Abstract CT223: Updated efficacy and safety from the phase 3 CROWN study of first-line lorlatinib vs crizotinib in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and demonstrated intracranial (IC) activity in patients (pts) with untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC in the interim analysis of the randomized, Phase 3, CROWN study of lorlatinib vs crizotinib. We report updated 36-month follow-up data. Methods: 296 pts with previously untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to oral lorlatinib (100 mg QD; n=149) or crizotinib (250 mg BID; n=147), stratified by presence of CNS metastases (mets) and ethnicity. Primary endpoint: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, PFS by investigator, and objective response (OR), IC-OR, IC time to progression (IC-TTP), duration of response (DR), IC-DR (all by BICR), and safety. Results: At data cutoff (Sep 20, 2021), median duration of follow-up for PFS was 36.7 months for lorlatinib and 29.3 months for crizotinib. Median PFS by BICR was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) for lorlatinib and 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.1) for crizotinib (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39). PFS by investigator results were similar (Table). For pts with brain mets at baseline (n=37 lorlatinib/n=39 crizotinib), the HR for IC-TTP for lorlatinib vs crizotinib was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.04-0.27), and for pts without brain mets (n=112/n=108) was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.002-0.14). OR, IC-OR, DR, and IC-DR were all improved with lorlatinib vs crizotinib (Table). All-cause grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were reported in 76% and 7% of pts with lorlatinib and 57% and 10% of pts with crizotinib, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. Conclusions: These updated long-term data from CROWN confirm the efficacy of lorlatinib over crizotinib in pts with treatment-naïve ALK+ NSCLC, with no new safety signals detected, and support the use of lorlatinib in pts with untreated ALK+ NSCLC with and without brain mets. Summary of other efficacy resultsa Clinical trial information: NCT03052608 Funding: Pfizer Inc. ITT population Lorlatinib(n=149) Crizotinib(n=147) % alive without progression at:12 mo (95% CI) 78 (70–84) 38 (29–47) 24 68 (60–75) 22 (14–30) 36 64 (55–71) 19 (12–27) Median PFS by investigator, mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.1 (7.4–10.9) HR (95% CI) 0.19 (0.13–0.27) Confirmed OR, n (%) [95% CI] 115 (77) [70–84] 86 (59) [50–67] Median DR,b mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.6 (9.0–12.9) Patients with measurable or nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline (n=37) (n=39) Median PFS, mo (95% CI) NR (18.2–NR) 7.2 (3.7–9.2) HR (95% CI) 0.21 (0.10–0.44) Confirmed IC-OR, n (%) [95% CI] 24 (65) [48–80] 7 (18) [8–34] Complete response, n (%) 22 (60) 5 (13) Median IC-DR,b mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.4 (6.0–11.1) Patients without brain metastases at baseline (n=112) (n=108) Median PFS, mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 11.0 (9.0–14.6) HR (95% CI) 0.29 (0.19–0.44) aBy blinded independent central review unless stated otherwise. bIn patients with a confirmed complete or partial response. CI, confidence interval; DR, duration of response; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intention- to-treat; NR, not reached; IC, intracranial; OR, objective response; PFS, progression-free survival. Citation Format: Benjamin Solomon, Todd Bauer, Tony Mok, Geoffrey Liu, Julien Mazieres, Filippo de Marinis, Yasushi Goto, Dong-Wan Kim, Yi-Long Wu, Mikhail Dvorkin, Jacek Jassem, Froylán López-López, Ross Soo, Anna Polli, Elisa Dall'O, Laura Iadeluca, Francesca Toffalorio, Enriqueta Felip. Updated efficacy and safety from the phase 3 CROWN study of first-line lorlatinib vs crizotinib in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT223.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".