Survival difference according to mutation status in a prospective cohort study of Australian patients with metastatic non‐small‐cell lung carcinoma. Issue 1 (3rd January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tan, Lavinia; Alexander, Marliese; Officer, Ann; MacManus, Michael; Mileshkin, Linda; Jennens, Ross; Herath, Dishan; de Boer, Richard; Fox, Stephen B; Ball, David; Solomon, Benjamin
• Is Part Of: Internal medicine journal. Volume 48:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: 37
• Page End: 44
• Publication Date: 2018-01-03
• Subjects: non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) -- molecular testing -- EGFR -- ALK -- KRAS; Medicine -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1111/imj.13491
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1444-0903

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease comprising not only different histological subtypes but also different molecular subtypes. Aim: To describe the frequency of oncogenic drivers in patients with metastatic NSCLC, the proportion of patients tested and survival difference according to mutation status in a single‐institution study. Methods: Metastatic NSCLC patients enrolled in a prospective Thoracic Malignancies Cohort Study between July 2012 and August 2016 were selected. Patients underwent molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ), anaplastic lymphoma kinase ( ALK ) gene rearrangements, Kirsten rat sarcoma ( KRAS ), B‐Raf proto‐oncogene ( BRAF ) mutations and ROS1 gene rearrangements. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan‐Meier method for groups of interest, and comparisons were made using the log‐rank test. Results: A total of 392 patients were included, 43% of whom were female with median age of 64 years (28–92). Of 296 patients tested, 172 patients (58%) were positive for an oncogenic driver: 81 patients (27%) were EGFR positive, 25 patients (9%) were ALK positive, 57 patients (19%) had KRAS mutation and 9 patients (3%) were ROS1 or BRAF positive. Patients with an actionable mutation ( EGFR / ALK ) had a survival advantage when compared with patients who were mutation negative (hazard ratio (HR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–0.71; P < 0.01). Survival difference between mutation negative and mutation status unknown was not statistically significant when adjusted for confounding factors in a multivariate analysis (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.97–1.78, P = 0.08). Conclusion: In this prospective cohort, the presence of an actionable mutation was the strongest predictor of overall survival. These results confirm the importance of molecular testing and suggest likely survival benefit of identification and treatment of actionable oncogenes.