Which lorlatinib resistance mechanisms did ctDNA reveal in ALK-positive NSCLC?
Baseline ALK rearrangements were detected by ctDNA in 59% of patients with baseline samples (n = 120). Paired baseline and post-progression samples (n = 17) revealed no new ALK resistance mutations at the end of treatment. Instead, changes in genomic alteration status suggested that resistance may be driven by bypass mechanisms and other cancer-related pathways, with no dominant pathway identified.
Among patients with paired samples, alterations were observed in DNA damage repair genes (35%), inflammatory-response genes such as AXL, MET, MYC, and ROS1 (35%), RTK/RAS/MAPK pathway genes (35%), oncogene amplification of MET, MYC, or NOTCH2 (29%), tumor suppressor genes (29%), FLT1/VEGFR1 (18%), and HDAC6 (12%).
Inflammatory response was also the predominant pathway associated with early progression at baseline, observed in 32% of early progressors vs 7% of long-term responders. Ahead of the meeting, Dylan Fortman, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Michigan Medical School, noted that resistance to first-line lorlatinib appears to be largely off-target.4
Did EML4::ALK variant or TP53 status affect PFS with lorlatinib vs crizotinib in CROWN?
Lorlatinib prolonged PFS vs crizotinib regardless of baseline TP53 status; in the crizotinib arm, median PFS was 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-12.8) in patients with TP53 wild-type disease (n = 65) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.3) in those with TP53-mutated disease (n = 44; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.513-1.186).1
PFS with lorlatinib was durable across EML4::ALK variants. Median PFS was NR (95% CI, 26.0-NR) with variants 1/2 (n = 25) and 60.0 months (95% CI, 33.3-NR) with variant 3 (n = 22), with 7-year PFS rates of 52.7% (95% CI, 35.7%-77.7%) and 42.6% (95% CI, 24.1%-75.4%), respectively (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.463-2.579). With crizotinib, median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.7-9.3) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-9.3), respectively. Among lorlatinib-treated patients with variant 2 (n = 6), the objective response rate was 100% and median PFS was NR.
Next steps for identifying early progression risk with lorlatinib
The investigators concluded that baseline genomic complexity and inflammatory-response alterations may help identify patients at risk of early progression, and that methylation-based tumor fraction was prognostic both at baseline and on treatment.
Solomon noted that further work is needed to more precisely identify patients at early risk of progression to inform earlier therapeutic interventions, including treatment intensification. Overall survival follow-up in CROWN is ongoing.2
Disclosures: Solomon reported serving in consulting or advisory roles with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, D3 Bio, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Revolution Medicine, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; and receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech.
References
- Solomon BJ, Mok TSK, Wang IM, et al. Characterizing resistance mechanisms and predictors of early progression and long-term response to lorlatinib: ctDNA analyses from the CROWN study. Presented at: 2026 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress; October 23-27, 2026; Madrid, Spain. Abstract 2636RO.
- Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Felip E, et al. Lorlatinib versus crizotinib as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: 7-year update from the phase III CROWN study. Ann Oncol. 2026;37(9):1242-1252. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2026.05.692
- Solomon BJ, Liu G, Felip E, et al. Lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: 5-year outcomes from the phase III CROWN study. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(29):3400-3409. doi:10.1200/JCO.24.00581
- Stay Ahead of ESMO 2026: See What Lung Cancer Experts Are Prioritizing. OncLive. Published October 15, 2026. Accessed October 24, 2026. https://www.onclive.com/view/stay-ahead-of-esmo-2026-see-what-lung-cancer-experts-are-prioritizing