A Bayesian network meta-analysis regarding the comparative efficacy of therapeutics for ALK-positive, brain metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness evaluation of systemic treatments for refractory colorectal cancer: a systematic review and modeling study

OBJECTIVES

To conduct pooled estimates and comparative evaluations of safety and efficacy, alongside cost-effectiveness and value-based pricing analyses, for systemic treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in refractory colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for related randomized controlled trials was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Safety was evaluated by aggregating treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and performing Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) for indirect comparisons. Pooled survival estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were conducted to assess treatment efficacy. For NMA of OS and PFS, time-variant fractional polynomial models were employed as the primary analysis, with Cox proportional hazards models used for result validation. Economic evaluations were performed using partitioned survival models from the US public sector perspective. Clinical parameters were sourced from meta-analyses; cost parameters included drug treatment, follow-up and administration, end-of-life care, and adverse event management expenses, which were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule, public databases or published literature. Utility values were sourced from the CORRECT trial. Price simulations were also conducted. Robustness of results was confirmed by sensitivity and scenario analyses RESULTS: We included nine studies comprising 3,978 patients and incorporating six treatments recommended by NCCN, including best supportive care (BSC), regorafenib, regorafenib dose optimization (REDo), trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), TAS-102 with bevacizumab (TAS-BEV), and fruquintinib. Targeted treatments increased serious TRAEs and grade 3 + TRAEs compared to BSC. However, no significant safety differences were found among the targeted therapies. Regarding efficacy, REDo led in median OS, while fruquintinib led in median PFS. NMA indicated that TAS-BEV had the greatest PFS and OS survival benefit, followed by fruquintinib and REDo. Cost-effectiveness analysis favored BSC as the least expensive and the most cost-effective profile. TAS-BEV had the greatest effectiveness, with TAS-102 being the most cost-effective among targeted therapies. For cost-effectiveness against BSC, the price reductions of TAS-102, fruquintinib, REDoS, regorafenib, and TAS-BEV were 39%, 24%, 14%, 8%, and 7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted therapies have comparable safety; TAS-BEV is highly effective, TAS-102 is the top cost-effective targeted therapy. Treatment choice should balance individual patient needs with safety, efficacy, and cost.

Identifying patients who benefit more from perioperative immunotherapy combinations for resectable non-small cell lung cancer based on clinical and molecular characteristics: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify patient subgroups who benefit more from perioperative immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (IO-CT) based on clinical and molecular characteristics in resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on perioperative IO-CT were searched. Beneficial differences of IO-CT regimens across different patient subgroups were assessed by pooling trial-specific ratios in event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), pathological complete response (pCR), and major pathological response (MPR).

RESULTS

Six studies (n = 3003) involving five IO-CT regimens were included. Compared to CT alone, all IO-CT regimens significantly improved EFS, OS, MPR, and pCR, but increased toxicity. Toripa-chemo showed the best EFS and nivo-chemo showed the best OS. Patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% had more EFS benefits compared to those with PD-L1 < 1% (HR [hazard ratio]: 1.55, 95% CI 1.17-2.04). Squamous NSCLC patients had significantly more pCR and MPR benefits than non-squamous NSCLC patients (pCR: OR [odds ratio] 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.95; MPR: OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.82). Former smokers had significantly higher pCR benefits than non-smokers (OR: 2.18; 95% CI 1.21-3.92). Additionally, OS benefit was significantly higher in patients < 65 years compared to those ≥ 65 years (HR ratio: 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.95). For MPR, males benefited significantly more from IO-CT compared to females (OR: 1.69, 95% CI 1.18-2.42).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative IO-CT is more effective but more toxic than CT alone in resectable NSCLC. Patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1%, squamous NSCLC, a history of smoking, age < 65 years and male gender may experience greater benefits from perioperative IO-CT.

Bridging the gap: unlocking the potential of emerging drug therapies for brain metastasis

Brain metastasis remains an unmet clinical need in advanced cancers with an increasing incidence and poor prognosis. The limited response to various treatments is mainly derived from the presence of the substantive barrier, blood-brain barrier (BBB) and brain-tumour barrier (BTB), which hinders the access of potentially effective therapeutics to the metastatic tumour of the brain. Recently, the understanding of the structural and molecular features of the BBB/BTB has led to the development of efficient strategies to enhance BBB/BTB permeability and deliver drugs across the BBB/BTB to elicit the anti-tumour response against brain metastasis. Meanwhile, novel agents capable of penetrating the BBB have rapidly developed and been evaluated in preclinical studies and clinical trials, with both targeted therapies and immunotherapies demonstrating impressive intracranial activity against brain metastasis. In this review, we summarize the recent advances in the biological properties of the BBB/BTB and the emerging strategies for BBB/BTB permeabilization and drug delivery across the BBB/BTB. We also discuss the emerging targeted therapies and immunotherapies against brain metastasis tested in clinical trials. Additionally, we provide our viewpoints on accelerating clinical translation of novel drugs into clinic for patients of brain metastasis. Although still challenging, we expect this review to benefit the future development of novel therapeutics, specifically from a clinical perspective.

EML4-ALK-Positive Ovarian Cancer With Intracranial Metastasis Responds to Lorlatinib: A Case Report and Literature Review

We report a case showing that lorlatinib is effective in treating EML4-ALK-positive low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSO) with intracranial metastasis. This may be the first clinical evidence of LGSO benefit from ALK inhibitors, to provide evidence for the use of ALK inhibitors in more ovarian cancer patients with EML4-ALK fusion and promoting new ideas for the study of EML4-ALK targets in ovarian cancer.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of lorlatinib with comparison to other anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as first-line treatment for ALK-positive advanced non-smallcell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

Next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) demonstrate superior progression-free survival (PFS) over chemotherapy or crizotinib as first-line (1L) treatment of ALK-positive advanced non-smallcell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We conducted network meta-analyses (NMAs) comparing the relative efficacy of lorlatinib with other ALK TKIs in this indication. Evidence identified from a systematic literature review and subsequent updates formed the basis of our evidence. The primary analysis investigated PFS by independent review committee (IRC) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary outcomes included PFS among subgroups, intracranial time to progression (IC TTP), adverse events, and discontinuation due to adverse events. For each of the outcomes, Bayesian proportional hazards NMAs estimated the relative treatment effects. Additionally, we compared the design and results of eight published NMAs conducted for 1L ALK + advanced NSCLC to date.

RESULTS

We formed a network of 10 trials, allowing indirect treatment comparisons. Two trials directly compared alectinib (600 mg twice daily) to crizotinib and one trial directly compared lorlatinib to crizotinib. The results of the NMA show that the hazard ratios (95 % credible interval [CrI]) for ITT PFS IRC were 0.61 (95 % CrI: 0.39, 0.97) when comparing lorlatinib with alectinib (600 mg twice daily) and 0.57 (95 % CrI: 0.35, 0.93) when comparing lorlatinib with brigatinib. In the review of published NMAs, HRs for lorlatinib versus alectinib (600 mg twice daily) and brigatinib were compared. This comparison confirmed that each published NMA yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our NMA analysis adds to existing findings and supplements data gaps from other published NMAs. Findings from eight published NMAs consistently supported lorlatinib as a clinically effective 1L treatment for ALK + advanced NSCLC patients compared to other TKIs.

Efficacy and safety of perioperative, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant immunotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Neoadjuvant (NE), adjuvant (AD), and perioperative (PE) immunotherapies have gained validation in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials. However, a comprehensive assessment of their comparative efficacy and safety is lacking.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of NE, AD, and PE immunotherapies in early-stage NSCLC.

Design

A systematic review and network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework.

Data sources and methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy (CT) for early-stage NSCLC. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

We included 10 RCTs involving 5569 NSCLC patients, categorized as NE, PE, or AD immunotherapy. Indirect comparisons highlighted differences in efficacy between PE and AD immunotherapy, specifically in event-free survival (EFS)/disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53-0.96). NE/PE immunotherapies improved pathologic complete response (pCR) (OR = 7.56, 95% CI: 5.24-10.92), major pathologic response (MPR) (OR = 5.46, 95% CI: 3.97-7.51), and EFS (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.52-0.65), while AD immunotherapy enhanced DFS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.69-0.90). Overall survival (OS) benefits were seen only with PE immunotherapy (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55-0.81). PE treatment improved EFS across various subgroups (PD-L1 < 1%, IIIB, squamous, female, without MPR/pCR, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant-negative), except EGFR mutant-positive NSCLC (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.21-1.43). AD (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20-2.73) and PE (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.10-1.50) immunotherapies were associated with higher grade ⩾3 adverse events.

Conclusion

In the three treatment modalities, PE immunotherapy appears to be more effective than AD immunotherapy, with PE showing significant advantages in certain subgroups that NE does not. NE and PE immunotherapy significantly improved pCR, MPR, and EFS, while AD immunotherapy significantly improved DFS in NSCLC patients compared to the control group. However, only PE immunotherapy significantly improved OS. Differences in efficacy between NE and PE across the entire population of resectable NSCLC remain to be explored in additional studies.

Preclinical evaluation of targeted therapies for central nervous system metastases

The central nervous system (CNS) represents a site of sanctuary for many metastatic tumors when systemic therapies that control the primary tumor cannot effectively penetrate intracranial lesions. Non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) are the most likely of all neoplasms to metastasize to the brain, with up to 60% of patients developing CNS metastases during the disease process. Targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have helped reduce lung cancer mortality but vary considerably in their capacity to control CNS metastases. The ability of these therapies to effectively target lesions in the CNS depends on several of their pharmacokinetic properties, including blood-brain barrier permeability, affinity for efflux transporters, and binding affinity for both plasma and brain tissue. Despite the existence of numerous preclinical models with which to characterize these properties, many targeted therapies have not been rigorously tested for CNS penetration during the discovery process, whereas some made it through preclinical testing despite poor brain penetration kinetics. Several TKIs have now been engineered with the characteristics of CNS-penetrant drugs, with clinical trials proving these efforts fruitful. This Review outlines the extent and variability of preclinical evidence for the efficacy of NSCLC-targeted therapies, which have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or are in development, for treating CNS metastases, and how these data correlate with clinical outcomes.

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.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis of ALK inhibitor treatments in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

To date, no direct comparisons have compared the effectiveness of all ALK inhibitors (ALKis) against ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of ALKis in ALK-positive NSCLC.

METHODS

The effectiveness of ALKis was evaluated by assessing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and PFS with baseline brain metastasis (BM). The serious adverse events (SAEs: Grade ≥ 3) and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were pooled to evaluate safety. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison between all ALKis by using a Bayesian model.

RESULTS

Twelve eligible trials including seven treatments were identified. All of the ALKis improved PFS and ORR relative to chemotherapy. Consistent with alectinib, brigatinib, lorlatinib, and ensartinib showed significant differences versus crizotinib and ceritinib. Lorlatinib seemed to prolong PFS compared with alectinib (0.64, 0.37 to 1.07), brigatinib (0.56, 0.3 to 1.05), and ensartinib (0.53, 0.28 to 1.02). No significant difference was found among them in OS except for alectinib versus crizotinib. Moreover, alectinib was significantly more effective than crizotinib (1.54, 1.02 to 2.5) in achieving the best ORR. Subgroup analyses based on BM indicated that PFS was dramatically lengthened by lorlatinib. Compared with other ALKis, alectinib notably reduced the rate of SAEs. There was no striking difference between discontinuation for AEs, except for ceritinib versus crizotinib. The ranking of validity showed that lorlatinib had the longest PFS (98.32%) and PFS with BM (85.84%) and the highest ORR (77.01%). The rank of probabilities showed that alectinib had the potentially best safety in terms of SAEs (97.85%), and ceritinib had less discontinuation (95.45%).

CONCLUSION

Alectinib was the first choice for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC and even for those with BM, whereas lorlatinib was the second choice. Long-term follow-up and prospective studies are warranted to compare ALKis and to verify our conclusions directly.

Treatments for brain metastases from EGFR/ALK-negative/unselected NSCLC: A network meta-analysis

More clinical evidence is needed regarding the relative priority of treatments for brain metastases (BMs) from EGFR/ALK-negative/unselected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched. Overall survival (OS), central nervous system progression-free survival (CNS-PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were selected for Bayesian network meta-analyses. We included 25 eligible randomized control trials (RCTs) involving 3,054 patients, investigating nine kinds of treatments for newly diagnosed BMs and seven kinds of treatments for previously treated BMs. For newly diagnosed BMs, adding chemotherapy, EGFR-TKIs, and other innovative systemic agents (temozolomide, nitroglycerin, endostar, enzastaurin, and veliparib) to radiotherapy did not significantly prolong OS than radiotherapy alone; whereas radiotherapy + nitroglycerin showed significantly better CNS-PFS and ORR. Surgery could significantly prolong OS (hazard ratios [HR]: 0.52, 95% credible intervals: 0.41-0.67) and CNS-PFS (HR: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.18-0.59) compared with radiotherapy alone. For previously treated BMs, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, nivolumab + ipilimumab, and cemiplimab significantly prolonged OS than chemotherapy alone. Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy also showed better CNS-PFS and ORR than chemotherapy. In summary, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies, especially ICI-combined therapies, showed promising efficacies for previously treated BMs from EGFR/ALK-negative/unselected NSCLC. The value of surgery should also be emphasized. The result should be further confirmed by RCTs.

Lorlatinib as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer

Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer. This review provides information regarding the pharmacology and clinical features of lorlatinib, including its efficacy and associated adverse events. Pivotal clinical trials are discussed along with the current status of lorlatinib as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer and future therapeutic challenges.