Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (<I>ALK</I>)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Neurological symptom burden impacts survival prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases

BACKGROUND

Brain metastases (BM) are a frequent complication of advanced cancer and are characterized by a variety of neurological symptoms. Although the presence of neurological symptoms is included in the response assessment in patients with primary brain tumors, to the authors' knowledge little is known regarding the prognostic impact of neurological symptoms in patients with BM.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed BM from non-small cell lung cancer were identified from the Vienna Brain Metastasis Registry and were evaluated according to the incidence, distribution, and prognostic impact of neurological symptoms at the time of diagnosis of BM.

RESULTS

A total of 1608 patients (57.3% male and 42.7% female; median age, 62 years) were available for further analyses. Neurological symptoms including focal deficits (985 patients; 61.3%), signs of increased intracranial pressure (483 patients; 30.0%), epileptic seizures (224 patients; 13.9%), and neuropsychological symptoms (233 patients; 14.5%) were documented in 1186 of the 1608 patients (73.8%). Patients with asymptomatic BM presented with a longer median overall survival after the diagnosis of BM compared with patients with symptomatic BM (11 months vs 7 months; P < .001). In multivariate analysis with a diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.33-1.50 [P < .001]), the presence of neurological symptoms (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.57 [P < .001]) was found to be independently associated with survival prognosis from the time of diagnosis of BM.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurological symptoms at the time of BM diagnosis demonstrated a strong and independent association with survival prognosis. The results of the current study have highlighted the need for the integration of the presence of neurological symptoms into the prognostic assessment of patients with BM from non-small cell lung cancer.

LAY SUMMARY

Neurological symptom evaluation is included regularly in the assessment of patients with primary brain tumors. However, to the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the prognostic impact in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases (BM). The current study has provided a detailed clinical characterization of the incidence, distribution, and prognostic impact of neurological symptoms in a large, real-life cohort of patients with BM from non-small cell lung cancer. In this cohort, neurological symptoms at the time of diagnosis of BM demonstrated a strong, independent prognostic impact on the survival prognosis. The results of the current study have highlighted the need for the integration of neurological symptom burden into the prognostic assessment of patients with BM from non-small cell lung cancer.

Prognostic assessment in patients with newly diagnosed small cell lung cancer brain metastases: results from a real-life cohort

Purposes

Brain metastases (BM) are a frequent complication in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), resulting in a reduced survival prognosis. Precise prognostic assessment is an important foundation for treatment decisions and clinical trial planning.

Methods

Patients with newly diagnosed SCLC BM were identified from the Vienna Brain Metastasis Registry and evaluated concerning prognostic factors.

Results

489 patients (male 62.2%, female 37.8%; median age 61 years) were included. Neurological symptoms were present in 297/489 (60.7%) patients. A- to oligosymptomatic patients (5 vs. 9 months, p = 0.030) as well as patients with synchronous diagnosis of BM and primary tumor (5 vs. 9 months, p = 0.008) presented with improved overall survival (OS) prognosis. RPA (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.44–1.91; p < 0.001), GPA (HR 1.65; p < 0.001), DS-GPA (HR 1.60; p < 0.001) and LabBM score (HR 1.69; p < 0.001) were statistically significantly associated with OS. In multivariate analysis, DS-GPA (HR 1.59; p < 0.001), neurological deficits (HR 1.26; p = 0.021) and LabBM score (HR 1.57; p < 0.001) presented with statistical independent association with OS.

Conclusion

A- to oligosymptomatic BM as well as synchronous diagnosis of SCLC and BM were associated with improved OS. Established prognostic scores could be validated in this large SCLC BM real-life cohort.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11060-019-03269-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ALK Inhibitors in the Treatment of ALK Positive NSCLC

Background: ALK inhibitors have shown positive advance in the treatment of ALK+ NSCLC. They have achieved better results in prolonging the progression free survival and improving quality of life in comparison to chemotherapy. We have assembled the evidence related to the efficacy and safety of these agents in the treatment of ALK positive NSCLC. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases of PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Library to identify the studies involving comparison of ALK inhibitors to chemotherapy and Next generation ALK inhibitors to crizotinib. PFS was the primary outcome while other outcomes like ORR, adverse events, quality of life and OS were also analyzed and compared. Hazard ratios and odds ratios obtained were analyzed using fixed effect or random effects model in Review Manager Software. Results: A total of 12 studies (n = 3,297) met the criteria for inclusion in this review and meta-analysis. ALK inhibitors including crizotinib, ceritinib and alectinib revealed significantly better PFS (HR 0.42 [0.35, 0.50; p < 0.00001]), ORR (Overall OR 6.59 [4.86, 8.94; p < 0.00001] as compared to chemotherapy in the first line as well as second line treatment settings. Intracranial response rate was better with ALK inhibitors (ceritinib and alectinib) as compared to chemotherapy OR 6.51 [2.86, 14.83; p < 0.00001]. No significant increase in grade 3 or 4 adverse events was observed with crizotinib (OR 1.21 [0.82, 1.77; p = 0.34]) or ceritinib (OR 1.49 [0.86, 2.57; p = 0.17]) when compared to chemotherapy individually. Quality of life indicators assessed were significantly improved with ALK inhibitors. Next generation agents (ceritinib, alectinib and brigatinib) revealed significant improvement in PFS (HR 0.50 [0.43, 0.57; p < 0.00001]), ORR (OR 1.57 [1.21, 2.04; p = 0.0006]) in comparison to crizotinib. Next generation agents (Alectinib and brigatinib) yielded better response intra-cranially than crizotinib in terms of objective response rate (OR 5.87 [3.49, 9.87; p < 0.00001]) and time to CNS progression (HR 0.25 [0.13, 0.46; p < 0.0001]). Alectinib by far resulted in fewer adverse events than chemotherapy or crizotinib. Conclusions: Overall ALK inhibitors are safe and effective treatment option in ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer. Of the ALK inhibitors, Next generation agents in particular alectinib and brigatinib are safer and more effective intra-cranially and can be preferred as first option.

The Current Landscape of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Emerging Treatment Paradigms and Future Directions

Tumorigenic rearrangements in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) account for 3-7% of all non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has shown impressive clinical responses. Crizotinib was the first agent approved for front-line therapy of ALK-rearranged NSCLC after it demonstrated superiority to chemotherapy in response rate, duration of response, and progression-free survival. However, eventually all patients progress on crizotinib therapy, with the central nervous system (CNS) being the most common site, which served as the impetus for the development of more potent next-generation ALK inhibitors. Currently, ceritinib, alectinib, and brigatinib are all approved for second-line therapy after progression on or intolerance to crizotinib. Investigations into whether the initiation of a second-generation ALK inhibitor as first-line therapy is the superior treatment paradigm has resulted in the approval of ceritinib as initial therapy. Alectinib has also shown impressive results as front-line therapy, as recently reported in two large randomized studies that compared it to crizotinib. There is a significant need to better understand the drivers of and mechanisms underlying resistance to ALK inhibitors. While specific mutations have been identified, there is currently only limited evidence that the identification of specific mutations should impact selection of the next ALK inhibitor. The best treatment option for patients who become TKI refractory is also unclear, though there is some evidence to suggests that these patients are not responsive to checkpoint inhibitors and may respond better to chemotherapy. Combination therapy with other classes of agents may help to overcome resistance mechanisms and should be investigated further.

Current Landscape of Targeted Therapy in Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Comprehensive genomic profiling of lung cancers revealed their genetic heterogeneity and complexity and identified numerous targetable oncogenic driver alterations. These molecular profiling efforts have made it possible to exploit the potential of molecularly targeted therapies. Selection of patients for targeted therapies is becoming biomarker-driven, where the oncogenic drivers in patient tumors are first identified, and subsequently patients bearing drug-sensitizing genetic aberrations are matched to the appropriate targeted therapy. Success of this design of clinical trials and practice was first demonstrated in EGFR inhibitor trials in lung cancer and has since been incorporated into subsequent targeted therapy trials including ALK-, ROS1-, and BRAF V600E-targeted therapies. In this review we discuss the current landscape of clinically approved and other promising molecularly targeted approaches for the treatment of lung cancers, the challenges with these approaches, and the strategies that could be deployed to overcome these challenges.