Ceritinib, 450 mg with food, had similar exposure and a more favorable GI safety profile than ceritinib, 750 mg in fasted patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.

Purpose: MET-deregulated NSCLC represents an urgent clinical need because of unfavorable prognosis and lack of specific therapies. Although recent studies have suggested a potential role for crizotinib in patients harboring MET amplification or exon 14 mutations, no conclusive data are currently available. This study aimed at investigating activity of crizotinib in patients harboring MET or ROS1 alterations.Patients and Methods: Patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC and evidence of ROS1 rearrangements (cohort A) or MET deregulation (amplification, ratio MET/CEP7 >2.2 or MET exon 14 mutations, cohort B) were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily orally. The coprimary endpoint was objective response rate in the two cohorts.Results: From December 2014 to March 2017, 505 patients were screened and a total of 52 patients (26 patients per cohort) were enrolled onto the study. At data cutoff of September 2017, in cohort A, objective response rate was 65%, and median progression-free survival and overall survival were 22.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.2-30.3] and not reached, respectively. In cohort B, objective response rate was 27%, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95% CI 3.0-5.8), and overall survival was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-6.5). No difference in any clinical endpoint was observed between MET-amplified and exon 14-mutated patients. No response was observed among the 5 patients with cooccurrence of a second gene alteration. No unexpected toxicity was observed in both cohorts.Conclusions: Crizotinib induces response in a fraction of MET-deregulated NSCLC. Additional studies and innovative therapies are urgently needed.

Introduction: In an earlier report of the ASCEND-8 study (open-label, phase I, three-arm study, treatment-naive patients and pre-treated patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC), it was shown that ceritinib 450 mg with food had comparable exposure and better gastrointestinal tolerability than 750-mg fasted. Methods: Here, we report efficacy and updated safety data from primary efficacy analysis of the ASCEND-8 study. Key secondary endpoints were overall response rate and duration of response, assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Results: In total, 306 patients were randomized to ceritinib 450-mg fed (n ¼ 108) or 600-mg fed (n ¼ 87) or 750-mg fasted (n ¼ 111), of which 304 patients were included in safety analysis and 198 treatment-naive patients (ALK receptor tyrosine kinase [ALK]-positive by immunohistochemistry) were included in the efficacy analysis (450-mg fed [n ¼ 73], 600-mg fed [n ¼ 51], and 750-mg fasted [n ¼ 74]). The BIRC-assessed overall response rate was 78.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.9-86.9), 72.5% (95% CI: 58.3-84.1), and 75.7% (95% CI: 64.3-84.9), respectively; and the median duration of response (months) by BIRC was not estimable (NE) (95% CI: 11.2-NE), 20.7 (95% CI: 15.8-NE), and 15.4 (95% CI: 8.3-NE), respectively. Based on the safety analysis (n ¼ 304), the 450-mg fed arm showed the highest median relative dose intensity (100% versus 78.5% versus 83.7%), lowest proportion of patients with dose reductions (24.1% versus 65.1% versus 60.9%), and lowest proportion of patients with gastrointestinal toxicities (75.9% versus 82.6% versus 91.8%). Conclusion: Ceritinib at a dose of 450 mg with food compared to 750-mg fasted showed consistent efficacy and less gastrointestinal toxicity.

No abstract

New therapeutic options in non-small-cell lung cancer have been available through a great in-depth and genomic research, improving preclinical disease patterns and identifying the specific toxicity of target therapy. The multidisciplinary approach, increasingly practiced among clinicians, researchers, pharmaceutical companies and ethics committees has allowed the emergence of a new generation of translational clinical trials and the adoption of new technologies (e.g., point-of-care sequencing), then speeding up the development and trade of these new drugs. Consequently, there is a long list of therapeutic candidates that need to be efficiently evaluated early in the context of Phase I clinical trials. In this review, we discuss some of the key developments and novelties in the main histological groups.