Search

BackgroundSecond and third-generation ALK inhibitors (ALKIs) have been recently approved for ALK-translocated lung cancer treatment, improving - and expanding - the first-line scenario.MethodsIn this systematic review and metanalysis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of next-generation ALKIs in untreated advanced ALK-translocated lung cancer patients, searching for randomized phase III controlled trials through databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library). Inclusion and exclusion of studies, quality assessment, data extraction, and synthesis were independently accomplished by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Stata (StataCorp., v.16) software was used for the metanalysis.ResultsIn total, seven randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Comparing the results of next-generation ALKIs and control therapy (crizotinib or chemotherapy), next-generation ALKIs significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), any lesion (aCNSRR) and measurable lesions of central nervous system response rate (mCNSRR). Safety results were similar between the experimental and control groups.ConclusionOur analysis confirmed that next-generation ALKIs are the preferred first-line treatment option for ALK-translocated lung cancer. They are superior to crizotinib or chemotherapy in several clinical endpoints, including OS, PFS, ORR and CNS disease control, without increased toxicity. In the absence of head-to-head data, the choice between these molecules should be guided by physician experience and preference, drug-specific safety profile and schedule.

BackgroundThis study investigated real-world time on treatment (rwToT) and overall survival (OS) for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) who initiated first-line (1L) pembrolizumab monotherapy. We also explored discontinuation reasons and subsequent treatments, stratified by number of cycles among those who completed ≥17 cycles of 1L pembrolizumab.MethodsPatients with mNSCLC without actionable genetic aberrations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2 and unknown, and PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% starting 1L pembrolizumab monotherapy between 24-Oct-2016 and 31-Dec-2018 within The US Oncology Network were identified retrospectively and evaluated using structured data, with a data cutoff of 30-Sep-2021. Patient characteristics and disposition were summarized using descriptive statistics. OS and rwToT were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method for all ECOG PS and PS 0-1. A subgroup of patients who completed ≥17 cycles were evaluated using supplemental chart review data to discern reasons for discontinuation.ResultsOf the 505 patients with mNSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, 61% had ECOG PS 0-1, 23% had ECOG PS 2, and 65% had nonsquamous histology. Median rwToT and OS of pembrolizumab were 7.0 (95% CI, 6.0–8.4) months and 24.5 (95% CI, 20.1–29.3) months, respectively. In the subgroup with ECOG PS 0-1, they were 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.2) and 28.8 months (95% CI, 22.4-37.5), respectively. Of the 103 patients who completed ≥17 cycles, 57 (55.3%) patients received 17 – 34 cycles and 46 (44.7%) patients received ≥35 cycles. Approximately 7.7% of the study population received pembrolizumab beyond 35 cycles. Most common reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (38.6%) and toxicity (19.3%) among patients who received 17-34 cycles of pembrolizumab, and disease progression (13.0%) and completion of therapy (10.9%) among patients who received ≥35 cycles.ConclusionConsistent with findings from KEYNOTE-024 and other real-world studies, this study demonstrates the long-term effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy as 1L treatment for mNSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. Among patients who completed ≥17 cycles, nearly half completed ≥35 cycles. Disease progression and toxicity were the most common reasons for discontinuation among patients who received 17-34 cycles of pembrolizumab. Reasons for discontinuation beyond 35 cycles need further exploration.

ADAURA was a positive trial, but could changes have improved it and reduced global care disparities?