z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Effectiveness of crizotinib versus entrectinib in ROS1 -positive non-small-cell lung cancer using clinical and real-world data
Author(s) -
Gabriel Tremblay,
M Groff,
Laura Iadeluca,
Patrick Daniele,
Keith D. Wilner,
Robin Wiltshire,
Lauren Bartolome,
Tiziana Usari,
Joseph C. Cappelleri,
D. Ross Camidge
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
future oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.857
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1744-8301
pISSN - 1479-6694
DOI - 10.2217/fon-2021-1102
Subject(s) - crizotinib , medicine , ros1 , lung cancer , oncology , clinical trial , clinical endpoint , cancer , adenocarcinoma , malignant pleural effusion
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom