Abstract CT223: Updated efficacy and safety from the phase 3 CROWN study of first-line lorlatinib vs crizotinib in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Background: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and demonstrated intracranial (IC) activity in patients (pts) with untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC in the interim analysis of the randomized, Phase 3, CROWN study of lorlatinib vs crizotinib. We report updated 36-month follow-up data. Met...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer research (Chicago, Ill.) Ill.), 2022-06, Vol.82 (12_Supplement), p.CT223-CT223 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and demonstrated intracranial (IC) activity in patients (pts) with untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC in the interim analysis of the randomized, Phase 3, CROWN study of lorlatinib vs crizotinib. We report updated 36-month follow-up data.
Methods: 296 pts with previously untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to oral lorlatinib (100 mg QD; n=149) or crizotinib (250 mg BID; n=147), stratified by presence of CNS metastases (mets) and ethnicity. Primary endpoint: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, PFS by investigator, and objective response (OR), IC-OR, IC time to progression (IC-TTP), duration of response (DR), IC-DR (all by BICR), and safety.
Results: At data cutoff (Sep 20, 2021), median duration of follow-up for PFS was 36.7 months for lorlatinib and 29.3 months for crizotinib. Median PFS by BICR was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) for lorlatinib and 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.1) for crizotinib (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39). PFS by investigator results were similar (Table). For pts with brain mets at baseline (n=37 lorlatinib/n=39 crizotinib), the HR for IC-TTP for lorlatinib vs crizotinib was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.04-0.27), and for pts without brain mets (n=112/n=108) was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.002-0.14). OR, IC-OR, DR, and IC-DR were all improved with lorlatinib vs crizotinib (Table). All-cause grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were reported in 76% and 7% of pts with lorlatinib and 57% and 10% of pts with crizotinib, respectively. No new safety signals emerged.
Conclusions: These updated long-term data from CROWN confirm the efficacy of lorlatinib over crizotinib in pts with treatment-naïve ALK+ NSCLC, with no new safety signals detected, and support the use of lorlatinib in pts with untreated ALK+ NSCLC with and without brain mets. Summary of other efficacy resultsa
Clinical trial information: NCT03052608
Funding: Pfizer Inc.
ITT population Lorlatinib(n=149) Crizotinib(n=147) % alive without progression at:12 mo (95% CI) 78 (70–84) 38 (29–47) 24 68 (60–75) 22 (14–30) 36 64 (55–71) 19 (12–27) Median PFS by investigator, mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.1 (7.4–10.9) HR (95% CI) 0.19 (0.13–0.27) Confirmed OR, n (%) [95% CI] 115 (77) [70–84] 86 (59) [50–67] Median DR,b mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.6 (9.0–12.9) Patients with measurable or nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline (n=37) (n=39) Median PFS, mo (95% CI) NR (18 |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1538-7445 1538-7445 |
DOI: | 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2022-CT223 |