Final overall survival analysis from the phase III J-ALEX study of alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK inhibitor-naïve Japanese patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer
Katsuyuki Hotta, Toyoaki Hida, Hiroshi Nokihara, Masahiro Morise, Y.H. Kim, Koichi Azuma, Takashi Seto, Yuichi Takiguchi, Makoto Nishio, Hiroshige Yoshioka, Toru Kumagai, Satoshi Watanabe, Kōichi Goto, Miyako Satouchi, Toshiyuki Kozuki, Takehito Shukuya, Kazuhiko Nakagawa, Tetsuya Mitsudomi, Nobuyuki Yamamoto, T. Asakawa, Takuya Yoshimoto, Souichi Takata Souichi Takata, Tomohide Tamura
Abstract
•Final OS analysis from J-ALEX after ≥5 years’ follow-up; not fully powered.•Alectinib treatment did not prolong OS relative to crizotinib (HR 1.03, 95.0405% CI 0.67-1.58; P = 0.9105).•This was possibly due to cross-over of more crizotinib-treated patients to alectinib as a first subsequent therapy (78.8%).•5-year OS rates were 60.9% (95% CI 51.4-70.3) with alectinib and 64.1% (95% CI 54.9-73.4) with crizotinib.•Alectinib remains a preferred standard of care for the treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. BackgroundMature progression-free survival (PFS) data from the phase III J-ALEX study showed superiority for alectinib versus crizotinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.52; median PFS 34.1 versus 10.2 months, respectively] in advanced ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) data were immature (HR 0.80, 99.8799% CI 0.35-1.82) at the time of data cut-off (30 June 2018). We report final OS data after ≥5 years of follow-up.Patients and methodsALK inhibitor naive Japanese patients who were chemotherapy naive or had received one prior chemotherapy regimen were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive alectinib 300 mg (n = 103) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 104) twice daily until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was independent review facility-assessed PFS, with OS (not fully powered) as a secondary endpoint.ResultsMedian duration of OS follow-up was 68.6 months with alectinib and 68.0 months with crizotinib. Treatment with alectinib did not prolong OS relative to crizotinib (HR 1.03, 95.0405% CI 0.67-1.58; P = 0.9105). Five-year OS rates were 60.9% (95% CI 51.4-70.3) with alectinib and 64.1% (95% CI 54.9-73.4) with crizotinib. In total, 91.3% (n = 95/104) of crizotinib-treated patients and 46.6% (n = 48/103) of alectinib-treated patients received at least one subsequent anticancer therapy. After study drug discontinuation, 78.8% of patients in the crizotinib arm switched to alectinib, while 10.7% of patients in the alectinib arm switched to crizotinib as a first subsequent anticancer therapy. Patients randomized to crizotinib tended to switch treatment earlier than those randomized to alectinib.ConclusionFinal OS analysis from J-ALEX did not show superiority of alectinib to crizotinib; this result was most likely confounded by treatment crossover. Alectinib remains a standard of care for the treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. Mature progression-free survival (PFS) data from the phase III J-ALEX study showed superiority for alectinib versus crizotinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.52; median PFS 34.1 versus 10.2 months, respectively] in advanced ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) data were immature (HR 0.80, 99.8799% CI 0.35-1.82) at the time of data cut-off (30 June 2018). We report final OS data after ≥5 years of follow-up. ALK inhibitor naive Japanese patients who were chemotherapy naive or had received one prior chemotherapy regimen were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive alectinib 300 mg (n = 103) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 104) twice daily until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was independent review facility-assessed PFS, with OS (not fully powered) as a secondary endpoint. Median duration of OS follow-up was 68.6 months with alectinib and 68.0 months with crizotinib. Treatment with alectinib did not prolong OS relative to crizotinib (HR 1.03, 95.0405% CI 0.67-1.58; P = 0.9105). Five-year OS rates were 60.9% (95% CI 51.4-70.3) with alectinib and 64.1% (95% CI 54.9-73.4) with crizotinib. In total, 91.3% (n = 95/104) of crizotinib-treated patients and 46.6% (n = 48/103) of alectinib-treated patients received at least one subsequent anticancer therapy. After study drug discontinuation, 78.8% of patients in the crizotinib arm switched to alectinib, while 10.7% of patients in the alectinib arm switched to crizotinib as a first subsequent anticancer therapy. Patients randomized to crizotinib tended to switch treatment earlier than those randomized to alectinib. Final OS analysis from J-ALEX did not show superiority of alectinib to crizotinib; this result was most likely confounded by treatment crossover. Alectinib remains a standard of care for the treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.