Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Cardona
Author of
-
+
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. Cardona
- 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.
