ArticleCancer research and treatment2026
Clinical Relevance of Starting Alectinib at a Reduced Dose in Patients with ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2026. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlectinib has been approved for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at 300 mg twice daily in Japan, lower than global standard of 600 mg twice daily. This study evaluated the clinical relevance of the reduced dose by comparing outcomes between the two doses. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received alectinib at Samsung Medical Center, Korea. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, cumulative incidence of central nervous system (CNS) progression, and safety profiles were retrospectively reviewed and compared.
resultsAmong 306 patients, 32 and 274 received alectinib at either 300 or 600 mg twice daily, respectively. The 300 mg group showed a slight but not significant advantage in PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 1.51; p=0.51) and overall survival (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.21; p=0.13). Superior outcome with 300 mg was remarkable in patients with lower body weight (≤ 60 kg), but diminished in patients with higher body weights. Patients with baseline brain metastasis in the 300 mg group exhibited a slight increase in incidence of CNS failure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.53 to 5.8; p=0.36). Although the safety profiles were mostly mild, adverse events were more frequent in the 600 mg group, 50% of which requiring dose reduction.
conclusionAlectinib at 300 mg twice daily seems an acceptable dose in East Asians with ALK-positive NSCLC. Notably, our data favor 300 mg twice daily in patients with lower body weight and no baseline brain metastasis, considering the more tolerable safety profiles and the potential to reduce medical costs.
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.