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

Ensartinib Supported For ALK Alteration-Positive NSCLC

eXalt3 trial findings indicate ensartinib may improve progression-free survival for patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer
13 Aug 2020
Cytotoxic Therapy;  Clinical Research;  Targeted Therapy
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Author: By Lynda Williams, Senior medwireNews Reporter

medwireNews: Positive findings from the eXalt3 trial of ensartinib in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been reported at the 2020 Virtual Presidential Symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer.

Presenting author Leora Horn, from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, explained that ensartinib is a “next-generation, once-daily oral ALK inhibitor, with potency 10 times greater than crizotinib in enzymatic assays and broad preclinical activity in ALK resistance mutations.”

The phase III trial comparing ensartinib 225 mg/day with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily recruited patients with stage IIIB–IV NSCLC who had received up to one chemotherapy regimen but no prior ALK inhibitor despite a local US FDA-approved assay for ALK alterations.

The primary endpoint of independent review committee-assessed median progression free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 25.8 months for the 143 patients randomly assigned to receive ensartinib and followed up for a median 23.8 months versus 12.7 months for the 147 patients who received crizotinib and were followed up for a median 20.2 months.

The hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death was therefore a significant 0.51 in favour of ensartinib, the investigator said.

PFS was also determined for a modified (m)ITT group of 247 patients whose ALK status was subsequently confirmed by a central Abbott FISH test, with the median duration unreached for the 121 ensartinib-treated patients versus 12.7 months for the 126 patients given crizotinib, giving a significant HR of 0.45.

In this mITT population, the objective response rate was 75% with ensartinib and 67% for crizotinib, with complete responses reported for 14% and 6%, respectively.

The corresponding durations of response in these groups were unreached and 27.3 months; a similar proportion of patients in the ensartinib and crizotinib groups continued to have response at 2 years (58.7 vs 50.0%), but by 3 years, the rates were 58.7% versus 26.7%.

In addition, 64% of the 11 patients given ensartinib who had measurable brain metastases at baseline experienced an intracranial objective response, including three complete responses. This compared with just 21% of 19 patients given crizotinib, two of whom achieved a complete response.

And among the mITT population without brain metastases, the median PFS was significantly longer with ensartinib than crizotinib, at not reached versus 16.6 months and a significant HR of 0.40. In all, 61% of ensartinib-treated patients achieved 3-year PFS compared with 25% of those given crizotinib.

Overall survival data are yet to mature with a median duration unreached in both groups. At 24 months, 78% of both treatment arms were alive, the investigator said.

“Ensartinib showed a favourable safety profile”, commented Leora Horn. Serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 8% of the ensartinib-treated patients and 6% of those given crizotinib.

Although some TRAEs in both trial arms led to dose reductions (24 vs 20%) or discontinuation (9 vs 7%), the most frequent side effects associated with ensartinib were “low-grade rash and transaminitis”, the presenter noted, whereas crizotinib was most commonly associated with elevations in liver enzymes, gastrointestinal side effects and oedema.

Leora Horn concluded: “Ensartinib represents a new first-line treatment option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.”

In the discussant session, Christine Lovly, also from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, highlighted ongoing questions on the optimal use of ALK inhibitors, such as selection of agents, resistance, and the sequencing and combination of ALK inhibitors in the clinic, including “dynamic monitoring” and “consideration of co-mutations (such as TPF3).”

While acknowledging that “ensartinib showed promising efficacy” as a first-line therapy in ALK-rearranged NSCLC, the presenter concluded that alternative methods of targeting ALK may be required, such as use of allosteric inhibitors, small molecule proteolysis-targeting chimeras or vaccines.

Reference

Selvaggi G, Wakelee HA, Mok T, et al. Phase III randomized study of ensartinib vs crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC patients: eXalt3. WCLC Virtual Presidential Symposium 2020. 

medwireNews (www.medwireNews.com) is an independent medical news service provided by Springer Healthcare. © 2020 Springer Healthcare part of the Springer Nature group

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.