Evaluation of the Effect of Lorlatinib on CYP2B6, CYP2C9, UGT, and P-Glycoprotein Substrates in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Lorlatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. This study assessed the effect of steady-state lorlatinib on the metabolic enzymes cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2B6, CYP2C9, and uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) and the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporter. METHODS: Thirty-two patients received a single oral dose of a probe drug on Day - 2 to determine the pharmacokinetics of the probe drug alone. Starting on Day 1, patients received 100 mg oral lorlatinib daily. On Day 15, a single oral dose of the probe drug was administered concurrently with lorlatinib. Pharmacokinetic parameters for these probe substrates were assessed. RESULTS: Plasma exposures of all probe substrates were reduced by lorlatinib compared with the probe alone. The greatest reduction in area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC∞) and maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (Cmax) (67% and 63% decrease, respectively) was observed with the P-gp probe substrate fexofenadine. Lorlatinib coadministration also decreased the AUC∞ and Cmax of bupropion (CYP2B6 probe substrate) by 25% and 27%, tolbutamide (CYP2C9 probe substrate) by 43% and 15%, and acetaminophen (UGT probe substrate) by 45% and 28%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib is a net moderate inducer of P-gp and a weak inducer of CYP2B6, CYP2C9, and UGT after steady state is achieved with daily dosing. Medications that are P-gp substrates with a narrow therapeutic window should be avoided in patients taking lorlatinib; no dose modifications are needed with substrates of CYP2B6, CYP2C9, or UGT. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT01970865.

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.

Therapy-induced APOBEC3A drives evolution of persistent cancer cells.

Acquired drug resistance to anticancer targeted therapies remains an unsolved clinical problem. Although many drivers of acquired drug resistance have been identified1-4, the underlying molecular mechanisms shaping tumour evolution during treatment are incompletely understood. Genomic profiling of patient tumours has implicated apolipoprotein B messenger RNA editing catalytic polypeptide-like (APOBEC) cytidine deaminases in tumour evolution; however, their role during therapy and the development of acquired drug resistance is undefined. Here we report that lung cancer targeted therapies commonly used in the clinic can induce cytidine deaminase APOBEC3A (A3A), leading to sustained mutagenesis in drug-tolerant cancer cells persisting during therapy. Therapy-induced A3A promotes the formation of double-strand DNA breaks, increasing genomic instability in drug-tolerant persisters. Deletion of A3A reduces APOBEC mutations and structural variations in persister cells and delays the development of drug resistance. APOBEC mutational signatures are enriched in tumours from patients with lung cancer who progressed after extended responses to targeted therapies. This study shows that induction of A3A in response to targeted therapies drives evolution of drug-tolerant persister cells, suggesting that suppression of A3A expression or activity may represent a potential therapeutic strategy in the prevention or delay of acquired resistance to lung cancer targeted therapy.

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.

Genomic and transcriptomic analysis of checkpoint blockade response in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents have transformed the treatment landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To expand our understanding of the molecular features underlying response to checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC, we describe here the first joint analysis of the Stand Up To Cancer-Mark Foundation cohort, a resource of whole exome and/or RNA sequencing from 393 patients with NSCLC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy, along with matched clinical response annotation. We identify a number of associations between molecular features and outcome, including (1) favorable (for example, ATM altered) and unfavorable (for example, TERT amplified) genomic subgroups, (2) a prominent association between expression of inducible components of the immunoproteasome and response and (3) a dedifferentiated tumor-intrinsic subtype with enhanced response to checkpoint blockade. Taken together, results from this cohort demonstrate the complexity of biological determinants underlying immunotherapy outcomes and reinforce the discovery potential of integrative analysis within large, well-curated, cancer-specific cohorts.

ALK-positive lung cancer: a moving target.

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) is a potent oncogenic driver in lung cancer. ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors yield significant benefit in patients with ALK fusion-positive (ALK+) lung cancers; yet the durability of response is limited by drug resistance. Elucidation of on-target resistance mechanisms has facilitated the development of next-generation ALK inhibitors, but overcoming ALK-independent resistance mechanisms remains a challenge. In this Review, we discuss the molecular underpinnings of acquired resistance to ALK-directed therapy and highlight new treatment approaches aimed at inducing long-term remission in ALK+ disease.

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.

A Phase 2 Study of Lorlatinib in Patients With ROS1-Rearranged Lung Cancer With Brain-Only Progression on Crizotinib.

Introduction: The central nervous system (CNS) is a common site of progression among patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer receiving crizotinib. We conducted a phase 2 study to evaluate the intracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer who developed CNS-only progression on crizotinib. Methods: Patients with metastatic ROS1-rearranged lung cancer with CNS-only progression on crizotinib received lorlatinib 100 mg daily. The primary end point was intracranial disease control rate at 12 weeks per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included intracranial and extracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and safety/tolerability. Results: A total of 16 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and January 2019. Nine patients (56%) had received prior CNS radiation, with a median of 10.9 months between radiation and lorlatinib. At 12 weeks, the intracranial disease control rate was 100% and intracranial objective response rate was 87%. While on study, the complee intracranial response rate was 60%. With median follow-up of 22 months, seven patients experienced disease progression, including five patients with CNS relapse. The median intracranial and extracranial progression-free survivals were 38.8 months (95% confidence interval: 16.9-not reported) and 41.1 months (95% confidence interval: 17.6-not reported), respectively. Molecular analysis of plasma or tissue from patients with extracranial progression on lorlatinib revealed ROS1 G2032R (n = 1), ROS1 L2086F (n = 1), and CCDC6-RET fusion plus ROS1 G2032R (n = 1). The safety profile of lorlatinib was consistent with prior studies. There were 11 patients (69%) who required dose reduction, including one patient who discontinued treatment for grade 3 edema. No grade greater than or equal to 4 adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Lorlatinib induced durable intracranial responses in patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC and prior isolated CNS progression on crizotinib.

Phase II Study of Lorlatinib in Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Lung Cancer and CNS-Specific Relapse.

PURPOSE: The CNS is a recurrent site of progression in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged (ALK+) lung cancer. Lorlatinib is a third-generation ALK inhibitor developed to penetrate the CNS and overcome ALK resistance mutations. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the intracranial activity of lorlatinib in patients with CNS-only progression on second-generation ALK inhibitors. METHODS: Patients with ALK+ lung cancer who had intracranial progression on ≥ 1 ALK inhibitor without measurable extracranial disease received lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. The primary end point was intracranial disease control rate at 12 weeks per modified RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled between November 2016 and January 2019. Fifteen (65%) patients had irradiated CNS metastases, with a median of 20.2 months between radiation and lorlatinib. Control of intracranial disease was observed in 21 (95%) evaluable patients at 12 weeks. The intracranial objective response rate was 59% with six complete and seven partial responses. The median intracranial progression-free survival was 24.6 months (95% CI, 20.2 to not reached). With a median follow-up of 16.8 months, nine patients developed disease progression, including four patients with CNS progression. The most common treatment-related adverse events were hypercholesterolemia (96%), hypertriglyceridemia (87%), edema (65%), cognitive effects (52%), and mood effects (43%). Three patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity, including two patients with fatal respiratory events. CONCLUSION: Lorlatinib induced durable intracranial disease control in patients with CNS-only relapse on second-generation ALK inhibitors, suggesting that tumors with CNS-limited progression on brain-penetrant ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors remain ALK-dependent.

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.

Continuation of Lorlatinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC Beyond Progressive Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib, a potent, selective third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), exhibited overall and intracranial antitumor activity in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: Retrospective analyses in the ongoing phase 2 trial (NCT01970865) investigated the clinical benefit of continuing lorlatinib beyond progressive disease (LBPD). Patients with previous crizotinib treatment as the only ALK TKI were group A (n = 28); those with at least one previous second-generation ALK TKIs were group B (n = 74). LBPD was defined as greater than 3 weeks of lorlatinib treatment after investigator-assessed progressive disease. Only patients with the best overall response of complete or partial response or stable disease were included. RESULTS: There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The median duration of treatment for patients who continued LBPD was 32.4 months (group A) and 16.4 months (group B) versus 12.5 months (group A) and 7.7 months (group B) for patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival in group A was not reached (NR) in patients who continued LBPD versus 24.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.1-NR); group B's median was 26.5 months (95% CI: 18.7-35.5) in patients who continued LBPD versus 14.7 months (95% CI: 9.3-38.5) in patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival postprogression for groups A and B was NR (95% CI: 21.4-NR) and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.2-19.2) in patients who continued LBPD and 8.0 months (95% CI: 1.5-NR) versus 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.8-14.3) in patients who did not continue LBPD. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing LBPD is a viable treatment strategy for select patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on lorlatinib.

Three subtypes of lung cancer fibroblasts define distinct therapeutic paradigms.

Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are highly heterogeneous. With the lack of a comprehensive understanding of CAFs' functional distinctions, it remains unclear how cancer treatments could be personalized based on CAFs in a patient's tumor. We have established a living biobank of CAFs derived from biopsies of patients' non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) that encompasses a broad molecular spectrum of CAFs in clinical NSCLC. By functionally interrogating CAF heterogeneity using the same therapeutics received by patients, we identify three functional subtypes: (1) robustly protective of cancers and highly expressing HGF and FGF7; (2) moderately protective of cancers and highly expressing FGF7; and (3) those providing minimal protection. These functional differences among CAFs are governed by their intrinsic TGF-ß signaling, which suppresses HGF and FGF7 expression. This CAF functional classification correlates with patients' clinical response to targeted therapies and also associates with the tumor immune microenvironment, therefore providing an avenue to guide personalized treatment.

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.

Efficacy of Taletrectinib (AB-106/DS-6051b) in ROS1+ NSCLC: An Updated Pooled Analysis of U.S. and Japan Phase 1 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Taletrectinib (AB-106/DS-6051b) is an oral, potent selective ROS1 and pan-NTRK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Preclinically, taletrectinib has activity against ROS1 G2032R solvent-front mutation. METHODS: Patients with ROS1+ NSCLC enrolled into two phase 1 studies conducted in United States (U101, NCT02279433) and Japan (J102, NCT02675491) were analyzed for objective response rate (ORR) by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, progression-free survival, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with ROS1+ NSCLC out of the total 61 patients enrolled were analyzed. Taletrectinib was given at the oral dose of 400 mg, 600 mg, 800 mg, and 1200 mg once daily and 400 mg twice daily as part of the dose-escalation schema. Data cutoff was August 19, 2020. Median follow-up time for all 22 patients was 14.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.1-33.8). A total of 18 patients with ROS1+ were assessable for response. The confirmed ORR for ROS1 TKI-naive patients (N = 9) was 66.7% (95% CI: 35.4-87.9) with a disease control rate of 100% (70.1-100). The confirmed ORR for crizotinib pretreated patients (N = 6) was 33.3% (95% CI: 9.7-70.0) with a disease control rate of 88.3% (95% CI: 443.6-97.0). The median progression-free survival for ROS1 TKI-naive patients (N = 11) was 29.1 months (95% CI: 2.6-not reached) and 14.2 months (95% CI: 1.5-not reached) for crizotinib-refractory only patients (N = 8). The most common treatment-related adverse events were alanine transaminase elevations (72.7%), aspartate transaminase elevations (72.7%), nausea (50.0%), and diarrhea (50.0%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were alanine transaminase elevations (18.2%), aspartate transaminase (9.1%), and diarrhea (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Taletrectinib (AB106/DS6051b) has a meaningful clinical activity in patients with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC who are ROS1 TKI-naive or crizotinib-refractory and a manageable safety profile.

Spectrum of Mechanisms of Resistance to Crizotinib and Lorlatinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Current standard initial therapy for advanced, ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase fusion (ROS1)-positive (ROS1+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crizotinib or entrectinib. Lorlatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase/ROS1 inhibitor, recently demonstrated efficacy in ROS1+ NSCLC, including in crizotinib-pretreated patients. However, mechanisms of lorlatinib resistance in ROS1+ disease remain poorly understood. Here, we assessed mechanisms of resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Biopsies from patients with ROS1 + NSCLC progressing on crizotinib or lorlatinib were profiled by genetic sequencing. RESULTS: From 55 patients, 47 post-crizotinib and 32 post-lorlatinib biopsies were assessed. Among 42 post-crizotinib and 28 post-lorlatinib biopsies analyzed at distinct timepoints, ROS1 mutations were identified in 38% and 46%, respectively. ROS1 G2032R was the most commonly occurring mutation in approximately one third of cases. Additional ROS1 mutations included D2033N (2.4%) and S1986F (2.4%) post-crizotinib and L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/S1986F/L2086F (3.6%), and S1986F/L2000V (3.6%) post-lorlatinib. Structural modeling predicted ROS1L2086F causes steric interference to lorlatinib, crizotinib, and entrectinib, while it may accommodate cabozantinib. In Ba/F3 models, ROS1L2086F, ROS1G2032R/L2086F, and ROS1S1986F/G2032R/L2086F were refractory to lorlatinib but sensitive to cabozantinib. A patient with disease progression on crizotinib and lorlatinib and ROS1 L2086F received cabozantinib for nearly 11 months with disease control. Among lorlatinib-resistant biopsies, we also identified MET amplification (4%), KRAS G12C (4%), KRAS amplification (4%), NRAS mutation (4%), and MAP2K1 mutation (4%). CONCLUSIONS: ROS1 mutations mediate resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib in more than one third of cases, underscoring the importance of developing next-generation ROS1 inhibitors with potency against these mutations, including G2032R and L2086F. Continued efforts are needed to elucidate ROS1-independent resistance mechanisms.

A Phase 2 Study of Capmatinib in Patients With MET-Altered Lung Cancer Previously Treated With a MET Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: Capmatinib is approved for MET exon 14-altered NSCLC on the basis of activity in targeted therapy-naive patients. We conducted a phase 2 study to assess the efficacy of capmatinib in patients previously treated with a MET inhibitor. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC harboring MET amplification or MET exon 14 skipping alterations received capmatinib 400 mg twice daily. The primary end point was the objective response rate. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate (DCR), intracranial response rate, and overall survival. Circulating tumor DNA was analyzed to identify capmatinib resistance mechanisms. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were enrolled between May 2016 and November 2019, including 15 patients with MET skipping alterations and five patients with MET amplification. All patients had received crizotinib; three had also received other MET-directed therapies. The median interval between crizotinib and capmatinib was 22 days (range: 4-374). Two patients (10%) achieved an objective response to capmatinib and 14 had stable disease, yielding a DCR of 80%. Among five patients who discontinued crizotinib for intolerance, the DCR was 83%, including two patients with the best tumor shrinkage of -25% and -28%. Intracranial DCR among four patients with measurable brain metastases was 100%, with no observed intracranial objective responses. Overall, the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.3-11.0) and 11.3 (95% confidence interval: 5.5-not reached) months, respectively. MET D1228 and Y1230 mutations and MAPK alterations were recurrently detected in postcrizotinib, precapmatinib plasma. New and persistent MET mutations and MAPK pathway alterations were detected in plasma at progression on capmatinib. CONCLUSIONS: Capmatinib has modest activity in crizotinib-pretreated MET-altered NSCLC, potentially owing to overlapping resistance mechanisms.

Outcomes According to ALK Status Determined by Central Immunohistochemistry or Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Patients With ALK-Positive NSCLC Enrolled in the Phase 3 ALEX Study.

INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively examined progression-free survival (PFS) and response by ALK fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) status in patients with advanced ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC)-positive NSCLC in the ALEX study. METHODS: A total of 303 treatment-naive patients were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg. ALK status was assessed centrally using Ventana ALK (D5F3) CDx IHC and Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH Probe Kit. Primary end point is investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end points of interest are objective response rate and duration. RESULTS: Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly prolonged with alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK IHC-positive and FISH-positive tumors (n = 203, 67%) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.56; p < 0.0001) and ALK IHC-positive and FISH-uninformative tumors (n = 61, 20%) (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.20-0.78) but not in ALK IHC-positive and FISH-negative tumors (n = 39, 13%) (HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.6-3.2). Objective response rates were higher with alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK IHC-positive and FISH-positive tumors (90.6% versus 81.4%; stratified OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 0.97-5.07) and ALK IHC-positive and FISH-uninformative tumors (96.0% versus 75.0%; OR = 9.29, 95% CI: 1.05-81.88) but not in ALK IHC-positive and FISH-negative tumors (28.6% versus 44.4%; OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.12-1.74). Next-generation sequencing was performed in 35 of 39 patients with ALK IHC-positive and FISH-negative tumors; no ALK fusion was identified in 20 of 35 patients (57.1%) by next-generation sequencing, but 10 of 20 (50.0%) had partial response or stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of patients with ALK IHC-positive and FISH-positive and ALK IHC-positive and FISH-uninformative NSCLC were similar to those of the overall ALEX population. These results suggest that Ventana ALK IHC is a standard testing method for selecting patients for treatment with alectinib.

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.).