Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases

Qing Zhang; Jessica J Lin; Navdeep Pal; Letizia Polito; Huong Trinh; Magalie Hilton; Vlatka Smoljanović; Nino Kurtsikidze; Venice Archer; Matthew G Krebs

doi:10.1016/j.jtocrr.2023.100483

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases

JTO Clin Res Rep. 2023 Feb 24;4(4):100483. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2023.100483. eCollection 2023 Apr.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California.
² Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
³ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
⁴ Roche Products Ltd., Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom.
⁵ Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Introduction: Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib.

Methods: Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX.

Results: The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX.

Conclusions: Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting.

Keywords: ALEX; Alectinib; Crizotinib; Non–small cell lung cancer; Real-world data.