ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2024
Estimating the Prognostic Value of the NTRK Fusion Biomarker for Comparative Effectiveness Research in The Netherlands.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Determining the Causal Effect of Neurotrophic Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase Gene Fusions on Survival Prognosis for Adult Patients With Advanced Cancers.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- From Classical to Emerging Biomarkers of Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors. An Evidence-Based Review with a Focus on Gliomas.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Clinical Benefit From Molecularly Guided Cancer Care: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Larotrectinib Versus Standard of Care.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe evaluated the prognostic value of the neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions by comparing the survival of patients with NTRK+ tumours with patients without NTRK+ tumours.
methodsWe used genomic and clinical registry data from the Center for Personalized Cancer Treatment (CPCT-02) study containing a cohort of cancer patients who were treated in Dutch clinical practice between 2012 and 2020. We performed a propensity score matching analysis, where NTRK+ patients were matched to NTRK- patients in a 1:4 ratio. We subsequently analysed the survival of the matched sample of NTRK+ and NTRK- patients using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression, and performed an analysis of credibility to evaluate the plausibility of our result.
resultsAmong 3556 patients from the CPCT-02 study with known tumour location, 24 NTRK+ patients were identified. NTRK+ patients were distributed across nine different tumour types: bone/soft tissue, breast, colorectal, head and neck, lung, pancreas, prostate, skin and urinary tract. NTRK fusions involving the NTRK3 gene (46%) and NTRK1 gene (33%) were most common. The survival analysis rendered a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.44 (95% CI 0.81-2.55) for NTRK+ patients. Using the point estimates of three prior studies on the prognostic value of NTRK fusions, our finding that the HR is > 1 was deemed plausible.
conclusionsNTRK+ patients may have an increased risk of death compared with NTRK- patients. When using historic control data to assess the comparative effectiveness of TRK inhibitors, the prognostic value of the NTRK fusion biomarker should therefore be accounted for.
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.