ArticleThoracic cancer2022
Efficacy of different sequential patterns after crizotinib progression in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Efficacy of different sequential patterns after crizotinib progression in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
- Current treatments for non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy difference between the second- and third-generation of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) after crizotinib failure in advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been clarified. This study evaluates the efficacy of different sequential patterns after crizotinib progression.
methodsData of patients who met the study criteria were retrospectively analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to draw survival curves, log-rank method was used to compare the differences between groups, and Cox multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the significance of influencing factors.
resultsA total of 128 patients developed disease progression after crizotinib. The overall survival (OS) of 57 patients in the sequential second-generation ALK-TKIs group was significantly longer than that of 65 patients with other systemic treatment (58.5 months vs. 33.0 months, p < 0.001); The OS of the direct sequential lorlatinib group was significantly longer than the second-generation ALK-TKIs group (114.0 months vs. 58.5 months, p = 0.020). Similarly, of the 48 patients who developed disease progression after first- and second-generation ALK-TKIs treatment, 16 patients with sequential lorlatinib had significantly longer OS than the others (62.0 months vs. 43.0 months, p = 0.014). The progression-free survival (PFS) of second-line and third- or later-line lorlatinib were statistically different (20.0 months vs. 5.5 months, p = 0.011).
conclusionsThe application of next-generation ALK-TKIs after crizotinib progression significantly prolonged survival, whereas direct sequencing lorlatinib seemed advantageous. Similarly, lorlatinib also prolonged survival in patients with first- and second-generation ALK-TKIs failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.