SynthesisBMC cancer2026
Optimizing treatment and sequencing strategies for maximal survival and net health benefits in ALK-positive NSCLC: a systematic review and reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo identify optimal treatments and sequencing strategies that maximize efficacy, safety, and net health benefits (NHB, a comprehensive measure of safety and efficacy) for ALK-positive non-small-cell lung-cancer (NSCLC).
methodsRelated data from phase Ⅱ-Ш clinical trials targeting ALK-positive NSCLC was identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates were derived from Kaplan-Meier curves using individual participant data. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main efficacy outcome. Safety was evaluated by all-cause grade 3 + adverse events. Survival outcomes across treatment sequences were projected using a clock-reset semi-Markov model. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used as the metric for NHB to evaluate the comprehensive value of treatment effectiveness and safety. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to validate our findings.
resultsA total of 27 studies were included. Lorlatinib maximized LYG and NHB as both first-line and post-crizotinib second-line therapy. Alectinib led LYG and NHB after chemotherapy resistance, while brigatinib topped after alectinib resistance. Chemotherapy followed by alectinib or brigatinib, resulted in the highest LYG for first-line to second-line PFS, with the alectinib-brigatinib sequence delivering the highest NHB. For first-line to third-line PFS, the chemotherapy-alectinib-brigatinib sequence maximized survival, while alectinib-brigatinib-lorlatinib was optimal for NHB. Frontline second-generation ALK-TKI enhanced boost survival and NHB, using first-generation ALK-TKI before chemotherapy had little impact on survival but improved initial NHB. Safety profiles emphasized alectinib as the safest first-line option, with iruplinalkib being the most favorable option after crizotinib resistance. Uncertainty analysis indicated that the findings were robust.
conclusionsAccording to current analyses, lorlatinib is an optimal first-line therapy. Alectinib and brigatinib are effective subsequent treatments in cases of non-lorlatinib resistance. First-line ALK-TKIs optimize patient benefits, and carefully sequenced treatments offer substantial survival and NHB across all stages of therapy.
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.