SynthesisMedicine2025
A comparative evaluation of alectinib for ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. 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.
- Living WithJTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer, a significant global health challenge, notably the non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) subtype, is a topic of utmost importance. The continuous advancements in NSCLC treatment, especially in the context of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC, are of great interest. A thorough review of alectinib's comparative efficacy and safety with other treatment modalities is a crucial step, and the role of clinicians and surgeons is integral in optimizing patient care. This review can also inform neoadjuvant therapies and enhance surgical education, facilitating more informed decision-making processes between surgeons and patients.
methodsThis comprehensive systematic review results from rigorous screening. Following a rigorous screening process of the PubMed, PubMed Central, and Medline databases by quality assessment and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria filters, 9 relevant articles were identified that directly addressed the research question and provided a holistic understanding of it. The analysis included a total of 1403 patients from 9 different studies. Alectinib was given to 836 patients, while 567 patients received other chemotherapeutic drugs. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of alectinib with other treatment modalities.
resultsThe analysis revealed that alectinib is promising for ALK-positive NSCLC cases, with significantly better efficacy and a positive impact on limiting central nervous system metastases. Alectinib's favorable safety profile, with medically manageable adverse events, provides reassurance about its safety compared with other treatment modalities.
conclusionsAlectinib has emerged as a viable, significantly superior treatment option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. The superior efficacy and manageable safety profile are significant; it remains a novel therapy with much potential, such as neoadjuvant therapy, which will make significant strides in patient care of ALK-positive NSCLC. Therefore, it is crucial for healthcare professionals, including surgeons, to be well-versed in alectinib and its potential. This knowledge will empower them and instill confidence in their ability to provide the best care for their patients.
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.