ArticleJCO precision oncology2025
Clinical Benefit From Molecularly Guided Cancer Care: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Larotrectinib Versus Standard of Care.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 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
purposeWidespread adoption of the tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor larotrectinib has been hampered by limited comparisons against non-TRK inhibitor standard of care (SoC) regimens because of the rarity of TRK fusions. Cross-trial comparisons may be facilitated using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), a validated methodology that balances baseline population characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsMAIC was conducted using individual patient-level data from three larotrectinib trials, compared with aggregate real-world data (RWD) from adult patients with locally advanced/metastatic TRK fusion-positive cancer in the Hartwig Medical Foundation database. Patient populations were matched on available clinical characteristics. Estimates of overall survival (OS; defined as the time from start of first postbiopsy treatment [or larotrectinib] to death) were compared between larotrectinib and non-TRK inhibitor SoC.
resultsThe analysis included 24 patients receiving nontargeted TRK inhibitor SoC and 120 receiving larotrectinib. After matching, median OS was 50.3 months (IQR, 23.3-not estimable) for larotrectinib versus 13 months (IQR, 6.4-18.3) for SoC; larotrectinib was associated with an 84% risk reduction of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.36]). To account for the longer follow-up time in the larotrectinib group than in the SoC group (median: 56.7
conclusionIn patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer, larotrectinib was associated with a mean survival advantage of 9.8 months compared with non-TRK inhibitor SoC, corroborating favorable findings for larotrectinib from a previous analysis that used a different set of RWD.
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.