Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Discussion – NSCLC, metastatic

1906 - Exposure-response analyses of ALK-inhibitors crizotinib and alectinib in NSCLC patients

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Discussion – NSCLC, metastatic

Presenters

Steffie Groenland

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v602-v660. 10.1093/annonc/mdz260

Authors

S.L. Groenland1, D.R. Geel2, J.M. Janssen2, J.H. Beijnen2, S.A. Burgers3, E.F. Smit3, A.D.R. Huitema2, N. Steeghs1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology & Clinical Pharmacology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX - Amsterdam/NL
  • 2 Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX - Amsterdam/NL
  • 3 Thoracic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX - Amsterdam/NL

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1906

Background

Crizotinib and alectinib are first and second generation ALK-inhibitors, respectively, indicated for the treatment of ALK+ NSCLC. At the currently used fixed doses, interpatient variability in exposure is high (40%), while the registration studies suggest that exposure might be linked to efficacy (FDA Reviews). Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore whether exposure to crizotinib and alectinib is related to efficacy in a real life patient (pt) cohort.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was performed. ALK+ NSCLC pts who were treated with crizotinib or alectinib and of whom pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were drawn as part of routine care were included. Calculated minimum plasma concentration (Cmin) was taken as a measure of exposure. Efficacy endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Univariable and multivariable exposure-response analyses were performed using previously proposed thresholds of 235 µg/L for crizotinib and 435 µg/L for alectinib (Verheijen 2017). Variables taken into account were WHO performance status (PS) and previous lines of therapy for crizotinib, and WHO PS and previous treatment with ALK-inhibitors for alectinib.

Results

In total, 100 pts were included in this study (48 crizotinib, 52 alectinib), of whom 376 PK samples were eligible for analysis (235 crizotinib, 141 alectinib). Median number of samples per pt was 3 (range 1 – 15). Median Cmin per pt was 244 µg/L (IQR 176 – 344 µg/L) for crizotinib and 517 µg/L (IQR 369 – 659 µg/L) for alectinib. For crizotinib, median PFS was 5.7 vs 17.4 months (mo) for pts with median Cmin < 235 µg/L (48%) and ≥ 235 µg/L, respectively (log rank test, p = 0.08). In multivariable analysis Cmin < 235 µg/L resulted in a HR of 1.79 (95% CI 0.90 – 3.59, p = 0.10). For alectinib, median PFS was 12.6 mo vs not reached yet after 20 mo for pts with Cmin < 435 µg/L (37%) and ≥ 435 µg/L, respectively (log rank test, p = 0.04). Multivariable analysis resulted in a HR of 3.86 (95% CI 1.19 – 12.58, p = 0.025). Thus far, this could not be explained by bias.

Conclusions

This study shows that exposure to alectinib is associated with efficacy in a real life patient cohort. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring might be appropriate to individualize treatment and improve treatment outcomes.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

S.A. Burgers: Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche Advisory / Consultancy: MSD. N. Steeghs: Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca/MedImmune; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): GlaxoSmithKline; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim; Research grant / Funding (institution): Blueprint Medicines; Research grant / Funding (institution): AB Science; Research grant / Funding (institution): Deciphera; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharp & Dohme; Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merus; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Incyte. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.