Dataset Information

Ensartinib vs Crizotinib for Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Ensartinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system efficacy for patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Objective

To compare ensartinib with crizotinib among patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not received prior treatment with an ALK inhibitor.

Design, setting, and participants

This open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial conducted in 120 centers in 21 countries enrolled 290 patients between July 25, 2016, and November 12, 2018. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (1:1) to ensartinib, 225 mg once daily, or crizotinib, 250 mg twice daily.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was blinded independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included systemic and intracranial response, time to central nervous system progression, and overall survival. Efficacy was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population as well as a prespecified modified ITT (mITT) population consisting of patients with central laboratory-confirmed ALK-positive NSCLC.

Results

A total of 290 patients (149 men [51.4%]; median age, 54 years [range, 25-90 years]) were randomized. In the ITT population, the median PFS was significantly longer with ensartinib than with crizotinib (25.8 [range, 0.03-44.0 months] vs 12.7 months [range, 0.03-38.6 months]; hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]; log-rank P < .001), with a median follow-up of 23.8 months (range, 0-44 months) for the ensartinib group and 20.2 months (range, 0-38 months) for the crizotinib group. In the mITT population, the median PFS in the ensartinib group was not reached, and the median PFS in the crizotinib group was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.9-16.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.66; log-rank P < .001). The intracranial response rate confirmed by a blinded independent review committee was 63.6% (7 of 11) with ensartinib vs 21.1% (4 of 19) with crizotinib for patients with target brain metastases at baseline. Progression-free survival for patients without brain metastases was not reached with ensartinib vs 16.6 months with crizotinib as a result of a lower central nervous system progression rate (at 12 months: 4.2% with ensartinib vs 23.9% with crizotinib; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.63; P = .001). Frequencies of treatment-related serious adverse events (ensartinib: 11 [7.7%] vs crizotinib: 9 [6.1%]), dose reductions (ensartinib: 34 of 143 [23.8%] vs crizotinib: 29 of 146 [19.9%]), or drug discontinuations (ensartinib: 13 of 143 [9.1%] vs crizotinib: 10 of 146 [6.8%]) were similar, without any new safety signals.

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, ensartinib showed superior efficacy to crizotinib in both systemic and intracranial disease. Ensartinib represents a new first-line option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02767804.

SUBMITTER: Horn L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414368 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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 methodsOverall, 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionAlectinib 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840.

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.