Treatment of EGFR mutant advanced NSCLC

Similar documents
Treatment of EGFR mutant advanced NSCLC

Sequencing in EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: Does Order Matter?

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

EGFR TKI sequencing: does order matter?

Quale sequenza terapeutica nella malattia EGFR+

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

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

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

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

Management Strategies for Lung Cancer Sensitive or Resistant to EGRF Inhibitors

Next Generation EGFR Inhibitors

Targeted Therapies for Advanced NSCLC

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

The Rapidly Changing World of EGFR Mutation-Positive Acquired Resistance

Improving outcomes for NSCLC patients with brain metastases

EGFR inhibitors in NSCLC

Molecular Targets in Lung Cancer

Recent Advances in Lung Cancer: Updates from ASCO 2017

EGFR Mutation-Positive Acquired Resistance: Dominance of T790M

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT PATHWAYS TO TARGET IN (ADVANCED) NSCLC:

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

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

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

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

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

Practice changing studies in lung cancer 2017

1st line chemotherapy and contribution of targeted agents

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

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

Profilo di tossicita degli inibitori di EGFR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintenance paradigm in non-squamous NSCLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immune checkpoint blockade in lung cancer

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

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

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

Changing demographics of smoking and its effects during therapy

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

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

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

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

Antiangiogenici in combinazione a chemioterapia in prima linea: bevacizumab

Successes and Challenges in Treating Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

Squamous Cell Carcinoma Standard and Novel Targets.

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

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

D Ross Camidge, MD, PhD

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

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

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

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

Recent Advances in Lung Cancer: Updates from ASCO Updates from ESMO, AACR and ASCO

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

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

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

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

Opzioni terapeutiche nel paziente ALK-traslocato

Nivolumab: esperienze italiane nel carcinoma polmonare avanzato

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

Conversations in Oncology. November Kerry Hotel Pudong, Shanghai China

Second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC

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

EGFR-M+ NSCLC: Mechanistic and Clinical Considerations for Choosing the Best TKI

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

Original Article. Abstract

Overview of Lung Cancer :Perspectives from Cancer Genotype. Ji-Youn Han, MD, PhD. Center for Lung Cancer National Cancer Center

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

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

Biomarkers in oncology drug development

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

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

Diagnostic with alternative sample types (liquid biopsy)

Retrospective analysis of Gefitinib and Erlotinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer patients

Special Thanks! 10/5/2018. Page 1

Transcription:

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

Outline Data on first-line Overcoming T790M mutation Conclusion

EGFR-TKIs in pre-treated 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 biomarker consent (85%) N=683 provided samples (56%) N=437 evaluable 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

Erlotinib in EGFR M+ Study N Regimen RR (%) PFS HR OPTIMAL 165 E 83 13.1 C/G 36 4.6 0.16 EURTAC 174 E 56 9.7 Platinum doublet 15 5.2 0.37 Zhou et al, Lancet Oncol 2011; Rosell et al, Lancet Oncol 2012;

Afatinib

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

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

What s the best EGFR-TKI?

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

Efficacy PFS (months) TTF (months) OS (months) Afatinib (n=160) Gefitinib (n=159) HR (95%CI) 11.0 10.9 0.74 (0.57 0.95) 13.7 11.5 0.75 (0.60-0.94) 27.9 24.5 0.86 (0.66 1.12) p 0.0178 0.0136 0.2580

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

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

ARCHER 1050 Advanced NSCLC Adenocarcinoma EGFR exon 19/21 mut+ First-line treatment PS 0-1 No brain metastases N=440 R A N D O M I Z E Dacomitinib 45mg qd Gefitinib 250mg qd Primary endpoint: PFS Wu et al, lancet oncology 2017

ARCHER 1050: PFS (IRR)

SAEs and dose modification Outcome Serious AE, n (%) Any Treatment related Causing discontinuation Causing death Median duration of dose reduction, mos (range) Reduced dose given, n (%) 30 mg/day 15 mg/day Dacomitinib (n = 227) 62 (27.3) 21 (9.3) 22 (9.7) 2 (0.9) Gefitinib (n = 224) 50 (22.3) 10 (4.5) 15 (6.7) 1 (0.4) 11.3 (0.1-33.6) 5.2 (0.3-17.8) 87 (38.3) 63 (27.8) Pts requiring dose reduction, n (%) 150 (66.1) 18 (8.0) NA

Mechanism of resistance to 1 st /2 nd generation EGFR-TKIs Camidge DR et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014

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 Cohort 3 80 mg n=63 Cohort 4 160 mg Cohort 5 240 mg Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative 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 mg441 332 271 205 161 38 0 AURA Ph I (80 mg) N=63 AURA pooled Ph II (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

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

FLAURA Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC Key inclusion criteria 18 years* WHO performance status 0 / 1 Exon 19 deletion / L858R (enrolment by local # or central EGFR testing) No prior systemic anti-cancer / EGFR-TKI therapy Stable CNS metastases allowed Stratification by mutation status (Exon 19 deletion / L858R) and race (Asian / non-asian) Osimertinib (80 mg p.o. qd) (n=279) Randomised 1:1 EGFR-TKI SoC ; Gefitinib (250 mg p.o. qd) or Erlotinib (150 mg p.o. qd) (n=277) RECIST 1.1 assessment every 6 weeks until objective progressive disease Crossover was allowed for patients in the SoC arm, who could receive open-label osimertinib upon central confirmation of progression and T790M positivity Primary endpoint: PFS (investigator) Secondary endpoints: objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, depth of response, overall survival, patient reported outcomes, safety Soria JC et al, NEJM 2017

Probability of progression-free survival Progression-free Survival 1.0 0.8 Median PFS, months (95% CI) Osimertinib 18.9 (15.2, 21.4) SoC 10.2 (9.6, 11.1) 0.6 0.4 HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.37, 0.57) p<0.0001 0.2 0.0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 No. at risk Osimertinib SoC 279 277 262 239 233 197 Time from randomisation (months) 210 152 178 107 139 78 71 37 26 10 4 2 0 0

Safety AE, any cause, n (%) Osimertinib (n=279) SoC (n=277) Any AE 273 (98) 271 (98) Any AE Grade 3 94 (34) 124 (45) Any AE leading to death 6 (2) 10 (4) Any serious AE 60 (22) 70 (25) Any AE leading to discontinuation Safety 37 (13) 49 (18) AE, possibly causally related, n (%) Any AE 253 (91) 255 (92) Any AE Grade 3 49 (18) 78 (28) Any AE leading to death 0 1 (<1) Any serious AE 22 (8) 23 (8)

Safety AEs n (%) Diarrhoea Any grade 161 (58) Osimertinib (n=279) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 120 (43) 35 (13) 6 (2) 0 Any grade 159 (57) SoC (n=277) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 116 (42) 35 (13) 6 (2) 0 Dry skin 88 (32) 76 (27) 11 (4) 1 (<1) 0 90 (32) 70 (25) 17 (6) 3 (1) 0 Paronychia 81 (29) 37 (13) 43 (15) 1 (<1) 0 80 (29) 46 (17) 32 (12) 2 (1) 0 Stomatitis 80 (29) 65 (23) 13 (5) 1 (<1) 1 (<1) 56 (20) 47 (17) 8 (3) 1 (<1) 0 Dermatitis acneiform Decreased appetite 71 (25) 61 (22) 10 (4) 0 0 134 (48) 71 (26) 50 (18) 13 (5) 0 56 (20) 27 (10) 22 (8) 7 (3) 0 51 (18) 24 (9) 22 (8) 5 (2) 0 Pruritis 48 (17) 40 (14) 7 (3) 1 (<1) 0 43 (16) 30 (11) 13 (5) 0 0 Cough 46 (16) 34 (12) 12 (4) 0 0 42 (15) 25 (9) 16 (6) 1 (<1) 0 Constipation 42 (15) 33 (12) 9 (3) 0 0 35 (13) 28 (10) 7 (3) 0 0 AST increased 26 (9) 18 (6) 6 (2) 2 (1) 0 68 (25) 38 (14) 18 (6) 12 (4) 0 ALT increased 18 (6) 11 (4) 6 (2) 1 (<1) 0 75 (27) 31 (11) 19 (7) 21 (8) 4 (1)

Take Home Message EGFR-TKIs are standard of care in EGFR M+ Look for T790M resistance mutation Osirmetinib: a new option for 1 st line treatment

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

AURA3 Subgroup analysis CNS mets cfas Pts with measurable and/or nonmeasurable CNS metastases cefr Pts with 1 measurable CNS metastases Key Eligibility Criteria: Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC Disease progression following first-line EGFR TKI therapy Documented EGFRm and central confirmation of tumour EGFR T790M mutation after first-line EGFR TKI No more than 1 prior line of treatment for advanced NSCLC Stable* asymptomatic CNS metastases allowed R 2:1 Osimertinib 80 mg orally once daily n = 279 Platinumpemetrexed n = 140 CNS metastases n = 75 (27%) CNS metastases n = 41 (29%) 1 measurable CNS metastases n = 30 (11%) 1 measurable CNS metastases n = 16 (11%) N = 419 n = 116 (28%) CNS tumour assessment by BICR ENDPOINTS CNS PFS by RECIST v1.1 ENDPOINTS CNS ORR CNS duration of response 1. Mok TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:629-640. 2. Suppl. Info for: Mok TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:629-640.

Probability of Progression-free Survival Probability of Progression-free Survival AURA3: PFS in patients with or without CNS metastases at baseline 1. 0 0. 8 0. 6 With CNS metastases 1 Without CNS metastases 10.8 (8.3-12.5) 2 Median PFS, months (95% Cl) Osimertinib (n=93) 8.5 (6.8-12.3) Platinum-pemetrexed 4.2 (4.1-5.4) (n=51) Hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.32 (95% Cl, 0.21 0.49) 1. 0 0. 8 0. 6 Osimertinib (n=186) Platinum-pemetrexed (n=89) Hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40 (95% Cl, 0.29 0.55) Median PFS, months (95% Cl) 5.6 (4.2-6.8) 0. 4 0. 4 0. 2 0. 2 No. at risk Osimertinib 0 Platinumpemetrexed 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 93 80 46 51 32 9 27 Months 4 14 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Months 18 16 11 61 36 9 0 6 0 6 13 5 1 0 89 61 35 1. Mok TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:629-640. 2. Suppl. Info for: Mok TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:629-640.

AURA 3: subgroup analysis CNS metastases Osimertinib 80 mg n = 30 Chemotherapy n = 16 CNS ORR (95% CI) 70% (51-85) 31% (11-59) Odds ratio (95% CI) 5.13 (1.44-20.64); P =.015 Median time to response, wk 6.1 6.1 Median DoR, mo (95% CI) 8.9 (4.3-NC) 5.7 (NC-NC) DCR (95% CI) 93% (78-99) 63% (35-85) Patients with CNS metastases were stable and asymptomatic 1. Mok TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:629-640. 2. Suppl. Info for: Mok TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:629-640.

AURA3: competing risk analysis The probability of experiencing a CNS progression event was lower for osimertinib than for chemotherapy at both 3 and 6 months a a conditional on the patient not experiencing a competing risk at that time. Mok T. et al. Presented at ASCO Annual Meeting 2-6 June 2017; Chicago, IL USA. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35 suppl:abstr 9005.

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)