Progression-free survival with subsequent anticancer therapies from a phase 3 trial of lorlatinib in treatment-naive patients (pts) with <i>ALK</i>+ advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9069 Background: Lorlatinib, a brain-penetrant, third generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs crizotinib in a phase 3 study in pts with previously untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC (CROWN; NCT03052608). This study investigated the efficacy of treatments following progression on lorlatinib or crizotinib from the CROWN trial. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive oral lorlatinib 100 mg daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was PFS assessed per blinded independent central review, and secondary endpoints included time from randomization to the date of progression of disease on first subsequent systemic anticancer therapy or death (PFS2). Results: As of September 20, 2021, 91 of 149 patients (61.1%) vs 12 of 147 patients (8.2%) were still receiving lorlatinib vs crizotinib, respectively. In the lorlatinib arm, 33 of 149 patients (22.1%) received ≥1 subsequent systemic anticancer therapy vs 103 of 147 patients (70.1%) in the crizotinib arm. Among the patients who received subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, most patients in both treatment arms received ALK TKIs as first subsequent treatment: 63.6% and 93.2% in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms. Chemotherapy was administered as first subsequent therapy to 36.3% and 2.9% of the patients, respectively. Median duration of treatment on first subsequent anticancer therapy was 9.6 months (IQR, 2.9-18.1 months) for lorlatinib arm and 13.3 months (IQR, 4.8-21.2 months) for crizotinib arm. Median PFS2 was not reached (NR; 95% CI, NR-NR) in the lorlatinib arm and was 39.6 months (95% CI, 27.4-NR) in the crizotinib arm, with a hazard ratio for lorlatinib vs crizotinib of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.30-0.67). Conclusions: While subsequent anticancer therapies offered clinical benefit in both treatment arms, PFS2 results indicated that clinical benefit was prolonged with lorlatinib vs crizotinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03052608.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".