Observational studyThoracic cancer2026
First-Line Alectinib Versus Ceritinib With or Without Brain Radiotherapy in ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Brain Metastases: A Real-World Multicenter Study from Vietnam.
Observational study in Thoracic 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the efficacy of first-line alectinib versus ceritinib and evaluated the role of upfront brain radiotherapy (RT) in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases (BM).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 108 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC and baseline BM treated with first-line alectinib (n = 42) or ceritinib (n = 66) at two Vietnamese centers between 2019 and 2025. Intracranial and systemic responses were assessed by RANO-BM and RECIST v1.1 criteria, respectively. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression.
resultsFirst-line alectinib demonstrated superior intracranial disease control compared with ceritinib (iDCR 97.6% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.026; median iPFS 40.4 vs. 17.2 months, univariable HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.82, p = 0.005). Systemic PFS was also significantly longer with alectinib (35.9 vs. 11.5 months, univariable HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22-0.65, p = 0.001). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested differential effects of upfront brain RT by TKI, but interaction tests were non-significant (p = 0.642 for iPFS, p = 0.837 for systemic PFS). In multivariable analysis, alectinib remained an independent predictor of better iPFS (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.70, p = 0.002) and systemic PFS (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.59, p = 0.001). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 19.0% of patients with alectinib versus 34.8% with ceritinib (p = 0.068).
conclusionsIn this real-world Vietnamese cohort, first-line alectinib showed superior intracranial and systemic efficacy over ceritinib. In resource-limited settings, ceritinib combined with upfront brain RT is a reasonable clinical alternative. The differential benefit of brain RT between the two TKIs remains hypothesis-generating.
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.