Back to Authors

Mansfield, Aaron Scott

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 3

Impactof MET amplification (amp) on telisotuzumab vedotin (Teliso-V) efficacy and safety in 2L+ non-squamous (NSQ) EGFR wild-type (WT) NSCLC with c-Met protein ov
Mansfield, Aaron Scott, Daaboul, Nathalie , Horinouchi, Hidehito, Baijal, Shobhit , Lu, Shun, Ratajczak, Christine, Öhrling, Katarina, Patel, Shilpen, Woll, Kellie, Mhaske, Pallavi, Zhang, Jianhai, Verma, Mukesh, Zhao, Weilong , Roberts-Rapp, Lisa, Zhang, Nancy, Ansell, Peter, Navas, Tony , Camidge, David Ross , Bar, Jair , Horinouchi, Hidehito , Ratajczak, Christine K. , Sun, Yan , Roberts-Rapp, Lisa A., Navas, Tony A.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 28, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 8524-8524

10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.8524 Get It

8524 Background: Teliso-V is a c-Met–directed antibody-drug conjugate comprising telisotuzumab and the microtubule polymerization inhibitor monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) payload. In the Ph2 LUMINOSITY study (NCT03539536), Teliso-V showed durable responses and manageable safety (Camidge et al, JCO 2024;42:3000-11) resulting in its accelerated approval in locally advanced/metastatic NSQ NSCLC with high c-Met protein OE (3+, ≥50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test. MET amp is a negative prognostic risk factor in advanced NSCLC, frequently associated with recurrent disease. High levels of MET amp and c-Met OE are hallmarks of MET -addicted tumors. Here, we analyzed the effects of MET amp on clinical responses to Teliso-V in LUMINOSITY. Methods: MET amp was evaluated by FISH and ctDNA in baseline samples from 108 NSQ EGFR WT NSCLC pts with c-Met OE (3+, ≥25%). MET amp by FISH was defined as having focal MET amp (MET/CEP7 ≥2.0) with MET gene copy number (GCN) ≥4. MET amp (focal) by ctDNA was defined as having plasma MET GCN ≥4 with no co-amplification in CDK6 and EGFR. c-Met OE by Immunohistochemistry (IHC; SP44) was defined as 3+ tissue staining intensity in ≥25% tumor cells (high c-Met OE: 3+, ≥50%; intermediate [int] c-Met OE: 3+, 25% to 49%). Exploratory analysis of tumor response was assessed in 76 efficacy evaluable pts with c-Met OE and MET amp assay results. Results: MET amp was detected in 34% (37/108) of pts with c-Met OE (3+, ≥25%) and was enriched by c-Met levels: 22% (11/50) in pts with Int c-Met OE (3+, 25% to 49%) and 45% (26/58) in pts with high c-Met OE (3+, ≥50%). The effects of MET amp on tumor response in LUMINOSITY are shown in Table 1. The majority of c-Met OE pts (79%) with PFS ≥10 mo (n=14) had GCN ≥10 and/or c-Met IHC 3+ ≥50%. No new safety signals were reported in pts with c-Met OE and MET amp. Conclusions: MET amp is more common in pts with high c-Met OE in this retrospective subgroup analysis. Tumor activity with Teliso-V was observed regardless of MET amp status. The impact of MET amp in pts with c-Met OE will be further evaluated in ongoing Phase 3 study (NCT04928846). Teliso-V efficacy in NSQ EGFR -WT NSCLC pts with c-Met OE with or without MET amp in LUMINOSITY. Total c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%) Total c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%) Intermediate c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%-49%) Intermediate c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%-49%) High c-Met OE(3+, ≥50%) High c-Met OE(3+, ≥50%) MET amp(N) No (N=53) Yes (N=23) No (N=30) Yes (N=7) No (N=23) Yes (N=16) ORR %(95% CI) 28 (18.0, 41.6) 39 (22.2, 59.2) 23 (11.8, 40.9) 57 (25, 84.2) 35 (18.8, 55.1) 31 (14.2, 55.6) PFS,median, mo(95% CI) 5.26 (3.71, 8.11) 8.02 (4.47, 14.65) 5.32 (2.69, 8.11) 7.52 (4.47, NA) 4.17 (3.25, 8.87) 8.02 (3.06, 25.92) OS,median, mo(95% CI) 14.5 (8.18, 17.38) 13.86 (6.54, 22.24) 14.03 (3.65, 17.02) 9.79 (6.54, NA) 16.26 (5.59, 36.44) 13.86 (3.06, 30.29)
MC1923: Phase II durvalumab plus lurbinectedin in platinum-resistant relapsed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer after prior chemoimmunotherapy (cohort B).
Leventakos, Konstantinos, Dimou, Anastasios, Foster, Nathan, Jaszewski, Brandy L., Mansfield, Aaron Scott, Parikh, K, Lensing, Janet, Flickinger, Lynn M. , Smith, Katherine Emilie Rhoades, Behl, Deepti , Schwecke, Anna J., Luce, Ailsa, Moffett, Jenesse Nicole , Potter, Ashley, Al-Ajmi, Abdullah, Dick, Kadi, Weinmann, Dena, Molina, Julian R. , Adjei, Alex A. , Dimou, Anastasios , Nathan, Foster, Shanshal, Mohamed , Schwecke, Anna, Luce, A., Potter, Ashley , Al‐Ajmi, Abdullah

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 28, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 8094-8094

10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.8094 Get It

8094 Background: Patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy plus immunotherapy have limited options. Whether adding lurbinectedin while continuing immune checkpoint blockade at relapse improves outcomes is unknown. We report results for the platinum-resistant cohort (progression ≤3 months from last chemotherapy) of MC1923. Methods: MC1923 is a phase II trial using a Simon optimal two-stage design. Patients were assigned to a starting dose of durvalumab 1500 mg IV plus lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m 2 IV on Day 1 of 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). Accrual continued to 22 eligible patients if ≥2/9 achieved PFS6; the regimen would be considered promising if ≥7/22 (32%) were alive and progression-free at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Twenty-two patients enrolled (02/04/2022–05/21/2025); all were eligible and treated. Median age was 66 years; 32% were male; ECOG performance status was 0 in 9% and 1 in 91%; 96% had prior atezolizumab. Median cycles delivered were 4 (range 1–13). PFS6 was 4/22 (18.2%; 95% CI, 7.5–44.1%), below the prespecified threshold. Median PFS was 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.6–5.3). ORR was 13.6% (3/22; all partial responses; 95% CI, 2.9–34.9%). At data cutoff (12/18/2025), 4 patients were alive; median follow-up was 16.8 months (range 5.5–39.6). Median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 4.3–18.6) and 1-year OS was 33.1% (95% CI, 17.6–61.9%). One (1) patient discontinued treatment with durvalumab due to AE. No treatment-related Grade 5 AEs occurred; Grade 3–4 AEs at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 32% (7/22); Grade 4 AEs occurred in 5% (1/22), all hematologic. Most common Grade 3 AEs were decreased neutrophils and white blood cells (each 9%). Conclusions: Durvalumab plus lurbinectedin demonstrated manageable toxicity in platinum-resistant ES-SCLC after chemoimmunotherapy but did not meet the prespecified PFS6 efficacy threshold, supporting the need for alternative strategies in this high-risk population. Clinical trial information: NCT04607954 .
Efficacy and safety of pralsetinib in advanced or metastatic RET -altered thyroid cancer (TC): Final analysis of the phase 1/2 ARROW study.
Subbiah, Vivek, Mansfield, Aaron Scott, Taylor, Matthew H. , Schuler, M. , Hadoux, Julien , Curigliano, G, Wirth, Lori J. , Alonso, Guzman, Adkins, Douglas, Lopes, Gilberto, Ahn, Myung-Ju, Lin, Chia-Chi, Brose, Marcia S. , Garralda, Elena, Baik, Christina S. , Sheppard, Aaron, Wang, Sophia , Gainor, Justin F., Hadoux, Julien , Subbiah, Vivek , Curigliano, Giuseppe , Adkins, Douglas, Ahn, Myung‐Ju , Garralda, Elena , Bowles, Daniel W. , Gainor, Justin F.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 27, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 6028-6028

10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.6028 Get It

6028 Background: RET alterations are targetable oncogenic drivers in multiple solid tumors and TCs. Pralsetinib is an oral, potent, selective RET inhibitor granted accelerated approval by the FDA for adults and children aged ≥12 y with advanced/metastatic RET fusion-positive TC who require systemic therapy and are radioactive iodine-refractory, based on ARROW trial (NCT03037385) results. Accelerated approval for medullary TC (MTC) was withdrawn by the sponsor in 2023 due to recruitment challenges in the confirmatory trial. We report final efficacy and safety in ARROW patients with RET -altered TC and MTC. Methods: Phase 2 ARROW patients were enrolled from 84 sites in 13 countries. Primary end points were overall response rate (ORR; per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety were assessed in patients with advanced/metastatic TC and MTC who received ≥1 dose of pralsetinib (Efficacy Population [EP]). ORR and duration of response (DOR) were assessed in the Measurable Disease Population (MDP). Results: At the May 20, 2024, data lock, 28 patients with RET -altered TC and prior systemic treatment and 145 patients with RET -altered MTC received pralsetinib 400 mg/d (median treatment duration: 24.7 mo [TC]; and 35.4 mo [MTC]). In the TC and MTC groups, median age was 58 and 57 y; 39% and 64% were male; median (range) prior lines of treatment was 2 (1, 9) and 1 (1, 6). 53.8% of MTC patients had prior systemic treatment. In TC and MTC patients, ORRs (95% CI) were 91.7% (73.0, 99.0) and 68.2% (59.5, 76.0) (Table). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 27 (96%) TC and 142 (98%) MTC patients; 68% and 67% had grade ≥3. TRAEs in ≥35% of TC and MTC patients were increased AST (50% and 38%) and ALT (43% and 30%), decreased white blood cell count (39% and 30%), and anemia (39% each). Death due to a TRAE occurred in 1 TC patient (liver injury) and 1 MTC patient (pneumonia). Safety was consistent with prior reports. Conclusions: The final analysis of ARROW confirms that pralsetinib yields clinically meaningful and durable responses in patients with RET -altered TC and MTC with a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . Efficacy summary. All MTC MTCPrior Cabozantinib/Vandetanib MTC Treatment-Naïve TCPrior Systemic Treatment MDP, n 132 60 62 24 ORR, % (95% CI) 68.2(59.5, 76.0) 56.7(43.2, 69.4) 79.0(66.8, 88.3) 91.7(73.0, 99.0) Complete response, n (%) 12 (9.1) 2 (3.3) 7 (11.3) 4 (16.7) Partial response, n (%) 78 (59.1) 32 (53.3) 42 (67.7) 18 (75.0) DOR, median, mo (95% CI) 39.6(29.4, NE) 21.7(15.1, 34.8) NR(36.8, NE) NR(16.0, NE) DOR follow-up, median, mo (95% CI) 45.7(41.0, 48.4) 48.9(36.9, 58.7) 45.1(40.4, 47.8) 35.4(26.9, 40.0) EP, n 145 67 67 28 OS, median, mo (95% CI) NR(54.6, NE) 42.2(31.2, NE) NR(NE, NE) NR(25.4, NE) PFS, median, mo (95% CI) 37.2(27.5, 55.5) 24.9(19.9, 35.0) 55.3(36.8, NE) NR(14.7, NE) NE, not evaluable; NR, not reached.