ArticleCancers2025
Population-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Repotrectinib Among Patients with
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Medicine in Treating Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review on Treatments Targeting Oncogenic Genetic Mutations.Cureus · 2026Review
- Real-World Treatment Patterns and Survival in Patients withCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHead-to-head evidence comparing repotrectinib against other approved ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is not currently available. The objective of this study was to indirectly compare progression-free survival (PFS), the objective response rate (ORR), and the duration of response (DoR) for repotrectinib vs. crizotinib and vs. entrectinib in patients with TKI-naïve
methodsUsing evidence from a systematic literature review, unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to estimate population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and DoR and odds ratios (ORs) for ORR for repotrectinib vs. crizotinib and vs. entrectinib among patients with TKI-naïve aNSCLC. The MAICs were adjusted for imbalances in baseline patient characteristics that were pre-specified as being prognostic or predictive of treatment effects. Weighted Cox (for PFS and DoR) and logistic (for ORR) regression models were fit. Supplementary analyses (SAs) explored the impact of missing data and modeling assumptions on effect estimates.
resultsThe evidence base was formed by TRIDENT-1 EXP-1 (repotrectinib; N = 71), a pooled set of five trials involving crizotinib (N = 273), and the pooled ALKA-372-001/STARTRK-1 and -2 trials (entrectinib; N = 168). After population adjustment, repotrectinib was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS relative to crizotinib (HR = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.67) and entrectinib (HR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.91). Differences in ORR and DoR were not statistically significant but numerically favored repotrectinib. SAs were consistent with the main analyses across all comparisons.
conclusionsThe analysis demonstrated the strong benefits of repotrectinib in PFS, which was robust across different SAs and supported by numerically favorable results for DoR (where available) and ORR. These results, alongside the published TRIDENT-1 clinical data, further support repotrectinib as a potential new standard of care for TKI-naïve patients with
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.