Our Experiences with Erlotinib in Second and Third Line Treatment Patients with Advanced Stage Iiib/ Iv Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

HeadHER1/EGFR is known to play a pivotal role in tumorigenesis and is overexpressed in up to 80% of NSCLCs. The study of an Expanded Access Clinical Program of Erlotinib in NSCLC is a phase IV openlabel, non-randomized, multicenter trial in patients with advanced (inoperable stage IIIb/IV) NSCLC who were eligible for treatment with erlotinib but had no access to trial participation. Patients for the study from Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) were selected from two Clinical centres (Sarajevo and Banja Luka). The aim of study was to evaluated efficacy and tolerability of erlotinib monotherapy in this setting. All patients who received at least one dose of erlotinib and data were entered in the database as of the CRF cut-off date of 14th May 2008 were included in analysis of data (n = 19). This population is defined as the Intent to Treat (ITT) population and includes all patients who had at least one dose of erlotinib regardless of whether major protocol violations were incurred. The findings are consistent with the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled BR.21 study. Indicating that erlotinib is an effective option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are unsuitable for, or who have previously failed standard chemotherapy. In B&H group of patients DCR was almost 84%, and PFS was approximately 24,7 weeks (compared with 44% and 9,7 weeks for erlotinib reported in phase III). Almost three quarter of the patients received erlotinib as their second line of therapy. Overall, erlotinib was well tolerated; there were no patients who withdrew due to a treatment-related AE (mainly rash) and there were few dose reductions. 24% of patients experienced an SAE (most commonly gastrointestinal (GI) disorders)

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases

Introduction: Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib. Methods: Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX. Results: The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33–0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31–0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16–0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24–0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX. Conclusions: Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting