Skip to content

A Clinical Trial Testing The Efficacy Of Crizotinib Versus Standard Chemotherapy Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin Or Carboplatin In Patients With ALK Positive Non Squamous Cancer Of The Lung

Phase 3, Randomized, Open-label Study Of The Efficacy And Safety Of Crizotinib Versus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Or Pemetrexed/Carboplatin In Previously Untreated Patients With Non-squamous Carcinoma Of The Lung Harboring A Translocation Or Inversion Event Involving The Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (Alk) Gene Locus.

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01154140
Acronym
PROFILE 1014
Enrollment
343
Registered
2010-06-30
Start date
2011-01-13
Completion date
2016-11-30
Last updated
2017-11-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Non Squamous Lung Cancer

Keywords

open label, randomized Phase 3, first line treatment, non squamous lung cancer, ALK translocation event positive

Brief summary

This study will evaluate the anti-cancer effects of crizotinib when compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with ALK positive lung cancer.

Interventions

DRUGtreatment

crizotinib 250mg orally continuous twice daily dosing

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Proven diagnosis of locally advanced not suitable for local treatment, recurrent and metastatic non-squamous cell carcinoma of the lung * Positive for translocation or inversion events involving the ALK gene locus * No prior systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic disease; Patients with brain metastases only if treated and neurologically stable with no ongoing requirement for corticosteroids * Evidence of a personally signed and dated informed consent document and willingness and ability to comply with scheduled visits, treatment plans, laboratory tests, and other study procedures including completion of patient reported outcome \[PRO\] measures. * 18 years of age or older with the exception of India which has an upper age limit of 65 years old

Exclusion criteria

* Current treatment on another therapeutic clinical trial. * Prior therapy directly targeting ALK. * Any of the following within the 3 months prior to starting study treatment: myocardial infarction, severe/unstable angina, coronary/peripheral artery bypass graft, congestive heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident including transient ischemic attack. - - Appropriate treatment with anticoagulants is permitted. * Ongoing cardiac dysrhythmias of NCI CTCAE Grade \>=2, uncontrolled atrial fibrillation of any grade, or QTc interval \>470 msec. * Pregnancy or breastfeeding. * Use of drugs or foods that are known potent CYP3A4 inducers/inhibitors Concurrent use of drugs that are CYP3A4 substrates with narrow therapeutic indices. * Known HIV infection * Known interstitial lung disease or interstitial fibrosis * Other severe acute or chronic medical conditions (including severe gastrointestinal conditions such as diarrhea or ulcer) or psychiatric conditions, or laboratory abnormalities that would impart, in the judgment of the investigator and/or sponsor, excess risk associated with study participation or study drug administration, and which would, therefore, make the patient inappropriate for entry into this study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on IRRRandomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization in study until the date of first documented objective tumor progression (according to RECIST v1.1 as determined by IRR) or death (due to any cause), whichever occurred first. PFS (in months) was calculated as (first event date - randomization date +1)/30.44. Objective progression was defined as a 20 percent (%) increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 millimeter (mm) or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Overall Survival Probability at Month 12 and 18Month 12, 18Overall survival probability at Month 12 and 18 was defined as the probability of overall survival at 12 and 18 months respectively, where the OS was defined as the duration from date of randomization to date of death due to any cause. The survival probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Objective Response Rate (ORR): Percentage of Participants With Objective Response as Assessed by IRRRandomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)ORR was defined as percentage of participants with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR was defined as greater than or equal to (\>=) 30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. The short axis was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.
Duration of Response (DR) Based on IRRFrom objective response to date of progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)DR: time from first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR) to first documentation of PD or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first as per RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. CR: complete disappearance of all target and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions, disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions. c) PD: 20 % increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.
Time to Tumor Response (TTR) Based on IRRRandomization to first documentation of objective tumor response (up to 35 months)TTR was defined as the time from randomization to first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR) according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. CR: complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.
Percentage of Participants With Disease Control at Week 12 Based on IRRWeek 12Disease control rate at week 12 is defined as the percent of participants with CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) at week 12 according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. The best response of SD would be assigned if SD criteria was met at least once after randomization at a minimum interval of 6 weeks. CR: complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease, with exception of nodal disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. SD: neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for PD, taking as reference the smallest sum diameters. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.
Time to Progression (TTP) Based on IRRRandomization to objective progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)TTP was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. Objective tumor progression was defined as 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. TTP (in months) was calculated as (first event date - randomization date +1)/30.44.
Time to Intracranial Progression (IC-TTP) Based on IRRRandomization to objective intracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)IC-TTP was defined similarly to TTP, but only considering intracranial disease (excluding extracranial disease) and the progression was determined based on either new brain metastases or progression of existing brain metastases. TTP was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. Objective tumor progression was defined as 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.
Time to Extracranial Progression (EC-TTP) Based on IRRRandomization to objective extracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)EC-TTP was defined similarly to TTP, but only considering extracranial disease (excluding intracranial disease) and the progression was determined based on either new extracranial lesions or progression of existing extracranial lesions. TTP was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. Objective tumor progression was defined as 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.
Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose of study drug that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. AEs included both SAEs and non-SAEs.
Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)Treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study drug in a participant who received study drug. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose of study drug that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pre-treatment state. Relatedness to study drug was assessed by the investigator.
Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityBaseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. AE was assessed according to maximum severity grading based on National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. Grade 1 =mild; Grade 2 =moderate; within normal limits, Grade 3 =severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; Grade 4 =life-threatening or disabling; urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5 =death.
Overall Survival (OS)From randomization to death or last date known alive for those not known to have died (up to 72 months)OS (in months) was defined as the duration from start of study treatment to date of death due to any cause. OS = (date of death minus the date of randomization of study medication plus 1) divided by 30.4. For participants who were alive, overall survival was censored on last date the participants were known to be alive.
Percentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion Variants28 days prior to day 1 of study treatmentThe Response Genetics, Inc. Echinoderm Microtubule Associated Protein Like 4 (EML4) ALK reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR) gene fusion test was used for the analysis of tissue samples for the ALK gene fusion variants (either no rearrangement, or 1 of 9 results reflecting 8 specific rearrangements \[V1, V2, V3a, V3b,V3a/b, V4, V5a, V6, V7\]). Percentage of participants who tested positive for ALK gene fusion variants were reported in this outcome measure.
Objective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRRandomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)The Response Genetics, Inc. EML4 ALK reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR) gene fusion test was used for the analysis of tissue samples for the ALK gene fusion variants (either no rearrangement, or 1 of 9 results reflecting 8 specific rearrangements \[V1, V2, V3a, V3b,V3a/b, V4, V5a, V6, V7\]). Percentage of participants with confirmed CR or PR according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR, by type of ALK gene fusion variant were reported in this outcome measure. CR: complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.
Time to Deterioration (TTD) in Chest Pain, Dyspnea or CoughFrom randomization of treatment up to deterioration while on study treatment (up to 35 months)TTD in pain in chest, dyspnea, or cough from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-LC13) was a composite endpoint defined as the time from randomization to the earliest time the participant's scale scores showed a 10 point or greater increase after baseline in any of the 3 symptoms. For those who had not shown deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when the participants completed an assessment (QLQ-LC13) for pain, dyspnea, or cough or at last visit date prior to crossover for participants randomized to chemotherapy who subsequently crossed over to crizotinib. A 10-point or higher change in the score was perceived by participants as clinically significant. The transformed score of pain, dyspnea, and cough symptom scales of EORTC QLQ-LC13 (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer) range from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate greater symptom severity.
Change From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)EORTC QLQ-C30: included 5 functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional and social), global health status/global quality of life scale, 3 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea and vomiting), 6 single items that assess the additional symptoms (dyspnea, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, constipation, diarrhea) and financial difficulties. All scales and single-item measures range from 0 to 100. A high score for a functional scale represents a high/healthy level of functioning, for the global health status/QoL represents a high QoL (better participant state), and for a symptom scale/item represents a high level of symptoms/problems (worse participant state).
Change From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)EORTC QLQ-C30: included 5 functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional and social), global health status/global quality of life scale, 3 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea and vomiting), 6 single items that assess the additional symptoms (dyspnea, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, constipation, diarrhea) and financial difficulties. All scales and single-item measures range from 0 to 100. A high score for a functional scale represents a high/healthy level of functioning, for the global health status/QoL represents a high QoL (better participant state), and for a symptom scale/item represents a high level of symptoms/problems (worse participant state).
Change From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)QLQ-LC13 consists of 1 multi-item scale and 9 single items that assess the specific symptoms (dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, and site-specific pain), side effects (sore mouth, dysphagia, neuropathy, and alopecia), and pain medication use of patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. All multi-item scales and single-item measures range from 0 to 100, where higher score indicates greater degree of symptom severity.
Change From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)- Visual Analog Scale (VAS)Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single index value. VAS component: participants rated their current health state on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state); higher scores indicate a better health.
Percentage of Participants With Hospital Admissions-Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU)Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)Healthcare resource utilization was to be evaluated using the assessment of the following: date and duration of index admission, duration of hospitalization and date of discharge.
Percentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesBaseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)Anemia(grade\[g\]1:Less than\[\<\] Lower limit of normal\[LLN\] to 10gram per\[/\] deciliter\[g/dL\],g2:\<10 to 8g/dL,g3:\<8g/dL,g4:lifethreatening);platelet (g1:\<LLN to 75\*10\^3/millimeter\[mm\]\^3,g2:\<75\*10\^3/mm\^3 to 50\*10\^3/mm\^3,g3:\<50\*10\^3/mm\^3 to 25\*10\^3/mm\^3,g4:\<25\*10\^3/mm\^3);lymphopenia(g1:\<LLN to 8\*10\^2/mm\^3,g2:\<8\*10\^2 to 5\*10\^2/mm\^3,g3:\<5\*10\^2 to 2\*10\^2/mm\^3,g4:\<2\*10\^2/mm\^3);neutrophil (Absolute)(g1:\<LLN to 15\*10\^2/mm\^3,g2:\<15\*10\^2 to 10\*10\^2/mm\^3,g3:\<10\*10\^2 to 5\*10\^2/mm\^3,g4:\<5\*10\^2/mm\^3);white blood cell count(g1:\<LLN to 3\*10\^3/mm\^3,g2:\<3\*10\^3 to 2\*10\^3/mm\^3,g3:\<2\*10\^3 to 1\*10\^3/mm\^3,g4:\<1\*10\^3/mm\^3);hemoglobin(g1:increase in hemoglobin level\>0 to 2 g/dL above ULN or above baseline if baseline is above ULN,g2:increase in hemoglobin level\>2 to 4g/dL above ULN or above baseline if baseline is above ULN,g3:increase in hemoglobin level\>4 g/dL above ULN or above baseline if baseline is above ULN). Only categories with atleast 1 participant with abnormality are reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesBaseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)ALT/AST (Grade\[g\]1:\>ULN-3\*ULN,g2:\>3-5\*ULN,g3:\>5-20\*ULN,g4:\>20\*ULN);Alkaline Phosphatase (g1:\>ULN-2.5\*ULN,g2:\>2.5-5\*ULN,g3:\>5-20\*ULN,g4:\>20\*ULN);Creatinine (g1:\>ULN-1.5\*ULN,g2:\>1.5-3\*ULN,g3:\>3-6\*ULN,g4:\>6\*ULN);hyperglycemia (g1:\>ULN-160,g2:\>160-250,g3:\>250-500,g4:\>500mg/dL);bilirubin(total) (g1:\>ULN-1.5\*ULN,g2:\>1.5-3\*ULN,g3:\>3-10\*ULN,g4:\>10\*ULN);hypoglycaemia (g1:\<LLN-55,g2:\<55-40,g3:\<40-30,g4:\<30mg/dL);hyperkalemia (g1:\>ULN-5.5,g2:\>5.5-6,g3:\>6-7,g4:\>7mmol/L);hypokalemia (g1:\<LLN-3,g2:\<LLN-3,g3:\<3-2.5,g4:\<2.5mmol/L);hypermagnesemia (g1:\>ULN-3,g3:\>3-8,g4:\>8mg/dL);hypocalcemia (g1:\<LLN-8,g2:\<8-7,g3:\<7-6,g4:\<6mg/dL); hypercalcemia (g1:\>ULN-11.5,g2:\>11.5-12.5,g3:\>12.5-13.5,g4:\>13.5mg/dL);hypomagnesemia (g1:\<LLN-1.2,g2:\<1.2-0.9,g3:\<0.9-0.7,g4:\<0.7mg/dL);hyponatremia (g1:\<LLN-130,g3:\<130-120,g4:\<120mmol/L);hypoalbuminemia (g1:\<LLN-3,g2:\<3-2,g3:\<2,g4:lifethreatening);hypophosphatemia (g1:\<LLN-2.5,g2:\<2.5-2,g3:\<2-1,g4:\<1mg/dL). Participant\>=1 abnormality given.
Plasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182Predose at Day 1 of Cycle 2, 3 and 5Ctrough is the concentration prior to study drug administration on Day 1 of Cycle 2 onwards. PF-06260182 is the metabolite of Crizotinib.

Countries

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

Participants with histologically or cytologically proven diagnosis of locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic non squamous non small cell lung cancer and tumors with measurable disease were enrolled. Participants were to be positive for translocation or inversion events involving the ALK gene locus as determined by an ALK break apart FISH test.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Crizotinib
Crizotinib 250 mg capsule, orally twice daily was administered in treatment cycle of 21 days. Participants could continue crizotinib treatment beyond the time of RECIST v1.1 defined PD, as determined by IRR, at the discretion of the investigator if the participant was perceived to be experiencing clinical benefit.
172
Chemotherapy
Standard doses of chemotherapy (pemetrexed/cisplatin or pemetrexed/carboplatin) were administered intravenously on Day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles. Pemetrexed 500 mg per meter square (m)\^2 IV infusion according to standard of care was administered over 10 min; either cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 IV infusion was administered approximately 30 min after the end of the pemetrexed infusion or carboplatin was administered at a dose calculated to produce an AUC of 5 or 6 mg\*min/mL, approximately 30 min after end of pemetrexed infusion.
171
Total343

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyDeath7181
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up45
Overall StudyOther31
Overall StudyRandomized but not treated12
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject1213

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicCrizotinibChemotherapyTotal
Age, Continuous50.94 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.9
52.89 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.1
51.92 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.6
Sex: Female, Male
Female
104 Participants108 Participants212 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
68 Participants63 Participants131 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
169 / 171164 / 169
serious
Total, serious adverse events
71 / 17149 / 169

Outcome results

Primary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on IRR

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization in study until the date of first documented objective tumor progression (according to RECIST v1.1 as determined by IRR) or death (due to any cause), whichever occurred first. PFS (in months) was calculated as (first event date - randomization date +1)/30.44. Objective progression was defined as a 20 percent (%) increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 millimeter (mm) or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.

Time frame: Randomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibProgression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on IRR10.9 months
ChemotherapyProgression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on IRR7.0 months
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.346, 0.596]Log Rank
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)

EORTC QLQ-C30: included 5 functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional and social), global health status/global quality of life scale, 3 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea and vomiting), 6 single items that assess the additional symptoms (dyspnea, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, constipation, diarrhea) and financial difficulties. All scales and single-item measures range from 0 to 100. A high score for a functional scale represents a high/healthy level of functioning, for the global health status/QoL represents a high QoL (better participant state), and for a symptom scale/item represents a high level of symptoms/problems (worse participant state).

Time frame: Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)

Population: The PRO evaluable population included all participants from the FA population who completed a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline PRO assessment prior to crossover to crizotinib or end of randomized study treatment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Global QoL5.9815 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Cognitive Functioning1.1836 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning8.7431 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning5.9370 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Role Functioning4.8122 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Social Functioning4.3790 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Role Functioning-10.7391 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Global QoL-7.8488 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning-4.4664 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Cognitive Functioning-2.1696 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Social Functioning-4.3851 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Functioning and Global Quality of Life (QOL) as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning1.2266 units on a scale
Comparison: QLQ-C30 Global QoL: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [10.74, 16.92]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.01795% CI: [0.6, 6.11]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 emotional functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [4.57, 10.46]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 physical functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [7.48, 13.32]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 role functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [11.29, 19.81]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 social functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [4.69, 12.84]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)- Visual Analog Scale (VAS)

EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single index value. VAS component: participants rated their current health state on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state); higher scores indicate a better health.

Time frame: Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)

Population: The patient reported outcome (PRO) evaluable population included all participants from the FA population who completed a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline PRO assessment prior to crossover to crizotinib or end of randomized study treatment. Here, N signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)- Visual Analog Scale (VAS)4.5323 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)- Visual Analog Scale (VAS)0.5415 units on a scale
Comparison: Analysis was based on a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose were included as random effects).p-value: 0.013995% CI: [0.81, 7.17]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)

QLQ-LC13 consists of 1 multi-item scale and 9 single items that assess the specific symptoms (dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, and site-specific pain), side effects (sore mouth, dysphagia, neuropathy, and alopecia), and pain medication use of patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. All multi-item scales and single-item measures range from 0 to 100, where higher score indicates greater degree of symptom severity.

Time frame: Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)

Population: The PRO evaluable population included all participants from the FA population who completed a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline PRO assessment prior to crossover to crizotinib or end of randomized study treatment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Alopecia-4.4879 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Coughing-16.4819 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia0.7618 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea-9.2029 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis-3.2197 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder-10.1693 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest-8.1437 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts-8.0757 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy3.1779 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth2.2472 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts-1.3040 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Alopecia0.3271 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder-4.1218 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Coughing-8.0893 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth4.3993 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia0.09660 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest-0.04790 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea-0.1948 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy-0.1742 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ- LC13)QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis-2.3369 units on a scale
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 alopecia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.010895% CI: [-8.52, -1.11]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 coughing: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-12.06, -4.72]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 dysphagia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.593895% CI: [-1.78, 3.11]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.96, -6.06]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.065695% CI: [-1.82, 0.06]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.000295% CI: [-9.22, -2.88]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 pain in chest: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.35, -4.84]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.000195% CI: [-10.24, -3.31]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.042795% CI: [0.11, 6.59]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-LC13 sore mouth: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.138295% CI: [-5, 0.69]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)

EORTC QLQ-C30: included 5 functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional and social), global health status/global quality of life scale, 3 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea and vomiting), 6 single items that assess the additional symptoms (dyspnea, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, constipation, diarrhea) and financial difficulties. All scales and single-item measures range from 0 to 100. A high score for a functional scale represents a high/healthy level of functioning, for the global health status/QoL represents a high QoL (better participant state), and for a symptom scale/item represents a high level of symptoms/problems (worse participant state).

Time frame: Baseline, From Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of study treatment or crossover to crizotinib arm (up to 35 months)

Population: The PRO evaluable population included all participants from the FA population who completed a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline PRO assessment prior to crossover to crizotinib or end of randomized study treatment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Constipation6.4858 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties-0.5984 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Dysponea-14.9019 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Insomnia-10.3095 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Diarrhea12.9558 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting3.7742 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Fatigue-7.3476 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Pain-11.0993 units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Appetite loss-5.4906 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Pain-1.1716 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Appetite loss8.0070 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Constipation10.9194 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Diarrhea0.4652 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Dysponea-1.4398 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Fatigue7.6511 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties0.2203 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Insomnia-0.2665 units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30)QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting7.2188 units on a scale
Comparison: QLQ-C30 appetite loss: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-18.03, -8.97]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 constipation: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.05795% CI: [-9, 0.13]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 diarrhea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [8.98, 16]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 dysponea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-17.2, -9.73]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 fatigue: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-18.52, -11.48]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 financial difficulties: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.668195% CI: [-4.56, 2.92]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 insomnia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-14.22, -5.87]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: 0.046895% CI: [-6.84, -0.05]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: QLQ-C30 pain: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-13.23, -6.62]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Duration of Response (DR) Based on IRR

DR: time from first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR) to first documentation of PD or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first as per RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. CR: complete disappearance of all target and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions, disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions. c) PD: 20 % increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.

Time frame: From objective response to date of progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization. Here Overall number of participants analyzed (N) signifies participants with objective tumor response and were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibDuration of Response (DR) Based on IRR49.0 weeks
ChemotherapyDuration of Response (DR) Based on IRR22.9 weeks
Secondary

Objective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRR

The Response Genetics, Inc. EML4 ALK reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR) gene fusion test was used for the analysis of tissue samples for the ALK gene fusion variants (either no rearrangement, or 1 of 9 results reflecting 8 specific rearrangements \[V1, V2, V3a, V3b,V3a/b, V4, V5a, V6, V7\]). Percentage of participants with confirmed CR or PR according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR, by type of ALK gene fusion variant were reported in this outcome measure. CR: complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.

Time frame: Randomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)

Population: The ALK variant evaluable population included participants from the FA population who had a result from ALK gene fusion variant testing of either no rearrangement, or 1 of 9 results reflecting 8 specific rearrangements (V1, V2, V3a, V3b, V3a/b, V4, V5a, V6, and V7). Here, n signifies participants who were evaluable at specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV2100 percentage of participants
CrizotinibObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV3a/b100 percentage of participants
CrizotinibObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV3a0.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRNo rearrangement71.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV184.2 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRNo rearrangement43.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV145.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV233.3 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV3a100 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyObjective Response Rate (ORR) of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Variant Groups Based on IRRV3a/b60.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Objective Response Rate (ORR): Percentage of Participants With Objective Response as Assessed by IRR

ORR was defined as percentage of participants with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR was defined as greater than or equal to (\>=) 30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. The short axis was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.

Time frame: Randomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibObjective Response Rate (ORR): Percentage of Participants With Objective Response as Assessed by IRR74.4 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyObjective Response Rate (ORR): Percentage of Participants With Objective Response as Assessed by IRR45.0 percentage of participants
Comparison: If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if the 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was (less than or equal to)\<= 0.0494.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [19.5, 39.3]Pearson chi-square test
Secondary

Overall Survival (OS)

OS (in months) was defined as the duration from start of study treatment to date of death due to any cause. OS = (date of death minus the date of randomization of study medication plus 1) divided by 30.4. For participants who were alive, overall survival was censored on last date the participants were known to be alive.

Time frame: From randomization to death or last date known alive for those not known to have died (up to 72 months)

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibOverall Survival (OS)NA months
ChemotherapyOverall Survival (OS)47.5 months
p-value: 0.048995% CI: [0.548, 1.053]Log Rank
Secondary

Overall Survival Probability at Month 12 and 18

Overall survival probability at Month 12 and 18 was defined as the probability of overall survival at 12 and 18 months respectively, where the OS was defined as the duration from date of randomization to date of death due to any cause. The survival probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Time frame: Month 12, 18

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibOverall Survival Probability at Month 12 and 18Month 1283.5 percent probability
CrizotinibOverall Survival Probability at Month 12 and 18Month 1871.5 percent probability
ChemotherapyOverall Survival Probability at Month 12 and 18Month 1278.4 percent probability
ChemotherapyOverall Survival Probability at Month 12 and 18Month 1866.6 percent probability
Secondary

Percentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion Variants

The Response Genetics, Inc. Echinoderm Microtubule Associated Protein Like 4 (EML4) ALK reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR) gene fusion test was used for the analysis of tissue samples for the ALK gene fusion variants (either no rearrangement, or 1 of 9 results reflecting 8 specific rearrangements \[V1, V2, V3a, V3b,V3a/b, V4, V5a, V6, V7\]). Percentage of participants who tested positive for ALK gene fusion variants were reported in this outcome measure.

Time frame: 28 days prior to day 1 of study treatment

Population: The ALK variant evaluable population included participants from the FA population who had a result from ALK gene fusion variant testing of either no rearrangement, or 1 of 9 results reflecting 8 specific rearrangements (V1, V2, V3a, V3b, V3a/b, V4, V5a, V6, and V7).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV27.1 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV3a/b4.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV3a1.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsNo rearrangement60.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV127.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsNo rearrangement59.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV125.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV27.7 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV3a1.3 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants For Each Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Gene Fusion VariantsV3a/b6.4 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum Severity

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. AE was assessed according to maximum severity grading based on National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. Grade 1 =mild; Grade 2 =moderate; within normal limits, Grade 3 =severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; Grade 4 =life-threatening or disabling; urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5 =death.

Time frame: Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)

Population: The safety analysis population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received during the first cycle.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 228.7 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 48.8 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 341.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 513.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 17.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 52.4 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 19.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 234.3 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 344.4 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) According to Maximum SeverityGrade 48.9 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Control at Week 12 Based on IRR

Disease control rate at week 12 is defined as the percent of participants with CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) at week 12 according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. The best response of SD would be assigned if SD criteria was met at least once after randomization at a minimum interval of 6 weeks. CR: complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease, with exception of nodal disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. SD: neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for PD, taking as reference the smallest sum diameters. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.

Time frame: Week 12

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Disease Control at Week 12 Based on IRR78.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Disease Control at Week 12 Based on IRR68.4 percentage of participants
Comparison: The confidence interval for the difference in percentage was based on normal distribution.p-value: 0.038195% CI: [0.8, 19.4]Pearson chi-square test
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Hospital Admissions-Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU)

Healthcare resource utilization was to be evaluated using the assessment of the following: date and duration of index admission, duration of hospitalization and date of discharge.

Time frame: Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)

Population: FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Hospital Admissions-Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU)40.12 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Hospital Admissions-Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU)36.26 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test Abnormalities

ALT/AST (Grade\[g\]1:\>ULN-3\*ULN,g2:\>3-5\*ULN,g3:\>5-20\*ULN,g4:\>20\*ULN);Alkaline Phosphatase (g1:\>ULN-2.5\*ULN,g2:\>2.5-5\*ULN,g3:\>5-20\*ULN,g4:\>20\*ULN);Creatinine (g1:\>ULN-1.5\*ULN,g2:\>1.5-3\*ULN,g3:\>3-6\*ULN,g4:\>6\*ULN);hyperglycemia (g1:\>ULN-160,g2:\>160-250,g3:\>250-500,g4:\>500mg/dL);bilirubin(total) (g1:\>ULN-1.5\*ULN,g2:\>1.5-3\*ULN,g3:\>3-10\*ULN,g4:\>10\*ULN);hypoglycaemia (g1:\<LLN-55,g2:\<55-40,g3:\<40-30,g4:\<30mg/dL);hyperkalemia (g1:\>ULN-5.5,g2:\>5.5-6,g3:\>6-7,g4:\>7mmol/L);hypokalemia (g1:\<LLN-3,g2:\<LLN-3,g3:\<3-2.5,g4:\<2.5mmol/L);hypermagnesemia (g1:\>ULN-3,g3:\>3-8,g4:\>8mg/dL);hypocalcemia (g1:\<LLN-8,g2:\<8-7,g3:\<7-6,g4:\<6mg/dL); hypercalcemia (g1:\>ULN-11.5,g2:\>11.5-12.5,g3:\>12.5-13.5,g4:\>13.5mg/dL);hypomagnesemia (g1:\<LLN-1.2,g2:\<1.2-0.9,g3:\<0.9-0.7,g4:\<0.7mg/dL);hyponatremia (g1:\<LLN-130,g3:\<130-120,g4:\<120mmol/L);hypoalbuminemia (g1:\<LLN-3,g2:\<3-2,g3:\<2,g4:lifethreatening);hypophosphatemia (g1:\<LLN-2.5,g2:\<2.5-2,g3:\<2-1,g4:\<1mg/dL). Participant\>=1 abnormality given.

Time frame: Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)

Population: Safety analysis population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received during the first cycle. Here, N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here, n=participants who were evaluable at specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypermagnesemia: Grade 117.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 157.9 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypermagnesemia: Grade 31.8 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesCreatinine: Grade 150.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypernatremia: Grade 121.1 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlkaline phosphatase: Grade 155.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypernatremia: Grade 20.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesCreatinine: Grade 247.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypernatremia: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 26.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoalbuminemia: Grade 135.1 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesCreatinine: Grade 31.2 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoalbuminemia: Grade 244.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 210.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoalbuminemia: Grade 31.2 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypercalcemia: Grade 10.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypocalcemia: Grade 139.8 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 37.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypocalcemia: Grade 238.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypercalcemia: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypocalcemia: Grade 32.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlkaline phosphatase: Grade 28.8 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoglycemia: Grade 119.9 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperglycemia: Grade 150.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoglycemia: Grade 24.7 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoglycemia: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperglycemia: Grade 215.8 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypokalemia: Grade 114.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 42.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypokalemia: Grade 32.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperglycemia: Grade 34.1 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypokalemia: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesBilirubin: Grade 110.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypomagnesemia: Grade 1 (n =170, 162)12.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 117.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypomagnesemia: Grade 20.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlkaline phosphatase: Grade 30.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyponatremia: Grade 125.7 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 25.8 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyponatremia: Grade 34.1 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesBilirubin: Grade 25.8 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyponatremia: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 32.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 15.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 312.3 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 227.2 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 313.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesBilirubin: Grade 30.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 41.2 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 164.3 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 134.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 27.3 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 31.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlanine aminotransferase: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlkaline phosphatase: Grade 133.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlkaline phosphatase: Grade 24.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAlkaline phosphatase: Grade 31.2 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 132.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 21.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 31.2 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesAspartate Aminotransferase: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesBilirubin: Grade 17.3 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesBilirubin: Grade 21.2 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesBilirubin: Grade 30.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesCreatinine: Grade 178.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesCreatinine: Grade 215.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesCreatinine: Grade 30.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypercalcemia: Grade 19.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypercalcemia: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperglycemia: Grade 142.4 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperglycemia: Grade 223.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperglycemia: Grade 33.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 112.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 23.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 31.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyperkalemia: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypermagnesemia: Grade 18.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypermagnesemia: Grade 30.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypernatremia: Grade 15.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypernatremia: Grade 20.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypernatremia: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoalbuminemia: Grade 122.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoalbuminemia: Grade 214.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoalbuminemia: Grade 30.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypocalcemia: Grade 124.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypocalcemia: Grade 24.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypocalcemia: Grade 30.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoglycemia: Grade 13.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoglycemia: Grade 21.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypoglycemia: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypokalemia: Grade 19.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypokalemia: Grade 33.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypokalemia: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypomagnesemia: Grade 1 (n =170, 162)26.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypomagnesemia: Grade 21.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyponatremia: Grade 122.4 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyponatremia: Grade 35.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHyponatremia: Grade 41.2 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 13.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 213.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Chemistry Test AbnormalitiesHypophosphatemia: Grade 36.8 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test Abnormalities

Anemia(grade\[g\]1:Less than\[\<\] Lower limit of normal\[LLN\] to 10gram per\[/\] deciliter\[g/dL\],g2:\<10 to 8g/dL,g3:\<8g/dL,g4:lifethreatening);platelet (g1:\<LLN to 75\*10\^3/millimeter\[mm\]\^3,g2:\<75\*10\^3/mm\^3 to 50\*10\^3/mm\^3,g3:\<50\*10\^3/mm\^3 to 25\*10\^3/mm\^3,g4:\<25\*10\^3/mm\^3);lymphopenia(g1:\<LLN to 8\*10\^2/mm\^3,g2:\<8\*10\^2 to 5\*10\^2/mm\^3,g3:\<5\*10\^2 to 2\*10\^2/mm\^3,g4:\<2\*10\^2/mm\^3);neutrophil (Absolute)(g1:\<LLN to 15\*10\^2/mm\^3,g2:\<15\*10\^2 to 10\*10\^2/mm\^3,g3:\<10\*10\^2 to 5\*10\^2/mm\^3,g4:\<5\*10\^2/mm\^3);white blood cell count(g1:\<LLN to 3\*10\^3/mm\^3,g2:\<3\*10\^3 to 2\*10\^3/mm\^3,g3:\<2\*10\^3 to 1\*10\^3/mm\^3,g4:\<1\*10\^3/mm\^3);hemoglobin(g1:increase in hemoglobin level\>0 to 2 g/dL above ULN or above baseline if baseline is above ULN,g2:increase in hemoglobin level\>2 to 4g/dL above ULN or above baseline if baseline is above ULN,g3:increase in hemoglobin level\>4 g/dL above ULN or above baseline if baseline is above ULN). Only categories with atleast 1 participant with abnormality are reported in this outcome measure.

Time frame: Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)

Population: Safety analysis population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received during the first cycle. Here, N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 220.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 134.1 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 314.1 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesAnemia: Grade 30.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 224.7 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 19.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesHemoglobin increased: Grade 20.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 22.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 310.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 30.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesAnemia: Grade 213.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 42.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 123.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphocyte count increased: Grade 23.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 222.9 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 120.6 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 32.9 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesHemoglobin increased: Grade 16.5 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 40.0 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesAnemia: Grade 147.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesAnemia: Grade 146.7 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesAnemia: Grade 227.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesAnemia: Grade 310.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesHemoglobin increased: Grade 13.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesHemoglobin increased: Grade 20.0 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphocyte count increased: Grade 21.2 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 126.1 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 233.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 313.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesLymphopenia: Grade 41.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 114.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 226.7 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 313.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesNeutrophils (Absolute): Grade 43.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 121.8 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 27.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 37.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesPlatelets: Grade 40.6 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 134.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 224.2 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities By Maximum Severity: National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.0) Grade 1 to 4 Hematological Test AbnormalitiesWhite blood cells: Grade 39.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose of study drug that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. AEs included both SAEs and non-SAEs.

Time frame: Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)

Population: The safety analysis population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received during the first cycle.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs99.4 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs41.5 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs99.4 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs29.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

Treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study drug in a participant who received study drug. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose of study drug that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pre-treatment state. Relatedness to study drug was assessed by the investigator.

Time frame: Baseline up to follow up period (up to 72 months)

Population: The safety analysis population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received during the first cycle.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs98.2 percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs12.9 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs92.3 percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs8.9 percentage of participants
Secondary

Plasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182

Ctrough is the concentration prior to study drug administration on Day 1 of Cycle 2 onwards. PF-06260182 is the metabolite of Crizotinib.

Time frame: Predose at Day 1 of Cycle 2, 3 and 5

Population: Pharmacokinetic concentration population included all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 plasma concentration of crizotinib or its metabolite.N=participants evaluable for this measure.Number of participants analyzed(n)=participants evaluable at specified time points.This analysis was performed in crizotinib arm only.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (GEOMETRIC_MEAN)Dispersion
CrizotinibPlasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182Crizotinib Ctrough: Cycle 2 Day 1324.2 nanogram per milliliterGeometric Coefficient of Variation 39
CrizotinibPlasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182Crizotinib Ctrough: Cycle 3 Day 1320.9 nanogram per milliliterGeometric Coefficient of Variation 40
CrizotinibPlasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182Crizotinib Ctrough: Cycle 5 Day 1308.2 nanogram per milliliterGeometric Coefficient of Variation 39
CrizotinibPlasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182PF-06260182 Ctrough: Cycle 2 Day 198.4 nanogram per milliliterGeometric Coefficient of Variation 46
CrizotinibPlasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182PF-06260182 Ctrough: Cycle 3 Day 199.0 nanogram per milliliterGeometric Coefficient of Variation 49
CrizotinibPlasma Predose Concentration (Ctrough) of Crizotinib and Its Metabolite PF-06260182PF-06260182 Ctrough: Cycle 5 Day 192.9 nanogram per milliliterGeometric Coefficient of Variation 55
Secondary

Time to Deterioration (TTD) in Chest Pain, Dyspnea or Cough

TTD in pain in chest, dyspnea, or cough from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-LC13) was a composite endpoint defined as the time from randomization to the earliest time the participant's scale scores showed a 10 point or greater increase after baseline in any of the 3 symptoms. For those who had not shown deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when the participants completed an assessment (QLQ-LC13) for pain, dyspnea, or cough or at last visit date prior to crossover for participants randomized to chemotherapy who subsequently crossed over to crizotinib. A 10-point or higher change in the score was perceived by participants as clinically significant. The transformed score of pain, dyspnea, and cough symptom scales of EORTC QLQ-LC13 (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer) range from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate greater symptom severity.

Time frame: From randomization of treatment up to deterioration while on study treatment (up to 35 months)

Population: The patient reported outcome (PRO) evaluable population included all participants from the FA population who completed a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline PRO assessment prior to crossover to crizotinib or end of randomized study treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibTime to Deterioration (TTD) in Chest Pain, Dyspnea or Cough2.1 months
ChemotherapyTime to Deterioration (TTD) in Chest Pain, Dyspnea or Cough0.5 months
Comparison: HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.p-value: 0.000295% CI: [0.452, 0.773]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Extracranial Progression (EC-TTP) Based on IRR

EC-TTP was defined similarly to TTP, but only considering extracranial disease (excluding intracranial disease) and the progression was determined based on either new extracranial lesions or progression of existing extracranial lesions. TTP was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. Objective tumor progression was defined as 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.

Time frame: Randomization to objective extracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)

Population: FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibTime to Extracranial Progression (EC-TTP) Based on IRR15.2 months
ChemotherapyTime to Extracranial Progression (EC-TTP) Based on IRR7.2 months
Comparison: Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.286, 0.524]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Intracranial Progression (IC-TTP) Based on IRR

IC-TTP was defined similarly to TTP, but only considering intracranial disease (excluding extracranial disease) and the progression was determined based on either new brain metastases or progression of existing brain metastases. TTP was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. Objective tumor progression was defined as 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions.

Time frame: Randomization to objective intracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibTime to Intracranial Progression (IC-TTP) Based on IRRNA months
ChemotherapyTime to Intracranial Progression (IC-TTP) Based on IRR17.8 months
Comparison: Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.p-value: 0.034795% CI: [0.338, 1.048]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Progression (TTP) Based on IRR

TTP was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. Objective tumor progression was defined as 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target measurable lesions taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm or clear progression of pre-existing non-target lesions, or the appearance of any new clear lesions. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. TTP (in months) was calculated as (first event date - randomization date +1)/30.44.

Time frame: Randomization to objective progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (up to 35 months)

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibTime to Progression (TTP) Based on IRR13.6 months
ChemotherapyTime to Progression (TTP) Based on IRR7.0 months
Comparison: Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.335, 0.582]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Tumor Response (TTR) Based on IRR

TTR was defined as the time from randomization to first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR) according to RECIST v1.1 determined by IRR. CR: complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease. All nodes, both target and non-target, must decrease to normal (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions and disappearance of all non-target lesions. PR: \>=30% decrease taking as reference the baseline sum of lesion dimensions. Short axis was used in sum for target nodes, while longest diameter was used in sum for all or target lesions. No clear progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.

Time frame: Randomization to first documentation of objective tumor response (up to 35 months)

Population: The FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization. Here N signifies participants with objective tumor response and were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibTime to Tumor Response (TTR) Based on IRR6.1 weeks
ChemotherapyTime to Tumor Response (TTR) Based on IRR12.1 weeks

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 27, 2026