Dataset Information

Prospective and clinical validation of ALK immunohistochemistry: results from the phase I/II study of alectinib for ALK-positive lung cancer (AF-001JP study).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusions need to be accurately and efficiently detected for ALK inhibitor therapy. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) remains the reference test. Although increasing data are supporting that ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) is highly concordant with FISH, IHC screening needed to be clinically and prospectively validated. PATIENTS AND METHODS:In the AF-001JP trial for alectinib, 436 patients were screened for ALK fusions through IHC (n = 384) confirmed with FISH (n = 181), multiplex RT-PCR (n = 68), or both (n = 16). IHC results were scored with iScore. RESULT:ALK fusion was positive in 137 patients and negative in 250 patients. Since the presence of cancer cells in the samples for RT-PCR was not confirmed, ALK fusion negativity could not be ascertained in 49 patients. IHC interpreted with iScore showed a 99.4% (173/174) concordance with FISH. All 41 patients who had iScore 3 and were enrolled in phase II showed at least 30% tumor reduction with 92.7% overall response rate. Two IHC-positive patients with an atypical FISH pattern responded to ALK inhibitor therapy. The reduction rate was not correlated with IHC staining intensity. CONCLUSIONS:Our study showed (i) that when sufficiently sensitive and appropriately interpreted, IHC can be a stand-alone diagnostic for ALK inhibitor therapies; (ii) that when atypical FISH patterns are accompanied by IHC positivity, the patients should be considered as candidates for ALK inhibitor therapies, and (iii) that the expression level of ALK fusion is not related to the level of response to ALK inhibitors and is thus not required for patient selection. REGISTRATION NUMBER:JapicCTI-101264 (This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center).

SUBMITTER: Takeuchi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4684157 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective and clinical validation of ALK immunohistochemistry: results from the phase I/II study of alectinib for ALK-positive lung cancer (AF-001JP study).

Takeuchi K K Togashi Y Y Kamihara Y Y Fukuyama T T Yoshioka H H Inoue A A Katsuki H H Kiura K K Nakagawa K K Seto T T Maemondo M M Hida T T Harada M M Ohe Y Y Nogami N N Yamamoto N N Nishio M M Tamura T T

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20151020 1

<h4>Background</h4>Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusions need to be accurately and efficiently detected for ALK inhibitor therapy. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) remains the reference test. Although increasing data are supporting that ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) is highly concordant with FISH, IHC screening needed to be clinically and prospectively validated.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>In the AF-001JP trial for alectinib, 436 patients were screened for ALK fusions through IHC ( ...[more]

PMID: 26487585

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:This is the first trial to directly compare efficacy and safety of alectinib versus standard chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who have progressed on, or were intolerant to, crizotinib. Patients and methods:ALUR (MO29750; NCT02604342) was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III trial of alectinib versus chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC patients previously treated with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy and crizotinib. Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive alectinib 600?mg twice daily or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500?mg/m2 or docetaxel 75?mg/m2, both every 3?weeks) until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results:Altogether, 107 patients were randomized (alectinib, n?=?72; chemotherapy, n?=?35) in 13 countries across Europe and Asia. Median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.6?months [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.9-12.2] with alectinib and 1.4?months (95% CI: 1.3-1.6) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.15 (95% CI: 0.08-0.29); P?<?0.001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with alectinib [HR 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17-0.59); median PFS was 7.1?months (95% CI: 6.3-10.8) with alectinib and 1.6?months (95% CI: 1.3-4.1) with chemotherapy]. In patients with measurable baseline central nervous system (CNS) disease (alectinib, n?=?24; chemotherapy, n?=?16), CNS objective response rate was significantly higher with alectinib (54.2%) versus chemotherapy (0%; P?<?0.001). Grade ?3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy (41.2%) than alectinib (27.1%). Incidence of AEs leading to study-drug discontinuation was lower with alectinib (5.7%) than chemotherapy (8.8%), despite alectinib treatment duration being longer (20.1?weeks versus 6.0?weeks). Conclusion:Alectinib significantly improved systemic and CNS efficacy versus chemotherapy for crizotinib-pretreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients, with a favorable safety profile. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604342; Roche study MO29750.

Project description:Alectinib--a highly selective, CNS-active, ALK inhibitor-showed promising clinical activity in crizotinib-naive and crizotinib-resistant patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of alectinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on previous crizotinib.We did a phase 2 study at 27 centres in the USA and Canada. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with stage IIIB-IV, ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed after crizotinib. Patients were treated with oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily until progression, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the response-evaluable population (ie, patients with measurable disease at baseline who received at least one dose of study drug), and efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all enrolled patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01871805. The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment.Between Sept 4, 2013, and Aug 4, 2014, 87 patients were enrolled into the study (intention-to-treat population). At the time of the primary analysis (median follow-up 4·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·1]), 33 of 69 patients with measurable disease at baseline had a confirmed partial response; thus, the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60). Adverse events were predominantly grade 1 or 2, most commonly constipation (31 [36%]), fatigue (29 [33%]), myalgia 21 [24%]), and peripheral oedema 20 [23%]). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine phosphokinase (seven [8%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (five [6%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (four [5%]). Two patients died: one had a haemorrhage (judged related to study treatment), and one had disease progression and a history of stroke (judged unrelated to treatment).Alectinib showed clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed on crizotinib. Therefore, alectinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with ALK-positive disease who have progressed on crizotinib.F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Project description:BackgroundCentral nervous system (CNS) metastases in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are a cause of substantial morbidity and mortality. Although alectinib had demonstrated promising intracranial efficacy in several clinical trials, data were limited on its CNS activity in real-world settings.MethodsIn this retrospective study, ALK-positive NSCLC patients with brain metastases (BM) or leptomeningeal metastases (LM) from six hospitals in China were divided into three cohorts based on the treatment history before the administration of alectinib. ALK-TKI-naive patients were enrolled in cohort 1, cohort 2 included patients who experienced intracranial progression with or without extracranial progression after treatment with crizotinib, and cohort 3 included patients who developed progression only in CNS following treatment with other second-generation ALK-TKIs. The definition and evaluation of intracranial and extracranial lesions were based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.ResultsSixty-five patients were eligible and included in our study (cohort 1: 20, cohort 2: 32, cohort 3: 13). For the overall population and patients with uncontrolled CNS metastases, similar intracranial response in CNS target lesions was observed: cohort 1: 81.8% and 80%; cohort 2: 76.5% and 86.7%; cohort 3: 42.8% and 33.3%. For patients in these three cohorts, 75% (6/8), 78.6% (11/14), and 83.3% (5/6) were reported to have significant improvement in CNS-related symptoms respectively. The number of patients who were in need of mannitol or corticosteroids decreased remarkably after the treatment of alectinib (p < 0.001), and there was also a steep fall-over in the number of patients with ECOG ≥2 points before and after the administration of alectinib (p = 0.003). All patients (8/8) diagnosed with LM ± BM experienced substantial alleviation in CNS-related symptoms. In cohort 1 and cohort 2, no significant difference in CNS-time to progression was found between patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic BM when treated with alectinib alone.ConclusionsOur study substantiated the potent CNS activity of alectinib in real-world settings. Patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic BM could benefit from alectinib comparatively, which indicated that alectinib alone might defer the timing of local treatment. However, our results should be treated cautiously owing to limited sample size.

Project description:Background:The phase III ALEX study in patients with treatment-naive advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its primary end point of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib. Here, we present detailed central nervous system (CNS) efficacy data from ALEX. Patients and methods:Overall, 303 patients aged ?18?years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600?mg or crizotinib 250?mg. Brain imaging was conducted in all patients at baseline and every subsequent 8?weeks. End points (analyzed by subgroup: patients with/without baseline CNS metastases; patients with/without prior radiotherapy) included PFS, CNS objective response rate (ORR), and time to CNS progression. Results:In total, 122 patients had Independent Review Committee-assessed baseline CNS metastases (alectinib, n?=?64; crizotinib, n?=?58), 43 had measurable lesions (alectinib, n?=?21; crizotinib, n?=?22), and 46 had received prior radiotherapy (alectinib, n?=?25; crizotinib, n?=?21). Investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib was consistent between patients with baseline CNS metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.64] and those without (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80, P interaction = 0.36). Similar results were seen in patients regardless of prior radiotherapy. Time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib versus crizotinib and comparable between patients with and without baseline CNS metastases (P?<?0.0001). CNS ORR was 85.7% with alectinib versus 71.4% with crizotinib in patients who received prior radiotherapy and 78.6% versus 40.0%, respectively, in those who had not. Conclusion:Alectinib demonstrated superior CNS activity and significantly delayed CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK+ NSCLC, irrespective of prior CNS disease or radiotherapy. Clinical trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840.

Project description:BackgroundMature progression-free survival (PFS) data from the phase III J-ALEX study showed superiority for alectinib versus crizotinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.52; median PFS 34.1 versus 10.2 months, respectively] in advanced ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) data were immature (HR 0.80, 99.8799% CI 0.35-1.82) at the time of data cut-off (30 June 2018). We report final OS data after ≥5 years of follow-up.Patients and methodsALK inhibitor naive Japanese patients who were chemotherapy naive or had received one prior chemotherapy regimen were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive alectinib 300 mg (n = 103) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 104) twice daily until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was independent review facility-assessed PFS, with OS (not fully powered) as a secondary endpoint.ResultsMedian duration of OS follow-up was 68.6 months with alectinib and 68.0 months with crizotinib. Treatment with alectinib did not prolong OS relative to crizotinib (HR 1.03, 95.0405% CI 0.67-1.58; P = 0.9105). Five-year OS rates were 60.9% (95% CI 51.4-70.3) with alectinib and 64.1% (95% CI 54.9-73.4) with crizotinib. In total, 91.3% (n = 95/104) of crizotinib-treated patients and 46.6% (n = 48/103) of alectinib-treated patients received at least one subsequent anticancer therapy. After study drug discontinuation, 78.8% of patients in the crizotinib arm switched to alectinib, while 10.7% of patients in the alectinib arm switched to crizotinib as a first subsequent anticancer therapy. Patients randomized to crizotinib tended to switch treatment earlier than those randomized to alectinib.ConclusionFinal OS analysis from J-ALEX did not show superiority of alectinib to crizotinib; this result was most likely confounded by treatment crossover. Alectinib remains a standard of care for the treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

Project description:ImportanceQuantitative assessment of bias from unmeasured confounding and missing data can help evaluate uncertainty in findings from indirect comparisons using real-world data (RWD).ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of alectinib vs ceritinib in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients with ALK-positive, crizotinib-refractory, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to assess the sensitivity of these findings to unmeasured confounding and missing data assumptions.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness research study compared patients from 2 phase 2 alectinib trials and real-world patients. Patients were monitored from June 2013 to March 2020. Comparisons of interest were between alectinib trial data vs ceritinib RWD and alectinib RWD vs ceritinib RWD. RWD treatment groups were selected from nationally representative cancer data from US cancer clinics, the majority from community centers. Participants were ALK-positive patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC, prior exposure to crizotinib, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (PS) of 0 to 2. Data analysis was performed from October 2020 to March 2021.ExposuresInitiation of alectinib or ceritinib therapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was OS.ResultsIn total, there were 355 patients: 183 (85 men [46.4%]) in the alectinib trial, 91 (43 men [47.3%]) in the ceritinib RWD group, and 81 (38 men [46.9%]) in the alectinib RWD group. Patients in the alectinib trial were younger (mean [SD] age, 52.53 [11.18] vs 57.97 [11.71] years), more heavily pretreated (mean [SD] number of prior therapy lines, 1.95 [0.72] vs 1.47 [0.81]), and had more favorable baseline ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 165 patients [90.2%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) than those in the ceritinib RWD group. The alectinib RWD group (mean [SD] age, 58.69 [11.26] years) had more patients with favorable ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 49 patients [92.4%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) and more White patients (56 patients [72.7%] vs 53 patients [62.4%]) compared with the ceritinib group. Compared with ceritinib RWD, alectinib-exposed patients had significantly longer OS in alectinib trials (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75; P < .001) and alectinib RWD (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; P < .001) after adjustment for baseline confounders. For the worst-case HR estimate of 0.59, residual confounding by a hypothetical confounder associated with mortality and treatment by a risk ratio greater than 2.24 was required to reverse the findings. Conclusions were robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for missing ECOG PS and underrecorded comorbidities and central nervous system metastases in RWD.Conclusions and relevanceAlectinib exposure was associated with longer OS compared with ceritinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, and only substantial levels of bias examined reversed the findings. These findings suggest that quantitative bias analysis can be a useful tool to address uncertainty of findings for decision-makers considering RWD.

Dataset Information

Prospective and clinical validation of ALK immunohistochemistry: results from the phase I/II study of alectinib for ALK-positive lung cancer (AF-001JP study).

Publications

Prospective and clinical validation of ALK immunohistochemistry: results from the phase I/II study of alectinib for ALK-positive lung cancer (AF-001JP study).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets