-
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jan 2022Compound epidermal growth factor receptor () mutations represent a heterogeneous subgroup of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with uncommon mutations. We... (Review)
Review
Compound epidermal growth factor receptor () mutations represent a heterogeneous subgroup of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with uncommon mutations. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the available data on this patients' subgroup. Overall, we found a high heterogeneity in the incidence of compound mutations (4-26% of total mutant cases), which is dependent on the different testing methods adopted and the specific mutations considered. In addition, the relative incidence of distinct compound subclasses identified is reported with extreme variability in different studies. Preclinical and clinical data, excluding exon 20 p.T790M compound mutations, show good responses with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (combined common mutations: response rate (RR) ≥ 75% with either first- or second-generation TKIs; combined common plus uncommon: RR 40-80% and 100% with first-generation TKIs and afatinib, respectively; combined uncommon: RR 20-70%, ~80% and ~75% with first-generation TKIs, afatinib and osimertinib, respectively). Overall, data are consistent in supporting the use of EGFR TKIs in treating compound mutations, taking into account different sensitivity profile of accompanying mutations for selecting the most adequate EGFR TKI for individual patients.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mutation; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 35049698
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29010024 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021As one of the second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, afatinib brings survival benefits to patients with common and rare... (Review)
Review
As one of the second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, afatinib brings survival benefits to patients with common and rare EGFR mutations. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of 30 and 40 mg of afatinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using qualitative and quantitative analysis methods so as to provide reference for clinical medication. The PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases were thoroughly searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality. RevMan and Stata 15.0 were used for meta-analysis. Twelve cohort studies including 1290 patients for final analysis were selected; of which, 1129 patients were analyzed to measure the effectiveness outcomes and 470 patients were analyzed for safety outcomes. In patients with non-brain metastasis, the progression-free survival of the first- or second-line treatment with reduced-dose afatinib was equivalent to the conventional dose. In terms of safety, the reduced dose could significantly lower the incidence of severe diarrhea and severe rash, but not the total incidence of diarrhea, rash, and all levels of paronychia. The incidence of common serious adverse reactions was significantly lower with 30 mg of afatinib than with 40 mg of afatinib in patients with NSCLC. The effectiveness appeared to be similar to that in patients with non-brain metastasis. This study provides a reference for clinical dose reduction of afatinib. [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42021238043].
PubMed: 34912228
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.781084 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Jun 2021Innovative strategies to fully exploit the antitumor activity of multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are urgently needed. Higher concentrations of TKIs at...
BACKGROUND
Innovative strategies to fully exploit the antitumor activity of multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are urgently needed. Higher concentrations of TKIs at their target site, i.e. intratumorally, may lead to broader kinase inhibition, which might be essential for the optimal suppression of tumor growth and induction of apoptosis. To reach these higher intratumoral concentrations, without encountering dose limiting toxicity, alternative TKI dosing strategies employing higher daily and high intermittent doses have been studied. In this systematic review, we evaluated the current clinical evidence to support (intermittent) high TKI dosing regimens.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in the following databases: PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane Library©, to evaluate efficacy of alternatively scheduled high-dosed regimen (a higher dose in a regular daily schedule than registered or a higher dose in an alternative intermittent schedule) of TKIs in (haemato-)oncology. Data were extracted independently by two authors according to predefined criteria. Extracted data were tabulated to summarize key findings.
RESULTS
Out of twenty studies that met the inclusion criteria, thirteen investigated higher daily dose schedules of either afatinib, axitinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, imatinib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Five of these studies included pharmacokinetic analyses, reporting marginal higher maximum drug concentrations (C) in plasma (1.3-4-fold higher) compared to the standard dose schedules. Seven clinical trials investigated intermittent high-dose schedules requiring treatment breaks, with the following TKIs: afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, lapatinib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Six of these included pharmacokinetic results, all reporting higher (2-21-fold) C in plasma compared to the standard daily dose schedule, with manageable toxicity. No data on tumor concentrations were presented. Data on the efficacy outcomes were limited due to small sample size, study designs, phase 1 population and heterogeneous tumor types.
CONCLUSIONS
Early phase clinical studies show that high-dose intermittent TKI-treatment schedules can lead to an increased C compared to standard (low-dose) daily administration with manageable toxicity. These higher concentrations are assumed to reflect higher intratumoral concentrations. Further investigation of the potential improvement in clinical benefit of a high-dose intermittent strategy with multitargeting TKIs is warranted.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Neoplasms; Prognosis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 33823432
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102171 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men, is less associated with smoking, but occurs at a younger age than sporadic tumours.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness of single-agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included response rate, symptom palliation, toxicity, and health-related quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 27th July 2020), Embase (1980 to 27th July 2020), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 27th July 2020). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (July 2020); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-two trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 3023, of whom approximately 2563 were of Asian origin. Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo. Erlotinib was used in eight trials, gefitinib in nine trials, afatinib in two trials, cetuximab in two trials, and icotinib in one trial. The findings of FASTACT 2 suggested a clinical benefit for OS for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, as did the Han 2017 trial for gefitinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, but both results were based on a small number of participants (n = 97 and 122, respectively). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of four trials showed evidence of clinical benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.39 ; 583 participants ; high-certainty evidence). A pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48 ; 491 participants high-certainty evidence), and a pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance also showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, 371 participants ; moderate-certainty evidence). Afatinib showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53, 709 participants high-certainty evidence). All but one small trial showed a corresponding improvement in response rate with tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy. Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events associated with afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and icotinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms; fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies. Seven trials reported on health-related quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, two trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the TKI compared to chemotherapy. The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged PFS compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adverse effect and health-related quality of life. We found limited evidence for increased OS for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy, but the majority of the included trials allowed participants to switch treatments on disease progression, which will have a confounding effect on any OS analysis. Single agent-TKI remains the standard of care and the benefit of combining a TKI and chemotherapy remains uncertain as the evidence is based on small patient numbers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib or icotinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There are no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy. Icotinib is not available outside China.
Topics: Afatinib; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bias; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cetuximab; Crown Ethers; ErbB Receptors; Erlotinib Hydrochloride; Female; Gefitinib; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Mutation; Paclitaxel; Pemetrexed; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33734432
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010383.pub3 -
Journal of Cancer 2021Different second-line treatments of patients with trastuzumab-resistant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer were examined in...
Efficacy of second-line treatments for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive breast cancer after trastuzumab-based treatment: a systematic review and bayesian network analysis.
Different second-line treatments of patients with trastuzumab-resistant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer were examined in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis is helpful to evaluate the comparative survival benefits of different options. We performed a bayesian network meta-analysis using R-4.0.0 software and fixed consistency model to compare the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits of different second-line regimens. 13 RCTs (19 publications, 4313 patients) remained for qualitative synthesis and 12 RCTs (17 publications, 4022 patients) were deemed eligible for network meta-analysis. For PFS, we divided network analysis into two parts owing to insufficient connections among treatments. The first part involved 8 treatments in 9 studies and we referred it as PFS (#1). Amid the following 8 interventions: pyrotinib + capecitabine, T-DM1 + atezolizumab, pertuzumab + trastuzumab + capecitabine, T-DM1, trastuzumab + capecitabine, lapatinib + capecitabine, neratinib, and capecitabine, we found consistent benefits between the first three interventions; moreover, pyrotinib + capecitabine was most likely to be associated with the best benefits; capecitabine monotherapy was associated with the worst PFS. The second part included 3 treatments in 2 studies and we referred it as PFS (#2): everolimus + trastuzumab + vinorelbine had better PFS benefits versus trastuzumab + vinorelbine and afatinib + vinorelbine. For OS, we analyzed 7 treatments in 7 studies, and observed T-DM1 + atezolizumab, pertuzumab + trastuzumab + capecitabine, and T-DM1 had similar effectiveness, and the first had the highest probability to yield the longest OS; capecitabine or neratinib alone yielded the worst OS benefits. Our work comprehensively summarized and analyzed current available RCT-based evidence of the second-line treatments for trastuzumab-treated, HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer. These results provide clinicians and oncologists meaningful references for clinical drug administration and the development of novel effective therapies.
PubMed: 33613756
DOI: 10.7150/jca.51845 -
Cancers Feb 2021Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the afatinib efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and recurrent/metastatic head... (Review)
Review
Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the afatinib efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). This review systemically outlined and meta-analyzed the afatinib efficacy in NSCLC and R/M HNSCC in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) endpoints. Records were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from 2011 to 2020. Eight afatinib RCTs were included and assessed for the risk of bias. In meta-analysis, overall pooled effect size (ES) of OS in afatinib group (AG) significantly improved in all RCTs and NSCLC-RCTs [hazard ratios (HRs): 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81-0.98, = 0.02); I = 0%, = 0.71/ 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76-0.97; = 0.02); I = 0%, = 0.50, respectively]. ES of PFS in AG significantly improved in all RCTs, NSCLC-RCTs, and HNSCC-RCTs [HRs: 0.75 (95% CI: 0.68-0.83; < 0.00001); I = 26%, = 0.24; 0.75 (95% CI: 0.66-0.84; < 0.00001); I = 47%, = 0.15/0.76 (95% CI: 0.65-88; = 0.0004); I = 34%, = 0.0004, respectively]. From a clinical viewpoint of severity, interstitial lung disease, dyspnea, pneumonia, acute renal failure, and renal injury were rarely incident adverse events in the afatinib group. In conclusion, first- and second-line afatinib monotherapy improved the survival of patients with NSCLC, while second-line afatinib monotherapy could be promising for R/M HNSCC. The prospective protocol is in PROSPERO (ID = CRD42020204547).
PubMed: 33567737
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13040688 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jul 2020To compare the survival outcomes of first-line treatment regimens for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To compare the survival outcomes of first-line treatment regimens for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with stable brain metastases.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of available data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment regimens of NSCLC patients with stable brain metastases. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted and analysed from the RCT subgroups. A network meta-analysis was constructed using the Bayesian statistical model to synthesize the survival outcomes of all the treatments.
RESULTS
The analysis included 6 eligible RCT subgroups with 417 patients and 7 treatment regimens osimertinib, afatinib, first-generation EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib), erlotinib + bevacizumab, gefitinib + pemetrexed + carboplatin, gemcitabine + cisplatin, and pemetrexed + cisplatin. Of these seven treatment regimens, gefitinib + pemetrexed + carboplatin had the highest potential for favorable PFS and OS, followed by osimertinib, in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with stable brain metastases. None of the results met the predetermined statistical significance of P<0.05.
CONCLUSIONS
The regimens of "Gefitinib + pemetrexed + carboplatin" and "Osimertinib" were associated with the most favorable PFS and OS compared to the other therapies in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with stable brain metastases, although the difference between these regimens and the others was not statistically significantly different.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Brain Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 32692221
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1136 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2019To 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). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
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.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Mutation; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 31591158
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l5460 -
The European Journal of Health... Feb 2020To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
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.
METHODS
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.
RESULTS
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost-Benefit Analysis; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Markov Chains; Netherlands; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 31541309
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01117-3