Comparison of lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib in ALK inhibitor–naive/untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Because of lacking of head-to-head comparison among lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib for patients with ALK inhibitor-naive or untreated (ALK inhibitor-naive and chemotherapy-naive) ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the optimal option for these patients still remains undefined. We searched published reports that described the activity and safety of those novel ALK inhibitors (lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib) for ALK inhibitor-naive or untreated (ALK inhibitor-naive and chemotherapy-naive) ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. Five randomized controlled trials were identified, covering 1111 subjects. In the network meta-analysis, lorlatinib seemed to prolong progression free survival than brigatinib (Hazard Ratio: 0.57, P = 0.03) and alectinib (Hazard ratio: 0.65, P = 0.05) for previously untreated patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC as assessed by the independent review committee. Meanwhile, lorlatinib significantly improved significant progression free survival than brigatinib (Hazard ratio: 0.57, P = 0.03) and alectinib (Hazard ratio: 0.59, P = 0.03) for ALK inhibitor-naive patients. Among lorlatinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and crizotinib, lorlatinib had the highest probability to reach the best overall confirmed response rates (probability of 48%) and intracranial confirmed response rates (probability of 44%). No significant difference was found among them in overall survival and adverse events analysis. In terms of progression free survival, our results indicated that lorlatinib was the best treatment choice for patients with ALK inhibitor-naive or untreated (ALK inhibitor-naive and chemotherapy-naive) ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. The future head-to-head trials assessing the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib were warranted.