BACKGROUNDAlectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease. METHODSIn a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigatorassessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival. RESULTSDuring a median follow-up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12-month event-free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P<0.001); the median progression-free survival with alectinib was not reached. The results for independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival were consistent with those for the primary end point. A total of 18 patients (12%) in the alectinib group had an event of CNS progression, as compared with 68 patients (45%) in the crizotinib group (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.28; P<0.001). A response occurred in 126 patients in the alectinib group (response rate, 82.9%; 95% CI, 76.0 to 88.5) and in 114 patients in the crizotinib group (response rate, 75.5%; 95% CI, 67.8 to 82.1) (P = 0.09). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were less frequent with alectinib (41% vs. 50% with crizotinib). CONCLUSIONSAs compared with crizotinib, alectinib showed superior efficacy and lower toxicity in primary treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02075840.

EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of clinical benefit from gefitinib in ISEL. Additional studies are warranted to assess these biomarkers fully for the identification of patients most likely to benefit from gefitinib treatment.

Rociletinib was active in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC associated with the T790M resistance mutation. (Funded by Clovis Oncology; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526928.).

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in the majority of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as gefitinib and erlotinib, produce 9% to 27% response rates in NSCLC patients. E-Cadherin, a calcium-dependent adhesion molecule, plays an important role in NSCLC prognosis and progression, and interacts with EGFR. The zinc finger transcriptional repressor, ZEB1, inhibits E-cadherin expression by recruiting histone deacetylases (HDAC). We identified a significant correlation between sensitivity to gefitinib and expression of E-cadherin, and ZEB1, suggesting their predictive value for responsiveness to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. E-Cadherin transfection into a gefitinib-resistant line increased its sensitivity to gefitinib. Pretreating resistant cell lines with the HDAC inhibitor, MS-275, induced E-cadherin along with EGFR and led to a growth-inhibitory and apoptotic effect of gefitinib similar to that in gefitinib-sensitive NSCLC cell lines including those harboring EGFR mutations. Thus, combined HDAC inhibitor and gefitinib treatment represents a novel pharmacologic strategy for overcoming resistance to EGFR inhibitors in patients with lung cancer. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(2): 944-50)

This MALDI MS algorithm was not merely prognostic but could classify NSCLC patients for good or poor outcomes after treatment with EGFR TKIs. This algorithm may thus assist in the pretreatment selection of appropriate subgroups of NSCLC patients for treatment with EGFR TKIs.

Introduction: At the prior data cutoff (February 9, 2017) the ALEX trial showed superior investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) for alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive, advanced NSCLC (hazard ratio ¼ 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.65, p < 0.001). The median PFS in the alectinib arm was not reached versus 11.1 months with crizotinib. Retrospective analyses suggest that the echinoderm microtubule-associated proteinlike 4 gene-ALK variant (EML4-ALK) may influence ALK-inhibitor treatment benefit. We present updated analyses, including exploratory subgroup analysis by EML4-ALK variant, after an additional 10 months' followup (cutoff December 1, 2017). Methods: Patients were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib, 600 mg, or crizotinib, 250 mg, until disease progression, toxicity, death, or withdrawal. PFS was determined by the investigators. Baseline plasma and tissue biomarker samples were analyzed by using hybridcapture, next-generation sequencing to determine EML4-ALK variant. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced. Investigatorassessed PFS was prolonged with alectinib (stratified hazard ratio ¼ 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.58). The median PFS times were 34.8 months with alectinib and 10.9 months with crizotinib. EML4-ALK fusions were detectable in 129 patient plasma samples and 124 tissue samples; variants 1, 2, and 3/ab did not affect PFS, objective response rate, or duration of response. Investigator-assessed PFS was longer for alectinib than for crizotinib across EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3a/b in plasma and tissue. Despite longer treatment duration (27.0 months in the case of alectinib versus 10.8 months in the case of crizotinib), the safety of alectinib compared favorably with that of crizotinib. Conclusion: Alectinib continues to demonstrate superior investigator-assessed PFS versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive NSCLC, irrespective of EML4-ALK variant.

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Crizotinib was highly active at treating lung cancer in patients with a ROS1 rearrangement, suggesting that patients with lung adenocarcinomas should be tested for ROS1. Prospective clinical trials with crizotinib and other ROS1 inhibitors are ongoing or planned.