ArticleThoracic research and practice2023
Comparison of Alectinib/Crizotinib Data in First-Line Therapy in Patients with Anaplastic LymphomakinasePositive Nonsmall Cell Lung Carcinoma with Poor Prognostic Features for Alectinib.
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlectinib has a much better central nervous system transmission than crizotinib in patients diagnosed with anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. We aimed to investigate alectinib's efficacy in the treatment and its place in the first-line treatment and report our real-life data. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe data of 38 patients who were diagnosed with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsmall cell lung carcinoma in our clinic between 2016 and 2021, who did not receive any treatment before were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsOf the 19 patients who received alectinib, 14 had multiple, and 6 had pretreatment brain metastases. No newly emerging brain metastases were detected during the treatment period. The progression-free survival of patients was 23.5 ± 4.2 months, and overall survival was 24.6 ± 4.1 months. Progression was observed in 10 (52.6%) patients. Of the 19 patients who received crizotinib, 7 had multiple metastases, and brain metastases were detected in 1 patient before treatment and 6 patients during the treatment period. Progression-free survival of crizotinib patients was 17.1 ± 4.8 months and their overall survival was 26.5 ± 6.1 months. Progression was observed in 17 (89.5%) patients. The second line of alectinib could be given to 8 of these patients. Overall survival after second-line treatment of alectinib was 18.2 ± 7.0 months. Overall survival of the patients who could not receive second-line treatment of alectinib was 4.0 ± 2.0 months.
conclusionThe progression rate was lower in alectinib than the crizotinib patients, although there were more patients with multiple metastases and brain metastases in the alectinib arm.
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.