-
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Aug 2020The ALEX study demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The ALEX study demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the primary data cut-off (9 February 2017). We report mature PFS (cut-off: 30 November 2018) and overall survival (OS) data up to 5 years (cut-off: 29 November 2019).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients with stage III/IV ALK-positive NSCLC were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib 600 mg (n = 152) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 151) until disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal or death. Primary end point: investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included objective response rate, OS and safety.
RESULTS
Mature PFS data showed significantly prolonged investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 versus 10.9 months crizotinib]. Median duration of OS follow-up: 48.2 months alectinib, 23.3 months crizotinib. OS data remain immature (37% of events). Median OS was not reached with alectinib versus 57.4 months with crizotinib (stratified HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.98). The 5-year OS rate was 62.5% (95% CI 54.3-70.8) with alectinib and 45.5% (95% CI 33.6-57.4) with crizotinib, with 34.9% and 8.6% of patients still on study treatment, respectively. The OS benefit of alectinib was seen in patients with central nervous system metastases at baseline [HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.34-1.00)] and those without [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.45-1.26)]. Median treatment duration was longer with alectinib (28.1 versus 10.8 months), and no new safety signals were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Mature PFS data from ALEX confirmed significant improvement in PFS for alectinib over crizotinib in ALK-positive NSCLC. OS data remain immature, with a higher 5-year OS rate with alectinib versus crizotinib. This is the first global randomized study to show clinically meaningful improvement in OS for a next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive NSCLC.
CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER
NCT02075840.
Topics: Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 32418886
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.478 -
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Dec 2021In the phase 3 study entitled ALK in Lung cancer Trial of brigAtinib in 1st Line (ALTA-1L), which is a study of brigatinib in ALK inhibitor-naive advanced ALK-positive... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
In the phase 3 study entitled ALK in Lung cancer Trial of brigAtinib in 1st Line (ALTA-1L), which is a study of brigatinib in ALK inhibitor-naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, brigatinib exhibited superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib in the two planned interim analyses. Here, we report the final efficacy, safety, and exploratory results.
METHODS
Patients were randomized to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was a blinded independent review committee-assessed PFS. Genetic alterations in plasma cell-free DNA were assessed in relation to clinical efficacy.
RESULTS
A total of 275 patients were enrolled (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). At study end, (brigatinib median follow-up = 40.4 mo), the 3-year PFS by blinded independent review committee was 43% (brigatinib) versus 19% (crizotinib; median = 24.0 versus 11.1 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.66). The median overall survival was not reached in either group (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53-1.22). Posthoc analyses suggested an overall survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.89). Detectable baseline EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor PFS. Brigatinib exhibited superior efficacy compared with crizotinib regardless of EML4-ALK variant and TP53 mutation. Emerging secondary ALK mutations were rare in patients progressing on brigatinib. No new safety signals were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
In the ALTA-1L final analysis, with longer follow-up, brigatinib continued to exhibit superior efficacy and tolerability versus crizotinib in patients with or without poor prognostic biomarkers. The suggested survival benefit with brigatinib in patients with brain metastases warrants future study.
Topics: Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Crizotinib; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Organophosphorus Compounds; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 34537440
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.07.035 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Nov 2018Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear.
METHODS
In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred.
RESULTS
A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501 .).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Female; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Organophosphorus Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 30280657
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810171 -
Thoracic Cancer Apr 2018The ALK gene encodes a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor. ALK is physiologically expressed in the nervous system during embryogenesis, but its expression decreases... (Review)
Review
The ALK gene encodes a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor. ALK is physiologically expressed in the nervous system during embryogenesis, but its expression decreases postnatally. ALK first emerged in the field of oncology in 1994 when it was identified to fuse to NPM1 in anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Since then, ALK has been associated with other types of cancers, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). More than 19 different ALK fusion partners have been discovered in NSCLC, including EML4, KIF5B, KLC1, and TPR. Most of these ALK fusions in NSCLC patients respond well to the ALK inhibitor, crizotinib. In this paper, we reviewed fusion partner genes with ALK, detection methods for ALK-rearrangement (ALK-R), and the ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, crizotinib, used in NSCLC patients.
Topics: Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cell Cycle Proteins; Crizotinib; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Humans; Kinesins; Microtubule-Associated Proteins; Nuclear Pore Complex Proteins; Nucleophosmin; Oncogene Proteins, Fusion; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Proto-Oncogene Proteins; Serine Endopeptidases
PubMed: 29488330
DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.12613 -
Lancet (London, England) Feb 2021MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A comparison of sunitinib with cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.
BACKGROUND
MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC.
METHODS
We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057.
FINDINGS
Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6-12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3-7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37-0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group.
INTERPRETATION
Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC.
FUNDING
National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.
Topics: Aged; Anilides; Canada; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Crizotinib; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-met; Pyrazines; Pyridines; Sunitinib; Triazines; United States
PubMed: 33592176
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00152-5 -
Clinical Cancer Research : An Official... May 2021Current standard initial therapy for advanced, ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase fusion ()-positive (ROS1) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crizotinib...
PURPOSE
Current standard initial therapy for advanced, ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase fusion ()-positive (ROS1) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crizotinib or entrectinib. Lorlatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase/ROS1 inhibitor, recently demonstrated efficacy in ROS1 NSCLC, including in crizotinib-pretreated patients. However, mechanisms of lorlatinib resistance in ROS1 disease remain poorly understood. Here, we assessed mechanisms of resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Biopsies from patients with ROS1 NSCLC progressing on crizotinib or lorlatinib were profiled by genetic sequencing.
RESULTS
From 55 patients, 47 post-crizotinib and 32 post-lorlatinib biopsies were assessed. Among 42 post-crizotinib and 28 post-lorlatinib biopsies analyzed at distinct timepoints, mutations were identified in 38% and 46%, respectively. G2032R was the most commonly occurring mutation in approximately one third of cases. Additional mutations included D2033N (2.4%) and S1986F (2.4%) post-crizotinib and L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/S1986F/L2086F (3.6%), and S1986F/L2000V (3.6%) post-lorlatinib. Structural modeling predicted ROS1 causes steric interference to lorlatinib, crizotinib, and entrectinib, while it may accommodate cabozantinib. In Ba/F3 models, ROS1, ROS1, and ROS1 were refractory to lorlatinib but sensitive to cabozantinib. A patient with disease progression on crizotinib and lorlatinib and L2086F received cabozantinib for nearly 11 months with disease control. Among lorlatinib-resistant biopsies, we also identified amplification (4%), G12C (4%), amplification (4%), mutation (4%), and mutation (4%).
CONCLUSIONS
mutations mediate resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib in more than one third of cases, underscoring the importance of developing next-generation ROS1 inhibitors with potency against these mutations, including G2032R and L2086F. Continued efforts are needed to elucidate ROS1-independent resistance mechanisms.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alleles; Amino Acid Substitution; Aminopyridines; Antigens, Differentiation, B-Lymphocyte; Biopsy; Cell Line, Tumor; Crizotinib; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Female; Histocompatibility Antigens Class II; Humans; Lactams; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Molecular; Mutation; Oncogene Proteins, Fusion; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Proto-Oncogene Proteins; Pyrazoles; Structure-Activity Relationship; Young Adult
PubMed: 33685866
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0032 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Nov 2022Lorlatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib and showed robust intracranial activity in patients with previously untreated... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
Lorlatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib and showed robust intracranial activity in patients with previously untreated advanced -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN trial. Here, we report post hoc efficacy outcomes in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline, and present data on the incidence and management of CNS adverse events (AEs) in CROWN.
METHODS
Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line lorlatinib (100 mg once daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice a day); no crossover between treatment arms was permitted. Tumor assessments, including CNS magnetic resonance imaging, were performed at screening and then at 8-week intervals. Regular assessments of patient-reported outcomes were conducted.
RESULTS
PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% 22% and 78% 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with (7% 72%) and without (1% 18%) brain metastases at baseline. In total, 35% of patients had CNS AEs with lorlatinib, most of grade 1 severity. Occurrence of CNS AEs did not result in a clinically meaningful difference in patient-reported quality of life. At analysis, 56% of CNS AEs had resolved (33% without intervention; 17% with lorlatinib dose modification), and 38% were unresolved; most required no intervention. Lorlatinib dose modification did not notably influence PFS.
CONCLUSION
First-line lorlatinib improved PFS outcomes and reduced CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with advanced -positive non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases at baseline. Half of all CNS AEs resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Lung Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Brain Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 35605188
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.02278 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Jul 2019In the ongoing phase I PROFILE 1001 study, crizotinib showed antitumor activity in patients with ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we...
BACKGROUND
In the ongoing phase I PROFILE 1001 study, crizotinib showed antitumor activity in patients with ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we present updated antitumor activity, overall survival (OS) and safety data (additional 46.2 months follow-up) for patients with ROS1-rearranged advanced NSCLC from PROFILE 1001.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
ROS1 status was determined by FISH or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. All patients received crizotinib at a starting dose of 250 mg twice daily.
RESULTS
Fifty-three patients received crizotinib, with a median duration of treatment of 22.4 months. At data cut-off, treatment was ongoing in 12 patients (23%). The objective response rate (ORR) was 72% [95% confidence interval (CI), 58% to 83%], including six confirmed complete responses and 32 confirmed partial responses; 10 patients had stable disease. Responses were durable (median duration of response 24.7 months; 95% CI, 15.2-45.3). ORRs were consistent across different patient subgroups. Median progression-free survival was 19.3 months (95% CI, 15.2-39.1). A total of 26 deaths (49%) occurred (median follow-up period of 62.6 months), and of the remaining 27 patients (51%), 14 (26%) were in follow-up at data cut-off. Median OS was 51.4 months (95% CI, 29.3 to not reached) and survival probabilities at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 79%, 67%, 53%, and 51%, respectively. No correlation was observed between OS and specific ROS1 fusion partner. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were mainly grade 1 or 2, per CTCAE v3.0. There were no grade ≥4 TRAEs and no TRAEs associated with permanent discontinuation. No new safety signals were reported with long-term crizotinib treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings serve as a new benchmark for OS in ROS1-rearranged advanced NSCLC, and continue to show the clinically meaningful benefit and safety of crizotinib in this molecular subgroup.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00585195.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cohort Studies; Crizotinib; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Gene Rearrangement; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Proto-Oncogene Proteins; Retrospective Studies; Survival Rate
PubMed: 30980071
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz131 -
Clinical Lung Cancer Dec 2022Brigatinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Efficacy and Safety of Brigatinib Compared With Crizotinib in Asian vs. Non-Asian Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic ALK-Inhibitor-Naive ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Final Results From the Phase III ALTA-1L Study.
BACKGROUND
Brigatinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in crizotinib-refractory and ALK inhibitor-naive settings. This analysis assessed brigatinib in Asian vs. non-Asian patients from the first-line ALTA-1L trial.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This was a subgroup analysis from the phase III ALTA-1L trial of brigatinib vs. crizotinib in ALK inhibitor-naive ALK+ NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Secondary endpoints included confirmed objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in the overall population and BIRC-assessed intracranial ORR and PFS in patients with brain metastases.
RESULTS
Of the 275 randomized patients, 108 were Asian. Brigatinib showed consistent superiority in BIRC-assessed PFS vs. crizotinib in Asian (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.20-0.59]; log-rank P = .0001; median 24.0 vs. 11.1 months) and non-Asian (HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.38-0.84]; log-rank P = .0041; median 24.7 vs. 9.4 months) patients. Results were consistent with investigator-assessed PFS and BIRC-assessed intracranial PFS. Brigatinib was well tolerated. Toxicity profiles and dose modification rates were similar between Asian and non-Asian patients.
CONCLUSION
Efficacy with brigatinib was consistently better than with crizotinib in Asian and non-Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-+ NSCLC. There were no clinically notable differences in overall safety in Asian vs. non-Asian patients.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Lung Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Asian People
PubMed: 36038416
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2022.07.008 -
JAMA Oncology Nov 2021Ensartinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system efficacy for patients with ALK-positive... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Ensartinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system efficacy for patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
OBJECTIVE
To compare ensartinib with crizotinib among patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not received prior treatment with an ALK inhibitor.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial conducted in 120 centers in 21 countries enrolled 290 patients between July 25, 2016, and November 12, 2018. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were randomized (1:1) to ensartinib, 225 mg once daily, or crizotinib, 250 mg twice daily.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was blinded independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included systemic and intracranial response, time to central nervous system progression, and overall survival. Efficacy was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population as well as a prespecified modified ITT (mITT) population consisting of patients with central laboratory-confirmed ALK-positive NSCLC.
RESULTS
A total of 290 patients (149 men [51.4%]; median age, 54 years [range, 25-90 years]) were randomized. In the ITT population, the median PFS was significantly longer with ensartinib than with crizotinib (25.8 [range, 0.03-44.0 months] vs 12.7 months [range, 0.03-38.6 months]; hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]; log-rank P < .001), with a median follow-up of 23.8 months (range, 0-44 months) for the ensartinib group and 20.2 months (range, 0-38 months) for the crizotinib group. In the mITT population, the median PFS in the ensartinib group was not reached, and the median PFS in the crizotinib group was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.9-16.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.66; log-rank P < .001). The intracranial response rate confirmed by a blinded independent review committee was 63.6% (7 of 11) with ensartinib vs 21.1% (4 of 19) with crizotinib for patients with target brain metastases at baseline. Progression-free survival for patients without brain metastases was not reached with ensartinib vs 16.6 months with crizotinib as a result of a lower central nervous system progression rate (at 12 months: 4.2% with ensartinib vs 23.9% with crizotinib; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.63; P = .001). Frequencies of treatment-related serious adverse events (ensartinib: 11 [7.7%] vs crizotinib: 9 [6.1%]), dose reductions (ensartinib: 34 of 143 [23.8%] vs crizotinib: 29 of 146 [19.9%]), or drug discontinuations (ensartinib: 13 of 143 [9.1%] vs crizotinib: 10 of 146 [6.8%]) were similar, without any new safety signals.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this randomized clinical trial, ensartinib showed superior efficacy to crizotinib in both systemic and intracranial disease. Ensartinib represents a new first-line option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02767804.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Piperazines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyridazines
PubMed: 34473194
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3523