IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v16y2025i1d10.1038_s41467-025-61817-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Poziotinib for EGFR exon 20-insertion NSCLC: Clinical efficacy of the phase 2 ZENITH trial and differential impact of EGFR exon 20 insertion location on sensitivity

Author

Listed:
  • Xiuning Le

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Jacqulyne P. Robichaux

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Monique Nilsson

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • R. S. K. Vijayan

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Ashwin Ravichandran

    (Moffett Field)

  • Jia Wu

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Yasir Y. Elamin

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Lingzhi Hong

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Jun Pei

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Jun He

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Sonia Patel

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Hibiki Udagawa

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Sriramvignesh Mani

    (The University of Chicago)

  • Chang Woon Jang

    (Moffett Field)

  • Jeffrey M. Clarke

    (Duke University Medical Center)

  • Nishan Tchekmedyian

    (City of Hope)

  • Jonathan W. Goldman

    (David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA)

  • Mark Socinski

    (AdventHealth Cancer Institute)

  • Gajanan Bhat

    (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals)

  • Sharon Leu

    (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals)

  • Veronica Bunn

    (Takeda Pharmaceutical Company)

  • Zhenqiang Su

    (Takeda Pharmaceutical Company)

  • Sylvie Vincent

    (Takeda Pharmaceutical Company)

  • John W. Lawson

    (Moffett Field)

  • Jason B. Cross

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • John V. Heymach

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center)

Abstract

EGFRex20 insertions (EGFRex20ins) can be classified as near- and far-loop based on the insertion location, however, the impact of location on responses to various EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is poorly understood. In vitro studies show that afatinib, poziotinib, and zipalertinib more potently inhibited near-loop than far-loop insertions, whereas mobocertinib has similar IC50 in both groups. Molecular dynamics simulations reveal that near-loop insertions have multiple conformational states and lower transitional energy than far-loop insertions. ZENITH20 trial cohort 1 (NCT03318939) evaluates poziotinib in EGFRex20 NSCLC patients (n = 115) and demonstrates an objective response rate of 14.8% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 8.9 to 22.6, primary endpoint of the trial). Although the study’s primary efficacy endpoint was not met in the overall cohort, the exploratory analysis indicates poziotinib has superior benefit in EGFRex20 near- versus far-insertions showing greater mean tumor size reduction (−25.9% vs. −9.8%, p = 0.0014) and progression-free survival (PFS, 11.1 vs. 3.5 months, p = 0.016). In comparison, in the previously published EXCLAIM trial (NCT02716116), mobocertinib demonstrates similar activities across both groups in tumor size reduction (−38.5% vs. −34.1%, p = 0.59) and PFS (12.0 vs. 13.0 months, p = 0.99). Therefore, EGFRex20ins location differentially impacts the sensitivity of TKIs.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiuning Le & Jacqulyne P. Robichaux & Monique Nilsson & R. S. K. Vijayan & Ashwin Ravichandran & Jia Wu & Yasir Y. Elamin & Lingzhi Hong & Jun Pei & Jun He & Sonia Patel & Hibiki Udagawa & Sriramvigne, 2025. "Poziotinib for EGFR exon 20-insertion NSCLC: Clinical efficacy of the phase 2 ZENITH trial and differential impact of EGFR exon 20 insertion location on sensitivity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-61817-8
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-61817-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61817-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-025-61817-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-61817-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.