Dataset Information

Front-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and ALK fusion: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It remains unknown what is the optimal front-line choice for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized phase III clinical trials comparing two or more treatments as the front-line setting for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

Results

Nine phase III randomized clinical trials with 2367 patients were included. As to efficacy, lorlatinib had the most favorable progression-free survival [PFS; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 98.4%] in the first-line setting, with noticeable outcome benefits versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR): 0.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.19], crizotinib (HR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.19-0.41), ceritinib (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13-0.37), and brigatinib (HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.35-0.96), as well as beneficial trends when compared with alectinib (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.41-1.04) and ensartinib (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.36-1.08). Meanwhile, alectinib showed the optimal overall survival (OS; SUCRA = 91.2%), with significant improvements over chemotherapy (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.72) and crizotinib (HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Similarly, brigatinib also displayed prolonged OS compared with crizotinib after adjustment for crossover by the marginal structural model (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.92). In terms of safety, alectinib had the fewest grade 3-5 adverse events (SUCRA = 98.9%), with marked advantages versus crizotinib [odds ratio (OR): 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.97], ceritinib (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10-0.43), brigatinib (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20-0.69), ensartinib (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.89), and lorlatinib (OR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16-0.54).

Conclusions

Lorlatinib may have advantageous PFS compared with other agents but a greater risk of severe toxicity. Second-generation inhibitors, including alectinib, brigatinib, and ensartinib, provide major efficacy with less toxicity and remain appropriate regimens in the front-line setting.

SUBMITTER: Wen Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9403455 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Front-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and ALK fusion: a network meta-analysis.

Wen Yaokai Y Jiang Tao T Wu Xiangrong X Peng Haoxin H Ren Shengxiang S Zhou Caicun C

Therapeutic advances in medical oncology 20220822

<h4>Background</h4>It remains unknown what is the optimal front-line choice for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized phase III clinical trials comparing two or more treatments as the front-line setting for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.<h4>Results</h4>Nine phase III randomized clinical trials with 2367 patients were included. As to efficacy, lor ...[more]

PMID: 36032351

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe brain is a common metastatic site in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), resulting in a relatively poor prognosis. Systemic therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR -mutated, advanced NSCLC patients. However, intracranial activity varies in different drugs. Thus, brain metastasis (BM) should be considered when choosing the treatment regimens. We conducted this network meta-analysis to explore the optimal first-line therapeutic schedule for advanced EGFR -mutated NSCLC patients with different BM statuses.MethodsRandomized controlled trials focusing on EGFR-TKIs (alone or in combination) in advanced and EGFR -mutant NSCLC patients, who have not received systematic treatment, were systematically searched up to December 2021. We extracted and analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A network meta-analysis was performed with the Bayesian statistical model to determine the survival outcomes of all included therapy regimens using the R software. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare intervention measures, and overall rankings of therapies were estimated under the Bayesian framework.ResultsThis analysis included 17 RCTs with 5077 patients and 12 therapies, including osimertinib + bevacizumab, aumolertinib, osimertinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, standards of care (SoC, including gefitinib, erlotinib, or icotinib), SoC + apatinib, SoC + bevacizumab, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT), PbCT, and pemetrexed free chemotherapy (PfCT). For patients with BM, SoC + PbCT improved PFS compared with SoC (HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.17-0.95), and osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank first in PFS, with a cumulative probability of 34.5%, followed by aumolertinib, with a cumulative probability of 28.3%. For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab, osimertinib, aumolertinib, SoC + PbCT, dacomitinib, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + bevacizumab, and afatinib showed superior efficacy compared with SoC (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.90; HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68; HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.77; HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66; HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.89; HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50-1.00), PbCT (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.18-0.64; HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.82; HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22-0.87; HR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74; HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31-0.75), and PfCT (HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32; HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.09-0.26; HR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.29; HR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.35; HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.31; HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.34) in terms of PFS. And, SoC + apatinib showed relatively superior PFS when compared with PbCT (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.92) and PfCT (HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39), but similar PFS to SoC (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.03). No statistical differences were observed for PFS in patients without BM between PbCT and SoC (HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.84-2.64), but both showed favorable PFS when compared with PfCT (PfCT vs. SoC, HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.06-4.55; PbCT vs. PfCT, HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32). For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank the first, with cumulative probabilities of 47.1%. For OS, SoC + PbCT was most likely to rank first in patients with and without BM, with cumulative probabilities of 46.8%, and 37.3%, respectively.ConclusionOsimertinib + bevacizumab is most likely to rank first in PFS in advanced EGFR -mutated NSCLC patients with or without BM, and SoC + PbCT is most likely to rank first in OS.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety and effects on quality of life of different ALK-inhibitors for global and Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsThe included RCTs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and major cancer conferences. The assessment of progression-free survival (PFS), intracranial PFS, overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was carried out using restricted mean survival time (RMST) model, fractional polynomial model and Royston-Parmar model. Time-invariant hazard ratio (HR) models were also used to validate and supplement the primary analysis. Objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events with any grade, grade 3-5 were assessed through a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary measures for OS, PFS, and PROs were HR and RMST. The odds ratio was the metric for evaluating safety, ORR, 12-month PFS rate, 24-month OS rate, and the 12-month non-deterioration rate of PROs. Subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics were performed.ResultsA total of fourteen studies (ten for first-line, four for second-line) consisting of nine treatments (chemotherapy, crizotinib, alectinib [600mg BID], low-dose alectinib [300mg BID], brigatinib, ceritinib, ensartinib, envonalkib, and lorlatinib) were included. In the first-line setting, alectinib showed a significant advantage over crizotinib and had the longest OS among all ALK-inhibitors. Compared to crizotinib, lorlatinib had the best efficacy regarding PFS for global patients, followed closely by alectinib and brigatinib. For Asian patients, alectinib significantly improved PFS compared to other treatments. In second-line, alectinib had the highest PFS for patients pretreated with crizotinib, followed by brigatinib, ceritinib and chemotherapy. Alectinib, irrespective of the dose, was the safest first-line option, whereas lorlatinib, brigatinib, and ceritinib showed poorer safety profiles. Alectinib was also the safest ALK-inhibitor for crizotinib-resistant patients. Brigatinib had the best performance in terms of PROs.ConclusionsConsidering both efficacy and safety, alectinib appears to be the preferable treatment in first-line and second-line, particularly for Asian patients.

Project description:Background: The impact of smoking on the efficacy of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment is controversial and has not been systematically explored in the first-line setting. We performed a systematic review based on a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to address this issue. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Clinical-Trials.gov, and other resources were searched until 5 January 2022. Progression-free survival (PFS) was considered the main outcome of interest. Randomized controlled trials with smoking status analysis were included. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was performed to assess the risk of bias. Random effects models were adopted conservatively in meta-analysis. The NMA was performed in a Bayesian framework using the "gemtc" version 1.0-1 package of R-4.1.2 software. Results: A total of 2,484 patients from nine studies were eligible for this study, with 1,547 never-smokers (62.3%) and 937 smokers (37.7%). In a pairwise meta-analysis, in the overall population, no significant difference was found between never-smokers and smokers. However, in the subgroup analyses based on crizotinib-controlled studies, anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) derived better PFS in the smoking group over the never-smoking group in the Asian population (HR = 0.17, 95%CI = 0.09-0.31 in the smoking group, HR = 0.39, 95%CI = 0.24-0.65 in the never-smoking group, p = 0.04, low quality of evidence). In NMA, among never-smokers, lorlatinib ranked the highest for PFS (SUCRA = 96.2%), but no significant superiority was found among the new-generation ALK-TKIs except for ceritinib. In smokers, low-dose alectinib performed best (SUCRA = 95.5%) and also demonstrated a significant superiority over ensartinib (HR = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.08-0.68, very low quality of evidence), brigatinib (HR = 0.38, 95%CI = 0.14-0.99, low quality of evidence), ceritinib (HR = 0.24, 95%CI = 0.09-0.66, low quality of evidence), crizotinib (HR = 0.18, 95%CI = 0.08-0.41, moderate quality of evidence), and chemotherapy (HR = 0.11, 95%CI = 0.05-0.28, low quality of evidence). Conclusion: In general, smoking may not affect the treatment efficacy of advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the first-line setting. However, alectinib may perform better in the smoking Asian population. Moreover, lorlatinib in never-smokers and low-dose alectinib in smokers could be considered optimal first-line therapy for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. Acceptable limitations of evidence, such as study risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, were present in this NMA.

Dataset Information

Front-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and ALK fusion: a network meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Front-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and ALK fusion: a network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets