Assessing the impact of digital patient monitoring on health outcomes and healthcare resource usage in addition to the feasibility of its combination with at-home treatment, in participants receiving systemic anticancer treatment in clinical practice: protocol for an interventional, open-label, multicountry platform study (ORIGAMA).

INTRODUCTION: Digital patient monitoring (DPM) tools can enable more effective clinical care and improved patient outcomes in cancer. However, their broad adoption requires ease of use and demonstration of real-world clinical utility/impact. ORIGAMA (MO42720) is an interventional, open-label, multicountry platform study investigating the clinical utility of DPM tools and specific treatments. ORIGAMA will begin with two cohorts that aim to assess the impact of the atezolizumab-specific Roche DPM Module (hosted on the Kaiku Health DPM platform (Helsinki, Finland)) on health outcomes and healthcare resource usage, and its feasibility to support at-home treatment administration, in participants receiving systemic anticancer treatment. Other digital health solutions may be added to future cohorts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Cohort A, participants with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), extensive-stage SCLC or Child Pugh A unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma will be randomised to a locally approved anticancer regimen containing intravenous atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech) and local standard-of-care support, with/without the Roche DPM Module. Cohort B will assess the feasibility of the Roche DPM Module in supporting administration of three cycles of subcutaneous atezolizumab (1875 mg; Day 1 of each 21-day cycle) in the hospital, followed by 13 cycles at home by a healthcare professional (ie, flexible care), in participants with programmed cell-death ligand 1-positive, early-stage NSCLC. The primary endpoints are the mean difference in change of the participant-reported Total Symptom Interference Score at Week 12 from baseline (Cohort A) and flexible care adoption rate at Cycle 6 (Cohort B). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and/or the applicable laws and regulations of the country in which the research is conducted, whichever affords the greater protection to the individual. The study received its first Ethics Committee approval in Spain in October 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent in a face-to-face setting. The results of this study will be presented at national and/or international congresses and disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05694013.

Comparative effectiveness from a single-arm trial and real-world data: alectinib versus ceritinib.

AIM: To compare the overall survival of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients who received alectinib with those who received ceritinib. MATERIALS & METHODS: Two treatment arms (alectinib [n = 183] and ceritinib [n = 67]) were extracted from clinical trials and an electronic health record database, respectively. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression were conducted. RESULTS: After propensity score adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced. Alectinib had a prolonged median overall survival (alectinib = 24.3 months and ceritinib = 15.6 months) and lower risk of death (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.48-0.88). CONCLUSION: Alectinib was associated with prolonged overall survival versus ceritinib, which is consistent with efficacy evidence from clinical trials.

Pooled Systemic Efficacy and Safety Data from the Pivotal Phase II Studies (NP28673 and NP28761) of Alectinib in ALK-positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Alectinib demonstrated clinical efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in two phase II studies (NP28761 and NP28673). Here we report the pooled efficacy and safety data after 15 and 18 months more follow-up than in the respective primary analyses. METHODS: Enrolled patients had ALK receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK)-positive NSCLC and had progressed while taking, or could not tolerate, crizotinib. Patients received oral alectinib, 600 mg twice daily. The primary end point in both studies was objective response rate assessed by an independent review committee (IRC) using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included disease control rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The pooled data set included 225 patients (n = 138 in NP28673 and n = 87 in NP28761). The response-evaluable population included 189 patients (84% [n = 122 in NP28673 and n = 67 in NP28761]). In the response-evaluable population, objective response rate as assessed by the IRC was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.0-58.6 [all PRs]), the disease control rate was 78.8% (95% CI: 72.3-84.4), and the median duration of response was 14.9 months (95% CI: 11.1-20.4) after 58% of events. Median progression-free survival as assessed by the IRC was 8.3 months (95% CI: 7.0-11.3) and median overall survival was 26.0 months (95% CI: 21.4-not estimable). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40% of patients, 6% of patients had treatment withdrawn on account of AEs, and 33% had AEs leading to dose interruptions/modification. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled data analysis confirmed the robust systemic efficacy of alectinib in ALK-positive NSCLC with a durable response rate. Alectinib also had an acceptable safety profile with a longer duration of follow-up.

Alectinib versus Crizotinib in Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12-month event-free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P<0.001); the median progression-free survival with alectinib was not reached. The results for independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival were consistent with those for the primary end point. A total of 18 patients (12%) in the alectinib group had an event of CNS progression, as compared with 68 patients (45%) in the crizotinib group (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.28; P<0.001). A response occurred in 126 patients in the alectinib group (response rate, 82.9%; 95% CI, 76.0 to 88.5) and in 114 patients in the crizotinib group (response rate, 75.5%; 95% CI, 67.8 to 82.1) (P=0.09). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were less frequent with alectinib (41% vs. 50% with crizotinib). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with crizotinib, alectinib showed superior efficacy and lower toxicity in primary treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02075840 .).

Efficacy of alectinib in central nervous system metastases in crizotinib-resistant ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and RANO-HGG criteria.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) progression is common in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors have shown activity against CNS metastases, but accurate assessment of response and progression is vital. Data from two phase II studies in crizotinib-refractory ALK+ NSCLC were pooled to examine the CNS efficacy of alectinib, a CNS-active ALK inhibitor, using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) and Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria. METHODS: Both studies enrolled patients aged ≥18 years who had previously received crizotinib. NP28761 was conducted in North America and NP28673 was a global study. All patients received 600 mg oral alectinib twice daily and had baseline CNS imaging. CNS response for those with baseline CNS metastases was determined by an independent review committee. RESULTS: Baseline measurable CNS disease was identified in 50 patients by RECIST and 43 by RANO-HGG. CNS objective response rate was 64.0% by RECIST (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.2-77.1; 11 CNS complete responses [CCRs]) and 53.5% by RANO-HGG (95% CI: 37.7-68.8; eight CCRs). CNS responses were durable, with consistent estimates of median duration of 10.8 months with RECIST and 11.1 months with RANO-HGG. Of the 39 patients with measurable CNS disease by both RECIST and RANO-HGG, only three (8%) had CNS progression according to one criteria but not the other (92% concordance rate). CONCLUSION: Alectinib demonstrated promising efficacy in the CNS for ALK+ NSCLC patients pretreated with crizotinib, regardless of the assessment criteria used.

Effect of alectinib on cardiac electrophysiology: results from intensive electrocardiogram monitoring from the pivotal phase II NP28761 and NP28673 studies.

PURPOSE: Alectinib, a central nervous system (CNS)-active ALK inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer that has progressed following crizotinib treatment. Other ALK inhibitors have shown concentration-dependent QTc prolongation and treatment-related bradycardia. Therefore, this analysis evaluated alectinib safety in terms of electrophysiologic parameters. METHODS: Intensive triplicate centrally read electrocardiogram (ECG) and matched pharmacokinetic data were collected across two alectinib single-arm trials. Analysis of QTcF included central tendency analysis [mean changes from baseline with one-sided upper 95% confidence intervals (CIs)], categorical analyses, and relationship between change in QTcF and alectinib plasma concentrations. Alectinib effects on other ECG parameters (heart rate, PR interval and QRS duration) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Alectinib did not cause a clinically relevant change in QTcF. The maximum mean QTcF change from baseline was 5.3 ms observed pre-dose at week 2. The upper one-sided 95% CI was <10 ms at all time points. There was no relevant relationship between change in QTcF and alectinib plasma concentrations. Alectinib treatment resulted in a generally asymptomatic exposure-dependent decrease in mean heart rate of ~11 to 13 beats per minute at week 2. No clinically relevant effects were seen on other ECG parameters. Approximately 5% of patients reported cardiac adverse events of bradycardia or sinus bradycardia; however, these were all grade 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Alectinib does not prolong the QTc interval or cause changes in cardiac function to a clinically relevant extent, with the exception of a decrease in heart rate which was generally asymptomatic.

Pooled Analysis of CNS Response to Alectinib in Two Studies of Pretreated Patients With ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

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.

Safety and activity of alectinib against systemic disease and brain metastases in patients with crizotinib-resistant ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (AF-002JG): results from the dose-finding portion of a phase 1/2 study.

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.

Phase III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AVOREN): final analysis of overall survival.

PURPOSE: A phase III trial of bevacizumab combined with interferon alfa-2a (IFN) showed significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Here, we report overall survival (OS) data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred forty-nine patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 MIU subcutaneously three times a week; n = 327) or IFN plus placebo (n = 322) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. The primary end point was OS. Final analysis of the secondary end point (PFS) was reported earlier. RESULTS: Median OS was 23.3 months with bevacizumab plus IFN and 21.3 months with IFN plus placebo (unstratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.10; P = .3360; stratified HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; P = .1291). Patients (> 55%) in both arms received at least one postprotocol antineoplastic therapy, possibly confounding the OS analysis. Patients receiving postprotocol therapy including a tyrosine kinase inhibitor had longer median OS (bevacizumab plus IFN arm: 38.6 months; IFN plus placebo arm: 33.6 months; HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.13). Tolerability was similar to that reported previously. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab plus IFN is active as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Most patients with mRCC receive multiple lines of therapy, so considering the overall sequence of therapy when selecting first-line therapy may optimize patient benefit.