Posts tagged ALK variant
The impact of the ALK fusion variant on clinical outcomes in EML4-ALK patients with NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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..... READ ARTICLE

Future Oncology DOI:10.2217/fon-2021-0945

Authors: Wang S, Luo R, Shi Y, Han X.

Read More
The Impact of Clinical Factors, ALK Fusion Variants, and BIM Polymorphism on Crizotinib-Treated Advanced EML4–ALK Rearranged Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Patients' clinical factors and genetics factors such as anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion variants and BIM (Bcl-2-like 11) polymorphism were reported to be associated with clinical outcome in crizotinib-treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the results were still controversial. We analyzed outcome of 54 patients with known ALK fusion variants who received crizotinib for advanced NSCLC. Thirty of them had successful BIM polymorphism analysis and 6 (20%) had a BIM deletion. Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that previous anticancer therapy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–1.76 for each additional line of therapy, p = 0.025] and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2 (aHR 8.35, 95% CI, 1.52–45.94, p = 0.015) were independent factors for progression-free survival (PFS). Only ECOG performance status ≥2 (aHR 7.20, 95% CI, 1.27–40.79, p = 0.026) was an independent factor for overall survival (..... READ ARTICLE

Frontiers in Oncology DOI:10.3389/fonc.2019.00880

Authors: Yen-Ting Lin, Yi-Nan Liu, Jin-Yuan Shih

Read More