Safety and Efficacy of Alectinib in the First Line for ALK-Mutated Lung Cancer: A Real-World Data from India

Abstract

Background

Advanced/metastatic ALK-mutated lung cancer has excellent long-term survival due availability of multiple targeted drugs. Alectinib is one of the preferred first-line therapies based on the Alex trial data. We present a real-world outcome with alectinib in first-line setting in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) like India.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective audit of ALK positive patients who received alectinib in first-line setting at the Medical Oncology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. We included patients who were started on alectinib between January 2018 and March 2022. The patients underwent routine blood and radiological evaluation every 2 to 3 months. We analyzed the data for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety profile.

Results

A total of 50 patients received alectinib in the specified period. The median age was 52.5 years (range: 28–81 years), 72% of the patients were 60 years or less; 54% of patients being male and 46% female. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status (PS) 0 to 1 70%, PS 2 24%, and PS ¾ 6%. Methods for ALK testing were immunohistochemistry 92%, fluorescence in situ hybridization 2%, and next-generation sequencing 6%. The most common sites of metastasis before starting alectinib were bone (52%), pleura (42%), brain (30%), and lung (28%). Note that 66 and 33% patients received brain radiotherapy or bone-modifying agent for the central nervous system or bone metastasis, respectively. The median follow-up period was 18 months (13.1–22.8 months). Objective response rate was 76%, with partial response 74%, complete response 4%, and stable disease 16%. Median PFS and median OS were not reached, yet the expected 3-year PFS rate was 69.3% and 3-year OS rate was 85.7%, respectively. The most common sites of progression were the pleura and liver. Majority of side effects were grade 1 or 2 only with the most common being anemia, only one patient had grade 3 side effect (anemia). No drug interruption or dose modifications were needed in any patient.

Conclusion

This real-world data from LMIC confirm the safety and efficacy of alectinib in the first-line setting matching that of registration studies with similar safety and tolerance, without any new alarm.

Keywords

alectinib - ALK - anaplastic lymphoma kinase - LMIC - low- and middle-income countries - OS - overall survival - PFS - progression-free survival

Kumar Prabhash

Ajaykumar Singh

Introduction

Lung cancer is one the most common malignancies in the world and India with high mortality rate among all other cancers.[1] [2] Molecular profiling and targeted therapy has improved outcome of ALK rearranged lung cancer patients.[3] After epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, the second most frequent mutation is ALK kinase domain rearrangement, which is detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques in 3 to 5%.[4] The clinical presentation making ALK-positive patients different from other nonsmall cell lung carcinoma was younger age, female sex predominance, never or light smokers, and a greater propensity for brain metastases.[5] First-generation ALK-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) crizotinib has shown superior disease control and survival outcome as well as better tolerance and safety as compared with chemotherapy.[6] Similarly, second-generation drugs ceritinib and alectinib are better against crizotinib.[7] Alectinib having additional advantage over crizotinib and ceritinib for better central nervous system (CNS) disease control due to better blood–brain barrier penetration.[8] However, data are scant from real-world settings especially from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like India. This study presents an audit of the safety and efficacy of patients receiving alectinib in the first-line for ALK rearrangement-positive advanced metastatic lung cancer, which is the first largest data from India.

Methods

This is a single-center, retrospective study of patients who received alectinib from January 2018 to March 2022. Data censoring was done on August 10, 2022. The data were entered in Excel sheet and included the baseline demographic data, diagnosis, comorbidity, method of molecular testing, treatment details, clinical and radiological response, date of disease progression, date of death, and toxicity details. Response assessment was performed using computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax, abdomen, and if needed pelvis. For those cases where baseline positron emission tomography (PET)-CT was performed, repeat PET-CT was done for response assessment. Brain magnetic resonance imaging scan was performed for all cases at baseline and then a follow-up scan was done only if clinically indicated as per our institution protocol. Responses were classified according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Response assessment was done every 3 months after the commencement of treatment or at any symptoms/signs of clinical progression whichever was earlier. Adverse events during treatment were documented and graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.02. The baseline workup prior to start of therapy included complete blood counts, serum electrolytes, liver and renal function tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

All patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer with ALK rearrangement positive with either IHC or FISH or NGS were included who received alectinib as first-line therapy. Also, those patients who were started initially with chemotherapy and later switched to alectinib after one or two cycles with the confirmation of ALK rearrangement was considered as first-line therapy and included in this analysis. It is common practice to start a patient on systemic chemotherapy at presentation due to symptomatic disease and switch to targeted therapy after confirmation of mutation.

Adverse Events

At the start of therapy, patients were counseled for the possible toxicities by the treating physician. Patients were subsequently followed up in the outpatient department 1 week post-start of therapy followed by either a monthly or three monthly basis depending on the convenience of the patients, as most of the patients came to our center from other states. For any complications, the patients were followed up in the emergency department.

Statistics

The survival endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PFS was defined as the time (in months) from the start of alectinib to radiological progression or death due to any cause if it happened before disease progression or the last follow-up date whichever was earlier. Progression was defined as clinical and radiological progression as per RECIST v 1.1 or death due to any cause. OS was the time in months from the date of diagnosis until death from any cause or date of last follow-up.

The qualitative data were analyzed with the Pearson's chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or Mann–Whitney test. Kaplan–Meier analysis was done to calculate PFS and OS. All the data were analyzed with SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp., New York, United States).

Data Accessibility Statement

We state that all the datasheets will be made available to the reviewing journal on request.

Ethics Statement

The lung cancer audit is an institutional ethics committee-approved observational protocol and is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (registration number: CTRI/2013/01/003335).

Since this study is a retrospective audit of patients treated with standard institutional protocol, ethical clearance was not sought.

Results

Baseline Characteristics

A total of 50 patients received alectinib in first line from January 2018 to March 2022. A total of 441 patients were diagnosed in the same period. Out of these, 11.3% received tab alectinib in first line. At the time of analysis the median follow-up was 18 months (13.1–22.8 months). [Table 1] shows the baseline characteristics of the patients. The median age was 52.5 years (range: 28–81 years); out of which 42% were less than or equal to 50 years of age, 30% between 51 and 60 years of age, and 28% were more than 60 years of age. Fifty-four percent were male and 46% were female. Only 10% of patients had a smoking history. Seventy percent of patients were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status (ECOG-PS) 0 or 1. Only 24% were ECOG-PS 2 and 6% were ECOG-PS 3 or 4 at the time of the start of alectinib. A total of 15 patients out of the total 50 patients presented with brain metastasis, of which 10 patients had symptomatic disease and hence after consultation with radiation oncologist were planned for radiation therapy. All these 10 patients received whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). WBRT was started before any systemic therapy. Note that 52% (n = 26) patients had bone metastasis and only one-third of them received bone-modifying agent (all except one received zoledronic acid and one received denosumab). Other sites of metastasis in decreasing sequence were 42% pleura, 28% lung, adrenal 12%, pericardium and muscle 6% each, and only 2% had leptomeningeal disease before starting alectinib at the time of presentation. Method for ALK testing included IHC 92%, FISH 2%, and NGS 6%.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics

Characteristics (total, n = 50)	Numbers (n)	Percentage (%)
Age (median = 52 y)
Less than 50 y  51–60 y  61 y and more	21 15 14	42 30 28
Sex
Male  Female	27 23	54 26
Smoking
Yes  No	5 45	10 90
ECOG Performance Status (PS)
PS 0 or 1  PS 2  PS 3 or 4	35 12 3	70 24 6
Sites of metastasis
Bone  Pleura  Brain  Lung  Adrenal  Pericardium  Muscle  leptomeningeal	26 21 15 14 6 3 3 1	52 42 30 28 12 6 6 2

Abbreviation: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Response ([Table 2] and [Fig. 1])

Table 2 Response

Type of response (total, n = 50)	Numbers	Percentage
Complete response	1	2
Partial response	37	74
Stable disease	8	16
Progressive disease	4	8

Fig. 1 Response to Alectinib.

Among 50 patients who were treated with the first-line alectinib, 74% showed partial response and 2% showed complete response, that is, overall 76% showed clinical response to therapy. Stable disease was seen in 16% patients. Disease progression was seen in 8% of the patients only.

Survival ([Table 3] and [Figs. 2] and [3])

Table 3 Survival

Event	Median (mo)	Expected 3 years (%)
PFS	Not reached	69.3
OS	Not reached	85.7

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

Fig. 2 Progression-free survival.

Fig. 3 Overall survival.

Median PFS and median OS were not reached, with expected 3-year PFS and OS rates 85.7 and 69.3%, respectively ([Figs. 2] and [3]).

Progression ([Table 4])

Table 4 Progression

Progression	Number (n)	Percentage (%)
Yes No	11 39	22 78
Subsequent therapy received (among 11 patients) Yes Lorlatinib Chemotherapy	10 7 3	91 64 27

Only 22% (n = 11) patients had progressive disease till now, out which 91% (10) received subsequent therapy; majority received lorlatinib 64% (n = 7) and 27% (n = 3) patients received chemotherapy as subsequent therapy on progression after alectinib. One patient defaulted for subsequent therapy. Only 8% (n = 4) patients expired during the study period. The most common sites of progression were the pleura (10%) and liver (6%). Two percent each had progression in the brain, adrenal, lung, and supraclavicular lymph node.

Adverse Events ([Table 5])

Table 5 Adverse events

Event	Grade 1 or 2 (%)	Grade 3 or 4(%)
Anemia	36	4
Hyperbilirubinemia	8	−
Dry skin	6	−
Dyspepsia	6	−
Transaminitis	6	−
Constipation	2	−
Diarrhea	2	−
Myalgia	2	−
Fatigue	2	−
Anorexia	2	−
Dysgeusia	2	−

The most common adverse effect was anemia seen in 40% of the patients, but majority were grade 1 or 2, only 4% had grade 3 anemia. Next was asymptomatic hyperbilirubinemia 8%, all were grade 1 or 2 and direct type. Dry skin and dyspepsia were seen in 6%. Dyslipidemia and uncontrolled sugar were seen in 6% each. Transaminitis was also seen in 6% of the patients. Uncommon side effects, which were seen one patient each (2%), were constipation, diarrhea, myalgia, fatigue, anorexia, and dysgeusia. None of these were grade 3 or more. No interruption or dose modification of the therapy was needed in any patient because of the adverse events.

Discussion

Multiple anti-ALK agents are approved in the first line. The first-generation ALK-TKI crizotinib and another second-generation ALK-TKI ceritinib are approved in first line for metastatic ALK-rearrangement positive metastatic lung cancer patients. Both these drugs are commonly used in LMICs at present due to financial reasons. But patient on these drugs progresses in a year or two.[9] [10] Common reason for this is the development of resistance mutation in the ALK-kinase domain. Another common reason is CNS progression due to poor blood–brain barrier penetration of these drugs. Advantage of alectinib in first line is its broader action over these resistance mechanisms in the ALK-kinase domain and higher CNS penetration that leads to better intracranial response and lesser CNS progression over the course of the treatment. Because of effective CNS penetrant activity of Alectinib brain radiation avoided in these patients who are expected to have multiple of years of life ahead and can have socially productive life.

Our study shows that patients with these ALK-rearrangement positive metastatic lung cancer are commonly younger (72% are less than 60 years and only 28% were above 60 years of age). This is similar to other histological data.[11] Again, similar to the histological demographic profile our patients were also commonly nonsmoker (90%) and had aggressive disease at presentation (52% bone, 42% pleura, 30% CNS, 28% bilateral lung metastatic disease).[11] Approximately half of the patients were female (46%), again showing the incidence rate is higher in females.[11]

In our data, objective response rate was 76% (including 2% complete response (CR) rate), this is approximately similar to the response rate seen in the ALEX trial, 83% (including 4% CR rates), meaning in real world also this drug is very efficacious irrespective of the population.[12] Only 2% patients showed CNS progression on alectinib treatment course in our data, which is much better as opposed to crizotinib and ceritinib where one-third to one-half of the patients develop CNS progression.[13] [14] In the ALEX trial, 12% patients had CNS progression versus 45% patients with crizotinib.[12] [13] So, our data also show good intracranial effect of this drug. Another important point noted in our study was bone-modifying agent not required in the majority of the patients (among 52% patients with bone metastatic disease only 14% received bone-modifying therapy) and they had good bone disease control; in fact, none of the patients has shown progression in bone disease or any skeletal event who had progressive disease.

In our study, the median PFS and median OS were not reached. This is expected as the present median follow-up was 18 months. In the ALEX trial,[12] the median PFS was 35 months and the median OS was not reached till the latest update of the ALEX trail, so more follow-up is needed to reach the median PFS and median OS of our patients. In our data, the expected 3-year PFS rate is 69.3% and OS rate is 85.7%. The 5-year OS rate in the ALEX trial was 62% with alectinib and 45% with crizotinib.[12] So, our data also look promising in terms of expected long-term survival of our population. Again, when we look into survival, alectinib showed similar promise in real world as it did in trial population.

In our study, the adverse event rate was low except for anemia seen in 40% patients, but majority had grade 1 or 2 anemia. Only 4% had grade 3 anemia. Other adverse events seen were transaminitis, hyperbilirubinemia, bowel abnormality, fatigue, dysgeusia, and skin dryness, but incidence rates were in single digit and none were grade 3 or 4 adverse events. So, there was no drug interruption or dose modification needed in any patient. As against the ALEX trial,[12] the types of adverse events were similar, with anemia being the common adverse event. But the ALEX trial has shown 41% rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events with alectinib and 50% rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events with crizotinib as opposed to 4% in our study, which is an odd finding in our study and may be due to the retrospective nature of our study. In the ALEX trial, drug interruption, dose modification, and discontinuation were seen in 16, 19, and 11%, respectively, with alectinib and 21, 25, and 13% with crizotinib, respectively, but none in our study. So, in the real-world setting it gives assurance that alectinib is as safe as it is in trial population.

The major limitation of the study is its retrospective nature with its inherent errors, but our data has not shown any odd or different alarming finding. So, from a country like India this largest data gives reassurance regarding the safety and efficacy of alectinib in real-world scenario.

Conclusion

This real-world data from LMIC like India shows the durable effectiveness of alectinib in first-line therapy in ALK-rearranged metastatic lung cancer is similar to trial population without any new alarming sign related to safety and tolerability.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Ethical Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.

• References

• 1 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249
• 2 Noronha V, Pinninti R, Patil VM, Joshi A, Prabhash K. Lung cancer in the Indian subcontinent. South Asian J Cancer 2016; 5 (03) 95-103
• 3 Nagl L, Pall G, Wolf D, Pircher A, Horvath L. Molecular profiling in lung cancer. Memo Mag Eur Med Oncol 2022; 15 (01) 1-5
• 4 Guérin A, Sasane M, Zhang J. et al. ALK rearrangement testing and treatment patterns for patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 2015; 39 (03) 307-312
• 5 Kang HJ, Lim HJ, Park JS. et al. Comparison of clinical characteristics between patients with ALK-positive and EGFR-positive lung adenocarcinoma. Respir Med 2014; 108 (02) 388-394
• 6 Solomon BJ, Mok T, Kim D-W. et al; PROFILE 1014 Investigators. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 371 (23) 2167-2177
• 7 Tan DSW, Araújo A, Zhang J. et al. Comparative efficacy of ceritinib and crizotinib as initial ALK-targeted therapies in previously treated advanced NSCLC: an adjusted comparison with external controls. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11 (09) 1550-1557
• 8 Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT. et al; ALEX Trial Investigators. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (09) 829-838
• 9 Hoang T, Myung SK, Pham TT, Park B. Efficacy of crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12 (03) 526
• 10 Pan Y, Deng C, Qiu Z, Cao C, Wu F. The resistance mechanisms and treatment strategies for ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 713530
• 11 Chia PL, Mitchell P, Dobrovic A, John T. Prevalence and natural history of ALK positive non-small-cell lung cancer and the clinical impact of targeted therapy with ALK inhibitors. Clin Epidemiol 2014; 6: 423-432
• 12 Wrona A. Management of CNS disease in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: is whole brain radiotherapy still needed?. Cancer Radiother 2019; 23 (05) 432-438
• 13 Shaw AT, Gandhi L, Gadgeel S. et al; study investigators. Alectinib in ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-group, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17 (02) 234-242 cited 2022Sep3 [Internet]
• 14 Soria JC, Tan DSW, Chiari R. et al. First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10072): 917-929

Publication History

Received: 12 June 2023

Accepted: 15 February 2025

Article published online:
03 April 2025