Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated Asian patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALESIA): a randomised phase 3 study

Zhou, Caicun, Kim, Sang-We, Reungwetwattana, Thanyanan, Zhou, Jianying, Zhang, Yiping, He, Jianxing, Yang, Jin-Ji, Cheng, Ying, Lee, Se-Hoon, Bu, Lilian, Xu, Tingting, Yang, Li, Wang, Chao, Liu, Ting, Morcos, Peter N, Lu, You, Zhang, Li·2019·The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK-positive) disease occurs in approximately 5% of all patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, with a similar incidence reported in Asian patients. This study is the first phase 3 randomised trial recruiting only Asian patients to compare alectinib with crizotinib as a first-line treatment for ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer with 600 mg of alectinib twice per day. This study assessed consistency of the progression-free survival benefit with the global phase 3 ALEX study. METHODS In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 21 investigational sites in China, South Korea, and Thailand, Asian patients, aged 18 years or older, with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned (2:1) to twice-daily oral alectinib (600 mg) or crizotinib (250 mg). Patients were randomly assigned via a block-stratified (block size three) randomisation procedure, done centrally via an interactive voice or web response system, with stratification by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and baseline CNS metastases. Clinical staff and the funder's drug safety and medical monitoring staff had access to treatment assignments. The independent review committee was masked to treatment assignment, and funder personnel did not have access to efficacy and safety summaries by treatment group, before the formal reporting of study results. Patients with asymptomatic CNS metastases were permitted. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The primary analysis population for efficacy was the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients. The primary analysis population for safety was defined as all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02838420. FINDINGS Between Aug 3, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 187 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 125 to alectinib and 62 to crizotinib. Median follow-up was 16·2 months (IQR 13·7-17·6) in the alectinib group, and 15·0 months (12·5-17·3) in the crizotinib group. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with alectinib versus crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·22, 95% CI 0·13-0·38; p<0·0001; median progression-free survival not estimable vs 11·1 months). Independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival was also significantly longer in the alectinib group compared with the crizotinib group (HR 0·37, 0·22-0·61; p<0·0001). The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 114 (91%) of 125 with alectinib, and 48 (77%) of 62 with crizotinib, with a longer duration of response for alectinib than crizotinib (HR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12-0·40; p<0·0001). Time to CNS progression (cause-specific HR 0·14) and the percentage of patients who achieved a CNS objective response with measurable or non-measurable baseline CNS lesions were improved (32 [73%] of 44 patients treated with alectinib vs five [22%] of 23 patients treated with crizotinib). Despite longer treatment duration with alectinib than crizotinib (14·7 months vs 12·6 months, respectively), fewer patients had grade 3-5 adverse events (36 [29%] of 125 vs 30 [48%] of 62, respectively) or serious adverse events (19 [15%] of 125 vs 16 [26%] of 62, respectively). INTERPRETATION Our results align with ALEX, confirming the clinical benefit of 600 mg of alectinib twice per day as a first-line treatment for ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2213-2600(19)30053-0

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, C., Kim, S.-W., Reungwetwattana, T., Zhou, J., Zhang, Y., He, J., Yang, J.-J., Cheng, Y., Lee, S.-H., Bu, L., Xu, T., Yang, L., Wang, C., Liu, T., Morcos, P. N., Lu, Y., & Zhang, L.
Venue
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
437-446
ISSN
2213-2600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2939690516
Cited by
273
References
6
FWCI
22.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated Asian patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALESIA): a randomised phase 3 study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s2213-2600(19)30053-0
The paper
Zhou, C., Kim, S.-W., Reungwetwattana, T., Zhou, J., Zhang, Y., He, J., Yang, J.-J., Cheng, Y., Lee, S.-H., Bu, L., Xu, T., Yang, L., Wang, C., Liu, T., Morcos, P. N., Lu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2019). Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated Asian patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALESIA): a randomised phase 3 study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(19)30053-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.