•Investigator-assessed PFS data in the ALEX study are now mature (53% of events in the alectinib arm).•Alectinib significantly prolonged PFS vs crizotinib (stratified HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32–0.58; ...median 34.8 vs 10.9 months).•OS data are immature (37% of events); median NR alectinib vs 57.4 months crizotinib (stratified HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46–0.98).•5-year OS rate of 62.5% with alectinib and 45.5% with crizotinib.•Median treatment duration was longer with alectinib (28.1 vs 10.8 months crizotinib), with no new safety signals seen.
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 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.
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.
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.
NCT02075840.
Concurrent programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-(L)1) plus osimertinib is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAE) in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung ...cancer (NSCLC). Now that PD-(L)1 inhibitors are routinely used as adjuvant and first-line treatments, sequential PD-(L)1 inhibition followed by osimertinib use may become more frequent and have unforeseen serious toxicity.
We identified patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC who were treated with PD-(L)1 blockade and EGFR- tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), irrespective of drug or sequence of administration (total n=126). Patient records were reviewed to identify severe (NCI-CTCAE v5.0 grades 3–4) toxicity.
Fifteen percent 6 of 41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7% to 29% of all patients treated with sequential PD-(L)1 blockade followed later by osimertinib developed a severe irAE. Severe irAEs were most common among those who began osimertinib within 3months of prior PD-(L)1 blockade (5 of 21, 24%, 95% CI 10% to 45%), as compared with >3–12months (1 of 8, 13%, 95% CI 0% to 50%), >12months (0 of 12, 0%, 95% CI 0% to 28%). By contrast, no severe irAEs were identified among patients treated with osimertinib followed by PD-(L)1 (0 of 29, 95% CI 0% to 14%) or PD-(L)1 followed by other EGFR-TKIs (afatinib or erlotinib, 0 of 27, 95% CI 0% to 15%). IrAEs occurred at a median onset of 20days after osimertinib (range 14–167days). All patients with irAEs required steroids and most required hospitalization.
PD-(L)1 blockade followed by osimertinib is associated with severe irAE and is most frequent among patients who recently received PD-(L)1 blockade. No irAEs were observed when osimertinib preceded PD-(L)1 blockade or when PD-(L)1 was followed by other EGFR-TKIs. This association appears to be specific to osimertinib, as no severe irAEs occurred with administration of other EGFR-TKIs.
A major limitation of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for somatic mutation detection has been the low level of ctDNA found in a subset of cancer patients. We investigated whether using a combined ...isolation of exosomal RNA (exoRNA) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) could improve blood-based liquid biopsy for EGFR mutation detection in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.
Matched pretreatment tumor and plasma were collected from 84 patients enrolled in TIGER-X (NCT01526928), a phase 1/2 study of rociletinib in mutant EGFR NSCLC patients. The combined isolated exoRNA and cfDNA (exoNA) was analyzed blinded for mutations using a targeted next-generation sequencing panel (EXO1000) and compared with existing data from the same samples using analysis of ctDNA by BEAMing.
For exoNA, the sensitivity was 98% for detection of activating EGFR mutations and 90% for EGFR T790M. The corresponding sensitivities for ctDNA by BEAMing were 82% for activating mutations and 84% for T790M. In a subgroup of patients with intrathoracic metastatic disease (M0/M1a; n=21), the sensitivity increased from 26% to 74% for activating mutations (P=0.003) and from 19% to 31% for T790M (P=0.5) when using exoNA for detection.
Combining exoRNA and ctDNA increased the sensitivity for EGFR mutation detection in plasma, with the largest improvement seen in the subgroup of M0/M1a disease patients known to have low levels of ctDNA and poses challenges for mutation detection on ctDNA alone.
NCT01526928
Summary Background Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ALK rearrangements generally have a progression-free survival of 8–11 months while on treatment with the ALK inhibitor ...crizotinib. However, resistance inevitably develops, with the brain a common site of progression. More potent ALK inhibitors with consistently demonstrable CNS activity and good tolerability are needed urgently. Alectinib is a novel, highly selective, and potent ALK inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with crizotinib-naive ALK -rearranged NSCLC. We did a phase 1/2 study of alectinib to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of the drug and examine its activity in patients resistant or intolerant to crizotinib. Methods We enrolled patients with ALK -rearranged NSCLC who progressed on or were intolerant to crizotinib. We administered various oral doses of alectinib (300–900 mg twice a day) during the dose-escalation portion of the study (phase 1), to ascertain the recommended dose for phase 2. We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.1) to investigate the activity of alectinib in all patients with a baseline scan and at least one post-treatment scan (CT or MRI), with central radiological review of individuals with brain metastases. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of alectinib. Here, we present data for the phase 1 portion of the study, the primary objective of which was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose; phase 2 is ongoing. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01588028. Findings 47 patients were enrolled. Alectinib was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being fatigue (14 30%; all grade 1–2), myalgia (eight 17%; all grade 1–2), and peripheral oedema (seven 15% grade 1–2, one 2% grade 3). Dose-limiting toxic effects were recorded in two patients in the cohort receiving alectinib 900 mg twice a day; one individual had grade 3 headache and the other had grade 3 neutropenia. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were increased levels of γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (two 4%), a reduction in the number of neutrophils (two 4%), and hypophosphataemia (two 4%). Three patients reported four grade 4 serious adverse events that were deemed unrelated to alectinib: acute renal failure; pleural effusion and pericardial effusion; and brain metastasis. At data cut-off (median follow-up 126 days IQR 84–217), 44 patients could be assessed for activity. Investigator-assessed objective responses were noted in 24 (55%) patients, with a confirmed complete response in one (2%), a confirmed partial response in 14 (32%), and an unconfirmed partial response in nine (20%). 16 (36%) patients had stable disease; the remaining four (9%) had progressive disease. Of 21 patients with CNS metastases at baseline, 11 (52%) had an objective response; six (29%) had a complete response (three unconfirmed) and five (24%) had a partial response (one unconfirmed); eight (38%) patients had stable disease and the remaining two (10%) had progressive disease. Pharmacokinetic data indicated that mean exposure (AUC0–10 ) after multiple doses of alectinib (300–600 mg twice a day) was dose-dependent. Interpretation Alectinib was well tolerated, with promising antitumour activity in patients with ALK -rearranged NSCLC resistant to crizotinib, including those with CNS metastases. On the basis of activity, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic data, we chose alectinib 600 mg twice a day as the recommended dose for phase 2. Funding Chugai Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffmann La-Roche.
Oncogenic alterations in RET have been identified in multiple tumour types, including 1–2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and antitumour ...activity of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor, in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.
ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study done at 71 sites (community and academic cancer centres) in 13 countries (Belgium, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, including RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 (later limited to 0–1 in a protocol amendment) were enrolled. In phase 2, patients received 400 mg once-daily oral pralsetinib, and could continue treatment until disease progression, intolerance, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. Phase 2 primary endpoints were overall response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1·1 and assessed by blinded independent central review) and safety. Tumour response was assessed in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease who had received platinum-based chemotherapy or were treatment-naive because they were ineligible for standard therapy. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03037385, and enrolment of patients with treatment-naive RET fusion-positive NSCLC was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis.
Of 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC enrolled between March 17, 2017, and May 22, 2020 (data cutoff), 92 with previous platinum-based chemotherapy and 29 who were treatment-naive received pralsetinib before July 11, 2019 (efficacy enrolment cutoff); 87 previously treated patients and 27 treatment-naive patients had centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease. Overall responses were recorded in 53 (61%; 95% CI 50–71) of 87 patients with previous platinum-based chemotherapy, including five (6%) patients with a complete response; and 19 (70%; 50–86) of 27 treatment-naive patients, including three (11%) with a complete response. In 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (43 patients 18%), hypertension (26 11%), and anaemia (24 10%); there were no treatment-related deaths in this population.
Pralsetinib is a new, well-tolerated, promising, once-daily oral treatment option for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.
Blueprint Medicines.
Summary Background Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, ...reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02008227. Findings Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months 95% CI 11·8–15·7 vs 9·6 months 8·6–11·2; hazard ratio HR 0·73 95% CI 0·62–0·87, p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months 95% CI 12·6–18·0 with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months 8·8–12·0 with docetaxel; HR 0·74 95% CI 0·58–0·93; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 95% CI 0·59–0·96). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 95% CI 0·54–0·98; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 0·60–0·89; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 15% of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 43% of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. Interpretation To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.
Purpose Alectinib has shown activity in the CNS in phase I and II studies. To further evaluate this activity, we pooled efficacy and safety data from two single-arm phase II studies (NP28761 and ...NP28673; ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01871805 and NCT01801111, respectively) in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Both studies included patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had previously received crizotinib; all patients received alectinib 600 mg twice per day. The primary end point in both studies was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed objective response rate (ORR; by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors RECIST version 1.1). Additional end points (all by IRC) included CNS ORR (CORR), CNS disease control rate (CDCR), and CNS duration of response (CDOR). Results One hundred thirty-six patients had baseline CNS metastases (60% of the overall study populations); 50 patients (37%) had measurable CNS disease at baseline. Ninety-five patients (70%) had prior CNS radiotherapy; 55 patients completed the CNS radiotherapy more than 6 months before starting alectinib. Median follow-up time was 12.4 months (range, 0.9 to 19.7 months). For patients with baseline measurable CNS disease, IRC CORR was 64.0% (95% CI, 49.2% to 77.1%), CDCR was 90.0% (95% CI, 78.2% to 96.7%), and median CDOR was 10.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 14.1 months). For patients with measurable and/or nonmeasurable baseline CNS disease, IRC CORR was 42.6% (95% CI, 34.2% to 51.4%), CDCR was 85.3% (95% CI, 78.2% to 90.8%), and median CDOR was 11.1 months (95% CI, 10.3 months to not evaluable). CORR was 35.8% (95% CI, 26.2% to 46.3%) for patients with prior radiotherapy (n = 95) and 58.5% (95% CI, 42.1% to 73.7%) for patients without prior radiotherapy (n = 41). As previously reported, alectinib was well tolerated, regardless of baseline CNS disease. Conclusion Alectinib showed good efficacy against CNS metastases, in addition to systemic activity, in crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC.
PDF
