Katie Croegaert1, Jill M Kolesar2. 1. Katie Croegaert, Pharm.D., is Postgraduate Year 2 Oncology Pharmacy Resident, University of Wisconsin (UW) Hospital and Clinics, Madison. Jill M. Kolesar, Pharm.D., BCPS, FCCP, is Professor of Pharmacy, UW School of Pharmacy, and Director, 3P Analytical Laboratory, UW Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison. 2. Katie Croegaert, Pharm.D., is Postgraduate Year 2 Oncology Pharmacy Resident, University of Wisconsin (UW) Hospital and Clinics, Madison. Jill M. Kolesar, Pharm.D., BCPS, FCCP, is Professor of Pharmacy, UW School of Pharmacy, and Director, 3P Analytical Laboratory, UW Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison. jill.kolesar@wisc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Published data on the clinical efficacy, safety, dosage and administration, and costs of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors crizotinib and ceritinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are reviewed and compared. SUMMARY: The ALK protein functions as a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase; rearrangements of the ALK gene are associated with the development of NSCLC with adenocarcinoma histology. Crizotinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved in 2011 as a first-line therapy for patients with metastatic ALK mutation-driven NSCLC. Significantly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) have been reported with the use of crizotinib therapy versus standard chemotherapy, but mutations conferring resistance to treatment develop in most cases. The second-generation ALK inhibitor ceritinib was approved in 2014 for the treatment of ALK-mutated NSCLC in patients who are intolerant or develop resistance to crizotinib. In a clinical trial of ceritinib involving 130 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, the majority of whom had experienced disease progression during crizotinib use, patients receiving at least 400 mg of ceritinib daily had an overall response rate of 56% and median PFS of seven months. Adverse effects commonly reported with the use of either drug include visual disturbances, gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., diarrhea), and liver enzyme abnormalities. CONCLUSION: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors crizotinib and ceritinib provide an effective treatment approach for patients with ALK-mutated NSCLC. Efficacy data for both crizotinib and ceritinib indicate improved response rates and PFS with the use of either drug as an alternative to standard chemotherapy.
PURPOSE: Published data on the clinical efficacy, safety, dosage and administration, and costs of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors crizotinib and ceritinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are reviewed and compared. SUMMARY: The ALK protein functions as a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase; rearrangements of the ALK gene are associated with the development of NSCLC with adenocarcinoma histology. Crizotinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved in 2011 as a first-line therapy for patients with metastatic ALK mutation-driven NSCLC. Significantly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) have been reported with the use of crizotinib therapy versus standard chemotherapy, but mutations conferring resistance to treatment develop in most cases. The second-generation ALK inhibitor ceritinib was approved in 2014 for the treatment of ALK-mutated NSCLC in patients who are intolerant or develop resistance to crizotinib. In a clinical trial of ceritinib involving 130 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, the majority of whom had experienced disease progression during crizotinib use, patients receiving at least 400 mg of ceritinib daily had an overall response rate of 56% and median PFS of seven months. Adverse effects commonly reported with the use of either drug include visual disturbances, gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., diarrhea), and liver enzyme abnormalities. CONCLUSION: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors crizotinib and ceritinib provide an effective treatment approach for patients with ALK-mutated NSCLC. Efficacy data for both crizotinib and ceritinib indicate improved response rates and PFS with the use of either drug as an alternative to standard chemotherapy.