Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27637025›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

ALK Positive Lung Cancer: Clinical Profile, Practice and Outcomes in a Developing Country.

Vanita Noronha, Anant Ramaswamy, Vijay M Patil, Amit Joshi, Anuradha Chougule, Subhadha Kane, Rajiv Kumar, Arvind Sahu, Vipul Doshi, Lingaraj Nayak and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Clinical outcomes ofEcancermedicalscience · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Retrospective Real-World Outcomes for Patients WithJTO clinical and research reports · 2021
    Article
  15. Systematic review of sequencing of ALK inhibitors inLung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Vanita NoronhaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Anant RamaswamyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Vijay M PatilDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Amit JoshiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Anuradha ChouguleDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Subhadha KaneDepartment of Pathology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Rajiv KumarDepartment of Pathology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Arvind SahuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Vipul DoshiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Lingaraj NayakDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Abhishek MahajanDepartment of Radiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Amit JanuDepartment of Radiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Kumar PrabhashDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the performance and treatment profile of advanced EML4-ALK positive Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a developing country with potentially restricted access to Crizotinib. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective analysis of advanced ALK positive NSCLC patients who were treated from June 2012 to September 2015 was conducted. The primary goal was to evaluate outcomes of advanced ALK positive NSCLC in our practice and examine the logistic constraints in procuring Crizotinib.

results94 patients were available for analysis. 21 (22.3%) patients were started on Crizotinib upfront, 60 (63.8%) on chemotherapy, 10 (10.6%) on Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (in view of poor PS) and 3 (3.2%) patients were offered best supportive care. Reasons for not starting Crizotinib upfront included symptomatic patients needing early initiation of therapy (23.3%), ALK not tested upfront (23.3%) and financial constraints (21.9%). 69 patients (73.4%) received Crizotinib at some stage during treatment. Dose interruptions (> 1 week) with Crizotinib were seen in 20 patients (29%), with drug toxicity being the commonest reason (85%). Median Progression free survival (PFS) on first line therapy for the entire cohort was 10 months, with a significant difference between patients receiving Crizotinib and those who did not ever receive Crizotinib (10 months vs. 2 months, p = 0.028). Median Overall Survival (OS) was not reached for the entire cohort, with 1 year survival being 81.2%. Patients with an ECOG Performance Status (PS) of >2 had a significantly reduced PFS compared to patients with PS < = 2 (1.5 months vs. 11 months, p< 0.001). 47 patients with financial constraints (68.1%) received Crizotinib completely free via various extramural support schemes.

conclusionA majority of our ALK positive NSCLC patients were exposed to Crizotinib through the help of various support mechanisms and these patients had similar outcomes to that reported from previously published literature.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnaplastic Lymphoma KinaseCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedReceptor Protein-Tyrosine KinasesRetrospective StudiesALK protein, humanAnaplastic Lymphoma KinaseReceptor Protein-Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID27637025
PMCPMC5026380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.