Comparative efficacy of brigatinib versus ceritinib and alectinib in patients with crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer

Tumor marker-based RecistTM is superior to RECIST as criteria to predict the long-term benefits of targeted therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with driver gene mutations

BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are standard first-line treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver gene mutations. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are limited in predicting long-term patient benefits. A tumour marker-based evaluation criteria, RecistTM, was used to investigate the potential for assessing targeted-therapy efficacy in lung cancer treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed patients with stage IIIA-IV NSCLC and driver gene mutations, whose baseline tumour marker levels exceeded the pre-treatment cut-off value three-fold and who received TKI-targeted therapy as a first-line treatment. We compared efficacy, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between RecistTM and RECIST.

FINDINGS

The median PFS and OS differed significantly among treatment-response subgroups based on RecistTM but not RECIST. The predicted 1-, 2-, and 3-year disease-progression risk, according to area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, as well as the 1-, 3-, and 5-year mortality risk, differed significantly between RecistTM and RECIST. The median PFS and OS of tmCR according to RecistTM, was significantly longer than (CR+PR) according to RECIST. Imaging analysis revealed that the ΔPFS was 11.27 and 6.17 months in the intervention and non-intervention groups, respectively, suggesting that earlier intervention could extend patients' PFS.

INTERPRETATION

RecistTM can assess targeted-therapy efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC and driver gene mutations, along with tumour marker abnormalities. RecistTM surpasses RECIST in predicting short- and long-term patient benefits, and allows the early identification of patients resistant to targeted drugs, enabling prompt intervention and extending the imaging-demonstrated time to progression.

Clinical Relevance of Targeted Therapy and Immune-Checkpoint Inhibition in Lung Cancer

Lung cancer (LC) represents the second most diagnosed tumor and the malignancy with the highest mortality rate. In recent years, tremendous progress has been made in the treatment of this tumor thanks to the discovery, testing, and clinical approval of novel therapeutic approaches. Firstly, targeted therapies aimed at inhibiting specific mutated tyrosine kinases or downstream factors were approved in clinical practice. Secondly, immunotherapy inducing the reactivation of the immune system to efficiently eliminate LC cells has been approved. This review describes in depth both current and ongoing clinical studies, which allowed the approval of targeted therapies and immune-checkpoint inhibitors as standard of care for LC. Moreover, the present advantages and pitfalls of new therapeutic approaches will be discussed. Finally, the acquired importance of human microbiota as a novel source of LC biomarkers, as well as therapeutic targets to improve the efficacy of available therapies, was analyzed. Therapy against LC is increasingly becoming holistic, taking into consideration not only the genetic landscape of the tumor, but also the immune background and other individual variables, such as patient-specific gut microbial composition. On these bases, in the future, the research milestones reached will allow clinicians to treat LC patients with tailored approaches.

Brigatinib for Pretreated, ALK-Positive, Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers: Long-Term Follow-Up and Focus on Post-Brigatinib Lorlatinib Efficacy in the Multicenter, Real-World BrigALK2 Study

Brigatinib is a next-generation ALK inhibitor (ALKi) that shows efficacy in ALK inhibitor naïve and post-crizotinib ALK+ advanced NSCLCs (aNSCLCs). The efficacy of brigatinib was retrospectively assessed in patients with aNSCLCs included in the brigatinib French Early-Access Program (1 August 2016−21 January 2019). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (invPFS) and the primary analysis was updated in 2021 with a longer follow-up, focused on post-brigatinib lorlatinib efficacy. Sixty-six centers included 183 patients: median age 60 ± 12.7 years; 78.3% never/former smokers; median of 3 ± 1 previous lines and 2 ± 0.5 ALKis; 37.1% ECOG PS 2 and 55.6% >3 metastatic sites. The median follow-up from brigatinib initiation was 40.4 months (95% CI 38.4−42.4). InvPFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.9−9.6), median duration of treatment (mDOT) was 7.3 months (95% CI 5.8−9.4) and median overall survival (mOS) was 20.3 months (95% CI 15.6−27.6). The median DOT and OS from brigatinib initiation tend to decrease with the number of ALK inhibitors used in previous lines of therapy. Based on the data collected, 92 (50.3%) patients received ≥1 agent(s) post-brigatinib and 68 (73.9%) of them received lorlatinib, with 51 (75%) immediately receiving it post-brigatinib, 12 (17.6%) receiving it after one and 5 (7.4%) after ≥2 subsequent treatments. The median follow-up was 29.9 (95% CI 25.7−33.1) months. Lorlatinib mDOT was 5.3 (95% CI 3.6−7.6) months with a median OS from lorlatinib initiation of 14.1 (95% CI 10.3−19.2) months. The results of the brigALK2 study confirm the efficacy of brigatinib in a population of heavily pretreated ALK+ aNSCLC patients and provide new data on the activity of lorlatinib after brigatinib.

Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (<I>ALK</I>)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Real-world adherence and persistence with anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors in nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Several anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of metastatic ALK-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Effective disease management requires an understanding of how these treatments are used in clinical practice, since low treatment adherence and/or early discontinuation have been associated with poor patient outcomes. Owing to the recency of approvals, real-world data on the use of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALKpositive NSCLC are currently limited; this represents a notable gap in our understanding of ALK treatment use. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world adherence and persistence with ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used US commercial claims for patients aged at least 18 years with lung cancer receiving ALK inhibitors (alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib) between July 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients' first and any subsequent ALK inhibitor uses were categorized into ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohorts, respectively. Adherence was measured by medication possession ratio and persistence by time from treatment initiation to discontinuation (earliest of a treatment switch or greater than a 60-day gap). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics. Cohort comparisons were made using chi-square tests and t-tests. Persistence and time to next ALK inhibitor were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and the log-rank test. Poisson and Cox regression models of adherence and persistence, respectively, were applied to compare ALK inhibitors. RESULTS: We identified 1,482 patients treated with alectinib (n = 445) or crizotinib (n = 1,037) in the ALK inhibitor-naive cohort; 604, 142, and 134 patients received alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib in the ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohort. Adherence during the treatment period (95%-97%) and the proportion of patients with a medication possession ratio of at least 0.8 (92%-95%) were similar for all ALK inhibitors. In the ALK inhibitor-naive cohort, median time to treatment discontinuation with alectinib and crizotinib was 27.1 and 8.8 months, respectively; patients receiving alectinib were 46% less likely to discontinue than patients receiving crizotinib (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.44-0.65]; P < 0.0001). In the ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohort, the discontinuation risk for alectinib was 64% lower than for ceritinib (aHR [95% CI]: 0.36 [0.27-0.49]; P < 0.0001) and 34% lower than for brigatinib (aHR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.42-1.02]; P = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to address a current research gap by assessing real-world adherence and persistence with ALK inhibitors among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC in real-world clinical practice. Alectinib was associated with longer real-world persistence than other ALK inhibitors, despite similar adherence. Further research with more patients and longer follow-up is needed to link persistence to real-world clinical outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech Inc. Ganti has received research support from Takeda and has provided consulting services to Genentech Inc., AstraZeneca, Flagship Biosciences, Cardinal Health, BioGene, Mirati Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, and G1 Therapeutics. Lin, Wong, and Ogale are employees of Genentech Inc. and may own stock in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Yang was employed by Genentech Inc. at the time of this study. Part of the study findings were presented as a poster at the NCCN 2020 Virtual Annual Conference, April 9, 2020.

Brigatinib treated ALK positive lung squamous cell carcinoma after failed chemotherapy: A case report

The definitive efficacy of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors in ALK positive lung squamous cell carcinoma (sqCC) patients remain unclear. Here, we report a case in which brigatinib had a therapeutic effect on ALK‐positive lung squamous cell carcinoma. The patient in this report was diagnosed with ALK‐positive lung squamous cell carcinoma with brain metastases, and received brigatinib after failure of first‐line chemotherapy. Response duration was approximately 11 months, with tolerable side effects. In conclusion, a good clinical effect was achieved in a patient with ALK positive lung squamous cell carcinoma who received treatment with an ALK inhibitor.

Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of maintenance PARP inhibitor with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

In patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, alone or in combination, have shown benefit as maintenance treatment following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, no trials have compared a PARP inhibitor plus bevacizumab versus a PARP inhibitor, or a PARP inhibitor versus bevacizumab. We performed an unanchored population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance treatments for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Analyses were performed using aggregate data from the PRIMA trial and patient-level data from a subset of patients from the PAOLA-1 trial that met surgery and staging eligibility criteria of PRIMA. Propensity weights were used to match baseline characteristics of the PAOLA-1 subset to those of the PRIMA population. Analysis was performed in overall (biomarker-unselected) and homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD)-positive populations.

RESULTS

A total of 595/806 (266/387 HRD-positive) PAOLA-1 patients were included. After matching, the effective sample size for PAOLA-1 was 532 (242 HRD-positive). Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 43% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.69] versus niraparib and by 40% (HR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.74) versus bevacizumab in the biomarker-unselected population and by 43% (HR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) and 60% (HR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29-0.55), respectively, in the HRD-positive population. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of maintenance niraparib and bevacizumab arms were comparable in the biomarker-unselected population (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.87-1.32); however, niraparib showed a 30% reduced risk compared with bevacizumab (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) in the HRD-positive population.

CONCLUSIONS

In biomarker-unselected and HRD-positive patients, combination treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment improves PFS for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer compared with either bevacizumab or niraparib alone. Results are hypothesis generating and could guide randomised trial design.

Outcomes of switching from crizotinib to alectinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer with anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusion

Background

Alectinib and crizotinib have been approved as first-line therapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene fusion. However, the therapeutic efficacy and side effects are still largely unknown of patients who switched to next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs), such as alectinib, after experiencing no disease progression with initial crizotinib treatment.

Methods

This prospective real-world study enrolled patients who were treated with alectinib after experiencing no disease progression with initial crizotinib treatment. The patients’ baseline characteristics, objective response rate (ORR) of crizotinib and alectinib, size change of target tumor lesions, treatment regimen and adverse events (AEs) were collected and analyzed.

Results

The study included 53 patients, the majority of whom (96.2%) had non-squamous NSCLC. The median age was 51 (range, 31–80) years old. The ORR of first-line crizotinib was 54.7%. The ORR of sequential alectinib was 73.6%, and 90.5% of patients showed further tumor shrinkage after the alectinib treatment. The median progression-free survival was not reached, and 90.5% of patients were still enrolled in the study at the last follow-up. Among them, 34.0% of patients switched to alectinib treatment due to the toxicity. Crizotinib was associated with a higher frequency of AEs of grades 3 and 4 than alectinib (15.1% vs. 0%). Neither group had any AEs resulting in death.

Conclusions

Switching to alectinib might be an option for patients who do not experience disease progression with initial crizotinib therapy, and may promote better treatment compliance.

Head to head evaluation of second generation ALK inhibitors brigatinib and alectinib as first-line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC using an in silico systems biology-based approach

Around 3-7% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which represent 85% of diagnosed lung cancers, have a rearrangement in the ALK gene that produces an abnormal activity of the ALK protein cell signaling pathway. The developed ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinb present good performance treating ALK+ NSCLC, although all patients invariably develop resistance due to ALK secondary mutations or bypass mechanisms. In the present study, we compare the potential differences between brigatinib and alectinib's mechanisms of action as first-line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC in a systems biology-based in silico setting. Therapeutic performance mapping system (TPMS) technology was used to characterize the mechanisms of action of brigatinib and alectinib and the impact of potential resistances and drug interferences with concomitant treatments. The analyses indicate that brigatinib and alectinib affect cell growth, apoptosis and immune evasion through ALK inhibition. However, brigatinib seems to achieve a more diverse downstream effect due to a broader cancer-related kinase target spectrum. Brigatinib also shows a robust effect over invasiveness and central nervous system metastasis-related mechanisms, whereas alectinib seems to have a greater impact on the immune evasion mechanism. Based on this in silico head to head study, we conclude that brigatinib shows a predicted efficacy similar to alectinib and could be a good candidate in a first-line setting against ALK+ NSCLC. Future investigation involving clinical studies will be needed to confirm these findings. These in silico systems biology-based models could be applied for exploring other unanswered questions.

A framework for clinical and translational research in the era of rigor and reproducibility

INTRODUCTION

Rigor and reproducibility are two important cornerstones of medical and scientific advancement. Clinical and translational research (CTR) contains four phases (T1-T4), involving the translation of basic research to humans, then to clinical settings, practice, and the population, with the ultimate goal of improving public health. Here we provide a framework for rigorous and reproducible CTR.

METHODS

In this paper we define CTR, provide general and phase-specific recommendations for improving quality and reproducibility of CTR with emphases on study design, data collection and management, analyses and reporting. We present and discuss aspects of rigor and reproducibility following published examples of CTR from the literature, including one example that shows the development path of different treatments that address anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

RESULTS

It is particularly important to consider robust and unbiased experimental design and methodology for analysis and interpretation for clinical translation studies to ensure reproducibility before taking the next translational step. There are both commonality and differences along the clinical translation research phases in terms of research focuses and considerations regarding study design, implementation, and data analysis approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Sound scientific practices, starting with rigorous study design, transparency, and team efforts can greatly enhance CTR. Investigators from multidisciplinary teams should work along the spectrum of CTR phases, and identify optimal practices for study design, data collection, data analysis, and results reporting to allow timely advances in the relevant field of research.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Progression-Free Survival Associated with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapies for ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Little is known about real-world treatment and outcomes of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study of the Flatiron Health EHR-derived deidentified database included patients with a lung cancer diagnosis and confirmed advanced NSCLC who received ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy (January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2018). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were characterized. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and time to discontinuation were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

First-line ALK TKI therapy was administered to 581 patients (27.5% had brain metastasis on or prior to initiation) and second-line ALK TKI therapy to 254 patients post crizotinib (45.7% had brain metastasis on or prior to second-line ALK TKI initiation). Crizotinib (84.6%; n = 492) was the most commonly administered first-line ALK TKI therapy. For second-line ALK TKI post crizotinib (n = 254), 49.6% received ceritinib, 41.7% received alectinib, 5.9% received crizotinib retreatment, and 2.8% received brigatinib. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) rwPFS was 7.47 (6.48-8.32) months for first-line and 7.30 (5.72-8.42) months for second-line ALK TKI. Median (95% CI) rwPFS was significantly longer among first-line ALK TKI patients without than with brain metastasis (8.52 [7.57-10.59] vs. 4.97 [3.75-5.99] months; p < .0001) and patients with brain metastasis on or prior to first-line ALK TKI therapy had a significantly increased risk of progression (hazard ratio ± SE, 1.976 ± 0.112; p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Median rwPFS in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC was < 8 months for first- and second-line ALK TKI therapy and was even shorter in patients with brain metastasis, highlighting the need for more effective treatments in this patient population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Results presented herein describe real-world treatment of advanced ALK+ NSCLC with ALK TKI therapies from January 2011 through June 2018. Crizotinib was the most commonly prescribed first-line ALK TKI therapy in this patient population, but the majority of data analyzed were obtained prior to Food and Drug Administration approval of alectinib and ceritinib in the first-line ALK TKI setting. Physicians should monitor patients closely to help identify when a change in treatment should occur.

Sequential blinded treatment decisions in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancers in the era of precision medicine

Next-generation ALK TKIs have become the new standard of care in first-line setting in advanced ALK-positive NSCLC patients. However, sequential strategies at progression are relevant, as may have an impact on patients' outcome. In this commentary we discuss whether genomic-tailored strategies at progression would be more suitable for improving outcome of ALK-positive NSCLC patients.

An evaluation of brigatinib as a promising treatment option for non-small cell lung cancer

Introduction: Brigatinib is a second-line inhibitor for the treatment of rearranged anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) in lung cancer patients which has significant activity against brain metastases. This tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) overcomes a wide range of ALK mutations which confer therapeutic resistance and is increasingly applied in first-line therapy due to improved benefit for patients compared to crizotinib, the current standard of care. Areas covered: The authors review the development and characteristics of brigatinib and discuss the optimal clinical use and sequence of the application of ALK inhibitors in patients progressing under therapy. Expert opinion: ALK-rearranged NSCLC can be treated with a broad range of approved and novel inhibitors at various stages of therapy, including the second-line therapeutic brigatinib. Besides this TKI, the second-line ALK inhibitors alectinib and ceritinib, as well as the third-line lorlatinib are approved for the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC patients. The main challenge is to find sequences and combinations of ALK inhibitors which provide the best benefit for the patients.