Skip to content

A Study Of Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy In Previously Untreated ALK Positive East Asian Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients

PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, OPEN-LABEL STUDY OF THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CRIZOTINIB VERSUS PEMETREXED/CISPLATIN OR PEMETREXED/CARBOPLATIN IN PREVIOUSLY UNTREATED EAST ASIAN 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
NCT01639001
Enrollment
207
Registered
2012-07-12
Start date
2012-09-29
Completion date
2020-01-08
Last updated
2020-12-08

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

Conditions

NSCLC (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer)

Keywords

Crizotinib, ALK positive, ALK, Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase, NSCLC, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Frontline, 1L, Previously Untreated, East Asian, Non-Squamous

Brief summary

This is a Phase III, Randomized, Open-label, Efficacy and Safety Study of Crizotinib single agent versus Chemotherapy Regimens (Pemetrexed/Cisplatin or Pemetrexed/Carboplatin) in First-Line ALK (Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase) Positive East Asian Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients. The objective of the study is to demonstrate that Crizotinib is superior to first-line chemotherapy pemetrexed/cisplatin or pemetrexed/carboplatin in prolonging Progression Free Survival (PFS) in East Asian patients with advanced Non-Squamous NSCLC whose tumors harbor a translocation or inversion event involving the ALK (Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase) gene locus.

Interventions

DRUGCrizotinib

250 mg two times daily \[BID\], oral, on a continuous daily dosing schedule. Cycles are defined in 21 day periods.

Option 1: Pemetrexed/Cisplatin; Pemetrexed, 500 mg/m\^2, will be administered by intravenous infusion over 10 minutes or according to institutional administration timing on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Cisplatin, 75 mg/m\^2 will be administered by infusion after adequate hydration according to institutional practices beginning approximately 30 minutes after the end of the pemetrexed infusion. Pemetrexed and cisplatin will be repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles.

Option 2: Pemetrexed/Carboplatin. Pemetrexed, 500 mg/m\^2, will be administered by intravenous infusion over 10 minutes or according to institutional administration timing on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Carboplatin, at a dose calculated to produce an AUC of 5 or 6 mg.min/mL will be administered by infusion according to institutional practices beginning approximately 30 minutes after the end of the pemetrexed infusion. Pemetrexed and carboplatin will be repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles.

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Histologically or cytologically 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 for at least 2 weeks and are not taking any medications contraindicated in

Exclusion criteria

* 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.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on IRR by Treatment ArmRandomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, assessed up to 33 months)PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression (by IRR) or death on study due to any cause, whichever occured first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. PFS (in months) was calculated as (first event date - randomization date +1)/30.44. Progression is defined using RECIST v1.1, as at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 millimeters) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Overall Survival (OS)From randomization to death or last date known as alive for those who were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent (assessed up to 64 months).OS was defined as the time from randomization to the date of death due to any cause. OS (in months) was calculated as (date of death - date of randomization +1)/30.44. For participants who were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent, the OS was censored on the last date that participants were known to be alive.
Percentage of Participants With Disease Control at 12 Weeks Based on IRRFrom randomization to Week 12Disease Control Rate (DCR) at 12 weeks is defined as the percent of participants with CR, PR or stable disease (SD) at 12 weeks according to RECIST version 1.1 as determined by the IRR. The best response of SD can be assigned if SD criteria were met at least once after randomization at a minimum interval of 6 weeks. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease, with the 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 was defined as \>=30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target lesions. 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 unequivocal progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.
Estimate of the Percentage of Participants Surviving at 1 Year and at 18 MonthsFrom randomization to 1 year and from randomization to 18 monthsProbability of survival 1 year and 18 month after randomization. The probability of survival at 1 year was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method and a 2-sided 95% CI for the log \[-log(1-year survival probability)\] was calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival probability itself. The probability of survival at 18 months was estimated similarly.
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 (whichever occurred first, up to 33 months)DR was defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR), as determined by the IRR, to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. DR (in weeks) was calculated as (first date of PD or death - first date of CR or PR +1)/7. DR was only calculated for the subgroup of participants with an objective tumor response.
Time to Tumor Response (TTR) Based on IRRRandomization to first documentation of objective tumor response (up to 33 months).TTR was defined as the time from randomization to first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR) as determined by the IRR. For participants proceeding from PR to CR, the onset of PR was taken as the onset of response. TTR was calculated for the subgroup of participants with objective tumor response.
Time to Progression (TTP) Based on IRRRandomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, up to 33 months)TTP was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression, as determined by IRR. 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.
Intracranial Time to Progression (IC-TTP) Based on IRRRandomization to objective intracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, up to 33 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.
Extracranial Time to Progression (EC-TTP) Based on IRRRandomization to objective extracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, up to 33 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.
Time to Deterioration (TTD) in Participant Reported Pain, Dyspnea, or Cough Assessed Using Quality of Life Questionnaire Supplement Module for Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13)From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)The QLQ-LC13 consisted of 1 multi-item scale and 9 single items that assessed the specific symptoms (dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, and site specific pain), side effects (sore mouth, dysphagia, neuropathy, and alopecia), and pain medication use of lung cancer participants receiving chemotherapy. The QLQ-LC13 Coughing, Dyspnoea and Pain in chest each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a high level of symptomatology/problems. TTD in pain in chest, dyspnea, or cough from the 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.
Objective Response Rate (ORR) - Percentage of Participants With Objective Response Based on IRRRandomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (assessed up to 33 months)Percentage of participants with objective response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to RECIST version 1.1. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease, with the 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 was defined as \>=30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target lesions. 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 unequivocal progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.
Change From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)EORTC QLQ-C30: included functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), global health status, symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea/vomiting) and single items (dyspnoea, appetite loss, insomnia, constipation/diarrhea and financial difficulties). The QLQ-C30 Appetite loss, Constipation, Diarrhea, Dyspnea, Fatigue, Financial difficulties, Insomnia, Nausea/vomiting, and Pain each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a high level of symptomatology/problems.
Change From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)The QLQ-LC13 consisted of 1 multi-item scale and 9 single items that assessed the specific symptoms (dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, and site specific pain), side effects (sore mouth, dysphagia, neuropathy, and alopecia), and pain medication use of lung cancer participants receiving chemotherapy. The QLQ-LC13 Alopecia, Coughing, Dysphagia, Dyspnoea, Haemoptysis, Pain in arm or shoulder, Pain in chest, Pain in other parts, Peripheral neuropathy, and Sore mouth each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a high level of symptomatology/problems.
Change From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)-Visual Analog Scale (VAS)From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a visual analog scale (VAS). The VAS component rates current health state on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state); higher scores indicate a better health state.
Change From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EQ-5D-IndexFrom Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a visual analog scale (VAS). EQ-5D summary index is obtained with a formula that weights each level of the 5 dimensions. The index-based score is interpreted along a continuum of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health).
Percentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 1 Day 1 to end of treatment or withdrawal, no later than 4 weeks (+/- 1 week) from last dose of study medication or when the decision was taken to withdraw from the study (whichever was sooner, assessed up to Cycle 86)VSAQ-ALK is a self-report measure that was developed to assess the problems of visual disturbances and symptoms may include the appearance of overlapping shadows and after images; shimmering, flashing or trailing lights; strings, streamers, or floaters; as well as hazy or blurry vision. The participants answered Yes to the first question (Q1) of VSAQ-ALK Have you experienced any visual disturbances? were considered to have experienced visual disturbance and were instructed to complete the rest of the questionnaire. The percentage of participants who responded to Q1 of VSAQ-ALK as Yes and as No during each study cycle was calculated as (n/N\*)\*100 where N\* was the number of participants who had completed Q1.
Agreement Between Central Laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC Test Results - Molecular Profiling EvaluableDuring the screening (less than or equal to 28 days prior to dosing)Agreement between central laboratory anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) test results is based on analysis of participants in the Molecular Profiling (MP) evaluable population that have an ALK IHC result and an ALK FISH result of either positive or negative only. This MP evaluable population included participants who screen failed, which their ALK test results were negative based on FISH test. Tumor tissue samples from these screen failure participants were consented and kept. These samples served as a part of negative sample set for evaluation of IHC test and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to determine ALK fusion events. Participants with FISH results of uninformative and assay not performed and IHC results of valid IHC status not available were excluded from the analysis of agreement between central laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC test results.
Percentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)From the first dose of study medication up to 28 days after the last dose of study medication or up to the time that a participant died or received subsequent anticancer treatment (maximum duration between first and last dose: 324.4 weeks)An AE was an untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study treatment without regard to possibility of causal relationship. Serious adverse event (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes: death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. Grade 3 and 4 AEs in below table indicated severe AE and life-threatening consequences respectively; Grade 5 indicated death due to AE.
Percentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)From the first dose of study medication up to 28 days after the last dose of study medication or up to the time that a participant died or received subsequent anticancer treatment (maximum duration between first and last dose: 324.4 weeks)An AE was an untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study treatment without regard to possibility of causal relationship. Serious adverse event (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes: death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. Grade 3 and 4 AEs in below table indicated severe AE and life-threatening consequences respectively; Grade 5 indicated death due to AE.
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)From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)EORTC QLQ-C30: included functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), global health status, symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea/vomiting) and single items (dyspnoea, appetite loss, insomnia, constipation/diarrhea and financial difficulties). The QLQ-C30 Global QOL, Physical Functioning, Role Functioning, Cognitive Functioning, Emotional Functioning, and Social Functioning each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better level of functioning or better quality of life.

Countries

China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand

Participant flow

Recruitment details

This phase 3, randomized, open label, multicenter study conducted in 35 centers in 5 countries. A total of 207 actual participants were randomized, 104 in the crizotinib arm and 103 in the chemotherapy (pemetrexed/cisplatin or pemetrexed/carboplatin) arm.

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 capsules, 250 mg twice daily (BID), were administered orally at approximately the same time each day on a continuous daily dosing schedule. Each treatment cycle was defined as 21 days. Participants could continue crizotinib treatment beyond the time of RECIST defined Progressive Disease (PD), as determined by independent radiology review (IRR), at the discretion of the investigator if the participant was perceived to be experiencing clinical benefit. The maximum duration of crizotinib treatment was 324.4 weeks.
104
Chemotherapy
Standard doses of chemotherapy were administered by intravenous (IV) infusion every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. Pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) was administered over 10 minutes or according to institutional administration timing; cisplatin (75 mg/m2) was administered after adequate hydration beginning approximately 30 minutes after the end of the pemetrexed infusion and carboplatin was administered on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle at a dose calculated to produce an area under the concentration time curve \[AUC\] of 5 or 6 mg\*min/mL, beginning approximately 30 minutes after end of pemetrexed infusion. The maximum duration of chemotherapy treatment was 24.1 weeks.
103
Total207

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyDeath6261
Overall StudyLong-term follow-up participants who did not respond to the contact from their study sites.12
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up30
Overall StudyRandomized but not treated02
Overall StudyRefused further follow-up912

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicCrizotinibChemotherapyTotal
Age, Continuous48.2 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.6
48.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.2
48.5 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.9
Sex: Female, Male
Female
54 Participants60 Participants114 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
50 Participants43 Participants93 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
62 / 10461 / 101
other
Total, other adverse events
103 / 104100 / 101
serious
Total, serious adverse events
46 / 10413 / 101

Outcome results

Primary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on IRR by Treatment Arm

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression (by IRR) or death on study due to any cause, whichever occured first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. PFS (in months) was calculated as (first event date - randomization date +1)/30.44. Progression is defined using RECIST v1.1, as at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 millimeters) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions.

Time frame: Randomization to objective progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, assessed up to 33 months)

Population: The Full Analysis (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 IRR by Treatment Arm11.1 Months
ChemotherapyProgression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on IRR by Treatment Arm6.8 Months
Comparison: The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \< 1.0, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Crizotinib/Chemotherapy). Evaluation of 160 PFS events in the 2 arms using a 1-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 level of significance was required to detect a HR of 0.64 with 80% power.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.286, 0.565]1 sided stratified log-rank
Secondary

Agreement Between Central Laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC Test Results - Molecular Profiling Evaluable

Agreement between central laboratory anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) test results is based on analysis of participants in the Molecular Profiling (MP) evaluable population that have an ALK IHC result and an ALK FISH result of either positive or negative only. This MP evaluable population included participants who screen failed, which their ALK test results were negative based on FISH test. Tumor tissue samples from these screen failure participants were consented and kept. These samples served as a part of negative sample set for evaluation of IHC test and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to determine ALK fusion events. Participants with FISH results of uninformative and assay not performed and IHC results of valid IHC status not available were excluded from the analysis of agreement between central laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC test results.

Time frame: During the screening (less than or equal to 28 days prior to dosing)

Population: The MP evaluable population included 812 participants, of which there were 771 participants that had a test result (positive or negative) from both the FISH test and the IHC test.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
CrizotinibAgreement Between Central Laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC Test Results - Molecular Profiling EvaluableParticipants with Positive ALK IHC Status218 Participants
CrizotinibAgreement Between Central Laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC Test Results - Molecular Profiling EvaluableParticipants with Negative ALK IHC Status20 Participants
ChemotherapyAgreement Between Central Laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC Test Results - Molecular Profiling EvaluableParticipants with Positive ALK IHC Status31 Participants
ChemotherapyAgreement Between Central Laboratory ALK FISH and ALK IHC Test Results - Molecular Profiling EvaluableParticipants with Negative ALK IHC Status502 Participants
95% CI: [0.914, 0.949]
95% CI: [0.8065, 0.8875]
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 functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), global health status, symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea/vomiting) and single items (dyspnoea, appetite loss, insomnia, constipation/diarrhea and financial difficulties). The QLQ-C30 Global QOL, Physical Functioning, Role Functioning, Cognitive Functioning, Emotional Functioning, and Social Functioning each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better level of functioning or better quality of life.

Time frame: From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)

Population: Participants from the safety analysis population who completed a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline PRO assessment.

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 QoL5.0891 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 Functioning-1.1896 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 Functioning3.7077 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 Functioning3.7705 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 Functioning1.0538 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 Functioning0.8712 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-5.7570 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-2.3619 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-2.9562 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-4.8026 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-4.7228 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 Functioning2.0557 Units on a scale
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [3.79, 11.11]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.01495% CI: [0.73, 6.49]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.242795% CI: [-1.12, 4.42]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [4.15, 9.3]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.000395% CI: [3.15, 10.47]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.01495% CI: [1.13, 10.06]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EQ-5D-Index

EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a visual analog scale (VAS). EQ-5D summary index is obtained with a formula that weights each level of the 5 dimensions. The index-based score is interpreted along a continuum of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health).

Time frame: From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)

Population: Participants from the safety analysis population who completed a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline PRO assessment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EQ-5D-Index0.0502 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EQ-5D-Index0.0077 Units on a scale
Comparison: From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D Index score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.03295% CI: [0, 0.08]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

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

EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a visual analog scale (VAS). The VAS component rates current health state on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state); higher scores indicate a better health state.

Time frame: From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)

Population: Participants from the safety analysis population who completed a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline PRO assessment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)-Visual Analog Scale (VAS)3.4209 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in General Health Status as Assessed by EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)-Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-0.4927 Units on a scale
Comparison: From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.012395% CI: [0.85, 6.98]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)

The QLQ-LC13 consisted of 1 multi-item scale and 9 single items that assessed the specific symptoms (dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, and site specific pain), side effects (sore mouth, dysphagia, neuropathy, and alopecia), and pain medication use of lung cancer participants receiving chemotherapy. The QLQ-LC13 Alopecia, Coughing, Dysphagia, Dyspnoea, Haemoptysis, Pain in arm or shoulder, Pain in chest, Pain in other parts, Peripheral neuropathy, and Sore mouth each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a high level of symptomatology/problems.

Time frame: From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)

Population: Participants from the safety analysis population who completed a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline PRO assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Alopecia-2.0837 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Coughing-17.2704 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia0.5354 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea-9.0842 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis-4.3017 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder-6.8289 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest-8.3565 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts-4.8475 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy0.1787 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth1.5134 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts-0.2573 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Alopecia2.7710 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder-2.5927 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Coughing-10.2748 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth3.9114 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia1.0535 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest-4.1328 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea-0.4371 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy1.8519 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline in Lung Cancer Symptom Scores as Assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13)QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis-3.0513 Units on a scale
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.003995% CI: [-8.15, -1.56]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 coughing. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.000495% CI: [-10.85, -3.14]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.708295% CI: [-3.23, 2.2]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.85, -5.44]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.128495% CI: [-2.86, 0.36]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.026595% CI: [-7.98, -0.49]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in chest. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.018595% CI: [-7.74, -0.71]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.007595% CI: [-7.95, -1.23]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.284895% CI: [-4.74, 1.39]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 sore mouth. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.029695% CI: [-4.56, -0.24]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30

EORTC QLQ-C30: included functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), global health status, symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea/vomiting) and single items (dyspnoea, appetite loss, insomnia, constipation/diarrhea and financial difficulties). The QLQ-C30 Appetite loss, Constipation, Diarrhea, Dyspnea, Fatigue, Financial difficulties, Insomnia, Nausea/vomiting, and Pain each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a high level of symptomatology/problems.

Time frame: From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)

Population: Participants from the safety analysis population who completed a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline PRO assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Constipation7.1367 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties-3.2339 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Dyspnea-7.9353 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Insomnia-8.3816 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Diarrhea15.3294 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting4.0796 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Fatigue-3.8888 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Pain-9.1305 Units on a scale
CrizotinibChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Appetite loss-1.5967 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Pain-0.6956 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Appetite loss4.4465 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Constipation2.6341 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Diarrhea-0.4791 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Dyspnea-0.1903 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Fatigue2.6028 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties0.3826 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Insomnia-1.6060 Units on a scale
ChemotherapyChange From Baseline Scores in QLQ-C30 Symptoms as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-C30QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting6.5986 Units on a scale
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 appetite loss. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.001695% CI: [-9.79, -2.3]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 constipation. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.026395% CI: [0.53, 8.47]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [12.94, 18.68]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 dyspnea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.3, -4.19]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [-9.82, -3.17]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 financial difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.209995% CI: [-9.27, 2.04]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.000495% CI: [-10.49, -3.06]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: 0.090295% CI: [-5.43, 0.4]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 pain. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.42, -5.45]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Duration of Response (DR) Based on IRR

DR was defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR), as determined by the IRR, to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. DR (in weeks) was calculated as (first date of PD or death - first date of CR or PR +1)/7. DR was only calculated for the subgroup of participants with an objective tumor response.

Time frame: From objective response to date of progression, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, up to 33 months)

Population: FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization. N = Participants with objective tumor response by IRR.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibDuration of Response (DR) Based on IRR44.4 Weeks
ChemotherapyDuration of Response (DR) Based on IRR18.1 Weeks
Secondary

Estimate of the Percentage of Participants Surviving at 1 Year and at 18 Months

Probability of survival 1 year and 18 month after randomization. The probability of survival at 1 year was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method and a 2-sided 95% CI for the log \[-log(1-year survival probability)\] was calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival probability itself. The probability of survival at 18 months was estimated similarly.

Time frame: From randomization to 1 year and from randomization to 18 months

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibEstimate of the Percentage of Participants Surviving at 1 Year and at 18 MonthsUp to 1 year79.3 Percentage of paricipants
CrizotinibEstimate of the Percentage of Participants Surviving at 1 Year and at 18 MonthsUp to 18 months71.2 Percentage of paricipants
ChemotherapyEstimate of the Percentage of Participants Surviving at 1 Year and at 18 MonthsUp to 1 year79.5 Percentage of paricipants
ChemotherapyEstimate of the Percentage of Participants Surviving at 1 Year and at 18 MonthsUp to 18 months72.1 Percentage of paricipants
Secondary

Extracranial Time to 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.

Time frame: Randomization to objective extracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, up to 33 months)

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

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibExtracranial Time to Progression (EC-TTP) Based on IRR18.0 Months
ChemotherapyExtracranial Time to Progression (EC-TTP) Based on IRR7.0 Months
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.186, 0.412]1 sided unstratified log-rank
Secondary

Intracranial Time to 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.

Time frame: Randomization to objective intracranial progression or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, up to 33 months)

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

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibIntracranial Time to Progression (IC-TTP) Based on IRRNA Months
ChemotherapyIntracranial Time to Progression (IC-TTP) Based on IRR16.0 Months
p-value: 0.12795% CI: [0.335, 1.338]1 sided unstratified log-rank
Secondary

Objective Response Rate (ORR) - Percentage of Participants With Objective Response Based on IRR

Percentage of participants with objective response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to RECIST version 1.1. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease, with the 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 was defined as \>=30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target lesions. 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 unequivocal 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 (assessed up to 33 months)

Population: 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 Based on IRR87.5 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyObjective Response Rate (ORR) - Percentage of Participants With Objective Response Based on IRR45.6 Percentage of participants
Comparison: The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [30.34, 53.398]2-sided pearson chi-square test
Secondary

Overall Survival (OS)

OS was defined as the time from randomization to the date of death due to any cause. OS (in months) was calculated as (date of death - date of randomization +1)/30.44. For participants who were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent, the OS was censored on the last date that participants were known to be alive.

Time frame: From randomization to death or last date known as alive for those who were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent (assessed up to 64 months).

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

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibOverall Survival (OS)33.7 Months
ChemotherapyOverall Survival (OS)32.9 Months
p-value: 0.617295% CI: [0.734, 1.521]1 sided stratified log-rank
Secondary

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

Disease Control Rate (DCR) at 12 weeks is defined as the percent of participants with CR, PR or stable disease (SD) at 12 weeks according to RECIST version 1.1 as determined by the IRR. The best response of SD can be assigned if SD criteria were met at least once after randomization at a minimum interval of 6 weeks. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions and non-target disease, with the 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 was defined as \>=30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target lesions. 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 unequivocal progression of non-target disease. No new lesions.

Time frame: From randomization to Week 12

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 Disease Control at 12 Weeks Based on IRR82.7 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Disease Control at 12 Weeks Based on IRR73.8 Percentage of participants
Comparison: The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.p-value: 0.120495% CI: [-2.275, 20.086]2-sided pearson chi-square test
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)

An AE was an untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study treatment without regard to possibility of causal relationship. Serious adverse event (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes: death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. Grade 3 and 4 AEs in below table indicated severe AE and life-threatening consequences respectively; Grade 5 indicated death due to AE.

Time frame: From the first dose of study medication up to 28 days after the last dose of study medication or up to the time that a participant died or received subsequent anticancer treatment (maximum duration between first and last dose: 324.4 weeks)

Population: All randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)Grade 3/4 AEs58.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs associated with permanent discontinuation26.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)SAEs44.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs associated with dose reduction14.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)Grade 5 AEs22.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs associated with temporary discontinuation39.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs99.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs associated with temporary discontinuation37.6 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs99.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)SAEs12.9 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)Grade 3/4 AEs52.5 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)Grade 5 AEs2.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs associated with permanent discontinuation4.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs; All Causalities)AEs associated with dose reduction7.9 Percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)

An AE was an untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study treatment without regard to possibility of causal relationship. Serious adverse event (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes: death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. Grade 3 and 4 AEs in below table indicated severe AE and life-threatening consequences respectively; Grade 5 indicated death due to AE.

Time frame: From the first dose of study medication up to 28 days after the last dose of study medication or up to the time that a participant died or received subsequent anticancer treatment (maximum duration between first and last dose: 324.4 weeks)

Population: All randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)Grade 3/4 AEs43.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs associated with permanent discontinuation5.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)Serious AEs8.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs associated with dose reduction13.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)Grade 5 AEs1.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs associated with temporary discontinuation28.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs98.1 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs associated with temporary discontinuation31.7 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs96.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)Serious AEs3.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)Grade 3/4 AEs40.6 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)Grade 5 AEs0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs associated with permanent discontinuation1.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent AEs (Treatment Related)AEs associated with dose reduction7.9 Percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)

VSAQ-ALK is a self-report measure that was developed to assess the problems of visual disturbances and symptoms may include the appearance of overlapping shadows and after images; shimmering, flashing or trailing lights; strings, streamers, or floaters; as well as hazy or blurry vision. The participants answered Yes to the first question (Q1) of VSAQ-ALK Have you experienced any visual disturbances? were considered to have experienced visual disturbance and were instructed to complete the rest of the questionnaire. The percentage of participants who responded to Q1 of VSAQ-ALK as Yes and as No during each study cycle was calculated as (n/N\*)\*100 where N\* was the number of participants who had completed Q1.

Time frame: Cycle 1 Day 1 to end of treatment or withdrawal, no later than 4 weeks (+/- 1 week) from last dose of study medication or when the decision was taken to withdraw from the study (whichever was sooner, assessed up to Cycle 86)

Population: Participants from the safety analysis population who completed a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline PRO assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 86/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)100.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 80/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)0.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 80/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)100.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 81/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)0.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 81/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)100.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 82/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)0.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 82/Day 1 Answer to Q1: (No)100.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 83/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)0.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 83/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)100.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 84/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)0.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 84/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)100.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 86/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)0.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Baseline: Cycle 1/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)6.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Baseline: Cycle 1/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)93.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 2/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)51.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 2/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)49.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 3/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)46.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 3/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)53.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 4/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)43.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 4/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)56.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 5/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)35.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 5/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)64.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 6/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)37.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 6/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)62.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 7/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)36.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 7/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)64.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 8/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 8/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 9/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)24.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 9/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 10/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)23.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 10/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)76.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 11/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)23.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 11/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)76.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 12/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)21.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 12/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)78.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 13/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 13/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)74.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 14/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)27.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 14/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)73.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 15/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 15/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 16/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 16/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 17/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 17/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 18/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 18/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 19/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 19/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 20/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)27.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 20/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)72.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 21/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 21/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)69.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 22/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)29.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 22/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 23/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 23/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 24/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)31.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 24/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)68.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 25/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)32.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 25/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)67.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 26/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 26/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 27/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 27/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)72.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 28/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 28/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 29/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 29/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 30/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)32.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 30/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)68.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 31/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)24.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 31/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 32/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 32/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 33/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 33/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 34/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)27.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 34/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)72.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 35/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)28.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 35/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)71.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 36/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)26.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 36/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)73.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 37/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)27.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 37/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)73.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 38/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)24.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 38/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 39/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 39/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)69.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 40/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 40/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 41/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)32.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 41/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)67.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 42/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 42/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)74.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 43/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)24.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 43/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 44/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 44/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 45/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 45/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 46/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)27.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 46/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)72.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 47/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)26.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 47/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)73.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 48/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)29.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 48/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 49/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)29.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 49/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 50/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)29.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 50/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 51/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)26.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 51/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)73.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 52/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)29.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 52/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 53/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 53/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 54/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)36.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 54/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)63.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 55/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)29.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 55/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 56/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)38.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 56/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)61.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 57/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)20.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 57/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)80.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 58/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)35.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 58/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)64.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 59/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)21.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 59/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)78.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 60/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)37.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 60/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)62.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 61/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)23.1 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 61/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)76.9 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 62/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)37.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 62/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)62.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 63/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)21.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 63/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)78.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 64/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)35.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 64/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)64.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 65/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)21.4 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 65/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)78.6 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 66/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 66/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)69.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 67/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 67/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 68/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 68/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)69.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 69/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 69/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 70/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 70/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)69.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 71/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)30.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 71/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)70.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 72/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)22.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 72/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)77.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 73/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)22.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 73/Day 1 (No)77.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 74/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)25.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 74/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)75.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 75/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)22.2 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 75/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)77.8 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 76/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)16.7 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 76/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)83.3 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 77/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)37.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 77/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)62.5 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 78/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)20.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 78/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)80.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 79/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)20.0 Percentage of participants
CrizotinibPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 79/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)80.0 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Baseline: Cycle 1/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)7.1 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 4/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)14.8 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Baseline: Cycle 1/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)92.9 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 5/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)86.5 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 2/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)13.4 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 4/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)85.2 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 2/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)86.6 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 6/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)89.9 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 3/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)11.1 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 5/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)13.5 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 3/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: No)88.9 Percentage of participants
ChemotherapyPercentage of Participants With Visual Disturbance as Assessed by Visual Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (VSAQ-ALK)Cycle 6/Day 1 (Answer to Q1: Yes)10.1 Percentage of participants
Secondary

Time to Deterioration (TTD) in Participant Reported Pain, Dyspnea, or Cough Assessed Using Quality of Life Questionnaire Supplement Module for Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13)

The QLQ-LC13 consisted of 1 multi-item scale and 9 single items that assessed the specific symptoms (dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, and site specific pain), side effects (sore mouth, dysphagia, neuropathy, and alopecia), and pain medication use of lung cancer participants receiving chemotherapy. The QLQ-LC13 Coughing, Dyspnoea and Pain in chest each ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a high level of symptomatology/problems. TTD in pain in chest, dyspnea, or cough from the 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.

Time frame: From Baseline to deterioration while on study treatment. For participants with no deterioration, the data was censored at the last date when QLQ-LC13 assessment for pain, dyspnea, or cough was completed (assessed up to 33 months)

Population: Participants from the safety analysis population who completed a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline PRO assessment for pain in chest, dyspnea or cough.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibTime to Deterioration (TTD) in Participant Reported Pain, Dyspnea, or Cough Assessed Using Quality of Life Questionnaire Supplement Module for Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13)2.8 Months
ChemotherapyTime to Deterioration (TTD) in Participant Reported Pain, Dyspnea, or Cough Assessed Using Quality of Life Questionnaire Supplement Module for Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13)0.3 Months
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.307, 0.61]2 sided unstratified 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, as determined by IRR. 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, death or last tumor assessment without progression before any additional anti-cancer therapy (whichever occurred first, up to 33 months)

Population: 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 IRR12.0 Months
ChemotherapyTime to Progression (TTP) Based on IRR6.9 Months
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.246, 0.493]1 sided unstratified 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) as determined by the IRR. For participants proceeding from PR to CR, the onset of PR was taken as the onset of response. TTR was calculated for the subgroup of participants with objective tumor response.

Time frame: Randomization to first documentation of objective tumor response (up to 33 months).

Population: FA population included all participants who were randomized with study treatment assignment designated according to the initial randomization. N=Participants who had objective tumor response by IRR.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
CrizotinibTime to Tumor Response (TTR) Based on IRR6.3 Weeks
ChemotherapyTime to Tumor Response (TTR) Based on IRR12.1 Weeks

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 1, 2026