-
Medicine Aug 2021When the patients of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have achieved remission by induction therapy, it is controversial that combination with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
When the patients of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have achieved remission by induction therapy, it is controversial that combination with bevacizumab is used as maintenance therapy. Pemetrexed is a classic drug for maintenance therapy, is bevacizumab the superiority to pemetrexed is also unclear. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of advanced non-squamous NSCLC in the maintenance treatment.
METHOD
From the establishment as of December 6, 2020, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases were searched and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network databases in the past 10 years. The application of combination with bevacizumab, pemetrexed was studied in clinical trials of maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC. The extracted data include progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AE).
RESULTS
Seven clinical trials we screened, 6 were phase III RCTs, and a cohort trial, including 3298 patients. Compared with bevacizumab and pemetrexed, PFS of combination with bevacizumab was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65-0.77, P < .00001), but OS was not improved (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.85-1.01, P = .10). Compared with bevacizumab and pemetrexed, no significant difference of PFS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.69-1.09, P = .21), and OS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.72-1.05, P = .15) was found. A higher incidence of grade 3-4 AE occurred in combination with bevacizumab (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.35-1.97, P < .00001).
CONCLUSIONS
PFS was significantly improved in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC who use bevacizumab combination with single-agent as maintenance treatment, but it does not translate into the advantages of OS; compared with bevacizumab, no PFS and OS benefits were found. A higher incidence of grade 3-4 AE occurred in combination with bevacizumab than pemetrexed and bevacizumab.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Medication Therapy Management; Pemetrexed; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34397863
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026862 -
OncoTargets and Therapy 2016To assess the efficacy of pemetrexed plus platinum doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through a...
Efficacy of pemetrexed plus platinum doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell-lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To assess the efficacy of pemetrexed plus platinum doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through a trial-level meta-analysis.
METHODS
Trials published between 1990 and 2015 were identified by an electronic search of public databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library). All clinical studies were independently identified by two authors. Demographic data, treatment regimens, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted and analyzed using comprehensive meta-analysis software (version 2.0).
RESULTS
A total of 2,551 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC from ten trials were included for analysis: 1,565 patients were treated with pemetrexed plus platinum doublet chemotherapy and 986 with platinum plus other first-line chemotherapy. Pooled ORR for pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy was 37.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31.7%-44.3%), with median PFS and OS of 5.7 and 16.05 months, respectively. When compared to other platinum-based doublet chemotherapies, the use of pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] =0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.97, P=0.01) but not PFS (HR =0.90, 95% CI: 0.80-1.01, P=0.084) in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC patients.
CONCLUSION
Pemetrexed plus platinum doublet regimen is an efficacious treatment for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC patients. Our findings support the use of pemetrexed plus platinum doublet regimen as first-line treatment in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC patients because of its potential survival benefits.
PubMed: 27042115
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S96160 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jul 2020To compare the survival outcomes of first-line treatment regimens for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To compare the survival outcomes of first-line treatment regimens for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with stable brain metastases.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of available data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment regimens of NSCLC patients with stable brain metastases. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted and analysed from the RCT subgroups. A network meta-analysis was constructed using the Bayesian statistical model to synthesize the survival outcomes of all the treatments.
RESULTS
The analysis included 6 eligible RCT subgroups with 417 patients and 7 treatment regimens osimertinib, afatinib, first-generation EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib), erlotinib + bevacizumab, gefitinib + pemetrexed + carboplatin, gemcitabine + cisplatin, and pemetrexed + cisplatin. Of these seven treatment regimens, gefitinib + pemetrexed + carboplatin had the highest potential for favorable PFS and OS, followed by osimertinib, in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with stable brain metastases. None of the results met the predetermined statistical significance of P<0.05.
CONCLUSIONS
The regimens of "Gefitinib + pemetrexed + carboplatin" and "Osimertinib" were associated with the most favorable PFS and OS compared to the other therapies in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with stable brain metastases, although the difference between these regimens and the others was not statistically significantly different.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Brain Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 32692221
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1136 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Nov 2015Recent trials have suggested that maintenance treatments improve outcomes for patients not progressing after first-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Bayesian network meta-comparison of maintenance treatments for stage IIIb/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with good performance status not progressing after first-line induction chemotherapy: results by performance status, EGFR mutation, histology and response to previous induction.
BACKGROUND
Recent trials have suggested that maintenance treatments improve outcomes for patients not progressing after first-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, physicians have little guidance on selecting which patients benefit the most and what drug or regimen is optimal. Here, we report a systematic review and network meta-analysis of maintenance treatments in subgroups determined by performance status (PS), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, histology and response to induction.
METHODS
PubMed and conference proceedings were reviewed and individual study relative efficacy measures were meta-analysed in a Bayesian hierarchical model. The primary outcome, overall survival (OS), was evaluated in terms of (i) posterior surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), (ii) probability of being best treatment, (iii) probability of outperforming no maintenance, and (iv) posterior median hazard ratio (95% credible interval). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events.
FINDINGS
Twelve trials evaluating eight maintenance treatments in 3850 patients were meta-analysed. Selected maintenance treatments showed clinically meaningful benefits of ⩾20% reduction in hazards of death with ⩾90% probability of outperforming no maintenance in terms of OS: (i) switch to or continue pemetrexed (nonsquamous), continue gemcitabine, or switch to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for PS 0 patients, (ii) switch to pemetrexed (nonsquamous) for PS 1 patients, (iii) switch to EGFR TKI for EGFR mutation positive patients, (iv) switch to or continue pemetrexed or switch to EGFR TKI for nonsquamous patients, (v) continue gemcitabine for squamous patients, (vi) switch to docetaxel or continue gemcitabine for responders to induction, or (vii) switch to or continue pemetrexed (nonsquamous) or switch to EGFR TKI for patients with stable disease post-induction.
INTERPRETATION
Maintenance treatments show clinically meaningful survival benefits in good performance status patients with advanced NSCLC not progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Benefits are optimised by targeting specific maintenance to individual patients guided by PS, EGFR mutation status, histology and response to induction.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bayes Theorem; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Deoxycytidine; Disease Progression; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Drug Substitution; ErbB Receptors; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Lung Neoplasms; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Markov Chains; Monte Carlo Method; Mutation; Neoplasm Staging; Pemetrexed; Phenotype; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Risk Factors; Survival Analysis; Taxoids; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 26364517
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.007 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2023This study aimed to compare the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with chemotherapy, for patients with...
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy for Patients With Second-Line or Later Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to compare the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with chemotherapy, for patients with second-line or later advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
METHODS
Evidence for lorlatinib was informed by the single-arm phase I/II trial B7461001. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify OS and PFS data for chemotherapy. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between lorlatinib and chemotherapy (pemetrexed/docetaxel, platinum-based, or systemic therapy) were performed.
RESULTS
The SLR identified 3 relevant studies reporting PFS. Lorlatinib was associated with a significant decrease in the hazard of progression versus the 2 types of chemotherapy assessed. For PFS, the MAIC of lorlatinib versus the combined treatment arm of docetaxel or pemetrexed resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.31). When lorlatinib was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy through an MAIC, the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.40 (95% CI 0.29-0.55). An exploratory comparison was performed for OS with evidence for systemic therapy (assumed equivalent to chemotherapy) not identified in the SLR. Lorlatinib provided a significant decrease in hazard of death (OS) versus systemic therapy, with HRs ranging from 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.27) to 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.60).
CONCLUSIONS
Lorlatinib demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy, although limitations in the analyses were identified. The evidence informing OS comparisons was highly limited but suggested benefit of lorlatinib compared with systemic therapy.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Docetaxel; Pemetrexed; Lung Neoplasms; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 35985941
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.07.002 -
Case Reports in Oncology May 2014To gain a better understanding of the role of pemetrexed in ovarian cancer patients, we conducted a systematic review of the published literature and evaluated a...
OBJECTIVE
To gain a better understanding of the role of pemetrexed in ovarian cancer patients, we conducted a systematic review of the published literature and evaluated a consecutive, single-institution series of non-study pemetrexed-treated patients.
METHODS/RESULTS
Thirteen published articles met this study's eligibility criteria, providing a total of 376 unique and evaluable ovarian cancer patients. This systematic review demonstrated tumor response rates with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy from 9 to 84%; the agent appeared to be well tolerated. Similarly, 13 consecutive patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer were treated with pemetrexed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., USA, from 2004 through 2013. The median number of previous chemotherapy regimens was 4; most patients received single-agent pemetrexed (n = 9). Patients received a median of 2 cycles of pemetrexed-based chemotherapy; 1 patient received 10 cycles (7 months' worth) with treatment ongoing at the time of this report. The median survival from the start of pemetrexed was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval 1.2, 15 months). Two patients manifested a 50% drop in Ca-125 levels. Again, pemetrexed was relatively well tolerated.
CONCLUSION
Pemetrexed has antineoplastic activity in patients with ovarian cancer - even among those who have been heavily pretreated - and therefore merits further study.
PubMed: 25232324
DOI: 10.1159/000365885 -
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Jul 2016Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is often diagnosed at later stages when treatment options are limited. Maintenance therapy may prolong the time to disease progression... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is often diagnosed at later stages when treatment options are limited. Maintenance therapy may prolong the time to disease progression and potentially increase overall survival. Secondarily, it may increase the proportion of patients eligible for second-line therapy at the time of progression. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the use of systemic treatment in the maintenance of patients with NSCLC.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for phase III randomized controlled trials comparing maintenance systemic treatment against another systemic treatment or placebo in patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received a minimum of four prior cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Meta-analyses were conducted with clinically homogenous trials.
RESULTS
Fourteen randomized controlled trials with 22 publications were included. The overall survival benefit was strongest for maintenance therapy with pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC (hazard ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.86) but not significant for patients with squamous NSCLC. There was also an overall survival benefit with maintenance therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but the magnitude of the benefit was smaller than with pemetrexed (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.94). Docetaxel or gemcitabine as maintenance chemotherapies did not have an impact on overall survival.
CONCLUSION
For patients with advanced, stable stage IIIB/IV NSCLC whose disease has not progressed after four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy, the overall survival benefits were strongest for pemetrexed maintenance therapy followed by epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor maintenance therapy.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Deoxycytidine; Docetaxel; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Pemetrexed; Taxoids; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 27013406
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.03.007 -
World Journal of Clinical Oncology Aug 2016To evaluate the current role of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor in the treatment of breast cancer.
AIM
To evaluate the current role of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor in the treatment of breast cancer.
METHODS
An extensive search of the literature until March 2016 was carried out in Medline and clinicaltrials.gov, by using the search terms "sorafenib" and "breast cancer". Papers found were checked for further relevant publications. Overall, 21 relevant studies were found, 18 in advanced breast cancer (16 in stage IV and two in stages III-IV) and three in early breast cancer.
RESULTS
Among studies in advanced breast cancer, there were two trials with sorafenib as monotherapy, four trials of sorafenib in combination with taxanes, two in combination with capecitabine, one with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine, one with vinorelbine, one with bevacizumab, one with pemetrexed and one with ixabepilone, three trials of sorafenib in combination with endocrine therapy and two trials in women with brain metastases undergoing whole brain radiotherapy. In addition, there was one trial of sorafenib added to standard chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, and two trials in the neoadjuvant setting. In general, sorafenib was well tolerated in breast cancer patients, though its dosage had to be adjusted in some trials, and discontinuation rates were high, particularly for the combination of sorafenib with anastrozole. Sorafenib monotherapy and combinations with taxanes, bevacizumab and ixabepilone showed inadequate efficacy, while efficacy results from combinations with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine and possibly tamoxifen were more promising.
CONCLUSION
At present, sorafenib should not be used for the treatment of breast cancer outside of clinical trials and more clinical data are needed in order to support its standard use in breast cancer therapy.
PubMed: 27579253
DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v7.i4.331 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men, is less associated with smoking, but occurs at a younger age than sporadic tumours.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness of single-agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included response rate, symptom palliation, toxicity, and health-related quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 27th July 2020), Embase (1980 to 27th July 2020), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 27th July 2020). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (July 2020); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-two trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 3023, of whom approximately 2563 were of Asian origin. Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo. Erlotinib was used in eight trials, gefitinib in nine trials, afatinib in two trials, cetuximab in two trials, and icotinib in one trial. The findings of FASTACT 2 suggested a clinical benefit for OS for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, as did the Han 2017 trial for gefitinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, but both results were based on a small number of participants (n = 97 and 122, respectively). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of four trials showed evidence of clinical benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.39 ; 583 participants ; high-certainty evidence). A pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48 ; 491 participants high-certainty evidence), and a pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance also showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, 371 participants ; moderate-certainty evidence). Afatinib showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53, 709 participants high-certainty evidence). All but one small trial showed a corresponding improvement in response rate with tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy. Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events associated with afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and icotinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms; fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies. Seven trials reported on health-related quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, two trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the TKI compared to chemotherapy. The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged PFS compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adverse effect and health-related quality of life. We found limited evidence for increased OS for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy, but the majority of the included trials allowed participants to switch treatments on disease progression, which will have a confounding effect on any OS analysis. Single agent-TKI remains the standard of care and the benefit of combining a TKI and chemotherapy remains uncertain as the evidence is based on small patient numbers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib or icotinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There are no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy. Icotinib is not available outside China.
Topics: Afatinib; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bias; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cetuximab; Crown Ethers; ErbB Receptors; Erlotinib Hydrochloride; Female; Gefitinib; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Mutation; Paclitaxel; Pemetrexed; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33734432
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010383.pub3 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Aug 2020To perform indirect treatment comparisons of entrectinib versus alternative fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer treatments. Relevant studies with crizotinib... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
To perform indirect treatment comparisons of entrectinib versus alternative fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer treatments. Relevant studies with crizotinib and chemotherapy as comparators of interest identified by systematic literature review were selected for matching-adjusted indirect comparison by feasibility assessment. Matching was based on known prognostic/predictive factors and scenario analyses were used for unreported confounders in comparator trials. Entrectinib yielded significantly better responses versus crizotinib in all scenarios (odds ratio [OR]: 2.43-2.74). Overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.47-0.61) and adverse event-related discontinuation (OR: 0.79-0.90) favored entrectinib. Progression-free survival was similar across treatments, except in one scenario. These results suggested improved outcomes with entrectinib versus crizotinib/chemotherapy and may help to make better informed treatment decisions.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Humans; Indazoles; Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Proto-Oncogene Proteins
PubMed: 32648475
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0063