ArticleLung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Alectinib Efficacy Post-Brigatinib Against Advanced
Article in Lung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brigatinib and alectinib are next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKis) showing efficacy against naïve and post-crizotinib-treated advanced Methods: Alectinib efficacy was retrospectively assessed in patients previously treated with brigatinib during an early-access program (EAP) from 1 August 2016 to 21 January 2019. The primary endpoint was alectinib median progression-free survival (mPFS) according to local investigators. Results: Among the 183 patients included in the brigatinib EAP, 92 (50.3%) received ≥1 agent(s) post-brigatinib; 30 (16.4%) received alectinib, 19 (10.4%) immediately post-brigatinib; 11 (6%) after ≥1 other treatment line(s). With median follow-up at 25.5 (95% CI: 10.6-30.5) months, mPFS on brigatinib for the study population (n = 30) was 13.6 (95% CI: 6.3-17.7) months. For patients given alectinib immediately post-brigatinib, mPFS and median overall survival (mOS) were 4.8 (95% CI: 2.0-12.5) and 27 (95% CI: 12.5-not reached (NR)) months, respectively. In this subgroup, brigatinib was discontinued for toxicity or progression for 5/19 (26%) or 14/19 (74%) patients, with mPFS lasting 12.5 (95% CI: 3.3-17.9 and 3.4 (95% CI: 0.9-9.2) months, respectively. For patients receiving ≥1 agent(s) between brigatinib and alectinib, with median follow-up at 13.3 (95% CI: 2.3-31.5) months, mPFS and mOS were 5.0 (95% CI: 0.5-18.8) and 19 (95% CI: 2.3-NR) months, respectively. Conclusion: According to the results of this retrospective real-world study, alectinib post-brigatinib showed limited overall activity but remains an option for patients with advanced
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.