Trial reportInternational journal of cancer2026
Penpulimab and Gemcitabine With or Without Anlotinib in Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Phase 2 Study.
Trial report in International journal of 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This prospective exploratory phase 2 study employed a three-cohort, two-phase design to evaluate the potential of anlotinib as a substitute for cisplatin in gemcitabine-penpulimab combinations for metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients who were previously treated with cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy. Patients enrolled in the study were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio during the lead-in phase to one of three treatment arms: gemcitabine, cisplatin, penpulimab, and anlotinib (GP-PA, n = 8); gemcitabine, cisplatin, and penpulimab (GP-P, n = 6); or gemcitabine, penpulimab, and anlotinib (GAP, n = 6). The expansion phase enriched the optimal cohort, with stratification based on PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR), while the secondary endpoints included duration of response, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In the lead-in phase, grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 87.5% (GP-PA), 100% (GP-P), and 66.7% (GAP) patients, predominantly hematologic toxicities. ORR/DCR were 62.5%/87.5% (GP-PA), 83.3%/100% (GP-P), and 100%/100% (GAP). At median 20.2-month follow-up, median PFS/OS were 4.1/18.4 months for GP-PA and not reached for GP-P/GAP. In the expansion phase, a total of 14 patients received GAP, with an ORR of 93.3% and grade ≥ 3 TEAEs in 71.4% of patients. At data cut-off point, the median PFS had not been reached, and the 12-month PFS and OS rates were 53.8% and 78.6%, respectively. The GAP regimen demonstrated a favorable safety and efficacy profile, compared to the GP-PA and GP-P regimens in patients with metastatic NPC. These findings suggest that substituting cisplatin with anlotinib may offer a viable therapeutic strategy for this patient population.
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.