首页 > 文章详情

【WCLC2016】ASCEND-4结果公布：色瑞替尼冲击ALK阳性NSCLC一线治疗

2016年12月08日

来源：医脉通

2016年12月4日-7日，第17届世界肺癌大会（WCLC）在奥地利维也纳盛大召开。在当地时间12月6日上午的全体会议中，圣保罗国家癌症研究所的Gilberto De Castro Jr教授，以“First–line Ceritinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With ALK–rearranged(ALK+)NSCLC:A Randomized,Phase 3 Study(ASCEND–4)”为题，报告了ALK重排（ALK+）NSCLC一线靶向和化疗的对比（ASCEND–4）。

研究背景

ALK融合基因发生于3%~7%的NSCLC患者，临床上常见于不吸烟的年轻腺癌患者，通常与EGFR或KRAS突变的发生互相排斥。2015年色瑞替尼得到FDA批准上市，在ALK重排（ALK+）阳性的NSCLC中取得较好的治疗效果。在2016WCLC上，研究者报告了一线色瑞替尼对比传统化疗治疗晚期ALK阳性NSCLC的研究结果。

研究内容

研究入组的376例患者为未接受过治疗，免疫组化证实为ALK阳性的晚期非鳞NSCLC，中位年龄54岁。

按1:1比例将患者随机分配进色瑞替尼治疗组（n=189）和传统化疗组（n=187）。

◆色瑞替尼治疗组给药：色瑞替尼750 mg/天；其中有59例存在脑转移；

◆化疗组给药：培美曲塞500mg/m2+顺铂75mg/m2或卡铂AUC 5-6，四周期后培美曲塞维持治疗。

按照WHO PS、脑转移和继往新辅助/辅助化疗情况将患者分层。若化疗出现疾病进展可允许患者交叉进入色瑞替尼组（交叉治疗n=80）。

研究结果

色瑞替尼组的中位药物暴露时间为66.4周，而化疗组仅有26.9周。

中位随访持续时间19.7个月（自随机化至截止日），研究实现了主要目的。经盲化独立中心评审（BIRC）分析，色瑞替尼组患者与化疗组相比中位PFS明显改善，分别为16.6 vs 8.1个月（HR=0.55）。

期中分析只完成了42.3%的需要事件，OS数据未成熟（HR=0.73,P=0.056）。

经BIRC分析，与化疗相比色瑞替尼治疗的客观缓解率（ORR）和缓解持续时间（DOR）均更高，其中ORR分别为26.7%vs 72.5%；中位DOR分别为11.1 vs 23.9个月。

对于基线脑转移可测量以及≥1次基线后评估的患者，色瑞替尼治疗的颅内ORR（BIRC，修正的RECIST v1.1标准）也比化疗高，分别为72.7%vs 27.3%。

最常见的不良事件（>50%）在色瑞替尼组为腹泻（84.7%）、恶心（68.8%）、呕吐（66.1%）以及ALT（60.3%）和AST升高（52.9%）。总体而言，色瑞替尼组和化疗组分别有5.3%和11.4%的患者因疑似药物相关的不良事件而中断治疗。

结论

对于ALK阳性晚期NSCLC患者，与化疗（包括维持治疗）相比，色瑞替尼单药一线方案在统计学和临床两方面都取得了显著的改善（PFS），使疾病进展风险降低约45%。

此外，对于存在脑转移的NSCLC患者，色瑞替尼治疗达到了高效、持续的系统缓解以及较高的颅内缓解。安全特性与之前的研究报道相一致。

原文：

ASCEND-4

First-line Ceritinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With ALK-rearranged (ALK+) NSCLC: A Randomized, Phase 3 Study

Background: Here, we report results of ceritinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ALK+ NSCLC.

Methods: Untreated ALK+ (IHC confirmed), advanced, nonsquamous NSCLC patients (N=376; median age, 54 years) were randomized (1:1) to ceritinib 750 mg/day (n=189 [59 with brain metastases (BM)]) or chemotherapy (n=187 [62 with BM]; [pemetrexed 500 mg/m[2] plus cisplatin 75 mg/m[2] or carboplatin AUC 5-6] for 4 cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed), stratified by WHO PS (0 vs 1-2), BM at screening, and prior neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to ceritinib was allowed at progression (n=80 crossed-over).

Results: Median treatment exposure was 66.4 weeks for ceritinib and 26.9 weeks for chemotherapy. Median follow-up duration was 19.7 months (randomization to cut-off date). The study met its primary objective, with ceritinib demonstrating statistically significant improvement in BIRC PFS (RECIST 1.1; median, 16.6 [12.6, 27.2] vs 8.1 months [5.8, 11.1], HR=0.55, P<0.001) versus chemotherapy. OS was immature (HR, 0.73 [0.50, 1.08]; P=0.056) with 42.3% of required events at interim analysis. ORR (BIRC, 72.5% vs 26.7%) and DOR (BIRC, median, 23.9 vs 11.1 months) were also higher with ceritinib versus chemotherapy. Among patients with measurable baseline BM and ≥1 postbaseline assessment, intracranial ORR (BIRC neuroradiologist; modified RECIST v1.1) was higher with ceritinib (72.7% [49.8, 89.3] vs 27.3% [10.7, 50.2]) versus chemotherapy (Table). Most common AEs (>50%) with ceritinib were diarrhea (84.7%), nausea (68.8%), vomiting (66.1%), ALT increase (60.3%), and AST increase (52.9%). Overall, 5.3% ceritinib- and 11.4% chemotherapy-treated patients discontinued due to AEs suspected to be drug-related.

Conclusion: First-line ceritinib achieved statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in median PFS with an estimated 45% risk reduction in advanced ALK+ NSCLC versus chemotherapy including maintenance. Moreover, ceritinib achieved high and durable systemic responses and high OIRR in patients with measurable BM. Safety profile of ceritinib is consistent with previously reported.

领新版指南，先人一步>>

查看详情