Best first-line therapy for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status

BACKGROUND

Most people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy. We found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants). When analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants). Only four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Although evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy. The assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.

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.