Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Asian Patients With Treatment-Naïve Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC: Five-Year Update From the Phase 3 ALESIA Study

  • Caicun Zhou
  • , You Lu
  • , Sang We Kim
  • , Thanyanan Reungwetwattana
  • , Jianying Zhou
  • , Yiping Zhang
  • , Jianxing He
  • , Jin Ji Yang
  • , Ying Cheng
  • , Se Hoon Lee
  • , Jianhua Chang
  • , Jian Fang
  • , Zhe Liu
  • , Lilian Bu
  • , Li Qian
  • , Tingting Xu
  • , Venice Archer
  • , Magalie Hilton
  • , Mingzhu Zhou
  • , Li Zhang
  • Tongji University
  • Sichuan University
  • University of Ulsan
  • Mahidol University
  • Zhejiang University
  • Zhejiang Cancer Hospital
  • Guangzhou Medical College
  • Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Jilin Cancer Hospital
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Peking University
  • Capital Medical University
  • Roche (China) Holding Ltd
  • Roche Products Limited UK
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
  • Sun Yat-Sen University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: Previous results from the phase 3 ALESIA study (NCT02838420) revealed that alectinib (a central nervous system [CNS]-active, ALK inhibitor) had clinical benefits in treatment-naïve Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, consistent with the global ALEX study. We present updated data after more than or equal to 5 years of follow-up from the “last patient in” date. Methods: Adult patients with treatment-naïve, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from mainland China, South Korea, and Thailand were randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily 600 mg alectinib (n = 125) or 250 mg crizotinib (n = 62). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary or exploratory endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, time to CNS progression, and safety. Results: At the data cutoff (May 16, 2022), the median survival follow-up was 61 and 51 months in the alectinib and crizotinib arms, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 41.6 months with alectinib versus 11.1 months with crizotinib (stratified hazard ratio = 0.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.23–0.49). Overall survival data remain immature; 5-year overall survival rates were 66.4% (alectinib arm) versus 56.1% (crizotinib arm). Objective response rate was 91.2% versus 77.4% with alectinib and crizotinib, respectively. CNS progression was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib (cause-specific hazard ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence interval: 0.08–0.32). Median treatment duration was longer with alectinib versus crizotinib (42.3 versus 12.6 mo). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: With four additional years of follow-up, these updated results confirm the clinical benefit and manageable safety of alectinib in Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, and confirm alectinib as a standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

Original languageEnglish
Article number100700
JournalJTO Clinical and Research Reports
Volume5
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2024

Keywords

  • Alectinib
  • ALESIA
  • ALK
  • Crizotinib
  • NSCLC

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Asian Patients With Treatment-Naïve Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC: Five-Year Update From the Phase 3 ALESIA Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this