progression, TTF; time to treatment failure a includes 3 complex b chemo + 1st-generation TKI

1

Page 23 of 27

Table 2

Table 2: Clinical outcomes in Exon 20 point mutations and response to EGFR-TKIs N included Specific Mutation (N)

No. evaluable TKI TKI exposure

ORR (%) Mutation with response

Median PFS (mths)(range)

Yang 201682a

8a

N=8 S768I (1) S768I+G719X S768I+L858R (7)

8 Afatanib

100% NR

14.7

Chen 201665b

10b

10 Erlotinib, gefitinib, icotinib

20% NR

2.7mths

Chiu 201564

17c

N=10 S768I (3) S768I+del19 (3) S768I+L858R (4) N=7 S768I (7)

7 1st gen

33%

NR

Wu 201180

6

4 1st gen

25% V774A

Chou 200566

3

N=4 V774A (1) V774M (1) S784F (1) K806E (1) N=3 A763V (1) V765A (1) T783A (1)

3 Gefitinib

66% V765A, T783A

cr us

1.6mths (0.4-6.9)

M

an

3.9mths (1.9-6.0)

Ac ce pt e

d

NR; not reported a predominantly complex mutations (n=7) b includes 7 complex mutations c 10 G719X+S768I reported in table 5

ip t

N, number in study

1

Page 24 of 27

Table 3

Table 3: Clinical outcomes in exon 18 mutations treated with EGFR-TKIs N included Specific Mutation (N)

No. evaluable TKI TKI exposure

ORR (%) Mutation with response

Median PFS (mths) (range)

Yang 201563a

20

N=18 G719X (8) G719X complex (10)

18a Afatanib

77.8% NR

13.8 mths (6.8-NE)

Beau Faller 201448

28

N=18 G719X (11) Other (7)

18 1st gen

7% G719S

3 mths (1- not estimated)

Klughamme r 201669b

24

N=13b G719X (5) S720X (3) E709delins (1) Others (4)

10c Erlotinib+Bev(6) Erlotinib (4)

8% G719C (1)

Sequist 201513

4

N=3 G719X (3)

3 Neratinib

75% G719X

Wu 201180

10

N=10 G719X (8) Del E709-T710Ins (2)

10 1st gen

Baek 201583

7

7 1st gen

Chiu 201564

78

N=7 G719X (4) S720X (2) F723L (1) N=76 G719X

Keam 2014 d

UK

UK

3 Gefitinib

Watanabe (NEJ002) 201484

7

N=7 G719X

cr

us

an

3 gefitinib

2.7 mths (0-16.4)

12.1 mths

40% G719A (3) G719D (1)

3.9 mths (0.2-33.2)

14% NR

1.3 mths (0-3.5)

36.8% G719X

6.3 mths

0% NA

0.9 mths (0.6-1.4)

0% NA

1.8 mths (0.5-2.2)

M

Ac ce pt e

d

76 1st gen

ip t

N, number in study

NR; not reported, NA; not applicable a includes complex mutations; b 9 complex mutations removed, 2 patient treated with bevacizumab only excluded, c 1not evaluable for response d excludes 1 MEC and includes a del18

1

Page 25 of 27

Table 4

Table 4 : Clinical outcomes in exon 21- L861Q treated with EGFR-TKIs N included Specific Mutation (N)

No. evaluable TKI TKI exposure

ORR (%) Mutation with response

Median PFS (mths) (range)

Yanga 201663

16a

16 Afatanib

56.8%a NR

8.2mths (4.5-16.6)

Wu 201180

7

N=16 L861Q (12) L861Q+G719X (3) L861Q+del19 (1) N=7 L861Q (6) L861R (1)

7 Gefitinib

71%

8.7 mths (2.8-37.5)

Chiu 201564

57

N=54 L861Q (54)

54 1st gen

40%

8.1 mths

Keam 201477

UK

N=3 L861Q (3)

3 Gefitinib

33%

Watanabe (NEJ002) 201484

3

N=3 L861Q (3)

2 Gefitinib

50%

cr us

6.4 +10.6 mths

d

M

an

complex mutations included

3.0 mths (0.8-4.6)

Ac ce pt e

a4

ip t

N, number in study

1

Page 26 of 27

Table 5

Table 5: Clinical outcomes in complex mutations excluding co-occurring T790M mutations, treated with EGFR-TKIs N, number in study

N included Specific Mutation (N)

No. evaluable TKI TKI exposure

ORR (%) Mutation with response

Median PFS (mths)(range)

Chiu 201564

19

N=19 G719X + L861Q (9) G719X + S768I (10)

19 1st gen

11.9 mths

Cheng 201578

5

N=5 G719X+ L819Q (1) E709X+other (2) V689L +L858R (1) G724S+S768I (1)

5 1st gen

88.9% 68% G719X+L861Q (8) G719X+S768I (5) 90% G719S+L861Q V689L+L858R E709K+G719C E709K+L858R

Beau-Faller 2014 48 a

8a

N=5 G719X+S7681 (2) G719X + L86IQ (1) Other (2)

5 1st-gen

60% G719X+other (3)

TTP 4mths (3-14)

Baek 201583b

23b

N=23 Classical + other (12) G719X + other or other (11)

23 1st-gen

78% Classical+other (9) Other (9)

N=16 Del19 +L858R (8) G719S+L858R (6) Del 19 + L861Q (1) Other (1)

12c Gefitinib

Keam 201477d

19,d

N=18 G719X + other (1) Del 19+ other (6) L858R+del 19 (1) L858R + other (9) Other/UK (1)

18 1st gen

Wu 201180

42

N=32 E709X + other (5) G719X + other (5) S7681 + L858R (2) Other (20)

Kobayashi 201374

11

Peng 201475

22

ip t

cr

7.4 mths (classical +other)

us

67% Del19+L858R (6) Del19+L861Q (1) L833V+L858R (1)

M

21, c

an

b

Hata 201085

RFS 24.2+ mths (14.8+-65.0)

5.1 (non classical +other) (0.0-17.4) 9.7 mths (0.7-31.3)

7.6mths (0.7-53.5)

32 1st-gen

56% Q701L+I706T+G719S (1) E709X + L858R (2) G719X+Other (3) S768I + L858R (2) Other + L861X (2) Other + L858R (6) Other +del19 (2)

3.5 mths (0.2-32.5)

N=7 G719X + other (3) L858R + other (3) Del747_T751+R776S(1)

7 Erlotinib

86% G719X+other (3) Del747_T751+R776S(1) L858R+other (2)

6 + mths (2-20)

N=9e G719X + other (3) E709X + other (1) Del 19 + other (3) S768I + other (1) Other (1)

9 Gefitinib

22% G719A, L833V, V834C (1) Del19+L858R (1)

8mths (0.5-21)

Ac ce pt e

d

67% del19+ other (4) L858R + other (7) L861Q+G719A (1)

NR; not reported, RFS; relapse-free survival, TTP; time to treatment progression aTwo

patients with T790M and L858R were excluded from analysis, 1 not treated with EGFR-TKI classical group includes 2 co-occurring T790M and the non classical group includes 2 single L861Q mutations c 5 patients with no available information excluded, 16 remaining and included in survival, 12 available for response. d 1 T790M complex mutation excluded e 2 T790M complex mutations excluded bThe

1

Page 27 of 27