Genomic Profiling of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation–Positive Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer after Progression on First-line Osimertinib: Phase II ORCHARD Study

PURPOSE: Osimertinib is the standard of care for first-line treatment for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Understanding the tumor molecular profile of patients following progression on osimertinib could help inform optimal second-line treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ORCHARD (NCT03944772), a phase II biomarker-directed study, enrolled patients with EGFRm NSCLC who progressed on first-line osimertinib to receive treatment based on their tumor molecular profile after progression. The study comprised three groups into which patients were allocated based on the molecular profile of their tumor, determined via next-generation sequencing (NGS) of a tumor biopsy. We report results from a prespecified, exploratory analysis of baseline tumor tissue and plasma samples to evaluate mechanisms of resistance to first-line osimertinib identified by tissue and plasma NGS. Agreement between tissue and plasma NGS data was also assessed. RESULTS: This study provided a comprehensive dataset exploring tissue (n = 400) and plasma (n = 191) genomics, enabling characterization of the histogenomic landscape after first-line osimertinib treatment. TP53 and MDM2/4 alterations were mutually exclusive and occurred in 86% of tumors. When combining tissue and plasma genomics, resistance alterations were detected in 87% of samples, with multiple resistance alterations in 46%. Alterations in the PI3K pathway, SOX2, and MYC were frequently detected in histologically transformed tumors. Additionally, differential patterns of co-occurring EGFR mutations in tumors with L858R versus exon 19 deletion were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis highlights potential heterogeneous resistance to first-line osimertinib treatment, providing a rationale for combining treatments with broad activity to improve patient outcomes. See related commentary by Gupta et al., p. 3718.