These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Final progression-free survival results from the J-ALEX study of alectinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.
    Author: Nakagawa K, Hida T, Nokihara H, Morise M, Azuma K, Kim YH, Seto T, Takiguchi Y, Nishio M, Yoshioka H, Kumagai T, Hotta K, Watanabe S, Goto K, Satouchi M, Kozuki T, Koyama R, Mitsudomi T, Yamamoto N, Asakawa T, Hayashi M, Hasegawa W, Tamura T.
    Journal: Lung Cancer; 2020 Jan; 139():195-199. PubMed ID: 31812890.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The J-ALEX study compared the efficacy and safety of alectinib with crizotinib in Japanese patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Superiority in independent review facility (IRF)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was demonstrated for alectinib at the second pre-planned interim PFS analysis (data cutoff: December 3, 2015; hazard ratio [HR] 0.34, 99.7 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.71, P < 0.0001). We report final PFS data and the second pre-planned interim analysis of overall survival (OS) and safety (data cutoff: June 30, 2018). METHODS: Patients aged ≥20 years who were ALK inhibitor-naïve and chemotherapy-naïve, or had received one prior chemotherapy regimen, were randomized to receive alectinib 300 mg (n = 103) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 104) twice daily. The primary end point was IRF-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included OS and safety. All patients entered survival follow-up in July 2018. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 42.4 months for alectinib and 42.2 months for crizotinib. Sustained improvement in IRF-assessed PFS with alectinib was shown (HR 0.37, 95 % CI: 0.26-0.52; median PFS 34.1 months vs 10.2 months crizotinib). At the second interim OS analysis, superiority of alectinib to crizotinib could not be concluded (stratified HR 0.80, 99.8799 % CI: 0.35-1.82, stratified log-rank P = 0.3860; median OS not reached alectinib vs 43.7 months crizotinib). Fewer alectinib-treated patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse events (36.9 % vs 60.6 % crizotinib). CONCLUSIONS: At the final PFS analysis, alectinib continued to demonstrate superiority in IRF-assessed PFS versus crizotinib in ALK-inhibitor-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC, with a favorable safety profile. OS follow-up continues.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]