Brigatinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK+ NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-up on Systemic and Intracranial Outcomes in the Phase 2 ALTA Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We report updated data from a phase 2 randomized study evaluating brigatinib in crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive NSCLC. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to take either oral brigatinib 90 mg once daily (arm A) or 180 mg once daily with a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (arm B), stratified by central nervous system (CNS) metastases and best response to crizotinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), intracranial PFS (iPFS), and overall survival (OS). Exploratory analyses included CNS versus ex-CNS target lesion response and correlation of depth of response with PFS and OS. RESULTS: Among 222 randomized patients (112 and 110 in arms A and B, respectively), 59 (27%) remained on brigatinib at analysis (median follow-up: 19.6 versus 24.3 months). At baseline, 71% and 67% had brain lesions among A and B arms, respectively. Investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate was 46% versus 56%. Median IRC-assessed PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval: 7.4-12.8) versus 16.7 months (11.6-21.4). Median OS was 29.5 months (18.2-not reached) versus 34.1 months (27.7-not reached). IRC-confirmed intracranial objective response rate in patients with measurable baseline brain lesions was 50% (13 of 26) versus 67% (12 of 18); median duration of intracranial response was 9.4 versus 16.6 months. IRC-assessed iPFS was 12.8 versus 18.4 months. Across arms, median IRC-assessed PFS was 1.9, 5.5, 11.1, 16.7, and 15.6 months for patients with no, 1%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, and 76%-100% target lesion shrinkage, respectively. No new safety findings were observed with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Brigatinib (180 mg once daily with lead-in) continues to demonstrate robust PFS, long iPFS and duration of intracranial response, and high intracranial objective response rate in crizotinib-refractory patients. Depth of response may be an important end point to capture in future targeted therapy trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".