Pearl
Oncogenic addiction is a weird term. It conjures up odd images of tumor cells smoking cigarettes and slamming tequila in a dive bar.
The term is used to describe tumor cells that are dependent on a mutated gene or cellular pathway to survive (interesting, NCCN must not like this word because it’s not in their guidelines)
This addiction is good for us because we can exploit that by using one of our many targeted agents to block that gene/pathway (we don’t have drugs for all of them but we have a lot)
One challenge this targeted approach brings is what to do with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in this population
We know ICI is highly effective in lung cancer but the studies have largely excluded patients with oncogenic drivers so we’re not really sure how well they can play together in the sandbox.
On the unusual chance they find themselves in the same sandbox, we have seen some fights 🥊. Data show less benefit of ICI in patients with EGFR and ALK driven tumors and the guidelines address these specifically (but do not mention other driver mutations).
In addition to less efficacy, there may be an increase in toxicity, particularly lung toxicities. The FAERS database study found an odds ratio for developing pneumonitis of 5.09 in patients treated with an EGFR TKI + nivolumab versus 1.22 with just nivolumab 😳.
So maybe we shouldn’t given them concurrently, what about sequentially?
There are some data that sequentially also isn’t great but we don’t know how much time in between is optimal.
This is coming up even more with ICIs used in early stage disease. Not all neoadjuvant/adjuvant ICI trials required molecular testing and not all patients are getting this testing at diagnosis.
What if we are giving adjuvant ICI and the patient progresses. They get molecular testing and it turns out they are ALK +, should we wait before giving the ALK inhibitor? And how long? If you want to read more about this, here is a great article.
Lot’s of murkiness which makes it an exciting time in oncology! |