Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from inception to 20 May 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first line setting for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC were included in a bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events of grade 3 or higher. RESULTS:18 eligible trials involved 4628 patients and 12 treatments: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib), pemetrexed based chemotherapy, pemetrexed free chemotherapy, and combination treatments (afatinib plus cetuximab, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed). Consistent with gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.24), osimertinib showed the most favourable progression free survival, with significant differences versus dacomitinib (0.74, 0.55 to 1.00), afatinib (0.52, 0.40 to 0.68), erlotinib (0.48, 0.40 to 0.57), gefitinib (0.44, 0.37 to 0.52), icotinib (0.39, 0.24 to 0.62), pemetrexed based chemotherapy (0.24, 0.17 to 0.33), pemetrexed free chemotherapy (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20), afatinib plus cetuximab (0.44, 0.28 to 0.71), and gefitinib plus pemetrexed (0.65, 0.46 to 0.92). Osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were also consistent (0.94, 0.66 to 1.35) in providing the best overall survival benefit. Combination treatments caused more toxicity in general, especially erlotinib plus bevacizumab, which caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses by the two most common EGFR mutation types indicated that osimertinib was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the exon 19 deletion, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the Leu858Arg mutation. CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate that osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were associated with the best progression free survival and overall survival benefits for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC, compared with other first line treatments. The treatments resulting in the best progression free survival for patients with the exon 19 deletion and Leu858Arg mutations were osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, respectively. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018111954.
Project description:Background:First-line treatments for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations have been evaluated in various clinical trials. However, it remains unclear which is the optimal treatment.Methods:A Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to assess the efficacy and safety profile of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, osimertinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab and pemetrexed/carboplatin, or pemetrexed alone plus gefitinib. Literature was sourced from electronic databases. Data regarding objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related adverse event grades 3–5 (TRAE 3–5), specific TRAEs [diarrhea, rash, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT)] were extracted. The regimens were then ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).Results:A total of 19 studies involving 4607 EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients were analyzed. In regards to efficacy, pemetrexed/carboplatin (PC) plus gefitinib was superior in ORR and OS to chemotherapy and first-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). All the TKI-based regimens had equivalent DCR and PFS. Patients with the L858R mutation treated with PC plus gefitinib achieved a better outcome than most EGFR TKI-related groups (except osimertinib) in the PFS subgroup. In regards to safety, no statistical significance for TRAEs was observed among the eight treatments. In regards to SUCRA, PC plus gefitinib ranked first in terms of PFS, OS, and TRAE grades 3–5.Conclusions:Pemetrexed/carboplatin plus gefitinib is a promising treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients in the first-line setting.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>Large-scale, population-based real-world studies on the treatment outcomes of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and subsequent systemic chemotherapy agents for lung adenocarcinoma (with activating epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] mutations) remain limited.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>From March 2014 to December 2016, patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, identified from the Taiwan Cancer Registry were included in this study if they received any of the three TKIs as first-line treatment. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcome was time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD).<h4>Results</h4>A total of 4,889 patients (median age: 67 years and two-thirds with distant metastasis) were recruited (1,778 gefitinib, 1,599 erlotinib, and 1,512 afatinib users). A 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts of 1,228 afatinib/erlotinib and 1054 afatinib/gefitinib was created. After PS matching, it was found that afatinib was not associated with better OS (afatinib vs. erlotinib, HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86-1.07; afatinib vs. gefitinib, HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81-1.02). In the subgroup analysis, afatinib demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with active smoking (afatinib vs. erlotinib, HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51-0.93; afatinib vs. gefitinib, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.94) and ECOG > 1 (afatinib vs. erlotinib, HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99; afatinib vs. gefitinib, HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.98). A total of 41.1% (n = 1992) of first-line TKI users received subsequent chemotherapy. Among the three TKI groups, pemetrexed usage was associated with better OS compared with other chemotherapy agents, with the exception of gemcitabine in the afatinib and gefitinib groups. Pemetrexed and gemcitabine had the longest TTD of 3-4 months.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Among patients with <i>EGFR</i> mutant lung adenocarcinoma, afatinib use may not provide longer OS compared with first-generation TKIs. Afatinib may be preferably considered among patients with active smoking and should not be withheld among those with worse performance status. With 40% of patients receiving subsequent chemotherapy, pemetrexed may be the preferred agent, while gemcitabine can be a reasonable alternative.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.<h4>Results</h4>Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective.
Project description:Background:EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including afatinib, dacomitinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and osimertinib have proven efficacy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations. However, an overall view for comparing efficacy and toxicity on a meta-level is lacking. This study compared efficacy and toxicity of first-line treatment with five different EGFR-TKIs by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods:A systematic review was performed, aiming to find eligible literature. Data of PFS, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events were extracted. An NMA based on Bayesian statistics was established to synthesize the efficacy and toxicity of all treatments. Results:Thirteen randomized controlled trials, including data from 3,539 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC, were analyzed. Rank probabilities showed that osimertinib had a potentially better efficacy in terms of PFS and OS compared to all other TKIs. For ORR, afatinib and osimertinib showed a trend of superiority compared to the other four TKIs. Furthermore, there was a high risk of diarrhea and rash for patients treated with afatinib or dacomitinib as well as a moderate risk for treatment with erlotinib, gefitinib, and osimertinib. Conclusion:Our study showed a favorable efficacy of osimertinib in terms of PFS and OS compared to all other EGFR-TKIs in patients with NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations. Furthermore, gefitinib, erlotinib, and osimertinib were associated with fewer toxicities compared to the other TKIs. Therefore, osimertinib is indicated as a preferable first-line TKI in patients with activating EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
Project description:Discovery of sensitizing mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and the subsequent development of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have substantially changed the treatment of lung cancer. First-line treatment with EGFR TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib) has demonstrated a superior response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy in EGFR-mutation positive patients. However, a number of open questions remain, such as choice between the three EGFR TKIs licensed, treatment of patients unsuitable for chemotherapy due to morbidity or advanced age, management of acquired resistance and optimal biological sample to determine EGFR status. Recently the first head-to-head trial comparing gefitinib and afatinib (LUX-Lung 7) has been reported. Moreover, third-generation EGFR TKIs such as osimertinib, rociletinib, olmutinib and ASP8273, with preferential activity against T790M mutant tumours, the commonest resistance mechanism to EGFR TKIs, have shown promising results in early clinical trials, with osimertinib now licensed. In this review, we summarize latest advances in the treatment of EGFR-mutation positive patients focusing on controversial areas and emerging challenges to optimally treat these patients in the future.
Project description:Four epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and osimertinib, are currently available for the management of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with others in development. Although tumors are exquisitely sensitive to these agents, acquired resistance is inevitable. Furthermore, emerging data indicate that first- (erlotinib and gefitinib), second- (afatinib) and third-generation (osimertinib) EGFR TKIs differ in terms of efficacy and tolerability profiles. Therefore, there is a strong imperative to optimize the sequence of TKIs in order to maximize their clinical benefit. Osimertinib has demonstrated striking efficacy as a second-line treatment option in patients with T790M-positive tumors, and also confers efficacy and tolerability advantages over first-generation TKIs in the first-line setting. However, while accrual of T790M is the most predominant mechanism of resistance to erlotinib, gefitinib and afatinib, resistance mechanisms to osimertinib have not been clearly elucidated, meaning that possible therapy options after osimertinib failure are not clear. At present, few data comparing sequential regimens in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC are available and prospective clinical trials are required. This article reviews the similarities and differences between EGFR TKIs, and discusses key considerations when assessing optimal sequential therapy with these agents for the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.
Project description:To provide evidence-based recommendations to update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).An Update Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology NSCLC Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from January 2007 to February 2014.This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline.There is no cure for patients with stage IV NSCLC. For patients with performance status (PS) 0 to 1 (and appropriate patient cases with PS 2) and without an EGFR-sensitizing mutation or ALK gene rearrangement, combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended, guided by histology, with early concurrent palliative care. Recommendations for patients in the first-line setting include platinum-doublet therapy for those with PS 0 to 1 (bevacizumab may be added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel if no contraindications); combination or single-agent chemotherapy or palliative care alone for those with PS 2; afatinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with sensitizing EGFR mutations; crizotinib for those with ALK or ROS1 gene rearrangement; and following first-line recommendations or using platinum plus etoposide for those with large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Maintenance therapy includes pemetrexed continuation for patients with stable disease or response to first-line pemetrexed-containing regimens, alternative chemotherapy, or a chemotherapy break. In the second-line setting, recommendations include docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous cell carcinoma; docetaxel, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with squamous cell carcinoma; and chemotherapy or ceritinib for those with ALK rearrangement who experience progression after crizotinib. In the third-line setting, for patients who have not received erlotinib or gefitinib, treatment with erlotinib is recommended. There are insufficient data to recommend routine third-line cytotoxic therapy. Decisions regarding systemic therapy should not be made based on age alone. Additional information can be found at http://www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc and http://www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
Project description:Several EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are currently available as treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor EGFR mutations. However, no head to head trials between these TKIs in mutated populations have been reported, which provides room for indirect and integrated comparisons.We searched electronic databases for eligible literatures. Pooled data on objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) were calculated. Appropriate networks for different outcomes were established to incorporate all evidences. Multiple-treatments comparisons (MTCs) based on Bayesian network integrated the efficacy and specific toxicities of all included treatments.Twelve phase III RCTs that investigated EGFR-TKIs involving 1821 participants with EGFR mutation were included. For mutant patients, the weighted pooled ORR and 1-year PFS of EGFR-TKIs were significant superior to that of standard chemotherapy (ORR: 66.6% vs. 30.9%, OR 5.46, 95%CI 3.59 to 8.30, P<0.00001; 1-year PFS: 42.9% vs. 9.7%, OR 7.83, 95%CI 4.50 to 13.61; P<0.00001) through direct meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between these four TKIs with respect to all outcome measures. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed that the cumulative probabilities of being the most efficacious treatments were (ORR, 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, 2-year OS): erlotinib (51%, 38%, 14%, 19%), gefitinib (1%, 6%, 5%, 16%), afatinib (29%, 27%, 30%, 27%) and icotinib (19%, 29%, NA, NA), respectively. However, afatinib and erlotinib showed significant severer rash and diarrhea compared with gefitinib and icotinib.The current study indicated that erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib shared equivalent efficacy but presented different efficacy-toxicity pattern for EGFR-mutated patients. Erlotinib and afatinib revealed potentially better efficacy but significant higher toxicities compared with gefitinib and icotinib.
Project description:Docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, the number of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on this topic is increasing. Our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of all second-line treatments for advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown status for EGFR by a systematic review and network meta-analysis.MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration website, as well as other sources, were searched for available reports up to June 6, 2017. Two reviewers independently selected published and unpublished reports of RCTs comparing any second-line treatments, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response (ObR), the number of serious adverse events, and quality of life.We included 102 RCTs involving 36,058 patients (62% male, median age 61 years, 81% with stage IV cancer, 80% smokers, and 92% with performance status 0-1). We revealed a differential reporting of outcomes between efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the trials reported safety outcomes and less than 20% quality of life. For OS, nivolumab was more effective than docetaxel (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.56-0.83), pemetrexed (0.67, 0.52-0.83), erlotinib (0.68, 0.53-0.86), and gefitinib (0.66, 0.53-0.83). Pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib. For PFS, erlotinib plus cabozantinib was more effective than docetaxel (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.18-0.84), pemetrexed (0.38, 0.18-0.82), erlotinib (0.37, 0.18-0.78), and gefitinib (0.38, 0.18-0.82). Cabozantinib and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than the four recommended treatments. For ObR, no treatment was significantly more effective. The effectiveness of the four recommended treatments was similar and they were ranked among the 25 less-effective treatments. For safety, evidence is insufficient to draw certain conclusions.Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib may be the most effective second-line treatments for NSCLC in terms of OS. The four recommended treatments seem to have relatively poor performance. However, the impact on life expectancy of immunotherapy versus other treatments should be further explored by future analyses, and more trials comparing the novel treatments are needed to reduce uncertainty in these results.Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42015017592 ).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m(2)/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS:Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. CONCLUSION:Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov).