Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33676294›Full record

Trial reportESMO open2021

Intrapatient comparisons of efficacy in a single-arm trial of entrectinib in tumour-agnostic indications.

M G Krebs, J-Y Blay, C Le Tourneau, D Hong, L Veronese, M Antoniou, I Bennett

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in ESMO open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Extrapolation of Time-to-Event Survival Outcomes of Histology-Independent Therapies Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Model.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

M G KrebsDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: matthew.krebs@manchester.ac.uk.
J-Y BlayCentre Léon Bérard, UNICANCER, Université Claude Bernard Lyon, Lyon, France.
C Le TourneauDepartment of Drug Development and Innovation (D3i), Institut Curie, Paris-Saclay University, Paris & Saint-Cloud, France.
D HongDepartment of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
L VeroneseF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
M AntoniouF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
I BennettF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Roche (Switzerland) · CHCentre Léon Bérard · FRInstitut Curie · FRThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEntrectinib is a tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) fusion-positive solid tumours based on single-arm trials. Traditional randomised clinical trials in rare cancers are not feasible; we conducted an intrapatient analysis to evaluate the clinical benefit of entrectinib versus prior standard-of-care systemic therapies.

methodsPatients with locally advanced/metastatic NTRK fusion-positive tumours enrolled in the global phase II, single-arm STARTRK-2 trial were grouped according to prior systemic therapy and response. The key analysis used growth modulation index [GMI; ratio of progression-free survival (PFS) on entrectinib to time to discontinuation (TTD) on the most recent prior therapy]; ratio ≥1.3 indicated clinically meaningful efficacy. Additional analyses investigated TTD and objective response rate (ORR) for entrectinib and prior therapies.

resultsSeventy-one patients were included; 51 received prior systemic therapy. In 38 patients who progressed on prior therapy, ORR was 60.5% (23/38) with entrectinib and 15.8% (6/38) with the most recent prior therapy. Median PFS [11.2 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.7-not estimable] for entrectinib exceeded median TTD (2.9 months; 95% CI 2.0-4.9) for most recent prior therapy. From the intrapatient analysis of GMI, 65.8% had a ratio ≥1.3 and median GMI was 2.53. Consistent results were observed at more stringent GMI thresholds; 60.5% of patients had GMI ≥1.5 or ≥1.8 and 57.9% had GMI ≥2.0.

conclusionsORR was high and PFS was longer on entrectinib versus TTD on prior therapy. Furthermore, 65.8% of patients experienced clinically meaningful benefit based on GMI. This intrapatient analysis demonstrates comparative effectiveness of entrectinib in a rare, heterogeneous adult population.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsAdultBenzamidesHumansIndazolesBenzamidesentrectinibIndazolescomparative effectiveness researchentrectinibneoplasmsreceptor protein-tyrosine kinasestreatment outcomes

Identifiers

PMID33676294
PMCPMC8103537
OpenAlexW3133793750

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.