Final progression-free survival results from the J-ALEX study of alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer
•Final PFS data and second pre-planned interim analysis of OS and safety from J-ALEX.•Sustained improvement in IRF-assessed PFS demonstrated with alectinib.•Superiority of alectinib to crizotinib not concluded at second interim OS analysis.•Fewer alectinib-treated patients experienced grade ≥3 adver...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Netherlands), 2020-01, Vol.139, p.195-199 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •Final PFS data and second pre-planned interim analysis of OS and safety from J-ALEX.•Sustained improvement in IRF-assessed PFS demonstrated with alectinib.•Superiority of alectinib to crizotinib not concluded at second interim OS analysis.•Fewer alectinib-treated patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse events.•Alectinib continued to demonstrate superiority in IRF-assessed PFS vs crizotinib.
The J-ALEX study compared the efficacy and safety of alectinib with crizotinib in Japanese patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Superiority in independent review facility (IRF)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was demonstrated for alectinib at the second pre-planned interim PFS analysis (data cutoff: December 3, 2015; hazard ratio [HR] 0.34, 99.7 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.17–0.71, P < 0.0001). We report final PFS data and the second pre-planned interim analysis of overall survival (OS) and safety (data cutoff: June 30, 2018).
Patients aged ≥20 years who were ALK inhibitor-naïve and chemotherapy-naïve, or had received one prior chemotherapy regimen, were randomized to receive alectinib 300 mg (n = 103) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 104) twice daily. The primary end point was IRF-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included OS and safety. All patients entered survival follow-up in July 2018.
Median follow-up was 42.4 months for alectinib and 42.2 months for crizotinib. Sustained improvement in IRF-assessed PFS with alectinib was shown (HR 0.37, 95 % CI: 0.26–0.52; median PFS 34.1 months vs 10.2 months crizotinib). At the second interim OS analysis, superiority of alectinib to crizotinib could not be concluded (stratified HR 0.80, 99.8799 % CI: 0.35–1.82, stratified log-rank P = 0.3860; median OS not reached alectinib vs 43.7 months crizotinib). Fewer alectinib-treated patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse events (36.9 % vs 60.6 % crizotinib).
At the final PFS analysis, alectinib continued to demonstrate superiority in IRF-assessed PFS versus crizotinib in ALK-inhibitor-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC, with a favorable safety profile. OS follow-up continues. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0169-5002 1872-8332 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.11.025 |