Pharmacotherapeutic group: anti‑neoplastic agents, protein kinase inhibitors, ATC code: L01ED05
Mechanism of action
Lorlatinib is a selective, adenosine triphosphate (ATP)‑competitive inhibitor of ALK and c‑ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) tyrosine kinases.
In non‑clinical studies, lorlatinib inhibited catalytic activities of non‑mutated ALK and clinically relevant ALK mutant kinases in recombinant enzyme and cell‑based assays. Lorlatinib demonstrated marked antitumour activity in mice bearing tumour xenografts that express echinoderm microtubule‑associated protein‑like 4 (EML4) fusions with ALK variant 1 (v1), including ALK mutations L1196M, G1269A, G1202R, and I1171T. Two of these ALK mutants, G1202R and I1171T, are known to confer resistance to alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, and crizotinib. Lorlatinib was also capable of penetrating the blood‑brain barrier. Lorlatinib demonstrated activity in mice bearing orthotopic EML4‑ALK or EML4‑ALKL1196M brain tumour implants.
Clinical efficacy
Previously untreated ALK‑positive advanced NSCLC (CROWN Study)
The efficacy of lorlatinib for the treatment of patients with ALK‑positive NSCLC who had not received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease was established in an open‑label, randomised, active‑controlled, multicentre Study B7461006 (CROWN study). Patients were required to have ALK‑positive NSCLC as identified by the VENTANA ALK (D5F3) CDx assay. Neurologically stable patients with treated or untreated asymptomatic CNS metastases, including leptomeningeal metastases, were eligible. Patients were required to have finished stereotactic or partial brain irradiation at least 2 weeks or whole brain irradiation at least 4 weeks prior to randomisation. Patients with severe acute or chronic psychiatric conditions, including recent (within the past year) or active suicidal ideation or behaviour, were excluded.
Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive lorlatinib 100 mg orally once daily or crizotinib 250 mg orally twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by ethnic origin (Asian vs. non‑Asian) and the presence or absence of CNS metastases at baseline. Treatment on both arms was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The major efficacy outcome measure was progression‑free survival (PFS) as determined by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 (v1.1). Additional efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and tumour assessment related endpoints by BICR, including objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR) and time to intracranial progression (IC-TTP). In patients with measurable CNS metastases at baseline, additional outcome measures were intracranial objective response rate (IC-ORR) and intracranial duration of response (IC-DOR) by BICR.
A total of 296 patients were randomised to lorlatinib (n=149) or crizotinib (n=147). The demographic characteristics of the overall study population were median age 59 years (range: 26 to 90 years), age ≥65 years (35%), 59% female, 49% White, 44% Asian and 0.3% Black. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (95%) and never smoked (59%). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at baseline was 0 or 1 in 96% of patients. CNS metastases as determined by BICR neuroradiologists were present in 26% (n=78) of patients: of these, 30 patients had measurable CNS lesions.
Efficacy results from the CROWN study as assessed by BICR are summarised in Table 3 and Figure 1. Results demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS for the lorlatinib arm over the crizotinib arm. At the data cut-off point (20 March 2020), OS data were not mature.
| Table 3. Efficacy results in CROWN study (B7461006) |
| Efficacy Parameter | Lorlatinib N=149 | Crizotinib N=147 |
| Primary efficacy parameter | | |
| Duration of follow-up |
| Median, months (95% CI)a | 18 (16, 20) | 15 (13, 18) |
| Progression‑free survival |
| Number of events, n (%) | 41 (27.5%) | 86 (58.5%) |
| Progressive disease, n (%)§ | 32 (21.5%) | 82 (55.8%) |
| Death, n (%) | 9 (6.0%) | 4 (2.7%) |
| Median, months (95% CI)a | NE (NE, NE) | 9.3 (7.6, 11.1) |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI)b | 0.28 (0.19, 0.41) |
| p-value* | <0.0001 |
| Secondary efficacy parameters | |
| Overall survival | |
| Number of patients with event, n (%) | 23 (15%) | 28 (19%) |
| Median, months (95% CI)a | NE (NE, NE) | NE (NE, NE) |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI)b | 0.72 (0.41, 1.25) |
| Overall response rate |
| Overall response rate n (%) 95% CIc | 113 (75.8%) 68.2, 82.5 | 85 (57.8%) 49.4, 65.9 |
| p-value** | 0.0010 |
| Complete response | 4 (2.7%) | 0 (0%) |
| Partial response | 109 (73.2%) | 85 (57.8%) |
| Duration of response |
| Number of responders, n | 113 | 85 |
| Median, months (95% CI)a | NE (NE, NE) | 11 (9.0, 12.9) |
| Response duration ≥6 months, n (%) | 101 (89.4%) | 53 (62.4%) |
| Response duration ≥12 months, n (%) | 79 (69.9%) | 23 (27.1)% |
| Response duration ≥18 months, n (%) | 34 (30.1%) | 9 (10.6%) |
| Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; N=number of patients; NE=not estimable; PFS=progression‑free survival. * p‑value based on 2‑sided stratified log‑rank test. ** p‑value based on 2‑sided Cochran‑Mantel‑Haenszel test. § Results from the pre-specified sensitivity analysis that includes events after new anti-cancer treatment and after 2 or more missed assessments for the sensitivity analysis were consistent with the primary analysis of PFS by BICR. a Based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. b Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio <1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favour of lorlatinib. c Using exact method based on binomial distribution. |
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier plot of progression-free survival by blinded independent central review in CROWN study (B7461006)

The time to intracranial progression (IC-TTP) was longer with lorlatinib than with crizotinib (HR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.17). The median (95% CI) IC-TTP was not estimable in the lorlatinib arm and 16.6 months (11.1, NE) in the crizotinib arm.
The results of prespecified exploratory analyses of intracranial response rate in 30 patients with measurable CNS lesions at baseline and 78 patients with measurable or non-measurable CNS lesions at baseline as assessed by BICR are summarised in Table 4. No patients with measurable CNS lesions at baseline received prior brain radiation. For patients with non-measurable CNS lesions only at baseline 35.4% (17/48) received prior brain radiation within 6 months of randomisation.
| Table 4. Intracranial responses in patients with intracranial lesions at baseline in CROWN study (B7461006) |
| Intracranial Tumour Response Assessment | Lorlatinib | Crizotinib |
| Intracranial overall response in patients with measurable CNS lesions at baseline | N=17 | N=13 |
| Intracranial response rate n (%) (95% CI)a | 14 (82.4%) (56.6, 96.2) | 3 (23.1%) (5.0, 53.8) |
| Complete response, n (%) | 12 (70.6%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Partial response, n (%) | 2 (11.8%) | 2 (15.4%) |
| Duration of intracranial response |
| Median, months (95% CI)b | NE (NE, NE) | 10.2 (9.4, 11.1) |
| Response duration ≥12 months, n (%) | 11 (78.6%) | 0 |
| Intracranial overall response in patients with any measurable or non-measurable CNS lesions at baseline | N=38 | N=40 |
| Intracranial response rate n (%) (95% CI)a | 25 (65.8%) (48.6, 80.4) | 8 (20.0%) (9.1, 35.6) |
| Complete response, n (%) | 23 (60.5%) | 6 (15%) |
| Partial response, n (%) | 2 (5.3%) | 2 (5%) |
| Duration of intracranial response |
| Median, months (95% CI)b | NE (NE, NE) | 9.4 (6.0, 11.1) |
| Response duration ≥12 months, n (%) | 18 (72%) | 0 |
| Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; N/n=number of patients. a Using exact method based on binomial distribution. b Based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. |
Patient‑reported functioning, symptoms, and global quality of life (QoL) were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and its corresponding lung cancer module (EORTC QLQ-LC13) as well as the EuroQol 5 dimension 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Completion rates were 100% at baseline and remained ≥96% through cycle 18.
The proportion of patients with improved (≥10-point change from baseline) or stable EORTC QLQ-C30 global QoL was similar between the lorlatinib arm (41.8% and 39.7%, respectively) and crizotinib arm (42.6% and 38.2%, respectively). There were no clinically meaningful (≥10 points) differences between treatment arms in any EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning domain.
Time‑to‑Deterioration (TTD) in the prespecified composite endpoint of pain in chest, dyspnoea, and cough was not different between treatment arms [HR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.82–1.44;]. In both treatment arms, all 3 lung cancer symptoms improved from baseline with clinically meaningful improvements (≥10‑point difference) in cough as early as Cycle 2 and maintained through Cycle 18.
ALK-positive advanced NSCLC previously treated with an ALK kinase inhibitor
The use of lorlatinib in the treatment of ALK‑positive advanced NSCLC after treatment with at least one second‑generation ALK TKI was investigated in Study A, a single‑arm, multicentre Phase 1/2 study and in Study B, a single-arm, multicentre Phase 4 study. In Study A, a total of 139 patients with ALK‑positive advanced NSCLC after treatment with at least one second‑generation ALK TKI were enrolled in the Phase 2 portion of the study. In Study B, a total of 71 patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC after one prior ALK TKI treatment (alectinib or ceritinib) were enrolled. In both studies, patients received lorlatinib orally at the recommended dose of 100 mg once daily, continuously.
In Study A, the primary efficacy endpoint in the Phase 2 portion of the study was ORR, including intracranial (IC)‑ORR, as per Independent Central Review (ICR) according to modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (modified RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included DOR, IC‑DOR, time‑to‑tumour response (TTR), and PFS. In Study B, the primary efficacy endpoint was ORR, as per ICR according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included IC-ORR, DOR, IC-DOR, time-to-tumour response (TTR), time-to-tumour progression (TTP) and PFS.
Patient demographics of the 139 ALK‑positive advanced NSCLC patients after treatment with at least one second‑generation ALK TKI in Study A were 56% female, 48% White, 38% Asian, and the median age was 53 years (range: 29‑83 years) with 16% of patients ≥ 65 years of age. The ECOG performance status at baseline was 0 or 1 in 96% patients. Brain metastases were present at baseline in 67% of patients. Of the 139 patients, 20% received 1 prior ALK TKI, excluding crizotinib, 47% received 2 prior ALK TKIs, and 33% received 3 or more prior ALK TKIs.
Patient demographics of the 71 ALK-positive advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after treatment with one prior ALK TKI (alectinib or ceritinib) with or without chemotherapy in Study B were 42% female, 76% White, 21% Asian, and the median age was 59 years (range: 26-87 years) with 32% of patients ≥ 65 years of age. The ECOG performance status at baseline was 0 in 52% or 1 in 48% of patients. Brain metastases were present at baseline in 42% of patients. Of the 71 patients, 85% received alectinib and 15% received ceritinib as their prior ALK TKIs.
The main efficacy results for Study A and Study B are included in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5. Overall efficacy results in Study A and Study B by prior treatment
| Efficacy parameter | One prior ALK TKIa with or without prior chemotherapy (N = 99)b | Two or more prior ALK TKIs with or without prior chemotherapy (N = 111)c |
| Objective response rated (95% CI) Complete response, n Partial response, n | 42.4% (32.5, 52.8) 5 37 | 39.6% (30.5, 49.4) 2 42 |
| Duration of response Median, months (95% CI) | NE (7.8, NE) | 9.9 (5.7, 24.4) |
| Progression‑free survival Median, months (95% CI) | 8.3 (6.3, 16.5) | 6.9 (5.4, 9.5) |
| Abbreviations: ALK=anaplastic lymphoma kinase; CI=confidence interval; ICR=Independent Central Review; N/n=number of patients; NE=not estimable; TKI=tyrosine kinase inhibitor. a Alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib. b Pooled efficacy results from Study A and B c Efficacy results from Study A only d Per ICR. |
Table 6. Intracranial* efficacy results in Study A and Study B by prior treatment
| Efficacy parameter | One prior ALK TKIa with or without prior chemotherapy (N = 19)b | Two or more prior ALK TKIs with or without prior chemotherapy (N = 48)c |
| Objective response rated (95% CI) Complete response, n Partial response, n | 63.2% (38.4, 83.7) 4 8 | 52.1% (37.2, 66.7) 10 15 |
| Duration of intra‑cranial response Median, months (95% CI) | NE (4.2, NE) | 12.4 (6.0, NE) |
| Abbreviations: ALK=anaplastic lymphoma kinase; CI=confidence interval; ICR=Independent Central Review; N/n=number of patients; NE=not estimable; TKI= tyrosine kinase inhibitor. * In patients with at least one measurable brain metastasis at baseline. a Alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib. b Pooled efficacy results from Study A and B c Efficacy results from Study A only d Per ICR. |
In the overall efficacy population of 210 patients, 86 patients had a confirmed objective response by ICR with a median TTR of 1.4 months (range: 1.2 to 16.6 months). The ORR for Asians was 48.5% (95% CI: 36.2, 61.0) and 35.7% for non-Asians (95% CI: 27.4, 44.6). Among the 37 patients with a confirmed IC objective tumour response and at least one measurable brain metastasis at baseline by ICR, the median IC‑TTR was 1.4 months (range: 1.2 to 16.2 months). The IC-ORR was 58.3% for Asians (95% CI: 36.6, 77.9) and 47.2% for non-Asians (95% CI: 30.4, 64.5).
Paediatric population
The Licencing Authority has waived the obligation to submit the results of studies with lorlatinib in all subsets of the paediatric population in lung carcinoma (small cell and non‑small cell carcinoma) (see section 4.2 for information on paediatric use).