Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Zeaiter
Author of
-
+
MA 07 - ALK, ROS and HER2 (ID 673)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Robert C. Doebele, J.C. Ho
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 316
-
+
MA 07.01 - Patients with ALK IHC-Positive/FISH-Negative NSCLC Benefit from ALK TKI Treatment: Response Data from the Global ALEX Trial (ID 9008)
15:45 - 15:50 | Author(s): A. Zeaiter
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC have seen significant advances and increased options in ALK targeted therapies recently, and therefore rely on high quality, robust ALK status testing. Fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) are the most common methods to determine ALK status for ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. However, availability of clinical outcome data from randomized trials linked directly to specific methods is limited. The ALEX trial (BO28984, NCT02075840) provides a unique dataset to assess ALK IHC- and FISH-based assays regarding clinical outcome for alectinib and crizotinib, particularly for the subset of patients with IHC-positive/FISH-negative NSCLC.
Method:
The VENTANA ALK (D5F3) CDx Assay (ALK IHC) performed in central laboratories was used as an enrollment assay for the selection of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC for inclusion in the ALEX trial. Additional samples from these patients were retrospectively tested in central laboratories with the Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH Probe Kit (ALK FISH).
Result:
Overall, 303 patients all with ALK IHC-positive NSCLC were randomized in the ALEX trial, of those 242 patients also had a valid ALK FISH result, with 203 patients having ALK FISH-positive disease and 39 patients having ALK FISH-negative disease (alectinib, n=21; crizotinib, n=18). For 61 of 303 (20.1%) patients with an ALK IHC-positive result, a valid ALK FISH result could not be obtained due to the test leading to an uninformative FISH result (10.9%), or not having adequate/no tissue available (9.2%). Ventana IHC staining success rates were higher than for Vysis FISH testing for the ALEX samples. Exploratory analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with a FISH-positive result (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27–0.61; p<0.0001; median not reached [alectinib] versus 12.7 months [crizotinib]) was consistent with the primary endpoint analysis in the Ventana ALK IHC-positive population. Patient outcome data show that 28% of central ALK IHC-positive/ALK FISH-negative samples were from patients who responded to ALK TKI treatment (complete response or partial response) and 33% had stable disease according to investigator assessment.
Conclusion:
This analysis shows that ALK IHC is a robust testing approach, which may identify more patients with a valid ALK testing result who benefit from ALK TKI treatment than ALK FISH testing. While PFS of patients with ALK FISH-positive NSCLC was similar to that of patients with ALK IHC-positive NSCLC, the analysis also revealed that the majority of patients with ALK IHC-positive/ALK FISH-negative NSCLC may derive clinical benefit from ALK TKI treatment.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P1.01 - Advanced NSCLC (ID 757)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.01-013 - Patient-Reported Outcomes and Safety from the Phase III ALUR Study of Alectinib vs Chemotherapy in Pre-Treated ALK+ NSCLC (ID 9007)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): A. Zeaiter
- Abstract
Background:
Alectinib demonstrated superior efficacy versus chemotherapy in ALK+ NSCLC after crizotinib failure (ALUR; NCT02604342). We present PROs and safety in the ITT population and in patients with baseline CNS disease (C-ITT).
Method:
Patients (n=107) with pre-treated ALK+ NSCLC (randomised 2:1) received alectinib (600mg BID) or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500mg/m[2] or docetaxel 75mg/m[2] q3w) until PD/death/withdrawal. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints: safety and PROs. Symptoms, functioning, and HRQoL were reported using questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-C30; lung module QLQ-LC13; BN-20 (3 items, CNS symptoms). Pre-specified endpoints included time-to-deterioration (TTD) in lung cancer symptoms, longitudinal analyses of mean score changes from baseline, proportion of patients with clinically meaningful change (≥10-point change from baseline) during treatment.
Result:
High compliance with assessment completion (alectinib 91.7%, chemotherapy 88.6% at baseline); compliance remained ≥70% with alectinib, and decreased with chemotherapy (64.3%, Week 6; ≤70% thereafter). Deterioration of patient-reported fatigue (median TTD 2.7 vs 1.4 months) and arm/shoulder pain (median TTD 8.1 vs 1.9 months) was delayed with alectinib versus chemotherapy. Median TTD in composite symptom endpoint (cough, dyspnoea, chest-pain) was similar between arms. Alectinib patients reported improvement in lung cancer symptoms from baseline (least square [LS] mean) during treatment: fatigue (-6.2), single-item dyspnoea (-6.0), multi-item dyspnoea scale (-2.3), coughing (-4.9), chest pain (-4.2), pain in other parts (-5.3). More patients reported improvement in baseline symptoms (nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, peripheral neuropathy) with alectinib versus chemotherapy, except constipation. More alectinib patients reported improvements in cognitive function versus chemotherapy (ITT 19% vs 3%; C-ITT 24% vs 4%); average change from baseline in cognitive function favoured alectinib (LS means difference 10.0, 95% CI 2.2–17.7). Median treatment duration: 20.1 weeks alectinib (95% CI 0.4–8.2), 6 weeks chemotherapy (95% CI 1.9–47.1). For alectinib versus chemotherapy: AEs leading to discontinuation, 5.7% vs 8.8%; dose reductions, 4.3% vs 11.8%; dose interruptions due to AEs, 18.3% vs 8.8%. AEs: 77.1% alectinib (grade 3–5, 27.1%); 85.3% chemotherapy (grade 3–5, 41.2%); one fatal AE (chemotherapy); grade ≥3 AEs: 41.2% chemotherapy versus 27.1% alectinib. TEAEs occurring in ≥10% patients: constipation (alectinib 18.6%, all grade 1–2; chemotherapy 8.8% [grade ≥3 2.9%]), nausea (alectinib 1.4%, all grade 1–2; chemotherapy 17.6% [grade ≥3 2.9%]) and fatigue (alectinib 5.7%, all grade 1–2; chemotherapy 26.5% [grade ≥3 8.8%]).
Conclusion:
Alectinib improved HRQoL, functioning, and symptom burden versus chemotherapy (except constipation). Safety of alectinib compared favourably to chemotherapy. Alectinib patients (ITT and C-ITT populations) derived benefit versus chemotherapy.
