COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Treatment-Naive Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced NSCLC in Relation to EML4::ALK Variant Type and ALK With or Without TP53 Mutations.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved outcomes compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the phase 3 CROWN study. Here, we investigated response correlates using plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and tumor tissue profiling. METHODS: ALK fusions and ALK with or without TP53 mutations were assessed by next-generation sequencing. End points included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review on the basis of EML4::ALK variants and ALK with or without TP53 or other mutation status. RESULTS: ALK fusions were detected in the ctDNA of 62 patients in the lorlatinib arm and 64 patients in the crizotinib arm. ORRs were numerically higher with lorlatinib versus crizotinib for EML4::ALK variant 1 (v1; 80.0% versus 50.0%) and variant 2 (v2; 85.7% versus 50.0%) but were similar between the arms for variant 3 (v3; 72.2% versus 73.9%). Median PFS in the lorlatinib arm was not reached for EML4::ALK v1 and v2 and was 33.3 months for v3; in the crizotinib arm, median PFS was 7.4 months, not reached, and 5.5 months, respectively. ORRs and PFS were improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib regardless of TP53 mutation status and in patients harboring preexisting bypass pathway resistance alterations. In the lorlatinib arm, PFS was lower in patients who had a co-occurring TP53 mutation. Results from ctDNA analysis were similar to those observed with tumor tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC derived greater clinical benefits, with higher ORRs and potentially longer PFS, when treated with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib, independent of EML4::ALK variant or ALK mutations, TP53 mutations, or bypass resistance alterations.

Early Circulating Tumor DNA Dynamics and Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive, Advanced, ALK-Positive NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been used as a biomarker for prognostication and response to treatment. Here, we evaluate ctDNA as a potential biomarker for response to lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC in the ongoing phase 3 CROWN study (NCT03052608). METHODS: Molecular responses were calculated using mean variant allele frequency (VAF), longitudinal mean change in VAF (dVAF), and ratio to baseline. Efficacy assessments (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate) were paired with individual patient ctDNA and analyzed for association. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, mean VAF at week 4 was decreased in both treatment arms. Considering all detected somatic variants, a reduction in dVAF (≤0) was associated with a longer PFS in the lorlatinib arm. The hazard ratio (HR) for a dVAF less than or equal to 0 versus more than 0 was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-1.12) in the lorlatinib arm. A similar association was not observed for crizotinib (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49-2.03). Comparing molecular responders with nonresponders, patients treated with lorlatinib who had a molecular response had longer PFS (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.85); patients treated with crizotinib who had a molecular response had similar PFS as those without a molecular response (HR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.67-3.30). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC, early ctDNA dynamics predicted better outcome with lorlatinib but not with crizotinib. These results suggest that ctDNA may be used to monitor and potentially predict efficacy of lorlatinib treatment.

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.

Asian Subgroup Analysis of the Randomized Phase 3 CROWN Study of First-Line Lorlatinib Versus Crizotinib in Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC.

Introduction: Lorlatinib is a potent, third-generation inhibitor of ALK. In the planned interim analysis of the ongoing, phase 3, randomized, global CROWN trial (NCT03052608), lorlatinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC. Here, we present a subgroup analysis of Asian patients in the CROWN study. Methods: Patients received lorlatinib 100 mg once daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR), intracranial ORR, safety, and select biomarkers were secondary end points. Results: At data cutoff (September 20, 2021), 120 patients were included in the Asian intention-to-treat subgroup (lorlatinib n = 59; crizotinib n = 61). At 36 months, 61% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47-72) and 25% (95% CI: 12-41) of patients in the lorlatinib and crizotinib groups, respectively, were alive without disease progression (hazard ratio for disease progression by blinded independent central review or death: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.23-0.71). ORR was 78% (95% CI: 65-88) versus 57% (95% CI: 44-70) for patients treated with lorlatinib and crizotinib, respectively. In patients with measurable, nonmeasurable, or both measurable and nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline, intracranial ORR was 73% (95% CI: 39-94) versus 20% (95% CI: 4-48) for patients treated with lorlatinib and crizotinib, respectively. The definition of nonmeasurable brain metastases is: a brain lesion less than 10 mm in MRI scan is defined as nonmeasurable brain metastasi based on RECIST criteria (Clinical trial evaluation criteria). Hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and edema were the most frequently reported adverse events with lorlatinib. Conclusions: Lorlatinib efficacy and safety in the Asian subgroup of CROWN were consistent with those in the overall population.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes from the randomized phase 3 CROWN study of first-line lorlatinib versus crizotinib in advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Quality of life (QoL) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is negatively impacted by their disease and treatment side effects. We present detailed patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the phase 3 CROWN study, which compared lorlatinib with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire with Lung Cancer module. A longitudinal, random-intercept, random-slope, mixed-effect model assessed score changes from baseline up to (not including) end of treatment. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline at each cycle were calculated and presented up to cycle 18 (≥ 10-point change considered clinically meaningful). RESULTS: In both lorlatinib (n = 148) and crizotinib (n = 140) arms, there were longitudinal improvements across multiple functioning and symptom scores during treatment compared with pre-treatment. Numerical improvements for most longitudinal functioning scores (physical, role, emotional, social) favored lorlatinib; cognitive functioning favored crizotinib. Numerical improvements favored lorlatinib for several symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea [clinically meaningful improvement], and cough); peripheral neuropathy favored crizotinib. Subgroup analyses showed PROs did not differ by presence/absence of baseline brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving first-line lorlatinib or crizotinib showed improvements and delayed deterioration in QoL, functioning, and several symptoms. Alongside the previously reported significantly longer progression-free survival and higher intracranial response rates for lorlatinib versus crizotinib, these data further support the use of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with/without baseline brain metastases and provide evidence of several QoL improvements with lorlatinib when used in the first-line setting.

Post Hoc Analysis of Lorlatinib Intracranial Efficacy and Safety in Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Phase III CROWN Study.

PURPOSE: Lorlatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib and showed robust intracranial activity in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN trial. Here, we report post hoc efficacy outcomes in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline, and present data on the incidence and management of CNS adverse events (AEs) in CROWN. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line lorlatinib (100 mg once daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice a day); no crossover between treatment arms was permitted. Tumor assessments, including CNS magnetic resonance imaging, were performed at screening and then at 8-week intervals. Regular assessments of patient-reported outcomes were conducted. RESULTS: PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% v 22% and 78% v 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with (7% v 72%) and without (1% v 18%) brain metastases at baseline. In total, 35% of patients had CNS AEs with lorlatinib, most of grade 1 severity. Occurrence of CNS AEs did not result in a clinically meaningful difference in patient-reported quality of life. At analysis, 56% of CNS AEs had resolved (33% without intervention; 17% with lorlatinib dose modification), and 38% were unresolved; most required no intervention. Lorlatinib dose modification did not notably influence PFS. CONCLUSION: First-line lorlatinib improved PFS outcomes and reduced CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases at baseline. Half of all CNS AEs resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification.

STARBOARD: encorafenib + binimetinib + pembrolizumab for first-line metastatic/unresectable BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

Despite the significant progress in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, there remains two primary treatment options: targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Targeted therapy or immunotherapy alone is associated with efficacy limitations including efficacy limited to select patient subsets. With separate mechanisms of action and different response patterns, the combination of targeted agents and immunotherapy to treat patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma may further improve patient outcomes. Current treatment guidelines recommend treatment with targeted agents alone, immunotherapy, or the combination of targeted agents and immunotherapy. The randomized, double-blind STARBOARD trial aims to evaluate efficacy and safety of encorafenib, binimetinib and pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in comparison to pembrolizumab.

Targeted therapy, including BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors, and immunotherapies have greatly contributed to advances in the treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma. Additionally, immunotherapy in combination with targeted therapy has been shown to improve patient outcomes. In this study, the authors assess the efficacy and safety of a combination of a BRAF-inhibitor (encorafenib), an MEK-inhibitor (binimetinib) and an anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04657991 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary of the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib for people with untreated non-small cell lung cancer.

This is a summary of a research study (known as a clinical trial) called CROWN. The study tested two medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib in participants with untreated non-small cell lung cancer that had spread to other parts of their body. All those who took part had changes in a gene called ALK, which is involved in cell growth. In total, 296 participants from 23 countries took part. Half the participants took lorlatinib and half took crizotinib. After participants started taking lorlatinib or crizotinib, they were checked regularly to see if their tumors had grown or spread to other parts of their body (known as tumor progression) and to monitor any side effects. After 1 year of treatment, the participants who took lorlatinib were twice as likely to be alive with no tumor growth as the participants who took crizotinib. More participants who took lorlatinib had cancer that shrank (76%) compared with the participants who took crizotinib (58%). This was also true of the participants whose cancer had spread to their brain. The most common side effects in participants who took lorlatinib were increases in the amount of cholesterol and triglycerides (a type of fat) in their blood, swelling, weight gain, nerve damage, unclear thoughts, and diarrhea. Among the participants who took crizotinib, the most common side effects were diarrhea, feeling like you want to throw up, sight problems, swelling, vomiting, changes in liver function, and feeling tired. Overall, the CROWN study showed that fewer participants with advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer died or had tumor growth with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT03052608.

First-Line Lorlatinib or Crizotinib in Advanced ALK-Positive Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib, a third-generation inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has antitumor activity in previously treated patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy of lorlatinib, as compared with that of crizotinib, as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in 296 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included independently assessed objective response and intracranial response. An interim analysis of efficacy was planned after approximately 133 of 177 (75%) expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 12 months was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84) in the lorlatinib group and 39% (95% CI, 30 to 48) in the crizotinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41; P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 76% (95% CI, 68 to 83) of the patients in the lorlatinib group and 58% (95% CI, 49 to 66) of those in the crizotinib group; among those with measurable brain metastases, 82% (95% CI, 57 to 96) and 23% (95% CI, 5 to 54), respectively, had an intracranial response, and 71% of the patients who received lorlatinib had an intracranial complete response. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hyperlipidemia, edema, increased weight, peripheral neuropathy, and cognitive effects. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 adverse events (mainly altered lipid levels) than crizotinib (in 72% vs. 56%). Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events occurred in 7% and 9% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In an interim analysis of results among patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, those who received lorlatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival and a higher frequency of intracranial response than those who received crizotinib. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher with lorlatinib than with crizotinib because of the frequent occurrence of altered lipid levels. (Funded by Pfizer; CROWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03052608.).

Phase Ib Study of Crizotinib plus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Previously Untreated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with ALK Translocation.

LESSONS LEARNED: This study evaluating first-line crizotinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was terminated early because increased availability of second-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in difficulty identifying and accruing eligible patients. In the small number of patients enrolled, elevated transaminases were the most common treatment-related toxicity. No other relevant toxicities were observed. Although no definitive conclusions could be drawn because of the small number of patients studied, the higher frequency of severe transaminase increases noted in this sample should be of concern if ALK inhibitor and PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitor combinations are tested in future studies. BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests single-agent crizotinib is efficacious for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This study evaluated the safety and preliminary antitumor activity of crizotinib plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Patients were initially treated at dose level 0 (DL0) with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (cycle duration was 3 weeks). If a dose-limiting toxicity occurred, subsequent patients were enrolled at a lower dose level (dose level -1 [DL-1]: 3 weeks of crizotinib monotherapy 250 mg twice daily, followed by crizotinib 250 mg twice daily with the addition of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity. Antitumor activity was assessed. RESULTS: Nine patients were enrolled: two at DL0, then seven at DL-1. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients (grade 3 increases in alanine aminotransferase [ALT] and aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and grade 3 fatigue at DL0; grade 3 increase in ALT and grade 3 increases in both ALT and AST at DL-1). CONCLUSION: The maximum tolerated dose was not determined because slow accrual resulted in early study termination.

Renal Effects of Crizotinib in Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively analyzed the effects of crizotinib on serum creatinine and creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced NSCLC across four trials (NCT00585195, NCT00932451, NCT00932893, and NCT01154140). METHODS: Changes from baseline data in serum creatinine and eGFR, calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine-based equation, were assessed over time. eGFR was graded using standard chronic kidney disease criteria. RESULTS: Median serum creatinine increased from 0.79 mg/dL at baseline to 0.93 mg/dL after 2 weeks of treatment (median percentage increase from baseline, 21.2%), was stable from week 12 (0.96 mg/dL) to week 104 (1.00 mg/dL), and decreased to 0.90 mg/dL at 28 days after last dose (median percentage increase from baseline, 13.1%). Median eGFR decreased over time (96.42, 80.23, 78.06 and 75.45 mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline, week 2, week 12, and week 104, respectively) and increased to 83.02 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 28 days after the last dose. Median percentage decrease from baseline was 14.9%, 17.0%, and 10.4% at week 2, week 12, and 28 days after last dose of crizotinib, respectively. Overall, 12.6% of patients had a shift from eGFR grade less than or equal to 3a (≥45 mL/min/1.73 m2) at baseline to greater than or equal to 3b (<45 mL/min/1.73 m2) post-baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib resulted in a decline in creatinine-based estimates of renal function mostly over the first 2 weeks of treatment. However, there was minimal evidence of cumulative effects with prolonged treatment and these changes were largely reversible following treatment discontinuation, consistent with previous reports suggesting this may be predominantly an effect on creatinine secretion as opposed to true nephrotoxicity.

Comparison of cardiovascular effects of crizotinib and chemotherapy in ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

AIM: We analyzed cardiac function in two Phase III studies of previously treated (PROFILE 1007) or untreated (PROFILE 1014) ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS & METHODS: Adverse events associated with cardiac failure were compared between treatment arms in each study separately. Cardiac function was assessed prospectively by multigated acquisition scans or echocardiograms. RESULTS: In PROFILE 1007 and 1014, incidence of cardiac failure adverse events was 0% (crizotinib) versus 0.6% (chemotherapy) and 2.3% versus 0.6%, respectively. In crizotinib versus chemotherapy arms, respectively, >20% left ventricular ejection fraction decreases occurred in 0/19 (0%) versus 1/16 (6.3%) patients from PROFILE 1007 and 4/150 (2.7%) versus 10/150 (6.7%) patients from PROFILE 1014. CONCLUSION: These analyses did not reveal any clinically meaningful changes in myocardial function with crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: PROFILE 1007, NCT00932893; PROFILE 1014, NCT01154140.

Crizotinib versus Chemotherapy in Asian Patients with ALK-Positive Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib has demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs) versus chemotherapy in previously treated and untreated patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the safety and efficacy of crizotinib in Asian subpopulations of two global phase III trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis evaluated previously treated and untreated patients in two randomized, openlabel phase III trials of crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in second-line (PROFILE 1007) and first-line settings (PROFILE 1014). Efficacy and safety were analyzed by race in the intention-to-treat and "as-treated" populations for efficacy and safety endpoints, respectively. RESULTS: In previously treated (n=157) and untreated (n=157) Asian patients, PFS was statistically significantly longer with crizotinib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio for PFS, 0.526; 95% confidence interval, 0.363 to 0.762; p < 0.001 and hazard ratio, 0.442; 95% confidence interval, 0.302 to 0.648; p < 0.001, respectively). Similar antitumor activity was seen in the non-Asian and overall populations. ORRs were statistically significantly higher with crizotinib versus chemotherapy in both Asian and non-Asian previously treated and untreated patients (p < 0.05). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade)with crizotinib were vision disorder, diarrhea, and nausea, which were observed at a comparable incidence across Asian and non-Asian populations, irrespective of previous treatment status. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: These data, currently the only analysis showing Asian and non-Asian populations in the same study, support the efficacy and safety of crizotinib in Asian patients with previously treated or untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

Final results of the large-scale multinational trial PROFILE 1005: efficacy and safety of crizotinib in previously treated patients with advanced/metastatic ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib is a potent, orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report final results from PROFILE 1005, the largest clinical trial to date for an ALK inhibitor in ALK-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROFILE 1005 (NCT00932451) was a multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; 3 week continuous treatment cycles) in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC after failure of ≥1 lines of systemic treatment for locally advanced/metastatic disease. Patients' tumour ALK status was initially determined by a central laboratory until a protocol amendment permitted enrolment of patients based on locally determined ALK status. Co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours V.1.1 and adverse events (AEs). Cancer-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also assessed using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and its lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. RESULTS: 1069 patients were enrolled; 1066 received crizotinib. The as-treated population comprised 908 and 158 patients, in whom tumour positive ALK-status was determined centrally (± locally) or locally only, respectively. At baseline, a majority of patients were <65 years (84%), 66% were never smokers and 46% were Asian. Derived investigator-assessed ORR was 54% (95% CI 51 to 57) and 41% (95% CI 33 to 49) in the central-testing and local-testing subgroups, respectively. The most common treatment-related AEs in the overall population (any grade) were vision disorder (58%), nausea (51%), diarrhoea (47%) and vomiting (47%). PRO scores demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in lung cancer symptoms and global quality of life. CONCLUSION: The efficacy, safety and PRO profiles of crizotinib in this cohort of 1066 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC are consistent with previous reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Phase 2 trial (NCT00932451); Results.

Factors associated with sinus bradycardia during crizotinib treatment: a retrospective analysis of two large-scale multinational trials (PROFILE 1005 and 1007).

Decreases in heart rate (HR) have been described in patients receiving crizotinib. We performed a large retrospective analysis of HR changes during crizotinib therapy. HRs from vital-sign data for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer enrolled in PROFILE 1005 and the crizotinib arm of PROFILE 1007 were analyzed. Sinus bradycardia (SB) was defined as HR <60 beats per minute (bpm). Magnitude and timing of HR changes were assessed. Potential risk factors for SB were investigated by logistic regression analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated according to HR decrease by <20 versus ≥ 20 bpm within the first 50 days of starting treatment. For the 1053 patients analyzed, the mean maximum postbaseline HR decrease was 25 bpm (standard deviation 15.8). Overall, 441 patients (41.9%) had at least one episode of postbaseline SB. The mean precrizotinib treatment HR was significantly lower among patients with versus without postbaseline SB (82.2 bpm vs. 92.6 bpm). The likelihood of experiencing SB was statistically significantly higher among patients with a precrizotinib treatment HR <70 bpm. PFS was comparable among patients with or without HR decrease of ≥ 20 bpm within the first 50 days of starting crizotinib. Decrease in HR is very common among patients on crizotinib. The likelihood of experiencing SB was statistically significantly higher among patients with a precrizotinib treatment HR <70 bpm. This is the first large-scale report investigating the association between treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and the development of bradycardia. HRs should be closely monitored during crizotinib treatment.

Clinical Experience With Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Brain Metastases.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib is an oral kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The clinical benefits of crizotinib in patients with brain metastases have not been previously studied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC enrolled onto clinical trial PROFILE 1005 or 1007 (randomly assigned to crizotinib) were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases (nontarget or target lesions) were allowed to enroll. Tumor assessments were evaluated every 6 weeks using RECIST (version 1.1). RESULTS: At baseline, 31% of patients (275 of 888) had asymptomatic brain metastases; 109 had received no prior and 166 had received prior brain radiotherapy as treatment. Among patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, the systemic disease control rate (DCR) at 12 weeks was 63% (95% CI, 54% to 72%), the intracranial DCR was 56% (95% CI, 46% to 66%), and the median intracranial time to progression (TTP) was 7 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 16.4). Among patients with previously treated brain metastases, the systemic DCR was 65% (95% CI, 57% to 72%), the intracranial DCR was 62% (95% CI, 54% to 70%), and the median intracranial TTP was 13.2 months (95% CI, 9.9 to not reached). Patients with systemic disease control were also likely to experience intracranial disease control at 12 weeks (correlation coefficient, 0.7652; P < .001). Among patients without baseline brain metastases who developed progressive disease (n = 253) after initiation of crizotinib, 20% were diagnosed with brain metastases. CONCLUSION: Crizotinib was associated with systemic and intracranial disease control in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who were ALK inhibitor naive and had brain metastases. However, progression of preexisting or development of new intracranial lesions while receiving therapy was a common manifestation of acquired resistance to crizotinib.

Crizotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In single-group studies, chromosomal rearrangements of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene (ALK) have been associated with marked clinical responses to crizotinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting ALK. Whether crizotinib is superior to standard chemotherapy with respect to efficacy is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, open-label trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 347 patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive lung cancer who had received one prior platinum-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral treatment with crizotinib (250 mg) twice daily or intravenous chemotherapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or docetaxel (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to crizotinib as part of a separate study. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months in the crizotinib group and 3.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.64; P<0.001). The response rates were 65% (95% CI, 58 to 72) with crizotinib, as compared with 20% (95% CI, 14 to 26) with chemotherapy (P<0.001). An interim analysis of overall survival showed no significant improvement with crizotinib as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death in the crizotinib group, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.54; P=0.54). Common adverse events associated with crizotinib were visual disorder, gastrointestinal side effects, and elevated liver aminotransferase levels, whereas common adverse events with chemotherapy were fatigue, alopecia, and dyspnea. Patients reported greater reductions in symptoms of lung cancer and greater improvement in global quality of life with crizotinib than with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib is superior to standard chemotherapy in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with ALK rearrangement. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00932893.).

Effects of exemestane administered for 2 years versus placebo on bone mineral density, bone biomarkers, and plasma lipids in patients with surgically resected early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate potential detrimental effects of exemestane on bone and lipid metabolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg daily or placebo for 2 years in a double-blind setting. Primary objective was to evaluate the effect of exemestane on bone mineral density. Secondary objectives were effects on bone biomarkers, plasma lipids, coagulation factors, and homocysteine. Planned size was 128 patients. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled. All patients completed their 24-month visit except for those discontinuing treatment at an earlier stage. The mean annual rate of bone mineral density loss was 2.17% v 1.84% in the lumbar spine (P = .568) and 2.72% v 1.48% in the femoral neck (P = .024) in the exemestane and placebo arm, respectively. The mean change in T-score after 2 years was -0.21 for exemestane and -0.11 on placebo in the hip, and -0.30 and -0.21, respectively, in the lumbar spine. Exemestane significantly increased serum level and urinary excretion of bone resorption, but also bone formation markers. Except for a modest reduction in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P < .001) and apolipoprotein A1 (P = .004), exemestane had no major effect on lipid profile, homocysteine levels, or coagulation parameters. CONCLUSION: Exemestane modestly enhanced bone loss from the femoral neck without significant influence on lumbar bone loss. Except for a 6% to 9% drop in plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, no major effects on serum lipids, coagulation factors, or homocysteine were recorded. Bone mineral density should be assessed according to the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.