Patient-reported outcomes from the randomized phase III ALEX study of alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer

Mené sur des patients atteints d'un cancer du poumon non à petites cellules ALK+, cet essai de phase III compare la toxicité, du point de vue des symptômes et de la qualité de vie déclarés par les patients, de l'alectinib et du crizotinib

Résumé en anglais

Objectives : Alectinib demonstrated superior efficacy and a safety profile that compared favorably with crizotinib in treatment-naïve ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III ALEX study. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from ALEX to assess disease burden, treatment-related symptom tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with alectinib versus crizotinib.

Materials and Methods : Patients were randomized to receive alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Pre-specified PRO endpoints were: mean change from baseline in symptoms, HRQoL, and functioning; and time to deterioration (TTD) in cough, dyspnea, chest pain, arm/shoulder pain, fatigue, and a composite of three symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain). PRO data were collected using EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 questionnaires. Raw scores were standardized to a 0–100-point range, with a ≥10-point score change defined as clinically meaningful. TTD was defined as the time from randomization until confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (i.e., a ≥10-point score change from baseline).

Results : Baseline completion rates and characteristics were balanced in the PRO-evaluable population (alectinib n = 100, 66%; crizotinib n = 97, 64%). On average, alectinib-treated patients reported clinically meaningful improvements in lung cancer symptoms for longer than crizotinib-treated patients. Between-treatment differences in lung cancer symptoms tended to favor alectinib from 11.1 months (45 weeks) onwards, around the time of median PFS with crizotinib (11.1 months). TTD in lung cancer symptoms was similar between treatment arms, despite longer duration of symptom improvement with alectinib; composite symptom endpoint (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% confidence interval: 0.72–1.68]). Duration of clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL was longer with alectinib versus crizotinib (Week 88 vs. Week 68, respectively). Better patient-reported tolerability was observed with alectinib versus crizotinib on common treatment-related symptoms.

Conclusion : PRO data support the superior efficacy and tolerability of alectinib relative to crizotinib demonstrated in the ALEX study.