ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2025
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.
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 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.
- The efficacy of targeted therapy in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients and analysis of MET/PD-L1 expression status.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour: unravelling the interplay of inflammation, kinase signalling, and therapeutic resistance.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of both alectinib and crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion (ALK-positive) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, a critical question persists regarding their real-world comparative effectiveness in Chinese patients, especially in light of divergent overall survival (OS) results from Western and Asian trials. To address this uncertainty, this real-world study aimed to directly compare the efficacy of alectinib and crizotinib as first-line therapies in a Chinese clinical setting. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ALK-positive NSCLC from two centers in China were included in the study. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, while OS, the disease control rate, the objective response rate, and safety were the secondary endpoints. Second-line therapy and prognostic factors were also investigated. Results: In total, 261 treatment-naïve patients were evaluated, of whom, 128 received crizotinib, and 133 received alectinib. Compared with crizotinib, alectinib demonstrated significant superiority in terms of PFS [45.5 Conclusions: Alectinib is recommended over crizotinib in the treatment of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.
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.