Dataset Information

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study.

ABSTRACT: 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?

SUBMITTER: Gadgeel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6290889 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study.

Gadgeel S S Peters S S Mok T T Shaw A T AT Kim D W DW Ou S I SI Pérol M M Wrona A A Novello S S Rosell R R Zeaiter A A Liu T T Nüesch E E Balas B B Camidge D R DR

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20181101 11

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Overall, 303 patients aged ≥18 years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600 mg o ...[more]

PMID: 30215676

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundThis 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 methodsALUR (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).ResultsAltogether, 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).ConclusionAlectinib significantly improved systemic and CNS efficacy versus chemotherapy for crizotinib-pretreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients, with a favorable safety profile.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604342; Roche study MO29750.

Dataset Information

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study.

Publications

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets