Alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (J-ALEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Alectinib, a potent, highly selective, CNS-active inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), showed promising efficacy and tolerability in the single-arm phase 1/2 AF-001JP trial in Japanese patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Given those promising results, we did a phase 3 trial to directly compare the efficacy and safety of alectinib and crizotinib.

METHODS

J-ALEX was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that recruited ALK inhibitor-naive Japanese patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, who were chemotherapy-naive or had received one previous chemotherapy regimen, from 41 study sites in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web response system using a permuted-block method stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, treatment line, and disease stage to receive oral alectinib 300 mg twice daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review facility. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study is ongoing and patient recruitment is closed. This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (number JapicCTI-132316).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 18, 2013, and Aug 4, 2015, 207 patients were recruited and assigned to the alectinib (n=103) or crizotinib (n=104) groups. At data cutoff for the second interim analysis, 24 patients in the alectinib group had discontinued treatment compared with 61 in the crizotinib group, mostly due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff date Dec 3, 2015), an independent data monitoring committee determined that the primary endpoint of the study had been met (hazard ratio 0·34 [99·7% CI 0·17-0·71], stratified log-rank p<0·0001) and recommended an immediate release of the data. Median progression-free survival had not yet been reached with alectinib (95% CI 20·3-not estimated) and was 10·2 months (8·2-12·0) with crizotinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred at a greater frequency with crizotinib (54 [52%] of 104) than alectinib (27 [26%] of 103). Dose interruptions due to adverse events were also more prevalent with crizotinib (77 [74%] of 104) than with alectinib (30 [29%] of 103), and more patients receiving crizotinib (21 [20%]) than alectinib (nine [9%]) discontinued the study drug because of an adverse event. No adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in either treatment group.

INTERPRETATION

These results provide the first head-to-head comparison of alectinib and crizotinib and have the potential to change the standard of care for the first-line treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. The dose of alectinib (300 mg twice daily) used in this study is lower than the approved dose in countries other than Japan; however, this limitation is being addressed in the ongoing ALEX study.

FUNDING

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

Is there a benefit of first- or second-line crizotinib in locally advanced or metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer? a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Crizotinib show a promising efficacy in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, differences in efficacy for first- and second-line crizotinib are unclear.

RESULTS

The pooled overall response rate and progression-free survival were 65% and 9.38 months, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, first-line crizotinib showed a higher trend of overall response rate and longer trend of progression-free survival although there was no statistical difference between first-line and second-line crizotinib (74%, 11.28 months vs. 65%, 8.12 months, respectively; fixed effects model). Moreover, overall response rate between Asians and Caucasians were similar (67% and 66%, respectively; fixed effects model).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE and the COCHRANE databases from their inception to February 2016 was performed to identify clinical trials in English-language journals. Pooled overall response rate, progression-free survival and differences between first- and second-line crizotinib were estimated. Moreover, overall response rate between Asians and Caucasians were also estimated.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line crizotinib may more effective than second-line crizotinib for patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC.