RESUMEN
Introduction: Lorlatinib was found to have improved efficacy versus crizotinib in the global phase 3 CROWN study (NCT03052608). Similar results were revealed for the Japanese population as for the overall population. We present results from the unplanned 3-year follow-up from the CROWN study in Japanese patients. Methods: Patients were randomized to either lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (n = 25) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 23). The primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective and intracranial responses assessed by blinded independent central review and safety. Results: At the data cutoff of September 20, 2021, median progression-free survival was not reached with lorlatinib and 11.1 months with crizotinib (hazard ratio = 0.36). Objective response rate was 72.0% with lorlatinib and 52.2% with crizotinib. For patients with baseline brain metastases, intracranial response rate was 100.0% versus 28.6% with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. Nine patients in the lorlatinib group received more than or equal to 1 subsequent anticancer systemic therapy, with ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor as the most common first subsequent therapy. The safety profile was consistent with that reported previously, with no new safety signals. Conclusions: This updated analysis in the Japanese population revealed prolonged benefits of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with and those without brain metastases.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK inhibitor, was found to have improved efficacy versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the ongoing, global, randomized, phase 3 CROWN study. Methods: The study's primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective and intracranial response. Here, we report efficacy and safety data of the Japanese subgroup of the CROWN study (lorlatinib 100 mg once daily, n = 25; crizotinib 250 mg twice daily, n = 23). Results: Progression-free survival was not reached (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.3 mo-not reached) for lorlatinib and 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.4-14.8) for crizotinib (hazard ratio = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.19-1.01). Objective response (lorlatinib versus crizotinib) was 68.0% (95% CI: 46.5-85.1) versus 52.2% (95% CI: 30.6-73.2) in all patients, and intracranial response was 100.0% (three of three, 95% CI: 29.2-100.0) versus 28.6% (two of seven; 95% CI: 3.7-71.0) in patients with brain metastases at baseline. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and weight increase; 28.0% and 8.0% of patients had cognitive and mood effects (all grades 1 or 2), respectively. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 events than crizotinib (80.0% versus 72.7%). Treatment was discontinued owing to adverse events in 16.0% and 27.3% of patients in the lorlatinib and crizotinib groups, respectively. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in the Japanese subgroup were similar to those in the CROWN global population, revealing improved outcomes versus crizotinib in Japanese patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.
