Dataset Information

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib.

Methods

Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX.

Results

The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX.

Conclusions

Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10070922 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced <i>ALK</i>-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases.

Zhang Qing Q Lin Jessica J JJ Pal Navdeep N Polito Letizia L Trinh Huong H Hilton Magalie M Smoljanović Vlatka V Kurtsikidze Nino N Archer Venice V Krebs Matthew G MG

JTO clinical and research reports 20230224 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced <i>ALK</i>-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib.<h4>Methods</h4>Adults with advanced <i>ALK</i>-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 20 ...[more]

PMID: 37025119

Similar Datasets

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 and objectivesThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of the second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) alectinib and brigatinib in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with ALK rearrangements based on real-world data.Design and methodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective study using the Clinical Data Warehouse from seven university hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Medical Center. Patients diagnosed with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC and treated with alectinib or brigatinib were included. Key outcomes such as time to discontinuation (TTD), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed.ResultsA total of 143 patients were included (107 treated with alectinib, 36 with brigatinib). Alectinib was more frequently used as a first-line treatment (71% vs 44.4% for brigatinib, p = 0.008). Prior crizotinib treatment was more frequent in the brigatinib group (52.8% vs 22.4% for alectinib, p < 0.001). The best ORR was similar between the groups (84.1% for alectinib vs 83.3% for brigatinib, p = 0.518). The median TTD was 57.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 29.0-86.7) for alectinib and 39.6 months (95% CI: 21.7-57.4) for brigatinib (p = 0.462). No significant differences were observed in intracranial TTD, intracranial DOR, or OS between the groups. Prior crizotinib treatment significantly shortened TTD for second-generation TKIs (p = 0.025), but the overall TKI treatment duration did not show a significant difference between patients who received frontline second-generation ALK TKIs and those who received second-generation ALK TKIs sequentially after crizotinib.ConclusionAlectinib and brigatinib demonstrated comparable efficacy in ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. Undergoing crizotinib followed by a second-generation TKI was not significantly different from initiating a second-generation TKI without prior crizotinib in terms of outcomes.