N Engl J Med
First-Line Lorlatinib or Crizotinib in Advanced -Positive Lung Cancer.
Abstract
Background
Lorlatinib, a third-generation inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has antitumor activity in previously treated patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy of lorlatinib, as compared with that of crizotinib, as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC is unclear.
Methods
We conducted a global, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in 296 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included independently assessed objective response and intracranial response. An interim analysis of efficacy was planned after approximately 133 of 177 (75%) expected events of disease progression or death had occurred.
Results
The percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 12 months was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84) in the lorlatinib group and 39% (95% CI, 30 to 48) in the crizotinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41; P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 76% (95% CI, 68 to 83) of the patients in the lorlatinib group and 58% (95% CI, 49 to 66) of those in the crizotinib group; among those with measurable brain metastases, 82% (95% CI, 57 to 96) and 23% (95% CI, 5 to 54), respectively, had an intracranial response, and 71% of the patients who received lorlatinib had an intracranial complete response. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hyperlipidemia, edema, increased weight, peripheral neuropathy, and cognitive effects. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 adverse events (mainly altered lipid levels) than crizotinib (in 72% vs. 56%). Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events occurred in 7% and 9% of the patients, respectively.
Conclusions
In an interim analysis of results among patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, those who received lorlatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival and a higher frequency of intracranial response than those who received crizotinib. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher with lorlatinib than with crizotinib because of the frequent occurrence of altered lipid levels. (Funded by Pfizer; CROWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03052608.).
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...
How do you think about sequencing therapy for a patient with ALK+ metastatic NSCLC given the available options?
The types and incidence of resistance mutations vary based on the 2nd generation ALK inhibitor given, and is most commonly the G1202R mutation, which unfortunately denotes resistance to alectinib where it accounts for about 29% of acquired resistance and brigatinib where it accounts for about 43% of...
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...
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...