Effectiveness of crizotinib versus entrectinib in ROS1 -positive non-small-cell lung cancer using clinical and real-world data.
Gabriel TremblayMichael GroffLaura IadelucaPatrick DanieleKeith WilnerRobin WiltshireLauren BartolomeTiziana UsariJoseph C CappelleriD Ross CamidgePublished in: Future oncology (London, England) (2022)
Aims: To compare clinical trial results for crizotinib and entrectinib in ROS1 -positive non-small-cell lung cancer and compare clinical trial data and real-world outcomes for crizotinib. Patients & methods: We analyzed four phase I-II studies using a simulated treatment comparison (STC). A STC of clinical trial versus real-world evidence compared crizotinib clinical data to real-world outcomes. Results: Adjusted STC found nonsignificant trends favoring crizotinib over entrectinib: objective response rate, risk ratio = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.85-1.28); median duration of response, mean difference = 16.11 months (95% CI: -1.57- 33.69); median progression-free survival, mean difference = 3.99 months (95% CI: -6.27-14.25); 12-month overall survival, risk ratio = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.90-1.12). Nonsignificant differences were observed between the trial end point values and the real-world evidence for crizotinib. Conclusions: Crizotinib and entrectinib have comparable efficacy in ROS1 -positive non-small-cell lung cancer.
Keyphrases
- clinical trial
- advanced non small cell lung cancer
- free survival
- phase ii
- electronic health record
- end stage renal disease
- study protocol
- cell death
- dna damage
- phase iii
- epidermal growth factor receptor
- reactive oxygen species
- randomized controlled trial
- chronic kidney disease
- newly diagnosed
- open label
- double blind
- peritoneal dialysis
- metabolic syndrome
- adipose tissue
- data analysis
- weight loss
- insulin resistance
- skeletal muscle
- tyrosine kinase
- case control