ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2025
Comparison of the effectiveness of alectinib versus crizotinib followed by alectinib in patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in real-world setting and in the ALEX study.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2025. 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.
- Lorlatinib in patients withFuture oncology (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Cancer Drug Development in Never-Smoker Lung Cancer: Targeted and Immune-Based Therapeutic Strategies.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Alectinib versus crizotinib as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: a Chinese real-world cohort study.Translational lung cancer research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Alectinib has been established as a standard of care for patients with treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-rearranged (ALK-positive) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, it has rarely been compared with the sequential approach (crizotinib followed by alectinib) in China. This study aimed to compare real-world alectinib upfront data with either real-world sequential approach data or clinical trial first-line alectinib data. Methods: The patients who received alectinib in the real-world setting were monitored from August 2016 to November 2020. The patients' characteristics were well balanced using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival (rwOS), and real-world intracranial progression-free survival (rwiPFS) were calculated. To compare the effectiveness of alectinib in real-world setting with that in the ALEX study, data from the ALEX study were analyzed. Results: This study included 311 patients who were divided into three groups: alectinib group (n=102), sequential group (n=63), and alectinib group in ALEX (n=146). The rwPFS and rwOS were similar between the alectinib and sequential groups. However, alectinib group was associated with a lower risk of central nervous system progression than sequential group. Compared with alectinib group in ALEX, the alectinib group in the real world had a significantly longer PFS [hazard ratio (HR), 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37-0.89; P=0.01] and OS (HR, 0.42; 95% CI: 0.21-0.82; P=0.01) after IPTW. Conclusions: Our real world data suggested that sequential group was associated with a higher risk of progression in the brain than the alectinib upfront treatment. However, both treatments had similar survival in advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. Patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the real-world setting had significantly improved outcomes than those in the ALEX study.
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.