ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024
Larotrectinib versus infigratinib for adult patients with both glioma and tyrosine kinase alterations after failure of initial therapies: Efficacy and safety analysis.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glioblastoma at the crossroads: current understanding and future therapeutic horizons.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of larotrectinib with those of infigratinib in adult glioma patients with tyrosine kinase alterations.
methodsPatients received oral infigratinib 125 mg (IN cohort, n = 125) or oral larotrectinib (LB cohort, n = 105) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression.
resultsDuration of treatment was longer in the LB cohort than in the IN cohort (8 [9.5-6.25] months vs. 5.5 [6-5.25] months, p < 0.0001). Patients with partial responses (p = 0.0424) and overall survival (p = 0.03) were higher in the IN cohort than those in the LB cohort. The number of patients with disease progression was higher in the LB cohort (p = 0.0015). All the patients reported diarrhea, fatigue, vomiting, constipation, and decreased appetite. Patients in the IN cohort reported hyperphosphatemia, hyperlipasemia, stomatitis, dry skin, alopecia, dyspepsia, onycholysis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, nail disorders, and dry eyes. Patients in the LB cohort reported upper respiratory tract infections, pyrexia, cough, anemia, bacterial/viral infections, conjunctivitis, urinary tract infections, headaches, ataxia, dizziness, and muscle tremors. A total of 30 (24 %) and 40 (38 %) patients from the IN and the LB cohorts died at the follow-up of 18 months (p = 0.03). Patients who received bevacizumab initial therapy had higher overall survival (p = 0.048).
conclusionsInfigratinib has higher efficacy and overall survival than larotrectinib but has higher adverse effects in the management of both glioma and tyrosine kinase alterations after failure of initial therapies. Initial bevacizumab therapy is associated with a higher overall survival.
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.