Dataset Information

Alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer and comparison of next-generation TKIs after crizotinib failure: Real-world evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion is a prognostic indicator for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The real-world data of ALK TKIs remain a major concern.

Methods

Patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC, who received crizotinib or alectinib treatment in first line, were retrospectively reviewed. ALK status was detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC) or next-generation sequencing (NGS). Clinical outcomes have been comprehensively analyzed between TKIs, ALK fusions, EML4-ALK variants, and next-generation TKIs after crizotinib failure.

Results

One hundred sixty-eight patients were successively enrolled (crizotinib, n = 109; alctinib, n = 59). Alectinib showed consistent superiority in progressive-free survival (PFS) over crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.24-0.77, p = 0.004). Multivariate Cox regression showed chemotherapy (CT) prior to TKIs or synchronous chemotherapy seemed not to improve PFS compared to ALK inhibitors alone (p > 0.05). And, alectinib was superior to crizotinib in prolonging intracranial PFS (HR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.49, p = 0.003). Patients in EML4 group had a better prognosis than those in non-EML4 group after alectinib administration (HR 0.13, 95% CI: 0.03-0.60, p = 0.009). TP53 co-mutations were relatively common (34.0%) and associated with adverse outcome in ALK-positive patients (adjusted HR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.00-4.92, p = 0.049). After crizotinib failure, 33 patients received a sequential application of next-generation ALK TKIs. Compared to ceritinib and brigatinib, alectinib might have better PFS (p = 0.043).

Conclusion

Our results revealed alectinib had better PFS and higher intracranial efficacy compared to crizotinib in ALK-positive NSCLC, and might improve PFS by comparison with ceritinib and brigatinib after crizotinib failure.

SUBMITTER: Wang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9741982 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer and comparison of next-generation TKIs after crizotinib failure: Real-world evidence.

Wang Yurong Y Shen Shujing S Hu Peizhu P Geng Di D Zheng Ruipan R Li Xingya X

Cancer medicine 20220526 23

<h4>Background</h4>Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion is a prognostic indicator for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The real-world data of ALK TKIs remain a major concern.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC, who received crizotinib or alectinib treatment in first line, were retrospectively reviewed. ALK status was detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC) or next-generation sequencing (NGS). Clinical outcome ...[more]

PMID: 35616090

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are few real-world studies in which the efficacy of sequential crizotinib and second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are compared with direct therapy of second-generation ALK TKI in ALK-positive advanced lung cancer.MethodsBetween May 2014 and October 2022, 211 patients from the Zhejiang Cancer Hospital who harbored ALK rearrangement were analyzed. Of these patients, 115 received crizotinib with sequential second-generation ALK TKIs, and 96 patients received a second-generation ALK TKI directly. The survival analysis of median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and central nervous system time to progression (CNS TTP) in the various groups were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test.ResultsOf the 211 lung cancer patients with ALK rearrangement, there were no statistical differences in PFS (25.27 vs. 20.47 months, P=0.644) and OS (70.27 months vs. not reached, P=0.991) between the 115 patients in the sequential therapy group and the 96 patients in the direct second-generation group. In the patients with baseline brain metastases at study entry (n=54), the sequential therapy group had a signiﬁcantly shorter median CNS TTP than the direct second-generation group (10.40 vs. 22.40 months, P=0.040). Multivariate analyses revealed that the prognostic factors for PFS included performance status (PS, P=0.047) and brain metastases (P=0.010). For OS, the prognostic factors included PS (P=0.047) and liver metastases (P=0.021).ConclusionsThere was no statistical difference in efficacy between first-generation sequential second-generation ALK TKIs and direct therapy of second-generation ALK TKI regimens. The CNS efficacy of the direct second-generation group was better than that of the sequential therapy group. The prognostic factors for PFS included PS and brain metastases, while the prognostic factors for OS, PS and liver metastases were included.

Project description:BackgroundAlectinib--a highly selective, CNS-active, ALK inhibitor-showed promising clinical activity in crizotinib-naive and crizotinib-resistant patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of alectinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on previous crizotinib.MethodsWe did a phase 2 study at 27 centres in the USA and Canada. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with stage IIIB-IV, ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed after crizotinib. Patients were treated with oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily until progression, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the response-evaluable population (ie, patients with measurable disease at baseline who received at least one dose of study drug), and efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all enrolled patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01871805. The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment.FindingsBetween Sept 4, 2013, and Aug 4, 2014, 87 patients were enrolled into the study (intention-to-treat population). At the time of the primary analysis (median follow-up 4·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·1]), 33 of 69 patients with measurable disease at baseline had a confirmed partial response; thus, the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60). Adverse events were predominantly grade 1 or 2, most commonly constipation (31 [36%]), fatigue (29 [33%]), myalgia 21 [24%]), and peripheral oedema 20 [23%]). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine phosphokinase (seven [8%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (five [6%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (four [5%]). Two patients died: one had a haemorrhage (judged related to study treatment), and one had disease progression and a history of stroke (judged unrelated to treatment).InterpretationAlectinib showed clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed on crizotinib. Therefore, alectinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with ALK-positive disease who have progressed on crizotinib.FundingF Hoffmann-La Roche.

Project description:ImportanceQuantitative assessment of bias from unmeasured confounding and missing data can help evaluate uncertainty in findings from indirect comparisons using real-world data (RWD).ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of alectinib vs ceritinib in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients with ALK-positive, crizotinib-refractory, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to assess the sensitivity of these findings to unmeasured confounding and missing data assumptions.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness research study compared patients from 2 phase 2 alectinib trials and real-world patients. Patients were monitored from June 2013 to March 2020. Comparisons of interest were between alectinib trial data vs ceritinib RWD and alectinib RWD vs ceritinib RWD. RWD treatment groups were selected from nationally representative cancer data from US cancer clinics, the majority from community centers. Participants were ALK-positive patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC, prior exposure to crizotinib, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (PS) of 0 to 2. Data analysis was performed from October 2020 to March 2021.ExposuresInitiation of alectinib or ceritinib therapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was OS.ResultsIn total, there were 355 patients: 183 (85 men [46.4%]) in the alectinib trial, 91 (43 men [47.3%]) in the ceritinib RWD group, and 81 (38 men [46.9%]) in the alectinib RWD group. Patients in the alectinib trial were younger (mean [SD] age, 52.53 [11.18] vs 57.97 [11.71] years), more heavily pretreated (mean [SD] number of prior therapy lines, 1.95 [0.72] vs 1.47 [0.81]), and had more favorable baseline ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 165 patients [90.2%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) than those in the ceritinib RWD group. The alectinib RWD group (mean [SD] age, 58.69 [11.26] years) had more patients with favorable ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 49 patients [92.4%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) and more White patients (56 patients [72.7%] vs 53 patients [62.4%]) compared with the ceritinib group. Compared with ceritinib RWD, alectinib-exposed patients had significantly longer OS in alectinib trials (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75; P < .001) and alectinib RWD (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; P < .001) after adjustment for baseline confounders. For the worst-case HR estimate of 0.59, residual confounding by a hypothetical confounder associated with mortality and treatment by a risk ratio greater than 2.24 was required to reverse the findings. Conclusions were robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for missing ECOG PS and underrecorded comorbidities and central nervous system metastases in RWD.Conclusions and relevanceAlectinib exposure was associated with longer OS compared with ceritinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, and only substantial levels of bias examined reversed the findings. These findings suggest that quantitative bias analysis can be a useful tool to address uncertainty of findings for decision-makers considering RWD.

Dataset Information

Alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer and comparison of next-generation TKIs after crizotinib failure: Real-world evidence.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer and comparison of next-generation TKIs after crizotinib failure: Real-world evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets