Pralsetinib in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: A plain language summary of the ARROW study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research study called ARROW, which tested a medicine called pralsetinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thyroid cancer, and other advanced solid tumours caused by a change in a gene called RET. For the purposes of this summary, only patients with NSCLC with a change in RET called fusion (RET fusion+) are highlighted. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In total, 281 patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC had taken part in this study across the USA, Europe, and Asia. Patients were asked to take four pills (adding up to 400 mg) of pralsetinib each day and were checked for any changes in their tumours, as well as for any side effects. After an average of 8 months of treatment with pralsetinib, 72% of previously untreated patients and 59% of patients who had previously received chemotherapy had considerable shrinkage of their tumours. Among 10 patients with tumours which had spread to the brain (all of whom had received previous treatments), 70% had their tumours shrink greatly in the brain after treatment with pralsetinib. On average, patients lived with little to no tumour growth for 16 months. In previously untreated patients, the most common severe side effects that were considered related to pralsetinib treatment were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils and lymphocytes), increased blood pressure, and an increase in a blood protein called creatine phosphokinase. In previously treated patients, the severe side effects were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils, lymphocytes, and leukocytes), increased blood pressure, and low levels of red blood cells. In both untreated and previously treated patients, the most common severe side effects that required hospital attention were lung inflammation/swelling causing shortness of breath (pneumonitis) and lung infection (pneumonia). WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, the ARROW study showed that pralsetinib was effective in shrinking tumours in patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC regardless of previous treatment history. The recorded side effects were expected in patients receiving this type of medicine. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03037385 (ARROW) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases.

Introduction: Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib. Methods: Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX. Results: The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX. Conclusions: Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting.

Concordance Between Tissue ALK Detection by Immunohistochemistry and Plasma ALK Detection by Next-Generation Sequencing in the Randomized Phase 3 ALEX Study in Patients With Treatment-Naive Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC.

Introduction: The Blood First Assay Screening Trial revealed the clinical applicability of blood-based next-generation sequencing to identify patients with ALK-positive NSCLC for alectinib treatment. To understand the relationship between tissue-based versus blood-based testing, we retrospectively investigated concordance between VENTANA ALK (D5F3) CDx immunohistochemistry and the FoundationACT (FACT; Foundation Medicine, Inc.) plasma assay, and compared clinical efficacy between phase 3 ALEX study subpopulations. Methods: Patients with advanced ALK-positive (by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg, twice daily. Assessable baseline plasma samples were analyzed for ALK positivity by FACT; positive percent agreement with immunohistochemistry was evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and objective response rate were compared between intention-to-treat (ITT) and biomarker-evaluable populations, and plasma ALK-positive and plasma ALK-negative subpopulations. Results: In the ITT population (303 patients; alectinib, 152; crizotinib, 151), all patients had ALK-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. In the biomarker-evaluable population (149 patients; alectinib, 76; crizotinib, 73), 105 had plasma ALK-positive and 44 had plasma ALK-negative tumors. Positive percent agreement between immunohistochemistry and FACT was 70.5% (105 of 149; 95% confidence interval: 62.5-77.7). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, with some exceptions, notably tumor burden. Median PFS in plasma ALK-positive and ALK-negative patients was 22.4 months and not estimable with alectinib and 7.3 months and 12.9 months with crizotinib, respectively; median duration of response was 25.9 months and not estimable with alectinib and 5.6 months and 11.5 months with crizotinib, respectively. Conclusions: Reasonable concordance between FACT and immunohistochemistry was observed; both methods are valuable in identifying ALK-positive patients, separately or concurrently. Alectinib was found to have superior PFS in the plasma ALK-positive population, as in the ITT population.

Circulating Cell-free DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker in Patients with Advanced ALK+ Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Global Phase III ALEX Trial.

PURPOSE: We retrospectively assessed prognostic value of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) using data from the phase III ALEX study in treatment-naïve, advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib 600 mg (n = 152) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 151). cfDNA was quantified from baseline plasma samples, with patients stratified into ≤median and >median cfDNA biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP). Effect of cfDNA concentration on outcomes was analyzed using a Cox regression model with treatment group as covariate, and in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Median cfDNA concentration in the BEP was 11.53 ng/mL (n = 276). A positive correlation was found between cfDNA concentration and number of lesions, organ lesion sites, and tumor size (sum of longest diameter; all P < 0.0001). In both treatment arms, patients in the >median BEP were more likely to experience disease progression than the ≤median BEP [alectinib adjusted HR = 2.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-3.89; P = 0.0305 and crizotinib adjusted HR = 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00, P = 0.0169]. Median progression-free survival was longer with alectinib than crizotinib in both ≤median and >median BEPs (P < 0.0001). Overall survival data remain immature; survival probability was lower in the >median versus ≤median BEP in both treatment arms (alectinib HR = 2.52; 95% CI, 1.08-5.88; P = 0.0333 and crizotinib HR = 2.63; 95% CI, 1.27-5.47; P = 0.0096). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that plasma cfDNA concentration may have prognostic value in advanced ALK+ NSCLC. Prospectively designed studies are warranted to investigate this finding.

Application of clinical trial inclusion criteria to clinical practice patients to quantify the burden of CNS metastases on health-related quality of life and healthcare resource use in patients with NSCLC.

OBJECTIVES: Quantify the burden of central nervous system (CNS) metastases on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare resource use (HRU) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a prospective European study in clinical practice, utilising clinical trial inclusion criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years, with metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Oncology C0operative Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 and life expectancy ≥12 weeks were enrolled in two cohorts by baseline CNS metastases status. Demographics, clinical characteristics, NSCLC management data, HRQoL and HRU were collected at baseline and two follow-up visits (Visits 2 and 3, 6 weeks apart). HRQoL was assessed using validated questionnaires. RESULTS: 162 patients were enrolled (n = 80 CNS cohort, n = 82 non-CNS cohort). Baseline characteristics were balanced, but CNS patients were younger (mean ±â€¯standard deviation age: 62.1 ±â€¯9.6 vs 65.6 ±â€¯9.7 years, p =  0.021) with a lower body mass index (13.8 % underweight [<18.5kg/m2] vs 3.7 %, p =  0.049). Mean HRQoL scores were similar between cohorts at all visits. Cancer pharmacotherapy, procedures and concomitant treatment were comparable across cohorts, with some exceptions. More CNS patients were hospitalised at baseline (10.3 % vs 2.2 %) for longer (mean 7.2 vs 4.6 days; p <  0.001). By Visit 2, more CNS patients were hospitalised (50.0 % vs 29.3 %; p = 0.009) with emergency room visits (11.8 % vs 2.7 %; p =  0.032). At baseline, more CNS versus non-CNS patients had Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans (80.0 % vs 31.7 %; p <  0.001), but fewer had fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) scans (10.0 % vs 28.0 %; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: These data from clinical practice show minor differences in HRQoL/HRU between patients with advanced NSCLC with/without CNS metastases when applying selected clinical trial criteria. Although follow-up was short, HRQoL scores were similar between cohorts at all visits, supporting the wider inclusion of selected patients with CNS disease into clinical trials.

Time To Response In Patients With Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Receiving Alectinib In The Phase II NP28673 And NP28761 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Alectinib is a highly selective and potent ALK inhibitor, approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic ALK+ NSCLC based on results from the Phase II global NP28673 (NCT01801111) and North American NP28761 (NCT01871805) studies. METHODS: This exploratory analysis of two Phase II studies of alectinib (NP28673/NP28761) investigated time to systemic response (TTR) and time to central nervous system (CNS) response (TTCR) in patients with previously treated advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusion gene-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients (n=225) received 600 mg oral alectinib twice daily and had scans every 6/8 weeks (NP28673/NP28761). RESULTS: For NP28673 and NP28761, respectively: median follow-up was 21.3 months/17.0 months; most responders (72.6%/82.9%) responded by the first disease assessment; median TTR was 8 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.00-8.14)/6 weeks (95% CI: 5.86-6.14); median TTCR in responders with measurable baseline CNS disease was 8 weeks (95% CI: 7.86-10.29)/6 weeks (95% CI: 5.71-not evaluable). Similar results were observed regardless of measurable/non-measurable disease. DISCUSSION: These data suggest that alectinib achieves a rapid response in patients, both systemically and in the CNS.

Safety and Efficacy of Bevacizumab Plus Standard-of-Care Treatment Beyond Disease Progression in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The AvaALL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Bevacizumab treatment beyond progression has been investigated in breast and metastatic colorectal cancers. Avastin in All Lines Lung (AvaALL) is the first randomized phase 3 study of bevacizumab across multiple lines of treatment beyond progression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of continuous bevacizumab treatment beyond first progression in NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: AvaALL was a randomized, open-label, phase 3b trial, conducted from 2011 to 2015 in 123 centers worldwide. Patients with nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with first-line bevacizumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and at least 2 cycles of bevacizumab maintenance were randomized (1:1) at first progression to receive bevacizumab plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. Interventions: Patients received bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days) and/or investigator's choice of SOC. For subsequent lines, patients treated with bevacizumab received SOC with or without bevacizumab; the SOC arm received SOC only. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival from first to second (PFS2) and third progression (PFS3), time to second (TTP2) and third progression (TTP3), and safety. Results: Between June 2011 and January 2015, 485 patients (median age, 63.0 years [range, 26-84 years]; 293 [60.4%] male) were randomized. Median OS was not significantly longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 11.9 (90% CI, 10.2-13.7) vs 10.2 (90% CI, 8.6-11.9) months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 90% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = .104). Median PFS2 was numerically longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 5.5 (90% CI, 4.2-5.7) vs 4.0 (90% CI, 3.4-4.3) months (HR, 0.83; 90% CI, 0.70-0.98; P = .06). Median PFS3 appeared longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 4.0 (90% CI, 2.9-4.5) vs 2.6 (90% CI, 2.3-2.9) months (HR, 0.63; 90% CI, 0.49-0.83), as did TTP2 and TTP3. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with bevacizumab plus SOC (186 [76.5%]) vs SOC alone (140 [60.3%]). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: The primary end point was not met; however, OS was underpowered according to initial statistical assumptions. Continued therapy beyond first progression led to improved PFS3 (but not PFS2), TTP2, and TTP3. Although a result with P = .06 for PFS2 would conventionally be considered significant at a specified 2-sided α of .10, in the absence of adjustments for multiplicity, this result could be a chance finding. No new safety signals were identified with bevacizumab treatment beyond progression. Trial Registration: clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2010-022645-14; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01351415.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase II, North American study of alectinib in patients with ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase II North American study (NP28761; NCT01871805), the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor alectinib demonstrated both systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy with good tolerability in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. We describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the NP28761 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits were assessed using two self-administered questionnaires (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-Item Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the 13-item EORTC QLQ-lung cancer-specific module) at enrolment and every 6 weeks until week 66, disease progression or death. RESULTS: Clinically meaningful mean improvements (≥10 point change from baseline) were observed in 10 domains, including global health status (GHS), role and social functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, and appetite loss. A clinically meaningful improvement was observed in GHS from the first assessment (6 weeks) until week 60. Alectinib demonstrated a rapid effect, with a median time to symptom improvement, using the composite endpoint of cough, dyspnoea and pain in the chest, of 1.4 months (6.1 weeks) (95% CI 1.4 to 1.6) and a median time to symptom deterioration of 5.1 months (22.1 weeks) (95% CI 2.8 to 6.8). Patients with CNS metastases at baseline experienced comparable HRQoL over the duration of the study as patients without CNS metastases. Exploratory analysis showed that the occurrence of an objective response may be associated with a better HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with alectinib in this phase II study achieved clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL and symptoms and had delayed time to symptom deterioration.

Our experiences with erlotinib in second and third line treatment patients with advanced stage IIIB/ IV non-small cell lung cancer.

HeadHER1/EGFR is known to play a pivotal role in tumorigenesis and is overexpressed in up to 80% of NSCLCs. The study of an Expanded Access Clinical Program of Erlotinib in NSCLC is a phase IV open-label, non-randomized, multicenter trial in patients with advanced (inoperable stage IIIb/IV) NSCLC who were eligible for treatment with erlotinib but had no access to trial participation. Patients for the study from Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) were selected from two Clinical centres (Sarajevo and Banja Luka). The aim of study was to evaluated efficacy and tolerability of erlotinib monotherapy in this setting. All patients who received at least one dose of erlotinib and data were entered in the database as of the CRF cut-off date of 14th May 2008 were included in analysis of data (n = 19). This population is defined as the Intent to Treat (ITT) population and includes all patients who had at least one dose of erlotinib regardless of whether major protocol violations were incurred. The findings are consistent with the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled BR.21 study. Indicating that erlotinib is an effective option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are unsuitable for, or who have previously failed standard chemotherapy. In B&H group of patients DCR was almost 84%, and PFS was approximately 24,7 weeks (compared with 44% and 9,7 weeks for erlotinib reported in phase III). Almost three quarter of the patients received erlotinib as their second line of therapy. Overall, erlotinib was well tolerated; there were no patients who withdrew due to a treatment-related AE (mainly rash) and there were few dose reductions. 24% of patients experienced an SAE (most commonly gastrointestinal (GI) disorders).