Abstract
Various next-generation ALK TKIs are available as first-line options for ALK-positive NSCLC, with alectinib and lorlatinib being commonly preferred. However, no direct comparison between them has been conducted, making it impossible to pick a winner. We performed an analytic, 'non-comparative' assessment of the two phase 3 pivotal clinical trials showing superiority of alectinib (ALEX) and lorlatinib (CROWN) in comparison to crizotinib. Overall, the two studies were very similar in the study design and patient characteristics, with the exception of the selection and evaluation of brain metastases. PFS hazard ratios numerically favored lorlatinib, both according to the investigator and to BICR. Notably, the 3-year PFS rate was numerically higher with lorlatinib (64%) than with alectinib (46.4%). Despite similar response rates and overall intracranial response, the rate of complete intracranial response was higher with lorlatinib, with a cumulative incidence risk of CNS disease progression at 12 months of 9.4% with alectinib and 2.8% with lorlatinib. The peculiar toxicities of lorlatinib were related to lipidic profile alterations, peripheral oedema and cognitive effects, with no impact on cardiovascular risk nor impairment in quality of life versus crizotinib. Furthermore, the rate of permanent treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was numerically higher with alectinib (26%) than with lorlatinib (7%). In conclusion, despite the immature OS data for both drugs, the efficacy of lorlatinib appears higher than alectinib while maintaining a manageable toxicity profile.