Shasha Wang1, Rongrong Luo1, Yuankai Shi2, Xiaohong Han3. 1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, Beijing 100021, China. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, Beijing 100021, China. 3. Clinical Pharmacology Research Center, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe & Rare Diseases, NMPA Key Laboratory for Clinical Research & Evaluation of Drug, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical PK & PD Investigation for Innovative Drugs, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100032, China.
Abstract
Background: Recent studies showed that ALK-fusion variants are associated with heterogeneous clinical outcomes. However, contradictory conclusions have been drawn in other studies showing no correlation between ALK variants and prognoses. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of EML4-ALK fusion variants for patient outcomes. Results: 28 studies were included in the analysis. According to the pooled results, patients harboring variant 1 showed equivalent progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with non-v1 patients (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS: 0.91 [0.68-1.21]; p = 0.499; OS: 1.12 [0.73-1.72]; p = 0.610). Similarly, patients with v3 showed the same disease progress as non-v3 patients (pooled HR for PFS = 1.07 [0.72-1.58]; p = 0.741). However, pooled results for OS suggested that patients with v3 had worse survival than non-v3 patients (HR = 3.44 [1.42-8.35]; p = 0.006). Conclusion: Results suggest that patients with v1 exhibited no significant difference from non-v1 in terms of OS and PFS, while v3 was associated with shorter OS in ALK-positive patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
Background: Recent studies showed that ALK-fusion variants are associated with heterogeneous clinical outcomes. However, contradictory conclusions have been drawn in other studies showing no correlation between ALK variants and prognoses. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of EML4-ALK fusion variants for patient outcomes. Results: 28 studies were included in the analysis. According to the pooled results, patients harboring variant 1 showed equivalent progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with non-v1 patients (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS: 0.91 [0.68-1.21]; p = 0.499; OS: 1.12 [0.73-1.72]; p = 0.610). Similarly, patients with v3 showed the same disease progress as non-v3 patients (pooled HR for PFS = 1.07 [0.72-1.58]; p = 0.741). However, pooled results for OS suggested that patients with v3 had worse survival than non-v3 patients (HR = 3.44 [1.42-8.35]; p = 0.006). Conclusion: Results suggest that patients with v1 exhibited no significant difference from non-v1 in terms of OS and PFS, while v3 was associated with shorter OS in ALK-positive patients with non-small cell lung cancer.