Dataset Information

Concordance Between Tissue ALK Detection by Immunohistochemistry and Plasma ALK Detection by Next-Generation Sequencing in the Randomized Phase 3 ALEX Study in Patients With Treatment-Naive Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Blood First Assay Screening Trial revealed the clinical applicability of blood-based next-generation sequencing to identify patients with ALK-positive NSCLC for alectinib treatment. To understand the relationship between tissue-based versus blood-based testing, we retrospectively investigated concordance between VENTANA ALK (D5F3) CDx immunohistochemistry and the FoundationACT (FACT; Foundation Medicine, Inc.) plasma assay, and compared clinical efficacy between phase 3 ALEX study subpopulations.

Methods

Patients with advanced ALK-positive (by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg, twice daily. Assessable baseline plasma samples were analyzed for ALK positivity by FACT; positive percent agreement with immunohistochemistry was evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and objective response rate were compared between intention-to-treat (ITT) and biomarker-evaluable populations, and plasma ALK-positive and plasma ALK-negative subpopulations.

Results

In the ITT population (303 patients; alectinib, 152; crizotinib, 151), all patients had ALK-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. In the biomarker-evaluable population (149 patients; alectinib, 76; crizotinib, 73), 105 had plasma ALK-positive and 44 had plasma ALK-negative tumors. Positive percent agreement between immunohistochemistry and FACT was 70.5% (105 of 149; 95% confidence interval: 62.5-77.7). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, with some exceptions, notably tumor burden. Median PFS in plasma ALK-positive and ALK-negative patients was 22.4 months and not estimable with alectinib and 7.3 months and 12.9 months with crizotinib, respectively; median duration of response was 25.9 months and not estimable with alectinib and 5.6 months and 11.5 months with crizotinib, respectively.

Conclusions

Reasonable concordance between FACT and immunohistochemistry was observed; both methods are valuable in identifying ALK-positive patients, separately or concurrently. Alectinib was found to have superior PFS in the plasma ALK-positive population, as in the ITT population.

SUBMITTER: Noe J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9218556 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOver the past decade, ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have delivered unprecedented survival for individuals with ALK-positive (ALK+) lung cancers. Real-world data enhance the understanding of optimal drug sequencing and expectations for survival.MethodsMulticenter real-world study of individuals with pretreated advanced ALK+ lung cancers managed on a lorlatinib access program between 2016 and 2020. Key outcomes were lorlatinib efficacy, tolerability, and treatment sequencing. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method among all individuals (PFSa and OSa), with at least 30 days (one-cycle) lorlatinib exposure (PFSb and OSb), and with good performance status (PFSc and OSc). Subgroups of interest were analyzed to assess signals of potential clinical applicability. Two OS index dates were analyzed, from lorlatinib initiation and advanced ALK+ diagnosis.ResultsThe population (N = 38, 10 sites) was heavily pretreated (23 had ≥2 previous treatment lines) with a high disease burden (26 had 2-4 sites and 11 had >4 sites of metastatic disease, 19 had brain metastases). The overall response rate was 44% and the disease control rate was 81%. Lorlatinib dose reduction (18%), interruption (16%), and discontinuation (3%) were consistent with the trial experience. From advanced ALK+ diagnosis, the median OS for populations a, b, and c was 45.0 months, 69.9 months and 61.2 months respectively. From lorlatinib initiation, the median PFSa, PFSb and PFSc was 7.3 months, 13.2 months and 27.7 months and the median OSa, OSb and OSc was 19.9 months, 25.1 months and 27.7 months. The median PFSa with versus without brain metastases was 34.6 months versus 5.8 months (p = 0.09). The intracranial median PFS was 14.2 months. Previous good response versus poor response to the first ALK-directed therapy median PFSa was 27.7 months versus 4.7 months with a hazard ratio of 0.3 (p = 0.01).ConclusionsLorlatinib is a potent, highly active brain-penetrant third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors with benefits for most individuals in the later-line setting in a real-world evaluation, consistent with clinical trial data.

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.