Treatment of EGFR mutant advanced NSCLC

Similar documents
Treatment of EGFR mutant advanced NSCLC

Emerging Algorithm for Optimal Sequencing of EGFR TKIs in EGFR Mutation Positive NSCLC

Sequencing in EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: Does Order Matter?

EGFR TKI sequencing: does order matter?

Targeted Therapies for Advanced NSCLC

Inhibidores de EGFR Noemi Reguart, MD, PhD Hospital Clínic Barcelona IDIPAPS

Agenda. 6:30pm 7:00pm. Dinner. 7:00pm 7:15pm. NSCLC Treatment in 2014: Focus on Use of 2nd Generation TKIs in Clinical Practice.

PROGNOSTIC AND PREDICTIVE BIOMARKERS IN NSCLC. Federico Cappuzzo Istituto Toscano Tumori Ospedale Civile-Livorno Italy

EGFR inhibitors in NSCLC

Management Guidelines and Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Oncologist s Perspective

Next Generation EGFR Inhibitors

Management Strategies for Lung Cancer Sensitive or Resistant to EGRF Inhibitors

Targeted Agents as Maintenance Therapy. Karen Kelly, MD Professor of Medicine UC Davis Cancer Center

Optimum Sequencing of EGFR targeted therapy in NSCLC. Dr. Sema SEZGİN GÖKSU Akdeniz Univercity, Antalya, Turkey

Quale sequenza terapeutica nella malattia EGFR+

EGFR Mutation-Positive Acquired Resistance: Dominance of T790M

The Rapidly Changing World of EGFR Mutation-Positive Acquired Resistance

EGFR MUTATIONS: EGFR PATHWAY AND SELECTION OF FIRST-LINE THERAPY WITH TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITORS

Molecular Targets in Lung Cancer

Making the first decision: EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in the advanced setting

Recent Advances in Lung Cancer: Updates from ASCO 2017

Improving outcomes for NSCLC patients with brain metastases

Target therapy nel NSCLC con EGFR M+ Cesare Gridelli Division of Medical Oncology S.G. Moscati Hospital Avellino (Italy)

Maintenance paradigm in non-squamous NSCLC

Biomarkers of Response to EGFR-TKIs EORTC-NCI-ASCO Meeting on Molecular Markers in Cancer November 17, 2007

Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Egbert F. Smit MD PhD Dept Thoracic Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute

GIOTRIF (AFATINIB*) For journalists outside the US/UK/Canada only 1. WHAT IS GIOTRIF (AFATINIB*)? 2. HOW DOES GIOTRIF (AFATINIB*) WORK?

IMPORTANT PATHWAYS TO TARGET IN (ADVANCED) NSCLC:

Practice changing studies in lung cancer 2017

Maintenance Therapy for Advanced NSCLC: When, What, Why & What s Left After Post-Maintenance Relapse?

Post-marketing observational study of Japanese patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm+) NSCLC treated with daily afatinib (final report)

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Management of EGFR-Mutation Positive Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Profilo di tossicita degli inibitori di EGFR

Next-Generation Covalent Irreversible Kinase Inhibitors in NSCLC: Focus on Afatinib

Overall survival with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC harboring common EGFR

Choosing Optimal Therapy for Advanced Non-Squamous (NS) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Osimertinib Activity in Patients With Leptomeningeal Disease From Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Updated Results From the BLOOM Study

Lung Cancer Case. Since the patient was symptomatic, a targeted panel was sent. ALK FISH returned in 2 days and was positive.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Lung Cancer William N. William Jr.

Treatment of EGFR-Mutation+ NSCLC in 1st- and 2nd-Line

Long term survival in EGFR positive NSCLC patient. Dr.ssa G. Zago Oncologia Medica 2 Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IOV

LONDON CANCER NEW DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW. Erlotinib for the third or fourth-line treatment of NSCLC January 2012

TKI en primera línea EGFR mutado:importancia del equilibrio eficacia tolerabilidad

Metastatic NSCLC: Expanding Role of Immunotherapy. Evan W. Alley, MD, PhD Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Presbyterian

Sequence or intercalation of use of targeted agents and Chemotherapy Definition of progression under TKI

Slide 1. Slide 2 Maintenance Therapy Options. Slide 3. Maintenance Therapy in the Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Maintenance Chemotherapy

MAINTENANCE TREATMENT CHEMO MAINTENANCE OR TARGETED OF BOTH? Martin Reck Department of Thoracic Oncology LungenClinic Grosshansdorf

1st line chemotherapy and contribution of targeted agents

INNOVATION IN LUNG CANCER MANAGEMENT. Federico Cappuzzo Department of Oncology-Hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy

Changing demographics of smoking and its effects during therapy

NSCLC: Terapia medica nella fase avanzata. Paolo Bidoli S.C. Oncologia Medica H S. Gerardo Monza

Best of ASCO 2014: Highlights in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

CURRENT STANDARD OF CARE OF LUNG CANCER. Maroun El-Khoury, MD Consultant Oncologist/Hematologist American Hospital Dubai President of Medical staff

Antiangiogenic Agents in NSCLC Where are we? Which biomarkers? VEGF Is the Only Angiogenic Factor Present Throughout the Tumor Life Cycle

State of the Art Treatment of Lung Cancer Ravi Salgia, MD, PhD

Frequency of Epidermal Growth Factor Mutation Status and Its Effect on Outcome of Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Lung

Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Combination Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

Ludger Sellmann 1, Klaus Fenchel 2, Wolfram C. M. Dempke 3,4. Editorial

Slide 1. Slide 2. Slide 3. Disclosures. Personalized Medicine for Advanced NSCLC in East Asia. No conflicts related to this presentation

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 23 April 2014 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta310

First line erlotinib for NSCLC patients not selected by EGFR mutation: keep carrying the TORCH or time to let the flame die?

Kazuhisa TAKAHASHI, MD, PhD

AURA 3: the last word on chemotherapy as a control arm in EGFR mutant NSCLC?

Osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR mutant advanced nonsmall-cell

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Immune checkpoint blockade in lung cancer

Afatinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC harboring uncommon mutations: overview of clinical data

Targeted therapy in NSCLC: do we progress? Prof. Dr. V. Surmont. Masterclass 27 september 2018

Antiangiogenici in combinazione a chemioterapia in prima linea: bevacizumab

First-line treatment of EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer: critical review on study methodology

Successes and Challenges in Treating Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

Targeted Therapy for NSCLC: EGFR and ALK Fadlo R. Khuri, MD

Nivolumab: esperienze italiane nel carcinoma polmonare avanzato

AFATINIB* 1. WHAT IS AFATINIB? 2. HOW DOES AFATINIB WORK? B A C K G R O U N D E R

Squamous Cell Carcinoma Standard and Novel Targets.

Maintenance Therapy for Advanced NSCLC: Which Patients, Which Approach?

Lung Cancer. Karen Reckamp, MD Medical Director, Clinical Research. Click to edit Master Presentation Date

IRESSA (Gefitinib) The Journey. Anne De Bock Portfolio Leader, Oncology/Infection European Regulatory Affairs AstraZeneca

Targeted therapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Tom Stinchcombe Duke Cancer Insitute

Summary of the risk management plan (RMP) for Tagrisso (osimertinib)

Management of EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Jonathan Riess, MD, MS Assistant Professor UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center

Original Article. Abstract

Rociletinib (CO-1686) April, 2015

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are

Second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC

Second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC

2 nd line Therapy and Beyond NSCLC. Alan Sandler, M.D. Oregon Health & Science University

Strategies in the therapy of advanced NSCLC SAMO Winter-Conference 2008 on Chest tumors

Biomarkers in oncology drug development

11/21/2009. Erlotinib in KRAS Mt patients. Bevacizumab in Squamous patients

Balazs Halmos, M.D. Division of Hematology/Oncology Columbia University Medical Center

Immunotherapy in the clinic. Lung Cancer. Marga Majem 20 octubre 2017

Hacia una mayor individualización clínica en el CPNM. J.M. Sánchez Torres H.U. Princesa, Madrid

in combination with cisplatin as first-line doublet 3 as maintenance agent following non-pemetrexed platinum doublet 4

Plotting the course: optimizing treatment strategies in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma

Introduction. Methods. Patient and study design

NSCLC: immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Paolo Bironzo Oncologia Polmonare AOU S. Luigi Gonzaga Orbassano (To)

D Ross Camidge, MD, PhD

Transcription:

Treatment of EGFR mutant advanced NSCLC Raffaele Califano Department of Medical Oncology The Christie and University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK

Outline Data on first-line Overcoming T790M mutation Conclusion

First-line treatment NSCLC Histological sub-type EGFR/ALK/PD-L1 status

NSCLC with EGFR activating mutation

EGFR-TKIs in pretreated NSCLC patients ISEL BR.21 Thatcher et al, Lancet 2005; Shepherd et al, NEJM 2005,

EGFR activating mutations Lynch et al, NEJM 2004

EGFR activating mutations Sharma et al, Nat Rev Cancer 2007

Gefitinib

IPASS Trial Never or light ex-smoker with adenocarcinoma PS 0 2 Stage IIIB or IV chemo-naive NSCLC N=1217 R A N D O M I Z E Gefitinib (250 mg/day) Carboplatin/Paclitaxel up to 6 cycles Mok et al, NEJM 2009

PFS in ITT population Probability of PFS 1.0 0.8 0.6 Gefitinib Carboplatin / paclitaxel 5.7 vs 5.8 months 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Months At risk : Gefitinib 609 363 212 76 24 5 0 Carboplatin / paclitaxel 608 412 118 22 3 1 0

IPASS - Biomarker analysis N=1217 (100%) N=1038 biomarke r consent (85%) N=683 provided samples (56%) N=437 evaluabl e for EGFR mutation (36%)

Probability of progression-free survival Probability of progression-free survival PFS in EGFR M+ and M- EGFR mutation positive EGFR mutation negative 1.0 Gefitinib (n=132) Carboplatin / paclitaxel (n=129) 1.0 Gefitinib (n=91) Carboplatin / paclitaxel (n=85) 0.8 HR (95% CI) = 0.48 (0.36, 0.64) p<0.0001 0.8 HR (95% CI) = 2.85 (2.05, 3.98) p<0.0001 0.6 9.5 vs 6.3 months 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 At risk : Gefitinib C / P 0.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Months 132 108 71 31 11 3 0 129 103 37 7 2 1 0 0.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Months 91 21 4 2 1 0 0 85 58 14 1 0 0 0 Treatment by subgroup interaction test, p<0.0001 ITT population Cox analysis with covariates

Overall Survival Probability of survival 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Gefitinib Carboplatin / paclitaxel 18.8 vs 17.4 months HR 0.90; P = 0.109 0.2 0.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 28 Months At risk : 24 Gefitinib 609 514 423 239 118 38 0 0 Carboplatin / 608 524 401 212 104 32 1 0 paclitaxel

ORR in EGFR M+ and WT

% patients with sustained clinically relevant improvement Quality of life p=0.0148 p<0.0001 p=0.3037

Gefitinib in Asian Studies EGFR M+ Study N Regimen RR (%) PFS HR NEJ002 230 G 73.7 10.8 C/P 30.7 5.4 0.30 WJTOG 3405 177 G 62.1 9.2 C/D 32.2 6.3 0.48 Maemondo et al, NEJM 2010; Mitsudomi et al, Lancet Oncol 2010

Erlotinib

OPTIMAL study design Chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC PS 0 2 EGFR Act Mut+ n=165 R (1:1) Erlotinib Gemcitabine/Carb oplatin x 4 cycles PD Completed enrollment in <12 months Zhou et al, Lancet Oncol 2011

PFS probability OPTIMAL - PFS 1.0 0.8 Erlotinib 13.1 months G/C 4.6 months 0.6 0.4 HR=0.16 (95% CI: 0.10 0.26) Log-rank p<0.0001 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (months) Patients at risk Erlotinib 82 70 51 29 8 2 0 G/C 72 26 4 1 0 0 0

Overall Response Rate

Patients with clinically relevant improvement during the study (%) Quality of Life

EURTAC Chemonaїve Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation ECOG PS 0 2 (n=174) R (1:1) Erlotinib Platinum doublet x 4 cycles PD Rosell et al, Lancet Oncol 2012

Study profile 1227 patients screened 174 patients randomized by 26 Jan 2011 Turn-around time:4.5days 1227 Screened 224 M+ (17.6%) 50 pts not eligible 86 erlotinib 88 chemotherapy 52 PFS events 59 PFS events 94 remain in OS follow-up Completed enrollment in 4 years

PFS probability Progression Free Survival 1.0 0.8 Erlotinib (n=86) Chemotherapy (n=87) 0.6 0.4 0.2 5.2 9.7 HR=0.37 (0.25 0.54) Log-rank p<0.0001 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 Time (months)

Response Rate Erlotinib (n=86) n (%) Chemotherapy (n=87) n (%) Complete response 2 (2) 0 (0) Partial response 48 (56) 13 (15) Objective response rate 50 (58) 13 (15) Stable disease 18 (21) 44 (51) Disease control rate 68 (79) 57 (66)

OS probability Overall Survival 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Erlotinib Chemotherapy HR=0.80 (0.47 1.37) Log-rank p=0.4170 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 Time (months)

Afatinib

Afatinib Irreversible ErbB blockade

LUX-LUNG 3 Stage IIIB/IV Adeno PS 0 1 Chemotherapy-naïve EGFR mutant (n=345) R 2:1 Afatinib 40mg OD (n=230) Pemetrexed/Cisplatin q21d up to 6 cycles (n=115) Primary endpoint: PFS (IRR) Sequist LV, et al, JCO 2013

LUX-LUNG 6 Stage IIIB/IV PS 0 1 Chemotherapy-naïve EGFR mutant (n=364) Primary endpoint: PFS (IRR) Only East Asia R 2:1 Afatinib 40mg OD (n=242) Cisplatin/Gemcitabine up to 6 cycles (n=122) Wu Y-L, et al, Lancet Oncol 2014

LUX-Lung 3 and 6 Efficacy LUX-LUNG 3 LUX-LUNG 6 Afatinib n=230 Cis/pem n=115 Afatinib n=242 Cis/gem n=122 ORR (%) 56.1 22.5 66.9 23 Median PFS (mos) 11.1 6.9 11.0 5.6 HR (95% CIl) 0.58 (0.43 0.78) p=0.0004 0.28 (0.20-0.39) P<0.0001

Adverse Events Afatinib (n=229) Cis/Pem (n=111) All Gr (%) Gr 3 (%) Gr 4 (%) All Gr (%) Gr 3 (%) Gr 4 (%) Diarrhea 218 (95.2) 33 (14.4) 0 17 (15.3) 0 0 Rash/acne 204 (89.1) 37 (16.2) 0 7 (6.3) 0 0 Stomatitis/mucositis 165 (72.1) 19 (8.3) 1 (0.4) 17 (15.3) 1 (0.9) 0 Paronychia 130 (56.8) 26 (11.4) 0 0 0 0 Dry skin 67 (29.3) 1 (0.4) 0 2 (1.8) 0 0 Nausea 41 (17.9) 2 (0.9) 0 73 (65.8) 4 (3.6) 0 Decreased appetite 47 (20.5) 7 (3.1) 0 59 (53.2) 3 (2.7) 0 Fatigue 40 (17.5) 3 (1.3) 0 52 (46.8) 14 (12.6) 0 Vomiting 39 (17.0) 7 (3.1) 0 47 (42.3) 3 (2.7) 0 Neutropenia 2 (0.9) 1 (0.4) 0 35 (31.5) 17 (15.3) 3 (2.7) Anemia 7 (3.1) 1 (0.4) 0 31 (27.9) 5 (4.5) 2 (1.8)

Other Endpoints Better tolerated Symptom control Afatinib arm Global health status/qol

LUX-Lung 3 and 6: Updated OS LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) LUX-Lung 6 (n=364) Recruitment period Aug 09 Feb 11 Apr 10 Nov 11 Primary PFS analysis Feb 12 (221 events) Oct 12 (221 events) Required maturity of OS At least 209 events At least 237 events OS analysis Dec 13 (213 events; 61.7%) Jan 14 (246 events; 67.6%) Median OS follow-up 41 months 33 months OS result, overall population 28.2 vs 28.2 months HR=0.88, p=0.3850 23.1 vs 23.5 months HR=0.93, p=0.6137 Yang, et al, Lancet Oncol 2015

Trials of EGFR-TKIs vs CT in M+ Study N Median PFS (mos) Median OS (mos) TKI Chemo HR (95 % CI) TKI Chemo IPASS 261 9.5 6.3 0.48 (0.36-0.64) 21.6 21.9 First Signal 42 8.0 6.3 0.54 (0.26-1.10) 27.2 25.6 NEJ002 194 10.4 5.5 0.35 (0.25-0.50) 27.7 26.6 WJTOG 172 9.2 6.3 0.48 (0.33-0.71) 36 39 OPTIMAL 154 13.7 4.6 0.16 (0.10-0.26) 22.6 28.8 EURTAC 174 10.4 5.1 0.34 (0.25 0.54) 19.3 19.5 LUX-LUNG 3 345 11.1 6.9 0.58 (0.43-0.78) 28.2 28.2 LUX-LUNG 6 364 11.1 5.6 0.28 (0.20-0.39 23.1 23.5

Lux-Lung 7 Stage IIIB/IV adenocarcinoma EGFR mutation (Del19 and/or L858R) No prior treatment for advanced/ metastatic disease ECOG PS 0/1 N= 319 1:1 Afatinib 40 mg OD Stratified by Mutation type (Del19/L858R) Brain metastases (present/absent) Gefitinib 250 mg OD Treatment beyond progression allowed Primary endpoints: PFS (IRR), TTF, OS Paz-Ares et al, Ann Oncol 2017

Estimated PFS probability Progression-free Survival 1.0 0.8 0.6 Afatinib (n=160) Gefitinib (n=159) Median PFS (months) 11.0 10.9 HR (95% CI) 0.74 (0.57 0.95) p value 0.0178 No. of patients Afatinib Gefitinib 0.4 p=0.0176 27% p=0.0184 0.2 18% 15% 0 8% 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 Time (months) 160 142 112 94 67 47 34 27 21 13 6 3 1 0 0 159 132 106 83 52 22 14 9 7 5 3 3 1 1 0

Probability of being on-treatment Time to treatment failure 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Afatinib (n=160) Gefitinib (n=159) Median TTF (months) 13.7 11.5 HR (95% CI) 0.75 (0.60-0.94) p value 0.0136 0.2 No. of patients Afatinib Gefitinib 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 Time (months) 160 148 133 113 91 68 56 48 40 25 18 9 5 0 0 159 144 120 103 74 59 43 30 21 11 6 6 2 2 0

ORR and DOR p=0.002 73% 56% Median DoR (mos) Afatinib (n=112) Gefitinib (n=89) 10.1 8.3 95% CI (8.2 11.1) (7.3 10.2) Afatinib n=112/160 Gefitinib n=89/159

Estimated OS probability Overall Survival 1.0 0.8 Afatinib (n=160) Gefitinib (n=159) 0.6 0.4 Median, months HR (95% CI) p-value 27.9 24.5 0.86 (0.66 1.12) 0.2580 0.2 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 Time (months)

Efficacy in De1 19 and L858R Del 19 L858R Afatinib Gefitinib Afatinib Gefitinib Median PFS (months) 12.7 11.0 Median PFS (months) 10.9 10.8 HR (95% CI) p value 0.76 (0.55 1.06) 0.1071 HR (95% CI) p value 0.71 (0.47 1.06) 0.0856 Median OS, (months) 30.7 26.4 Median OS, (months) 25.0 21.2 HR (95% CI) p-value 0.83 (0.58 1.17) 0.2841 HR (95% CI) p-value 0.91 (0.62 1.36) 0.6585

Adverse Events Events, % Afatinib (n=160) Gefitinib (n=159) Any AE 98.8 100.0 Drug-related AEs 97.5 96.2 AEs leading to dose reduction* 41.9 1.9* Drug-related AEs leading to discontinuation 6.3 6.3 Serious AEs 44.4 37.1 Drug-related serious AEs 10.6 4.4 Drug-related fatal AE - 0.6 *No dose reductions foreseen for gefitinib according to prescribing information Including four patients with drug-related ILD (no drug-related ILD on afatinib) One patient died of hepatic failure

Mechanisms of resistance Blakely et al, Cancer Discovery 2012

Tackling T790M resistance mutation

Osirmetinib wt EGFR EGFRm T790M TAGRISSO Potential to Inhibition of T790M Inhibition of EGFRm Low activity on wt EGFR Overcome resistance Continue targeting sensitizing mutations Lower incidence of rash and diarrhoea Cross DAE, et al. Cancer Discovery 2014

Phase I Osirmetinib Clinical development AURA Ph I/II Patients with T790M-positive ansclc whose disease has progressed following either one prior therapy with an EGFR-TKI or following treatment with both EGFR-TKI and other anticancer therapy Rolling six design AURA2 Ph II Patients with confirmed EGFRm locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who have progressed following prior therapy with an approved EGFR-TKI Escalation Cohort 1 20 mg Cohort 2 40 mg Negative Cohort 3 80 mg n=63 Negative Cohort 4 160 mg Cohort 5 240 mg Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Central T790M mutation testing* of biopsy sample collected following confirmed disease progression Expansion First-line Biopsy Tablet Cytology First-line Biopsy T790M positive T790M negative AURA Phase II Extension (n=201) Osimertinib 80 mg QD Pooled Phase II AURA2 (n=210) Osimertinib 80 mg QD Not eligible for enrollment Janne PA et al, NEJM 2015; Goss et al, Lancet Oncol 2016

Probability of PFS Probability of PFS Progression-Free Survival 1.0 0.9 AURA Ph I 1.0 0.9 AURA pooled Ph II 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Number of patients at risk: Osimertinib 80 mg 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Month 63 55 48 36 25 20 21 24 27 15 9 5 1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 Number of patients at risk: Month Osimertinib 80 mg 441 332 271 205 161 38 0 AURA Ph I (80 mg) AURA pooled Ph II N=63 (80 mg) N=411 Median PFS *, months (95% CI) 9.7 (8.3, 13.6) 11.0 (9.6, 12.4) Remaining alive and progression-free, % (95% CI) 12 months 18 months 24 months 41 (29, 53) 29 (18, 41) 17 (8, 30) 48 (42, 53) NC NC Yang JCH, et al. ELCC 2016

Adverse Events AE category, all causality, n (%) AURA Ph I (80 mg) N=63* AURA pooled Ph II (80 mg) N=411 Any AE 62 (98) 406 (99) Any AE Grade 3 29 (46) 149 (36) Any AE leading to death 1 (2) 14 (3) Any AE leading to dose interruption 16 (25) 87 (21) Any AE leading to dose reduction 1 (2) 16 (4) Any AE leading to discontinuation 3 (5) 26 (6) Any serious AE 18 (29) 107 (26) AE category, causally-related Any AE 57 (91) 364 (89) Any AE Grade 3 11 (18) 56 (14) Any AE leading to discontinuation 0 16 (4) Any serious AE 3 (5) 23 (6) Yang JCH, et al. ELCC 2016

Drug-related AEs Ph I exp Causally-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients overall, n (%) Rash (grouped terms) AURA Ph I (80 mg) N=63* Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Any grade 21 (33) 2 (3) 0 23 (37) Diarrhoea 16 (25) 3 (5) 1 (2) 22 (35) Paronychia (grouped terms) Dry skin (grouped terms) 11 (18) 6 (10) 1 (2) 18 (29) 11 (18) 3 (5) 0 14 (22) Fatigue 9 (14) 0 0 10 (16) Select AEs ILD (grouped terms) 0 0 1 (2) 1 (2) Hyperglycaemia 0 0 0 0 QT prolongation 0 0 1 (2) 1 (2) Yang JCH, et al. ELCC 2016

Drug-related AEs pooled Ph2 Causally-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients overall, n (%) AURA pooled Ph II (80 mg) N=411* Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Any grade Rash (grouped terms) 146 (36) 18 (4) 3 (<1) 167 (41) Diarrhoea 138 (34) 17 (4) 2 (<1) 157 (38) Dry skin (grouped terms) Paronychia (grouped terms) 116 (28) 9 (2) 0 125 (30) 88 (21) 30 (7) 0 118 (29) Select AEs ILD (grouped terms) 4 (1) 0 8 (2) 12 (3) Hyperglycaemia 0 1 (<1) 0 1 (<1) QT prolongation 7 (2) 3 (<1) 4 (1) 14 (3) Yang JCH, et al. ELCC 2016

AURA3 study Key eligibility criteria Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC Evidence of disease progression following first-line EGFR-TKI therapy Documented EGFRm and central confirmation of tumour EGFR T790M mutation after firstline EGFR-TKI treatment PS 0 or 1 No more than one prior line of treatment for advanced NSCLC Stable asymptomatic CNS metastases allowed R 2:1 Osimertinib 80 mg OD (n=279) Platinumpemetrexed +/- maintenance pemetrexed (n=140) Endpoints Primary: PFS by investigator assessment (RECISTv1.1) Secondary and exploratory: OS ORR DoR DCR Tumour shrinkage BICR-assessed PFS PROs Safety and tolerability Optional crossover: Protocol amendment allowed patients on chemotherapy to begin post- BICR confirmed progression open-label osimertinib treatment Mok TS et al, NEJM 2016

Probability of Progression-free Survival Progression-free Survival (investigator) 1.0 0.8 0.6 Osimertinib (n=279) Platinum-pemetrexed (n=140) Median PFS (95% Cl) 10.1 (8.3 12.3) 4.4 (4.2 5.6) HR for disease progression or death, 0.30 (95% Cl, 0.23 0.41) P<0.001 0.4 0.2 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Months

Response Rate Osimertinib (n=279) Platinumpemetrexed (n=140) ORR, % (95% CI) 71% (65, 76) 31% (24, 40) Odds ratio* (95% CI) Complete response, n (%) Partial response, n (%) Stable disease 6 weeks, n (%) Progression, n (%) RECIST progression, n (%) Death Not evaluable, n (%) 5.39 (3.47, 8.48); P<0.001 4 (1) 193 (69) 63 (23) 18 (6) 15 (5) 3 (1) 1 (<1) 2 (1) 42 (30) 60 (43) 26 (19) 22 (16) 4 (3) 10 (7) DCR, % (95% CI) 93 (90, 96) 74 (66, 81) Odds ratio* (95% CI) Median time to response, weeks (95% CI) 4.76 (2.64, 8.84); P<0.001 6.1 (NC, NC) 6.4 (6.3, 7.0) Median DoR #, months (95% CI) 9.7 (8.3, 11.6) 4.1 (3.0, 5.6)

Safety AE category*, n (%) Osimertinib (n=279) Platinum-pemetrexed (n=136) Any AE 273 (98) 135 (99) Any AE Grade 3 63 (23) 64 (47) Any AE leading to death 4 (1) 1 (1) Any serious AE 50 (18) 35 (26) Any AE leading to discontinuation 19 (7) 14 (10) AE category, possibly causally related, n (%) Any AE 231 (83) 121 (89) Any AE Grade 3 16 (6) 46 (34) Any AE leading to death 1 (<1) 1 (1) Any serious AE 8 (3) 17 (13) Any AE leading to discontinuation 10 (4) 12 (9)

Adverse Events N (%) 15% cut-off Osimertinib (n=279) Platinum-pemetrexed (n=136) Any grade Grade 3 Any grade Grade 3 Any AE 273 (98) 63 (23) 135 (99) 64 (47) Diarrhoea 113 (41) 3 (1) 15 (11) 2 (1) Rash 94 (34) 2 (1) 8 (6) 0 Dry skin 65 (23) 0 6 (4) 0 Paronychia 61 (22) 0 2 (1) 0 Decreased appetite 50 (18) 3 (1) 49 (36) 4 (3) Cough 46 (16) 0 19 (14) 0 Nausea 45 (16) 2 (1) 67 (49) 5 (4) Fatigue 44 (16) 3 (1) 38 (28) 1 (1) Stomatitis 41 (15) 0 21 (15) 2 (1) Constipation 39 (14) 0 47 (35) 0 Vomiting 31 (11) 1 (<1) 27 (20) 3 (2) Thrombocytopaenia 28 (10) 1 (<1) 27 (20) 10 (7) Neutropaenia 22 (8) 4 (1) 31 (23) 16 (12) Leukopenia 22 (8) 0 20 (15) 5 (4) Anaemia 21 (8) 2 (1) 41 (30) 16 (12) Asthenia 20 (7) 3 (1) 20 (15) 6 (4) Select adverse events Interstitial lung disease 10 (4) 1 (<1) 1 (1) 1 (1) QT prolongation 10 (4) 1 (<1) 1 (1) 0

Take Home Message Screen for EGFR mutations! EGFR-TKIs are standard of care in EGFR M+ Look for T790M resistance mutation

Backup Slides

Aura 3 EGFR Plasma ctdna Patients with tissue sample available at screening (n=756) Plasma ctdna test results, n Tissue T790M positive (n=399) Tissue Exon 19 deletion positive (n=427) Tissue L858R positive (n=253) Plasma positive 184 273 139 Plasma negative 175 60 67 No plasma test / invalid 37 / 3 91 / 3 47 / 0 Percent agreement using tissue test as reference, % (95% CI) * Positive percent agreement (sensitivity) Negative percent agreement (specificity) 51 (46, 57) 82 (77, 86) 68 (61, 74) 77 (71, 83) 98 (96, 100) 99 (98, 100) Overall concordance 61 (57, 65) 89 (86, 91) 88 (85, 90)

Probability of progression-free survival Probability of progression-free survival AURA3: Efficacy in pts with plasma and tumour tissue T790M+ status Tumour T790M-positive (ITT) PFS HR (95% CI) Median PFS, months (95% CI) Osimertinib Platinumpemetrexed Platinumpemetrexed 0.30 (0.23, 0.41)*, p<0.001 10.1 (8.3, 12.3) 4.4 (4.2, 5.6) ORR, % (95% CI) 71 (65, 76) 31 (24, 40) Plasma T790M-positive status Osimertinib PFS HR (95% CI) 0.42 (0.29, 0.61) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 8.2 (6.8, 9.7) 4.2 (4.1, 5.1) ORR, % (95% CI) 77 (68, 84) 39 (27, 53) 1.0 0.8 Osimertinib (n=279) Platinum-pemetrexed (n=140) 1.0 0.8 Osimertinib (n=116) Platinum-pemetrexed (n=56) 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Months 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Months

Estimated OS probability Estimated OS probability LUX-Lung 3 and 6: OS in common mutations 1.0 0.8 Median, months HR (95%CI), p-value LUX-Lung 3 Afatinib n=203 Pem/Cis n=104 31.6 28.2 0.78 (0.58 1.06), p=0.1090 1.0 0.8 Median, months HR (95%CI), p-value LUX-Lung 6 Afatinib n=216 Gem/Cis n=108 23.6 23.5 0.83 (0.62 1.09), p=0.1756 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 Time (months) Time (months)

Estimated OS probability Estimated OS probability OS in Del19 subgroup 1.0 Median, months HR (95%CI), p-value LUX-Lung 3 Afatinib n=112 Pem/Cis n=57 33.3 21.1 0.54 (0.36 0.79), p=0.0015 1.0 Median, months HR (95%CI), p-value LUX-Lung 6 Afatinib n=124 Gem/Cis n=62 31.4 18.4 0.64 (0.44 0.94), p=0.0229 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 Time (months) Time (months)

Estimated OS probability Combined OS analysis: common mutations (n=631) 1.0 0.8 0.6 Afatinib n=419 Chemo n=212 Median, months 27.3 24.3 HR (95%CI), p-value 0.81 (0.66 0.99), p=0.0374 0.4 0.2 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 Time (months)

Estimated OS probability Estimated OS probability Combined OS analysis: mutation categories 1.0 0.8 Median, months HR (95%CI), p-value Del19 Afatinib n=236 Chemo n=119 31.7 20.7 0.59 (0.45 0.77), p=0.0001 1.0 0.8 Median, months HR (95%CI), p-value L858R Afatinib n=183 Chemo n=93 22.1 26.9 1.25 (0.92 1.71), p=0.1600 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 Time (months) Time (months)

Treatment at progression LUX-Lung 3 LUX-Lung 6 Afatinib (n=203) Pem/Cis (n=104) Afatinib (n=216) Gem/Cis (n=108) Discontinued treatment, n (%) 184 (100) 104 (100) 194 (100) 108 (100) Subsequent systemic therapy, n (%) 144 (78) 88 (85) 123 (63) 70 (65) Chemotherapy, n (%) 131 (71) 49 (47) 114 (59) 29 (27) EGFR TKI therapy, n (%) 81 (44) 78 (75) 50 (26) 61 (56) Erlotinib Gefitinib Afatinib AZD9291 Dacomitinib Icotinib EGFR TKI combinations 61 (33) 28 (15) 2 (1) 2 (1) 5 (3) 46 (42) 44 (42) 7 (7) 1 (1) 1 (1) 9 (9) 21 (11) 19 (10) 11 (6) 5 (3) 22 (20) 39 (36) 3 (3) 3 (3) Other systemic therapy, n (%) 5 (3) 2 (2) 3 (2) 4 (4) Radiotherapy, n (%) 32 (17) 21 (20) 4 (2) 0 (0)