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: A retrospective study of alectinib versus ceritinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusion in whom crizotinib treatment failed.
    Author: Kuo CS, Tung PH, Huang AC, Wang CC, Chang JW, Liu CY, Chung FT, Fang YF, Guo YK, Yang CT.
    Journal: BMC Cancer; 2021 Mar 24; 21(1):309. PubMed ID: 33761908.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Crizotinib is the approved treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion. Failure of crizotinib treatment frequently involves drug intolerance or resistance. Comparison of using second-generation ALK inhibitors in this setting remains lacking. METHODS: Sixty-five ALK-positive advanced NSCLC patients receiving second-generation ALK inhibitors following treatment failure of crizotinib were retrospectively analyzed for the therapeutic efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-three (66.2%) and 22 (33.8%) patients received alectinib and ceritinib, respectively. Comparing alectinib to ceritinib treatment: the 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (61.0% [95% confidence interval, 47.1 to 78.9%] vs. 54.5% [95% CI, 37.3 to 79.9%]); the hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.31-1.17; p = 0.135). Multivariate Cox regression showed ECOG PS (0-1 vs. 2-3 HR 0.09 [95% CI, 0.02-0.33]; p < 0.001) and cause of crizotinib treatment failure (resistance vs. intolerance HR 2.75 [95% CI, 1.26-5.99]; p = 0.011) were the independent predictors for the PFS of second-generation ALK inhibitors. Treatment of alectinib, compared to ceritinib, was associated with a lower incidence of CNS progression (cause-specific HR, 0.10; 95% CI 0.01-0.78; p = 0.029) and a higher efficacy in patients whose cause of crizotinib treatment failure was intolerance (HR 0.29 [95% CI, 0.08-1.06]; p = 0.050). The most commonly noted adverse events were elevated AST/ALT in 10 (23.3%) patients treated with alectinib and diarrhea in 8 (36.4%) patients treated with ceritinib. CONCLUSION: Second-generation ALK inhibitors in crizotinib-treated patients showed a satifactory efficacy. Alectinib treatment demonstrated a CNS protection activity and a higher PFS in selected patients failing crizotinib treatment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]