The New England journal of medicine 2017-08-31
Alectinib versus Crizotinib in Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
Abstract
Background
Alectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease.
Methods
In a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival.
Results
During a median follow-up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12-month event-free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P<0.001); the median progression-free survival with alectinib was not reached. The results for independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival were consistent with those for the primary end point. A total of 18 patients (12%) in the alectinib group had an event of CNS progression, as compared with 68 patients (45%) in the crizotinib group (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.28; P<0.001). A response occurred in 126 patients in the alectinib group (response rate, 82.9%; 95% CI, 76.0 to 88.5) and in 114 patients in the crizotinib group (response rate, 75.5%; 95% CI, 67.8 to 82.1) (P=0.09). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were less frequent with alectinib (41% vs. 50% with crizotinib).
Conclusions
As compared with crizotinib, alectinib showed superior efficacy and lower toxicity in primary treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02075840 .).
Related Questions
Would you offer a different ALK inhibitor to a patient receiving alectinib who had decompensation of liver function in the setting of preexisting cirrhosis?
Short answer is yes. In the pivotal phase III studies that compared alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib to crizotinib in the first line setting (Peters et al., PMID 28586279, Camidge et al., PMID 30280657, Shaw et al., PMID 33207094 respectively), the risk of hepatic dysfunction (defined by increa...
Is there a preferred ALK targeting agent for patients with ALK+ mNSCLC presenting with CNS metastases?
We do not have head-to-head comparisons and thus bearing the caveats of cross-trial comparisons given the heterogeneity in patients enrolled (e.g. baseline brain mets and type of treatment received), we do this exercise given the limitations of available data. There are considerable differences in b...
For ALK positive NSCLC, where in treatment sequencing do you utilize lorlatinib?
The CROWN trial was one of the most important trials reported in the field of lung cancer in 2020. The results of this trial with a median follow up of 18 months were presented by Dr. Ben Solomon at ESMO 2020. The HR for Investigator assessed PFS in this trial with lorlatinib was 0.21 (0.28- Indepen...
What is your preferred first line therapy in metastatic ALK+ NSCLC?
For patients with known CNS metastases at baseline, lorlatinib may potentially offer better CNS disease control, albeit with more toxicity relative to brigatinib/alectinib. Brigatinib is more convenient in terms of dosing from the patient perspective (one tablet once daily versus up to four twice da...