ALK Mutation Yields Poorer Survival in NSCLC Patients in Pre–ALK-Inhibitor Era

Article

In the pre–ALK-inhibitor era, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC had significantly worse survival outcomes compared with ALK-wild type patients, according to a recent study.

Patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are ALK-positive had significantly worse survival outcomes compared with ALK-wild type patients, according to a study of patients treated in the pre–ALK-inhibitor era.

Human anaplastic lymphoma kinase in complex with crizotinib; source: A2-33, Wikimedia Commons

The EML4-ALK translocation is now considered a clear positive predictive marker of treatment with the ALK-inhibitor crizotinib (Xalkori), but the prognostic value in general of this mutation is not well known. Researchers at Seoul National University Hospital and elsewhere in South Korea reported results of a study including 262 total patients with advanced NSCLC, from which any patient who received crizotinib was excluded. The final analysis, including 23 ALK-positive patients, 46 EGFR mutation–positive patients, and 46 patients with wild type of both genes (WT/WT), was published in the July 15 issue of Cancer.

The median overall survival of the ALK-positive patients was 12.2 months; in the EGFR mutation–positive patients overall survival was 29.6 months (P = .001 vs ALK-positive). WT/WT patients had a median overall survival of 19.3 months (P = .127 vs ALK-positive). Progression-free survival was not significantly different between the groups, at 3.8 months, 4.9 months, and 3.7 months, respectively.

Progression-free survival following EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, however, did yield differences; a total of 86 patients received an EGFR TKI, including 57 who received gefitinib (Iressa), 29 who received erlotinib (Tarceva), and 4 patients who received both. The median for ALK-positive patients was only 1.3 months, compared with 9.8 months in EGFR mutation–positive patients (P < .001 vs ALK-positive) and 2 months in WT/WT patients (P = .037 vs ALK-positive). Treatment response rates to cytotoxic chemotherapy did not differ between the three groups.

One of the study authors, Dong-Wan Kim, MD, PhD, of Seoul National University Hospital, said in an e-mail that the study’s key message is that “ALK-positive patients experienced poor survival outcomes compared with ALK-wild type patients in the pre–ALK-inhibitor era. Because [crizotinib] is available in the United States and Korea, this poor survival outcome could be improved.”

Study Details

Baseline characteristics of patients were generally well matched between the ALK-positive, EGFR mutation–positive, and WT/WT groups, with no significant differences with regard to age, gender, and smoking history. More patients in the EGFR mutation–positive group had adenocarcinomas than did those in the ALK-positive group (89.1% vs 69.6%, P = .043).

The most common first-line treatment received was a paclitaxel/carboplatin combination, followed by gemcitabine/vinorelbine. There were a variety of metastasis sites among all patients, with secondary lung sites and bone and CNS the most common.

Recent Videos
The FirstLook liquid biopsy, when used as an adjunct to low-dose CT, may help to address the unmet need of low lung cancer screening utilization.
An 80% sensitivity for lung cancer was observed with the liquid biopsy, with high sensitivity observed for early-stage disease, as well.
Patients who face smoking stigma, perceive a lack of insurance, or have other low-dose CT related concerns may benefit from blood testing for lung cancer.
Video 4 - "Frontline Treatment for EGFR-Mutated Lung Cancer"
Video 3 - "NGS Testing Challenges and Considerations in NSCLC"
Related Content