Lorlatinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: 5-Year Outcomes From the Phase III CROWN Study.

PURPOSE: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and intracranial activity versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN study. Here, we report long-term outcomes from CROWN after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-six patients with ALK-positive NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (n = 149) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 147). This post hoc analysis presents updated investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes, safety, and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: With a median follow-up for PFS of 60.2 and 55.1 months, respectively, median PFS was not reached (NR [95% CI, 64.3 to NR]) with lorlatinib and 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.9) with crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.27]); 5-year PFS was 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) and 8% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median time to intracranial progression was NR (95% CI, NR to NR) with lorlatinib and 16.4 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.9) with crizotinib (HR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.12]). Safety profile was consistent with that in prior analyses. Emerging new ALK resistance mutations were not detected in circulating tumor DNA collected at the end of lorlatinib treatment. CONCLUSION: After 5 years of follow-up, median PFS has yet to be reached in the lorlatinib group, corresponding to the longest PFS ever reported with any single-agent molecular targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC and across all metastatic solid tumors. These results coupled with prolonged intracranial efficacy and absence of new safety signals represent an unprecedented outcome for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC and set a new benchmark for targeted therapies in cancer.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Lorlatinib in Japanese Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced NSCLC-A Brief Report From the CROWN Study.

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.

Plain language summary of the updated results from the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary shows the updated results of an ongoing research study called CROWN that was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in December 2022. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two study medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib. The study included people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not been treated previously. All people in the study had cancer cells with changes (known as alterations) in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK. This ALK gene is involved in cancer growth. In this updated study, researchers looked at the continued benefit in people who took lorlatinib compared with people who took crizotinib after 3 years. WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?: After 3 years of being observed, people who took lorlatinib were more likely to be alive without their cancer getting worse than people who took crizotinib. At 3 years, 64% of people who took lorlatinib were alive without their cancer getting worse compared with 19% of people who took crizotinib. The cancer was less likely to have spread within or to the brain in people who took lorlatinib than in people who took crizotinib. After 3 years of being observed, 61% of people were still taking lorlatinib and 8% of people were still taking crizotinib. People who took lorlatinib had more severe side effects than people who took crizotinib. However, these side effects were manageable. The most common side effects with lorlatinib were high levels of cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. Life-threatening side effects were seen in 13% of people who took lorlatinib and 8% in crizotinib. Two people who took lorlatinib died because of side effects from lorlatinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The updated results from the CROWN study showed that a larger percentage of people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment after being observed for 3 years compared with those who took crizotinib.

Efficacy and safety of first-line lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: updated analysis of data from the phase 3, randomised, open-label CROWN study.

BACKGROUND: After a median follow-up of 18·3 months, the third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, lorlatinib, improved progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the phase 3 CROWN study. Here we report updated efficacy data, including intracranial activity, from an unplanned analysis after 3 years of follow-up. METHODS: CROWN is an ongoing, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial done in 104 centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older or aged 20 years and older (depending on local regulations) with advanced, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease, had at least one extracranial measurable target lesion (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST], version 1.1), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral lorlatinib 100 mg daily or oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. Randomisation was stratified by the presence or absence of brain metastasis, and by ethnicity. Since the primary endpoint of the study had been met at the planned interim analysis, no further formal analysis of progression-free survival was planned, per protocol. The current unplanned analysis was done to further characterise tumour-related endpoints with a longer follow-up and is presented descriptively. For the planned study, the primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, duration of response, intracranial duration of response, and safety. Efficacy endpoints were also assessed by the presence or absence of baseline brain metastases. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03052608. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 425 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 296 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the lorlatinib (n=149) or crizotinib (n=147) group. At data cutoff for this unplanned analysis (Sept 20, 2021), median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 36·7 months (IQR 31·3-41·9) for lorlatinib and 29·3 months (10·8-35·0) for crizotinib. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was not reached (95% CI not reached-not reached) for lorlatinib and was 9·3 months (7·6-11·1) for crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·27 [95% CI 0·18-0·39]). 3-year progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI 55-71) in the lorlatinib group and 19% (12-27) in the crizotinib group. Progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, and duration of response were improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain metastases (n=37 lorlatinib; n=39 crizotinib), the HR for time to intracranial progression for lorlatinib versus crizotinib was 0·10 (95% CI 0·04-0·27); in patients without baseline brain metastases (n=112 lorlatinib; n=108 crizotinib), the HR was 0·02 (95% CI 0·002-0·14). In patients without brain metastases, one (1%) in the lorlatinib group and 25 (23%) in the crizotinib group had intracranial progression. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 113 (76%) of 149 patients (most commonly due to altered lipid levels) with lorlatinib and in 81 (57%) of 142 patients with crizotinib. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 11 (7%) patients in the lorlatinib group and 14 (10%) patients in the crizotinib group. There were no new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: These updated, long-term data from CROWN show the durable benefit of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and support the use of first-line lorlatinib in patients with and without baseline brain metastases. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Factors Associated With Developing Neurocognitive Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Lorlatinib After Progression on Other Targeted Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The safety profile of lorlatinib includes neurocognitive adverse events (NAEs). Baseline factors associated with developing NAEs remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Records from patients who received lorlatinib through prospective studies at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH, n = 124) or the phase 1/2 B7461001 (NCT01970865; n = 248) study were reviewed to identify potential associations between comorbidities, baseline medications, and NAEs. RESULTS: Most patients experienced a NAE (MGH: 60%, B7461001: 49%). Cognitive effects occurred in 40% and 29% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. Brain metastases (p = 0.008), brain radiation (p = 0.033), psychiatric illness (p = 0.008), psychiatric medications (p < 0.001), antiepileptics (p < 0.001), and stimulants (p = 0.026) were associated with developing cognitive effects in B7461001. Mood effects occurred in 36% and 23% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. In the MGH cohort, psychiatric illness (p = 0.02) and stimulants (p = 0.01) were associated with developing mood effects whereas brain surgery (p = 0.020), psychiatric medications (p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (p = 0.002), and sedatives (p = 0.034) were associated with developing mood effects in B7461001. Psychotic effects were infrequent (MGH: 3%, B7461001: 9%) and were associated with brain surgery in the MGH cohort (p = 0.001) and age in B7461001 (p = 0.014). Speech effects were observed in 23% and 11% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. Brain radiation (p = 0.012) and antiepileptics (p < 0.001) were associated with speech effects in B7461001. Dose reductions were implemented for 52% and 18% of patients with NAEs in MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively, with mitigating effect. CONCLUSIONS: Neurocognitive effects from lorlatinib are common. Lorlatinib-related NAEs may be influenced by multiple factors, including brain metastases, brain radiation, psychiatric illness, and use of neurotropic medications.