Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy for Patients With Second-Line or Later Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Entrectinib versus crizotinib in Asian patients with ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison

OBJECTIVES

Entrectinib and crizotinib are the only ROS proto-oncogene 1 receptor (ROS1) tyrosine kinase inhibitors available for most Asian patients. Their efficacy has neither been compared directly in clinical trials in patients with ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nor indirectly in Asian populations. Thus, we aimed to provide comparative evidence of the efficacy and safety of entrectinib and crizotinib for Asian patients with advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Efficacy, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and safety were evaluated using an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Individual patient data (IPD) from entrectinib trials (ALKA-372-001/EudraCT 2012-000148-88, STARTRK-1/NCT02097810, and STARTRK-2/NCT02568267; dosage, ≥600 mg once daily; enrollment cutoff, 02 July 2020; data cutoff, 02 August 2021) and aggregate data with simulated pseudo-IPD from a crizotinib trial (OxOnc/NCT01945021; dosage, 250 mg twice daily) were analyzed. Key eligibility criteria from the crizotinib trial were applied to IPD from the entrectinib trials. Baseline characteristics were match-adjusted between arms using propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

Fifty-two and 127 patients from the entrectinib and crizotinib trials, respectively, were available for evaluation. Median OS was not reached (NR; weighted; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 28.3-NR) in the entrectinib arm and 44.2 months (95 % CI 32.0-NR) in the crizotinib arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.662; 95 % CI 0.32-1.37). The respective median PFS was 39.4 months (weighted; 95 % CI 10.4-46.8) and 15.9 months (95 % CI 12.9-24.0) (HR, 0.688; 95 % CI 0.37-1.27). Most AEs were Grade 1-2; both drugs were generally well tolerated. Neutropenia was the most common Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event for both entrectinib and crizotinib.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes in this MAIC study including Asian patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC showed a trend for greater clinical benefit with entrectinib versus crizotinib. These findings may contribute to better-informed treatment decisions.

Identifying optimal ALK inhibitors in first- and second-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and effects on quality of life of different ALK-inhibitors for global and Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The included RCTs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and major cancer conferences. The assessment of progression-free survival (PFS), intracranial PFS, overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was carried out using restricted mean survival time (RMST) model, fractional polynomial model and Royston-Parmar model. Time-invariant hazard ratio (HR) models were also used to validate and supplement the primary analysis. Objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events with any grade, grade 3-5 were assessed through a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary measures for OS, PFS, and PROs were HR and RMST. The odds ratio was the metric for evaluating safety, ORR, 12-month PFS rate, 24-month OS rate, and the 12-month non-deterioration rate of PROs. Subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics were performed.

RESULTS

A total of fourteen studies (ten for first-line, four for second-line) consisting of nine treatments (chemotherapy, crizotinib, alectinib [600mg BID], low-dose alectinib [300mg BID], brigatinib, ceritinib, ensartinib, envonalkib, and lorlatinib) were included. In the first-line setting, alectinib showed a significant advantage over crizotinib and had the longest OS among all ALK-inhibitors. Compared to crizotinib, lorlatinib had the best efficacy regarding PFS for global patients, followed closely by alectinib and brigatinib. For Asian patients, alectinib significantly improved PFS compared to other treatments. In second-line, alectinib had the highest PFS for patients pretreated with crizotinib, followed by brigatinib, ceritinib and chemotherapy. Alectinib, irrespective of the dose, was the safest first-line option, whereas lorlatinib, brigatinib, and ceritinib showed poorer safety profiles. Alectinib was also the safest ALK-inhibitor for crizotinib-resistant patients. Brigatinib had the best performance in terms of PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering both efficacy and safety, alectinib appears to be the preferable treatment in first-line and second-line, particularly for Asian patients.