Search

IntroductionAlectinib 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.MethodsAdults 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsOutcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting.

AIMS: We investigated the effects of a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor (itraconazole) or inducer (rifampicin) on the pharmacokinetics of the epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor osimertinib, in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in two phase I, open-label, two-part clinical studies. Part one of both studies is reported.METHODS: In the itraconazole study (NCT02157883), patients received single-dose osimertinib 80 mg on Days 1 and 10 and itraconazole (200 mg twice daily) on Days 6-18 orally. In the rifampicin study (NCT02197247), patients received osimertinib 80 mg once daily on Days 1-77 and rifampicin 600 mg once daily on Days 29-49.RESULTS: In the itraconazole study (n=36), the geometric least squares mean (GMLSM) ratios (osimertinib plus itraconazole/osimertinib alone) for Cmax and AUC were 80% (90% CI 73, 87) and 124% (90% CI 115, 135), respectively; below the predefined no-effect upper limit of 200%. In the rifampicin study (n=40), the GMLSM ratios (osimertinib plus rifampicin/osimertinib alone) for Css,max and AUCT were 27% (90% CI 24, 30%) and 22% (90% CI 20, 24%), respectively; below the predefined no-effect lower limit of 50%. The induction effect of rifampicin was apparent within 7 days of initiation; osimertinib Css,max and AUCT values returned to pre-rifampicin levels within 3 weeks of rifampicin discontinuation. No new osimertinib safety findings were observed.CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib can be co-administered with CYP3A4 inhibitors, but strong CYP3A inducers should be avoided if possible.

ImportancePersonalized medicine based on tumor profiling and identification of actionable genomic alterations is pivotal in cancer management. Although tissue biopsy is still preferred for diagnosis, liquid biopsy of blood-based tumor analytes, such as circulating tumor DNA, is a rapidly emerging technology for tumor profiling.ObservationsThis review presents a practical overview for clinicians and allied health care professionals for selection of the most appropriate liquid biopsy assay, specifically focusing on circulating tumor DNA and how it may affect patient treatment and case management across multiple tumor types. Multiple factors influence the analytical validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of testing. This review provides recommendations and practical guidance for best practice. Current methodologies include polymerase chain reaction-based approaches and those that use next-generation sequencing (eg, capture-based profiling, whole exome, or genome sequencing). Factors that may influence utility include sensitivity and specificity, quantity of circulating tumor DNA, detection of a small vs a large panel of genes, and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Currently, liquid biopsy appears useful in patients unable to undergo biopsy or where mutations detected may be more representative of the predominant tumor burden than for tissue-based assays. Other potential applications may include screening, primary diagnosis, residual disease, local recurrence, therapy selection, or early therapy response and resistance monitoring.Conclusions and RelevanceThis review found that liquid biopsy is increasingly being used clinically in advanced lung cancer, and ongoing research is identifying applications of circulating tumor DNA-based testing that complement tissue analysis across a broad range of clinical settings. Circulating tumor DNA technologies are advancing quickly and are demonstrating potential benefits for patients, health care practitioners, health care systems, and researchers, at many stages of the patient oncologic journey.