HEALTH PROFESSIONAL · SOURCE READING
Pralsetinib
Source: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version, National Cancer Institute.
Source updated: May 15, 2025 · Captured 2026-09-09.
Selected source text with whitespace normalised. This Triangle page is not an NCI PDQ summary.
Evidence (pralsetinib):
A phase I/II study (ARROW [NCT03037385]) enrolled patients with RET fusion−positive solid tumors. Two hundred thirty-three patients had RET fusion−positive NSCLC. RET fusion status was determined by local molecular testing of tumor or circulating tumor nucleic acid (ctDNA) in blood, without central confirmation. The primary end point was objective response.[85][Level of evidence C3]
Source links and citations
A phase I/II study (ARROW [NCT03037385]) enrolled patients with RET fusion−positive solid tumors. Two hundred thirty-three patients had RET fusion−positive NSCLC. RET fusion status was determined by local molecular testing of tumor or circulating tumor nucleic acid (ctDNA) in blood, without central confirmation. The primary end point was objective response.[85][Level of evidence C3]
Ninety-two patients who had received platinum-based chemotherapy and 29 patients who were treatment-naïve (and not candidates for standard platinum-based treatment) received pralsetinib before the efficacy enrollment cutoff (July 11, 2019). Eighty-seven previously treated patients and 27 treatment-naïve patients had centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease, and thus formed the efficacy cohort.
A phase I/II study (ARROW [NCT03037385]) enrolled patients with RET fusion−positive solid tumors. Two hundred thirty-three patients had RET fusion−positive NSCLC. RET fusion status was determined by local molecular testing of tumor or circulating tumor nucleic acid (ctDNA) in blood, without central confirmation. The primary end point was objective response.[85][Level of evidence C3]
The overall response rate was 61% (95% CI, 50%–71%) in the 87 patients who had received platinum-based chemotherapy, including complete responses in 6%. The median DOR was not reached (15.2 months–NE).
A phase I/II study (ARROW [NCT03037385]) enrolled patients with RET fusion−positive solid tumors. Two hundred thirty-three patients had RET fusion−positive NSCLC. RET fusion status was determined by local molecular testing of tumor or circulating tumor nucleic acid (ctDNA) in blood, without central confirmation. The primary end point was objective response.[85][Level of evidence C3]
The overall response rate was 70% (95% CI, 50%–86%) in the 27 treatment-naïve patients, including complete responses in 11%. The median DOR was 9.0 months (6.3–NE).
A phase I/II study (ARROW [NCT03037385]) enrolled patients with RET fusion−positive solid tumors. Two hundred thirty-three patients had RET fusion−positive NSCLC. RET fusion status was determined by local molecular testing of tumor or circulating tumor nucleic acid (ctDNA) in blood, without central confirmation. The primary end point was objective response.[85][Level of evidence C3]
In the 233-patient safety cohort, 93% had treatment-related adverse events, including 48% with grade 3 or worse events. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (18%), hypertension (11%), and anemia (10%). Dose reductions occurred in 38% of patients, and 6% discontinued treatment because of adverse events.
Studies cited in this source section
Source citation is not a determination that a study applies to you.
Publication references
Read the original reference and check its publication notices.
Preserved source evidence · Not medical advice
Triangle