Adding SBRT improves local control and disease progression in the brain but not overall survival. Do the radiation oncologists have input? Is it worth it to control symptoms?
Newer-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements have demonstrated high CNS activity. The optimal use of up-front stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BM) in patients eligible for CNS-penetrant TKIs is controversial, and data to guide patient management are limited.
Data on TKI-naïve patients with EGFR- and ALK-driven NSCLC with BM treated with CNS-penetrant TKIs with and without up-front SRS were retrospectively collected from seven academic centers in the United States. Time-to-CNS progression and overall survival (OS) were analyzed, with multivariable adjustment in Fine & Gray and Cox proportional hazards models for clinically relevant factors.
From 2013 to 2022, 317 patients were identified (200 TKI-only and 117 TKI + SRS). Two hundred fifty (79%) and 61 (19%) patients received osimertinib and alectinib, respectively. Patients receiving TKI + SRS were more likely to have BM ≥1 cm (P < .001) and neurologic symptoms (P < .001) at presentation. Median OS was similar between the TKI and TKI + SRS groups (median 41 v 40 months, respectively; P = .5). On multivariable analysis, TKI + SRS was associated with a significant improvement in time-to-CNS progression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.96]; P = .033). Local CNS control was significantly improved with TKI + SRS (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.55]; P < .001), whereas no significant differences were observed in distant CNS control. Subgroup analyses demonstrated a greater benefit from TKI + SRS in patients with BM ≥1 cm in diameter for time-to-CNS progression and CNS progression-free survival.
The addition of up-front SRS to CNS-penetrant TKI improved time-to-CNS progression and local CNS control, but not OS, in patients with BM from EGFR- and ALK-driven NSCLC. Patients with larger BM (≥1 cm) may benefit the most from up-front SRS.
Superior to osi (23 vs 16 progression-free survival). This is more toxic though, but seems manageable. Could this be a new first line standard of care? Also, this includes brain penetration data.
Neoadjuvant Osimertinib did not have a significant impact on major pathologic response and there were no ypCR’s after a median of ~8 weeks of therapy. I do think this shows a measurable response, enough such that I would consider Osi in a patient with “borderline resectable” disease.
Osimertinib in adjuvant, now after chemotherapy and radiation, next… Neoadjuvant??? Trials are ongoing.
This is here till progression.
Failed? Numerical overall survival (OS) benefit for sacituzumab vs docetaxol, but not statistically significant. Better tolerated, also overall survival (OS) noticed more in patients who did not respond to antiPDL-1 therapy.
This is a very hard and depressing disease, but now with hope. EGFR-mutated NSCLS patients showed response to osimertinib in more than 50%, 15% complete response (CR), 15 months survival. This is promising, and maybe now we can study other TKIs in this mets.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
