Dataset Information

First-Line Lorlatinib Versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC: Japanese Subgroup Analysis of CROWN.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK inhibitor, was found to have improved efficacy versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the ongoing, global, randomized, phase 3 CROWN study.

Methods

The study's primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective and intracranial response. Here, we report efficacy and safety data of the Japanese subgroup of the CROWN study (lorlatinib 100 mg once daily, n = 25; crizotinib 250 mg twice daily, n = 23).

Results

Progression-free survival was not reached (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.3 mo-not reached) for lorlatinib and 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.4-14.8) for crizotinib (hazard ratio = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.19-1.01). Objective response (lorlatinib versus crizotinib) was 68.0% (95% CI: 46.5-85.1) versus 52.2% (95% CI: 30.6-73.2) in all patients, and intracranial response was 100.0% (three of three, 95% CI: 29.2-100.0) versus 28.6% (two of seven; 95% CI: 3.7-71.0) in patients with brain metastases at baseline. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and weight increase; 28.0% and 8.0% of patients had cognitive and mood effects (all grades 1 or 2), respectively. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 events than crizotinib (80.0% versus 72.7%). Treatment was discontinued owing to adverse events in 16.0% and 27.3% of patients in the lorlatinib and crizotinib groups, respectively.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in the Japanese subgroup were similar to those in the CROWN global population, revealing improved outcomes versus crizotinib in Japanese patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

SUBMITTER: Hayashi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10050766 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

First-Line Lorlatinib Versus Crizotinib in <i>ALK</i>-Positive NSCLC: Japanese Subgroup Analysis of CROWN.

Hayashi Hidetoshi H Teraoka Shunsuke S Goto Yasushi Y Kumagai Toru T Nishio Makoto M Sugawara Shunichi S Oizumi Satoshi S Matsumura Masakazu M Okura Masayuki M Peltz Gerson G Kato Terufumi T

JTO clinical and research reports 20230202 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK inhibitor, was found to have improved efficacy versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced <i>ALK</i>-positive NSCLC in the ongoing, global, randomized, phase 3 CROWN study.<h4>Methods</h4>The study's primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective and intracranial response. Here, we report efficacy and safety data of the Japanese s ...[more]

PMID: 37007870

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionALK-positive lung cancers represent a molecularly diverse disease. With drug exposure, driving selection pressure, and resistance pathways, disease relapse will emerge. There is compelling rationale to investigate novel treatment strategies, informed by dynamic circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) monitoring.MethodsThe single-arm, pilot study ALKTERNATE investigated fixed alternating cycles of lorlatinib intercalated with crizotinib in individuals resistant to second-generation ALK inhibitors. Dynamic ctDNA explored the correlation with disease response and disease recurrence and defined disease resistance. The primary outcome was time-to-treatment failure, a composite of tolerability, feasibility, and efficacy. Secondary outcomes included standard survival measures, toxicity, pharmacokinetic analysis, and patient-reported outcomes. Tertiary outcomes were proteogenomic analyses of tissue and plasma.ResultsA total of 15 individuals were enrolled; three encountered primary resistance to lorlatinib induction. There were 12 participants who received alternating therapy, and this approach revealed safety, feasibility, and effectiveness. Patient-reported outcomes were maintained or improved on therapy, and toxicity was consistent with previous reports. The pharmacokinetic measures were similar to the single-arm drug experience. Median time-to-treatment failure was 10 months; overall survival was 23 months. ctDNA profiles indicated inferior survival in those with preexistent TP53 mutations and those without clear or cleared ctDNA at trial induction. The study defined a vastly heterogeneous population with an abundance of ALK coexisting with non-ALK resistance variants.ConclusionsALKTERNATE revealed feasibility with a novel alternating ALK inhibitor strategy in ALK-positive NSCLC. Results support progressing inquiry into this approach and propose a flexible design with drug(s) selected and alternating time frames, informed by real-time plasma profiling. Moving this concept to treatment naive may also optimize impact.

Project description:BackgroundThe ALTA-1 L trial and EXP-3B arm of NCT01970865 trial found that both brigatinib and lorlatinib showed durable and robust responses in treating ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, brigatinib and lorlatinib treatments are costly and need indefinite administration until the disease progression. Thus, it remains uncertain whether using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy is cost-effective compared to reserving these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy.MethodsWe used a Markov model to assess clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of treating ALK-positive NSCLC individuals with brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy versus a strategy of reserving these drugs until progression after chemotherapy. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival modeling based on multiple clinical trials. The drug acquisition costs, adverse events costs, administration costs were extracted from published studies before and publicly available data. We calculated lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the perspective of a United States payer.ResultsOur base-case analysis indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using first-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib compared with second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib is $-400,722.09/QALY which meant that second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib had less costs and better outcomes. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the results were most sensitive to the cost of brigatinib. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness versus delaying these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses conducted revealed the robustness of this result, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios never exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold.ConclusionUsing brigatinib as first-line treatment followed by lorlatinib for ALK-positive NSCLC may not be cost-effective given current pricing from the perspective of a United States payer. Delaying brigatinib followed by lorlatinib until subsequent lines of treatment may be a reasonable strategy that could limit healthcare costs without affecting clinical outcomes. More mature data are needed to better estimate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Project description:ObjectivesALK inhibitors (ALKi) are the standard-of-care treatment for metastatic ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the first- and second-line setting. We conducted a real-world multi-institutional analysis, aiming to compare the efficacy of third-line ALKi versus chemotherapy in these patients.MethodsConsecutive ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC patients treated with at least one ALKi were identified in the working databases of 7 Israeli oncology centers (the full cohort). Demographic and clinical data were collected. Patients receiving any systemic treatment beyond 2 ALKi comprised the third-line cohort, whether a third ALKi (group A) or chemotherapy (group B). Groups A and B were compared in terms of overall survival (OS) and time-to-next-treatment line (TNT).ResultsAt a median follow-up of 41 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32-55), 80 (47.1%) have died. Median OS (mOS) in the full cohort (n = 170) was 52 months (95% CI: 32-65). Number of ALKi (hazard ratio [HR] 0.765; 95% CI: 0.61-0.95; P = .024) and age (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04, P = .009) significantly associated with OS in the full cohort. The third-line cohort included 40 patients, of which 27 were treated with third ALKi (group A) and 13 treated with chemotherapy (group B). mOS from third-line initiation was 27 months in group A (95% CI: 13-NR) and 13 months for group B (95% CI: 3-NR); the difference was not significant (NS; P = .12). Chemotherapy as first line (HR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05-0.52, P = .002) and a higher number of ALKi (HR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.86, P = .011) associated significantly with longer OS of the third-line cohort. TNT was 10 months for group A (95% CI: 5-19) and 3 months for group B (95% CI: 0-NR); the difference was NS (P = .079).ConclusionWe report mature real-world data of more than 4-year mOS in ALK-positive patients. The number of ALKi given was associated with a better outcome. OS and TNT demonstrated a statistically nonsignificant trend for a better outcome in patients receiving a third-line ALKi.