Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33402119›Full record

Observational studyBMC cancer2021

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with RET-fusion positive non-small lung cancer in real-world practice in the United States.

Lisa M Hess, Yimei Han, Yajun Emily Zhu, Naleen Raj Bhandari, Anthony Sireci

Erratum issuedAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cancer, 2021. 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 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. First-Line Selpercatinib or Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab inThe New England journal of medicine · 2023
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. JTO clinical and research reports · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Amplification of Wild-TypeJCO precision oncology · 2023
    Article
  20. Cancers · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lisa M HessEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46254, USA. Hess_lisa_m@lilly.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3631-3941
Yimei HanEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46254, USA.
Yajun Emily ZhuEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46254, USA.
Naleen Raj BhandariEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46254, USA.
Anthony SireciLoxo Oncology at Lilly, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, Stamford, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContradictory and limited data are available about the presentation and outcomes of patients with RET-fusion positive metastatic NSCLC as compared to patients without RET fusions. This observational study utilizing a linked electronic health records (EHR) database to genomics testing results was designed to compare characteristics, tumor response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by RET fusion status among patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with standard therapies.

methodsAdult patients with metastatic NSCLC with linked EHR and genomics data were eligible who received systemic anti-cancer therapy on or after January 1, 2011. Adjusted, using all available baseline covariates, and unadjusted analyses were conducted to compare tumor response, PFS and OS between patients with RET-fusion positive and RET-fusion negative disease as detected by next-generation sequencing. Tumor response outcomes were analysed using Fisher's exact test, and time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards model.

resultsThere were 5807 eligible patients identified (RET+ cohort, N = 46; RET- cohort, N = 5761). Patients with RET fusions were younger, more likely to have non-squamous disease and be non-smokers and had better performance status (all p < 0.01). In unadjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in tumor response (p = 0.17) or PFS (p = 0.06) but OS was significantly different by RET status (hazard ratio, HR = 1.91, 95% CI:1.22-3.0, p = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences by RET fusion status in adjusted analyses of either PFS or OS (PFS HR = 1.24, 95% CI:0.86-1.78, p = 0.25; OS HR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.95-2.43, p = 0.08).

conclusionsPatients with RET fusions have different baseline characteristics that contribute to favorable OS in unadjusted analysis. However, after adjusting for baseline covariates, there were no significant differences in either OS or PFS by RET status among patients treated with standard therapy prior to the availability of selective RET inhibitors.

Indexed as

MutationAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedOncogene Proteins, FusionPrognosisProto-Oncogene Proteins c-retRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateBiomarkers, TumorOncogene Proteins, FusionProto-Oncogene Proteins c-retRET protein, humanLung cancerObservational studyReal-world dataRET fusionsSurvivalTumor response, Retrospective analysis

Identifiers

PMID33402119
PMCPMC7786962

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.