Ali Zeaiter

Alectinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK-Rearranged Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Global Study

PURPOSE Crizotinib confers improved progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but progression invariably occurs. We investigated the efficacy and safety of alectinib, a potent and selective ALK inhibitor with excellent CNS penetration, in patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Alectinib 600 mg was administered orally twice daily. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by central independent review committee (IRC). RESULTS Of the 138 patients treated, 84 patients (61%) had CNS metastases at baseline, and 122 were response evaluable (RE) by IRC. ORR by IRC was 50% (95% CI, 41% to 59%), and the median duration of response (DOR) was 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached). In 96 patients (79%) previously treated with chemotherapy, the ORR was 45% (95% CI, 35% to 55%). Median IRC-assessed progression-free survival for all 138 patients was 8.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.3 months). CNS disease control rate was 83% (95% CI, 74% to 91%), and the median CNS DOR was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 11.2 months). CNS ORR in 35 patients with baseline measurable CNS lesions was 57% (95% CI, 39% to 74%). Of the 23 patients with baseline CNS metastases (measurable or nonmeasurable) and no prior radiation, 10 (43%) had a complete CNS response. At 12 months, the cumulative CNS progression rate (24.8%) was lower than the cumulative non-CNS progression rate (33.2%) for all patients. Common adverse events were constipation (33%), fatigue (26%), and peripheral edema (25%); most were grade 1 to 2. CONCLUSION Alectinib is highly active and well tolerated in patients with advanced, crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases.

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.)

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.

A phase II study of erlotinib in combination with bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND Molecularly targeted agents for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can provide similar efficacy to chemotherapy without chemotherapy-associated toxicities. Combining two agents with different modes of action could further increase the efficacy of these therapies. The TASK study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib in combination with the anti-angiogenic agent bevacizumab as first-line therapy in unselected, advanced non-squamous NSCLC patients. METHODS Patients were recruited from December 2007 to September 2008. Planned sample size was 200 patients, a total of 124 patients were randomized. Patients were randomized using a minimization algorithm 1:1 to receive bevacizumab (iv 15 mg/kg day 1 of each 21-day cycle) plus chemotherapy (gemcitabine/cisplatin or carboplatin/paclitaxel standard doses, 4-6 cycles) (BC arm) or bevacizumab plus erlotinib (p.o. 150 mg/day; BE arm) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). If the hazard ratio (HR) of PFS for BE relative to BC was above 1.25 at the pre-planned interim analysis in favor of BC, the study would be re-evaluated. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rate and safety. RESULTS All randomized patients (n = 63 BE; n = 61 BC) were evaluated for the efficacy analyses. At the updated interim analysis, median PFS was 18.4 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.0-25.1) versus 25.0 weeks (95% CI 20.6-[not reached]) for BE versus BC, respectively (HR for death or disease progression, BE relative to BC, 2.05, p = 0.0183). The incidence of death was 19% for BE treatment compared with 11.5% for BC treatment. The HR for PFS at the updated interim analysis was above 1.25, therefore patients on the BE arm were permitted to change arms or switch to another drug and the study was terminated. Adverse events reported were as expected. CONCLUSIONS The TASK study did not show a benefit in terms of PFS for the combination of erlotinib with bevacizumab in unselected first-line advanced non-squamous NSCLC compared with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab.

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 chemotherapy in crizotinib-pretreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from the phase III ALUR study

Abstract Background This is the first trial to directly compare efficacy and safety of alectinib versus standard chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who have progressed on, or were intolerant to, crizotinib. Patients and methods ALUR (MO29750; NCT02604342) was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III trial of alectinib versus chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC patients previously treated with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy and crizotinib. Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive alectinib 600 mg twice daily or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2, both every 3 weeks) until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results Altogether, 107 patients were randomized (alectinib, n = 72; chemotherapy, n = 35) in 13 countries across Europe and Asia. Median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.9–12.2] with alectinib and 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3–1.6) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.15 (95% CI: 0.08–0.29); P < 0.001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with alectinib [HR 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17–0.59); median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI: 6.3–10.8) with alectinib and 1.6 months (95% CI: 1.3–4.1) with chemotherapy]. In patients with measurable baseline central nervous system (CNS) disease (alectinib, n = 24; chemotherapy, n = 16), CNS objective response rate was significantly higher with alectinib (54.2%) versus chemotherapy (0%; P < 0.001). Grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy (41.2%) than alectinib (27.1%). Incidence of AEs leading to study-drug discontinuation was lower with alectinib (5.7%) than chemotherapy (8.8%), despite alectinib treatment duration being longer (20.1 weeks versus 6.0 weeks). Conclusion Alectinib significantly improved systemic and CNS efficacy versus chemotherapy for crizotinib-pretreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients, with a favorable safety profile. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604342; Roche study MO29750

Effect of the Wetting Agent Sodium Lauryl Sulfate on the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib: Results From a Bioequivalence Study in Healthy Subjects.

The anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor alectinib is an effective treatment for ALK‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer. This bioequivalence study evaluated the in vivo performance of test 3 formulations with the reduced wetting agent sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) content. This randomized, 4‐period, 4‐sequence, crossover study compared alectinib (600 mg) as 25%, 12.5%, and 3% SLS hard capsule formulations with the reference 50% SLS clinical formulation in healthy subjects under fasted conditions (n = 49), and following a high‐fat meal (n = 48). Geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for Cmax, AUC0–last, and AUC0–∞ of alectinib, its major active metabolite, M4, and alectinib plus M4 were determined for the test formulations versus the reference formulation. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90%CIs were within the 80% to 125% boundaries. The 25% SLS formulation demonstrated bioequivalence to the reference 50% SLS formulation for Cmax, AUC0–last, and AUC0–∞ of alectinib, M4, and alectinib plus M4 under both fasted and fed conditions. Further reductions in SLS content (12.5% and 3% SLS) did not meet the bioequivalence criteria. Cross‐group comparisons showed an approximately 3‐fold positive food effect. Reducing SLS to 25% resulted in a formulation that is bioequivalent to the current 50% SLS formulation used in alectinib pivotal trials.

Erlotinib-associated rash in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer treated in the EURTAC trial

AIM This analysis investigates incidence and time course of rash in the EURTAC study. MATERIALS & METHODS Patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive once daily erlotinib or 3-weekly cycles of chemotherapy. RESULTS Of the 86 erlotinib-treated patients, 71 reported rash. Median time to first rash appearance was 0.7 months. Most patients (n = 65) had the same or lower grade rash at final assessment compared with initial assessment. Of the 21 patients with decreased rash grade between initial and final assessments, 61.9% received no erlotinib dose modification, 42.8% had no concomitant rash treatment. CONCLUSION Most rash cases were mild, occurred within 1 month of erlotinib treatment, and rapidly improved without the need for erlotinib dose alterations.

Analysis of central nervous system efficacy in the J-ALEX study of alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK -positive non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES We determined the central nervous system (CNS) efficacy of alectinib by calculating time to CNS progression and cumulative incidence rates (CIRs) of CNS progression, non-CNS progression and death in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) enrolled in the J-ALEX phase III study. MATERIALS AND METHODS Japanese patients aged ≥20 years with ALK-positive NSCLC who were ALK inhibitor-naïve and chemotherapy-naïve, or who had received one previous chemotherapy regimen, were enrolled. Patients with treated or untreated asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible. Treatment comprised oral alectinib 300 mg twice daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death or withdrawal. Imaging scans (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging) were taken at baseline and at regular intervals throughout the study. The CIRs for CNS progression, non-CNS progression and death were calculated for patients with and without baseline CNS metastases using a competing risks method. RESULTS The hazard ratio for time to CNS progression in patients with and without baseline CNS metastases was 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-1.64; P = 0.2502) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.07-0.53; P = 0.0004), respectively. The CIRs of CNS progression and non-CNS progression were lower in the alectinib group than in the crizotinib group at all time points. The 1-year CIRs of CNS progression were 16.8% and 5.9% with crizotinib and alectinib, respectively, and the 1-year CIRs of non-CNS progression were 38.4% and 17.5%, respectively. Comparable findings were obtained in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases. CONCLUSION Alectinib appears to avert the progression of CNS metastases in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC and baseline CNS metastases, and to prevent the development of new CNS lesions in patients without baseline CNS disease.

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

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