Search

Objectives Quantify the burden of central nervous system (CNS) metastases on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare resource use (HRU) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a prospective European study in clinical practice, utilising clinical trial inclusion criteria. Materials and Methods Patients ≥18 years, with metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Oncology C0operative Group (ECOG) performance status 0–2 and life expectancy ≥12 weeks were enrolled in two cohorts by baseline CNS metastases status. Demographics, clinical characteristics, NSCLC management data, HRQoL and HRU were collected at baseline and two follow-up visits (Visits 2 and 3, 6 weeks apart). HRQoL was assessed using validated questionnaires. Results 162 patients were enrolled (n = 80 CNS cohort, n = 82 non-CNS cohort). Baseline characteristics were balanced, but CNS patients were younger (mean ± standard deviation age: 62.1 ± 9.6 vs 65.6 ± 9.7 years, p = 0.021) with a lower body mass index (13.8 % underweight [ Conclusion These data from clinical practice show minor differences in HRQoL/HRU between patients with advanced NSCLC with/without CNS metastases when applying selected clinical trial criteria. Although follow-up was short, HRQoL scores were similar between cohorts at all visits, supporting the wider inclusion of selected patients with CNS disease into clinical trials.

Background The ALEX study demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the primary data cut-off (9 February 2017). We report mature PFS (cut-off: 30 November 2018) and overall survival (OS) data up to 5 years (cut-off: 29 November 2019). Patients and methods Patients with stage III/IV ALK-positive NSCLC were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib 600 mg (n = 152) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 151) until disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal or death. Primary end point: investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included objective response rate, OS and safety. Results Mature PFS data showed significantly prolonged investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.58; median PFS 34.8 versus 10.9 months crizotinib]. Median duration of OS follow-up: 48.2 months alectinib, 23.3 months crizotinib. OS data remain immature (37% of events). Median OS was not reached with alectinib versus 57.4 months with crizotinib (stratified HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46–0.98). The 5-year OS rate was 62.5% (95% CI 54.3–70.8) with alectinib and 45.5% (95% CI 33.6–57.4) with crizotinib, with 34.9% and 8.6% of patients still on study treatment, respectively. The OS benefit of alectinib was seen in patients with central nervous system metastases at baseline [HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.34–1.00)] and those without [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.45–1.26)]. Median treatment duration was longer with alectinib (28.1 versus 10.8 months), and no new safety signals were observed. Conclusions Mature PFS data from ALEX confirmed significant improvement in PFS for alectinib over crizotinib in ALK-positive NSCLC. OS data remain immature, with a higher 5-year OS rate with alectinib versus crizotinib. This is the first global randomized study to show clinically meaningful improvement in OS for a next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive NSCLC. Clinical trials number NCT02075840.

Introduction Alectinib is a highly selective and potent ALK inhibitor, approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic ALK+ NSCLC based on results from the Phase II global NP28673 (NCT01801111) and North American NP28761 (NCT01871805) studies. Methods This exploratory analysis of two Phase II studies of alectinib (NP28673/NP28761) investigated time to systemic response (TTR) and time to central nervous system (CNS) response (TTCR) in patients with previously treated advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusion gene-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients (n=225) received 600 mg oral alectinib twice daily and had scans every 6/8 weeks (NP28673/NP28761). Results For NP28673 and NP28761, respectively: median follow-up was 21.3 months/17.0 months; most responders (72.6%/82.9%) responded by the first disease assessment; median TTR was 8 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.00-8.14)/6 weeks (95% CI: 5.86-6.14); median TTCR in responders with measurable baseline CNS disease was 8 weeks (95% CI: 7.86-10.29)/6 weeks (95% CI: 5.71-not evaluable). Similar results were observed regardless of measurable/non-measurable disease. Discussion These data suggest that alectinib achieves a rapid response in patients, both systemically and in the CNS.

9518 Background: Final, mature PFS from the global phase III ALEX study (NCT02075840) of ALC vs CRZ in untreated, advanced/metastatic ALK+ NSCLC have been previously published: ALC 34.8 months (m) (95% CI 17.7–NR) vs CRZ 10.9 m (95% CI 9.1–12.9), (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32–0.58). We report 5-year OS and updated safety data from ALEX with a further 12 m follow-up (FU) (cutoff date: Nov 29, 2019). Methods: Patients (pts) with stage IIIB/IV ALK+ NSCLC (by central IHC), ECOG PS 0–2 and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to ALC 600 mg BID (n = 152) or CRZ 250 mg BID (n = 151). Asymptomatic CNS metastases (mets) at baseline (BL) were allowed. OS was a secondary endpoint, and no formal statistical testing was planned. Results: Median duration of FU: 48.2 m with ALC vs 23.3 m with CRZ. OS data remain immature (events: 37%; stratified HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.46–0.98]); median OS with CRZ was 57.4 m (95% CI 34.6–not estimable [NE]) vs NE with ALC. The 5-year survival rate was 62.5% (95% CI 54.3–70.8) with ALC vs 45.5% (95% CI 33.6–57.4) with CRZ (Table). In pts with CNS mets at BL the OS HR was 0.58 (95% CI 0.34–1.00) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.45–1.26) in pts without CNS mets at BL. The OS benefit of ALC vs CRZ was generally consistent across all subgroups. Considering the longer treatment duration for ALC (28.1 m) vs the previous analysis (27.7 m), the safety profile of ALC remains consistent; no new safety signals were observed. With ALC, 35% of pts remain on study treatment vs 9% of pts remaining on CRZ. In pts with ≥1 known post-progression treatment (ALC: 32.2%; CRZ: 45.7%), lorlatinib was the most common ALK TKI received after first-line ALC (7.2%), compared with ceritinib after first-line CRZ (15.2%). Conclusions: This is the first global randomized study of a 2nd generation ALK TKI to demonstrate a clinically meaningful improvement in OS vs CRZ in ALK+ NSCLC (5-year survival rate: 62.5%, ALC vs 45.5%, CRZ); longer FU is required as OS data remain immature. Clinical trial information: NCT02075840 . [Table: see text]

Background In a phase II North American study (NP28761; NCT01871805), the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor alectinib demonstrated both systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy with good tolerability in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. We describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the NP28761 study. Patients and methods PROs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits were assessed using two self-administered questionnaires (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-Item Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the 13-item EORTC QLQ-lung cancer-specific module) at enrolment and every 6 weeks until week 66, disease progression or death. Results Clinically meaningful mean improvements (≥10 point change from baseline) were observed in 10 domains, including global health status (GHS), role and social functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, and appetite loss. A clinically meaningful improvement was observed in GHS from the first assessment (6 weeks) until week 60. Alectinib demonstrated a rapid effect, with a median time to symptom improvement, using the composite endpoint of cough, dyspnoea and pain in the chest, of 1.4 months (6.1 weeks) (95% CI 1.4 to 1.6) and a median time to symptom deterioration of 5.1 months (22.1 weeks) (95% CI 2.8 to 6.8). Patients with CNS metastases at baseline experienced comparable HRQoL over the duration of the study as patients without CNS metastases. Exploratory analysis showed that the occurrence of an objective response may be associated with a better HRQoL. Conclusions Patients treated with alectinib in this phase II study achieved clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL and symptoms and had delayed time to symptom deterioration.

Background ALK inhibitors (ALKi) have shown substantial benefit in pts with advanced ALK+ NSCLC. We describe real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in pts with ALK+ advanced NSCLC in the US. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilised US electronic health record data from Flatiron Health. Pts diagnosed with stage IIIB-IV ALK+ NSCLC from 1 Jan 2011 to 30 Sep 2018 were included. Treatment patterns and outcomes (real-world progression-free survival [rwPFS] and overall survival [OS]) were extracted for first- or second-line therapy. Time to treatment discontinuation (TTTD) was used as a surrogate for real-world treatment duration accounting for treatment beyond progression. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results Data were available for 620 pts with ALK+ advanced NSCLC. An ALKi was given to 420/620 (67.7%) pts as first-line therapy and 273/359 (76.0%) pts who received second-line therapy. Among non-ALKi treatments, platinum-based regimens were the most common. Crizotinib was the preferred first-line ALKi up to 2016, and then alectinib. As second-line therapy, crizotinib was the preferred ALKi up to 2013, followed by ceritinib from 2014–2015, and then alectinib to the end of the follow-up period. TTTD, rwPFS and OS were longest with alectinib, followed by crizotinib and non-ALKi (Table). Conclusions The use of ALKi in the US reflects current clinical guidelines. Despite the choice and established benefit of individual ALKi as first-line therapy, more than 25% of pts received a non-ALKi as first-line therapy, even in recent years (2017/2018). Furthermore, in clinical practice, treatment beyond progression with an ALKi is relatively common. OS for non-ALKi was comparable to some ALKi, but OS is also reflective of treatment received in later lines of therapy. Table . 1546P 1L Outcome Statistics Alectinib (n = 98) Ceritinib (n = 4) Crizotinib (n = 318) non-ALKi (n = 200) rwPFS Median (95% CI), months NR 5.06 (0.72, NR) 6.41 (5.92, 8.16) 8.26 (6.25, 9.9) 6-month probability (95% CI) 0.83 (0.75, 0.91) 0.5 (0.19, 1) 0.55 (0.49, 0.6) 0.59 (0.52, 0.66) 12-month probability (95% CI) 0.68 (0.58, 0.79) 0.25 (0.05, 1) 0.32 (0.27, 0.38) 0.37 (0.3, 0.44) TTTD Median (95% CI), months NR 6.1 (0.72, NR) 7.57 (6.97, 9.14) 3.12 (2.76, 4.38) 6-month probability (95% CI) 0.85 (0.78, 0.92) 0.5 (0.19, 1) 0.61 (0.56, 0.67) 0.35 (0.29, 0.43) 12-month probability (95% CI) 0.73 (0.64, 0.84) 0.25 (0.05, 1) 0.36 (0.31, 0.42) 0.21 (0.16, 0.28) OS Median (95% CI), months NR 6.1 (0.72, NR) 23.06 (16.51, 30.86) 27.99 (21.6, 36.51) 6-month probability (95% CI) 0.92 (0.87, 0.98) 0.5 (0.19, 1) 0.78 (0.73, 0.82) 0.84 (0.79, 0.89) 12-month probability (95% CI) 0.85 (0.77, 0.93) 0.25 (0.05, 1) 0.65 (0.6, 0.7) 0.71 (0.65, 0.78) 2L Outcome Statistics Alectinib (n = 90) Ceritinib (n = 75) Crizotinib (n = 97) non-ALKi (n = 86) rwPFS Median (95% CI), months 13.59 (10.33, NR) 6.32 (4.64, 8.45) 6.88 (4.9, 9.87) 4.4 (2.96, 6.81) 6-month probability (95% CI) 0.76 (0.68, 0.86) 0.51 (0.4, 0.64) 0.54 (0.45, 0.65) 0.4 (0.31, 0.52) 12-month probability (95% CI) 0.55 (0.44, 0.68) 0.25 (0.16, 0.37) 0.35 (0.26, 0.46) 0.22 (0.14, 0.33) TTTD Median (95% CI), months 19.84 (14.54, NR) 8.19 (6.22, 11.84) 8.72 (7.37, 5.36) 4.61 (3.42, 6.18) 6-month probability (95% CI) 0.85 (0.77, 0.93) 0.61 (0.5, 0.73) 0.66 (0.57, 0.76) 0.39 (0.3, 0.51) 12-month probability (95% CI) 0.68 (0.58, 0.8) 0.34 (0.24, 0.47) 0.41 (0.32, 0.52) 0.18 (0.11, 0.28) OS Median (95% CI), months NR 16.84 (9.51, 33.75) 22.3 (17.17, 45.23) 15.56 (11.41, 26.94) 6-month probability (95% CI) 0.92 (0.86, 0.98) 0.75 (0.65, 0.86) 0.85 (0.78, 0.93) 0.71 (0.62, 0.82) 12-month probability (95% CI) 0.85 (0.77, 0.93) 0.59 (0.48, 0.71) 0.69 (0.6, 0.79) 0.56 (0.46, 0.68) 1L, first-line therapy; 2L, second-line therapy; ALKi, ALK inhibitor; rwPFS, real-world progression-free survival; TTTD, time to treatment discontinuation; OS, overall survival; NR, not reached (median survival estimate could not be calculated). Editorial acknowledgement Nicola Griffin of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Legal entity responsible for the study F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Disclosure M.G. Krebs: Advisory / Consultancy: Achilles Therapeutics, Janssen, Octmet and Roche; Research grant / Funding (self): BerGenBio and Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca and BerGenBio; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Bayer, BerGenBio, Blueprint, Carrick, Immutep, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Octimet and Roche. L. Polito: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. V. Smoljanovic: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. H. Trinh: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech Inc. G. Crane: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech Inc.

Background We report mature PFS, updated OS and safety data from the global phase III ALEX study (NCT02075840) of ALC vs CRZ in patients (pts) with untreated ALK+ NSCLC after a further 12 months (m) of follow-up (cutoff date: 30 Nov 2018). Methods Eligible pts had stage IIIB/IV ALK+ NSCLC (by central IHC), ECOG PS 0–2 and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. Asymptomatic CNS metastases (mets) were allowed. Pts were randomised 1:1 to twice-daily ALC 600mg (n = 152) or CRZ 250mg (n = 151). Primary endpoint: investigator (INV)-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1), with q8w CNS imaging in all pts. Results Mature, median INV-assessed PFS: 34.8 m (95% CI 17.7–NR) ALC vs 10.9 m (95% CI 9.1–12.9) CRZ (ITT stratified HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32–0.58; p Conclusions This final updated PFS analysis confirms the superior efficacy and favourable tolerability of ALC compared with CRZ in pts with untreated ALK+ NSCLC. OS data remain immature (stratified HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47–1.02), with a 4-year OS rate of 64.5% (95% CI 55.6–73.4) with ALC. Table . 1484PD PFS event-free rate, % (95% CI) OS event-free rate, % (95% CI) ALC (n = 152) CRZ (n = 151) ALC (n = 152) CRZ (n = 151) Duration (years) Overall Baseline CNS mets Overall Baseline CNS mets Overall Overall Yes No Yes No 1 67.8 (60.3–75.3) 58.5 74.5 48.0 (39.7–56.2) 32.5 57.2 84.3 (78.4–90.2) 82.5 (76.1–88.9) 2 56.6 (48.6–64.6) 52.0 59.8 24.8 (17.6–32.1) 6.3 35.7 72.5 (65.1–79.9) 65.1 (56.7–73.4) 3 46.4 (38.2–54.5) 40.5 50.6 13.5 (7.7–19.3) 2.1 20.2 66.9 (59.0–74.8) 56.7 (47.8–65.6) 4 43.7 (35.4–51.9) 38.0 47.6 NE (NE–NE) NE NE 64.5 (55.6–73.4) 52.2 (42.6–61.8) NE, not estimable Clinical trial identification NCT02075840. Editorial acknowledgement Nicola Griffin of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications; funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Legal entity responsible for the study F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Disclosure T.S.K. Mok: Leadership role: Sanonics Ltd.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: ACEA Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chimed, Cirina, Fishawack Facilitate, Ignyta, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, OncoGenex, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, SFJ Pharm; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, SFJ Pharmaceutical and XCovery. A.T. Shaw: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Ariad, Ignyta, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taiho, Blueprint medicines, LOXO, EMD Serono and Foundation medicine. R.D. Camidge: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie, Ariad, Array, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Genoptix, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, Orion, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. S.M. Gadgeel: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Ariad, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. R. Dziadziuszko: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Tesaro. D. Kim: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Tesaro; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis Oncology; Research grant / Funding (institution): Alpha Biopharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Hanmi, Janssen, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Xcovery and Yuhan. M. Perol: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Chugai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Takeda ; Research grant / Funding (institution): F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, AstraZeneca, Chugai and Takeda. S. Ou: Honoraria (self): ARIAD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech and TP Therapeutics; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: ARIAD, AstraZeneca and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech; Research grant / Funding (self): ARIAD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: TP Therapeutics. W. Bordogna: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. V. Smoljanovic: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. M. Hilton: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. S. Peters: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Nova. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

9053 Background: Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) released predominantly by tumors into the blood correlates with tumor load, but correlation with outcomes after ALK inhibitor treatment is poorly understood. Here, we examine the prognostic potential of cfDNA in the phase III ALEX trial of alectinib versus crizotinib in previously untreated patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC. Methods: Data cutoff was December 1, 2017. Median cfDNA was determined from 276 baseline samples; patients were stratified into ‘≤median’ and ‘ > median’ biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP). Results: Median cfDNA was 11.5ng/mL. Baseline characteristics were mostly balanced between the crizotinib (≤median, n = 72; > median, n = 67) and alectinib (≤median, n = 66; > median n = 71) BEPs. However, the alectinib > median BEP had more active smokers (7.0% vs crizotinib 1.5%), more measurable/non-measurable CNS lesions (47.9% vs 41.8%) and more patients with TP53 short-variant (SV) (44.8% vs 32.8%); the alectinib ≤median BEP had more active smokers (7.6% vs crizotinib 2.8%). Alectinib exposure was not substantially different between relevant BEPs. Higher cfDNA amount was associated with measurable/non-measurable CNS lesions and TP53 SV. Tumor burden positively correlated with normalized cfDNA amount (Pearson correlation 0.204; p < 0.001). Median PFS by investigator in the ≤median BEP was 34.9 months alectinib vs 14.8 crizotinib (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22–0.61, p < 0.0001); in the > median BEP it was 14.8 months alectinib vs 8.6 crizotinib (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28–0.64, p < 0.0001). Response rates in the ≤median BEP were 82.3% alectinib vs 70.4% crizotinib; in the > median BEP, 70.2% alectinib vs 55.4% crizotinib. Median duration of response in the ≤median BEP was not reached for alectinib vs 21.0 months for crizotinib; in the > median BEP, 33.1 months alectinib vs 7.3 crizotinib. Conclusions: Tumor burden positively correlated with cfDNA amount; patients with ≤median cfDNA at baseline had better prognosis than those with > median cfDNA. Alectinib consistently improved PFS, DOR and ORR versus crizotinib across BEPs, reducing the risk of tumor progression by > 50% compared with crizotinib. Clinical trial information: NCT02075840.

Importance Bevacizumab treatment beyond progression has been investigated in breast and metastatic colorectal cancers. Avastin in All Lines Lung (AvaALL) is the first randomized phase 3 study of bevacizumab across multiple lines of treatment beyond progression in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of continuous bevacizumab treatment beyond first progression in NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants AvaALL was a randomized, open-label, phase 3b trial, conducted from 2011 to 2015 in 123 centers worldwide. Patients with nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with first-line bevacizumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and at least 2 cycles of bevacizumab maintenance were randomized (1:1) at first progression to receive bevacizumab plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. Interventions Patients received bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days) and/or investigator’s choice of SOC. For subsequent lines, patients treated with bevacizumab received SOC with or without bevacizumab; the SOC arm received SOC only. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival from first to second (PFS2) and third progression (PFS3), time to second (TTP2) and third progression (TTP3), and safety. Results Between June 2011 and January 2015, 485 patients (median age, 63.0 years [range, 26-84 years]; 293 [60.4%] male) were randomized. Median OS was not significantly longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 11.9 (90% CI, 10.2-13.7) vs 10.2 (90% CI, 8.6-11.9) months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 90% CI, 0.71-1.00;P = .104). Median PFS2 was numerically longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 5.5 (90% CI, 4.2-5.7) vs 4.0 (90% CI, 3.4-4.3) months (HR, 0.83; 90% CI, 0.70-0.98;P = .06). Median PFS3 appeared longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 4.0 (90% CI, 2.9-4.5) vs 2.6 (90% CI, 2.3-2.9) months (HR, 0.63; 90% CI, 0.49-0.83), as did TTP2 and TTP3. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with bevacizumab plus SOC (186 [76.5%]) vs SOC alone (140 [60.3%]). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions and Relevance The primary end point was not met; however, OS was underpowered according to initial statistical assumptions. Continued therapy beyond first progression led to improved PFS3 (but not PFS2), TTP2, and TTP3. Although a result withP = .06 for PFS2 would conventionally be considered significant at a specified 2-sided α of .10, in the absence of adjustments for multiplicity, this result could be a chance finding. No new safety signals were identified with bevacizumab treatment beyond progression. Trial Registration clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier:2010-022645-14; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT01351415

Background: The standard of care for treatment-naïve ALK+ mNSCLC patients (pts) is an ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Pts treated with crizotinib generally experience disease progression within 1 year, often within the central nervous system (CNS). As such, there is a high unmet need for CNS-active ALK TKIs. Phase III data from 2 ALK TKIs, alectinib and ceritinib, showed improved efficacy vs crizotinib and chemotherapy, respectively; however, no studies have directly compared these TKIs. We report a NMA to compare the efficacy/safety of these therapies. Methods: A SLR was conducted to identify ALK+ mNSCLC randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in treatment-naïve pts. Efficacy/safety endpoints were extracted and the feasibility of using the data in a NMA was assessed. Data were analyzed using a fixed effect analysis in WinBUGs following NICE guidelines. Results: 1194 citations were identified, of which 4 RCTs were in treatment-naïve pts (ALEX [NCT02075840], ASCEND-4 [NCT01828099], PROFILE 1014 [NCT01154140] and PROFILE 1029 [NCT01639001]). All were open-label, phase III RCTs and pts were similar in terms of age, ECOG PS, disease stage, sex and smoking status. More pts had baseline CNS metastasis (mets) in ALEX (40%) vs the other trials (26-32%). PROFILE 1029 was conducted in East Asian pts and only included in a sensitivity analysis. Chemotherapy arms differed in that pemetrexed maintenance was included in ASCEND-4 but not in the PROFILE studies. Key efficacy/safety results are shown in the Table. Data from the sensitivity analyses were similar. Conclusion: Alectinib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with other treatments in the ITT population including in pts with baseline CNS mets. Alectinib showed significantly fewer grade 3-4 AEs than ceritinib. The difference in chemotherapy arms of the 2 trials may have impacted the NMA efficacy results. Table. NMA results in treatment-naïve ALK+ mNSCLC patientsComparisonEfficacy/Safety Endpoints PFS by IRC* HR (95% CrI)Subgroup CNS Mets at Baseline* PFS by IRC HR (95% CrI)OS* HR (95% CrI)Grade 3 or 4 AEs§OR (95% CrI)Alectinib vs chemotherapy0.23 (0.15-0.34)0.21 (0.10-0.44)0.63 (0.34-1.15)0.81 (0.44-1.52)Alectinib vs crizotinib0.50 (0.36-0.70)0.37 (0.22-0.63)0.76 (0.49-1.20)0.65 (0.41-1.04)Alectinib vs ceritinib0.41 (0.25-0.67)0.31 (0.13-0.71)0.85 (0.42-1.73)0.36 (0.17-0.79)Crizotinib vs chemotherapy0.45 (0.35-0.58)0.57 (0.35-0.93)0.82 (0.54-1.24)1.24 (0.81-1.91)Ceritinib vs chemotherapy0.55 (0.42-0.72)0.70 (0.44-1.11)0.73 (0.50-1.06)2.25 (1.42-3.61)Ceritinib vs crizotinib1.22 (0.84-1.79)1.22 (0.62-2.43)0.90 (0.52-1.57)1.82 (0.96-3.44)Statistically significant differences indicated in bold based on 95% CrI; *Hazard ratio Citation Format: Anna Steenrod, Michelle Orme, Katherine S. MacGilchrist, Rachel Rosenthal, Juliane Schaefer, Vlatka Smoljanovic, Emmanuel Mitry, Parneet K. Cheema. Alectinib in treatment-naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC): Systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1642.

9004 Background: The role of treatment with Bev beyond PD is unclear in the multiline treatment strategy of advanced NSCLC.AvaALL(NCT01351415), a multinational, open-label, randomized phase III trial, assessed continuous Bev and SOC beyond first PD (PD1) in pts with NSCLC following first-line treatment with platinum-based chemo plus Bev. Here we present efficacy and safety data from AvaALL. Methods: Pts with NSCLC who received 4–6 cycles of chemo + Bev and ≥2 cycles of maintenance Bev were randomized after PD1 to second-line SOC therapy (docetaxel, pemetrexed or erlotinib) ± Bev. After second PD (PD2) and third PD (PD3), pts received third-line or fourth-line SOC ± Bev treatment, respectively. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were OS rates (6, 12, and 18-months [mos]), progression-free survival (PFS) from PD1 to PD2/from PD2 to PD3, overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Data cut-off: 24 Jun 2016. Results: Overall, 485 pts were randomized (n = 475 treated). Pt characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Bev plus chemo resulted in a median OS of 11.9 mos versus 10.2 mos for SOC alone (HR 0.84, 90% CI 0.71–1.00; p = 0.1016; 387 OS events). The primary endpoint was not met (416 OS events were required, at 10% two-sided significance level). OS rates were 10% higher in the Bev arm vs SOC alone at 6-, 12- and 18-mos. Median PFS2 was 4.9 mos with Bev vs 3.8 mos with SOC (HR 0.85, 90% CI 0.72–1.00; p = 0.0907). PFS3 was significantly improved (3.5 mos for Bev, 2.4 mos for SOC; HR 0.65, 90% CI 0.51–0.84; p = 0.0047). ORR and DCR were slightly higher in the Bev arm versus the SOC arm (ORR 9.7% vs 6.7%; DCR 86.2% vs 79.3%, respectively). No new safety signals were identified. Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 78.2% of Bev pts and 61.6% of SOC pts. Conclusions: Although the primary endpoint was not met, efficacy data suggest a positive trend for continued Bev plus SOC after PD1 compared with SOC alone. No cumulative safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT01351415.

HeadHER1/EGFR is known to play a pivotal role in tumorigenesis and is overexpressed in up to 80% of NSCLCs. The study of an Expanded Access Clinical Program of Erlotinib in NSCLC is a phase IV openlabel, non-randomized, multicenter trial in patients with advanced (inoperable stage IIIb/IV) NSCLC who were eligible for treatment with erlotinib but had no access to trial participation. Patients for the study from Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) were selected from two Clinical centres (Sarajevo and Banja Luka). The aim of study was to evaluated efficacy and tolerability of erlotinib monotherapy in this setting. All patients who received at least one dose of erlotinib and data were entered in the database as of the CRF cut-off date of 14th May 2008 were included in analysis of data (n = 19). This population is defined as the Intent to Treat (ITT) population and includes all patients who had at least one dose of erlotinib regardless of whether major protocol violations were incurred. The findings are consistent with the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled BR.21 study. Indicating that erlotinib is an effective option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are unsuitable for, or who have previously failed standard chemotherapy. In B&H group of patients DCR was almost 84%, and PFS was approximately 24,7 weeks (compared with 44% and 9,7 weeks for erlotinib reported in phase III). Almost three quarter of the patients received erlotinib as their second line of therapy. Overall, erlotinib was well tolerated; there were no patients who withdrew due to a treatment-related AE (mainly rash) and there were few dose reductions. 24% of patients experienced an SAE (most commonly gastrointestinal (GI) disorders).