-
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Feb 2011Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung... (Review)
Review
International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma.
INTRODUCTION
Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung adenocarcinoma, an international multidisciplinary classification was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. This new adenocarcinoma classification is needed to provide uniform terminology and diagnostic criteria, especially for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), the overall approach to small nonresection cancer specimens, and for multidisciplinary strategic management of tissue for molecular and immunohistochemical studies.
METHODS
An international core panel of experts representing all three societies was formed with oncologists/pulmonologists, pathologists, radiologists, molecular biologists, and thoracic surgeons. A systematic review was performed under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society Documents Development and Implementation Committee. The search strategy identified 11,368 citations of which 312 articles met specified eligibility criteria and were retrieved for full text review. A series of meetings were held to discuss the development of the new classification, to develop the recommendations, and to write the current document. Recommendations for key questions were graded by strength and quality of the evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The classification addresses both resection specimens, and small biopsies and cytology. The terms BAC and mixed subtype adenocarcinoma are no longer used. For resection specimens, new concepts are introduced such as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) for small solitary adenocarcinomas with either pure lepidic growth (AIS) or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm invasion (MIA) to define patients who, if they undergo complete resection, will have 100% or near 100% disease-specific survival, respectively. AIS and MIA are usually nonmucinous but rarely may be mucinous. Invasive adenocarcinomas are classified by predominant pattern after using comprehensive histologic subtyping with lepidic (formerly most mixed subtype tumors with nonmucinous BAC), acinar, papillary, and solid patterns; micropapillary is added as a new histologic subtype. Variants include invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (formerly mucinous BAC), colloid, fetal, and enteric adenocarcinoma. This classification provides guidance for small biopsies and cytology specimens, as approximately 70% of lung cancers are diagnosed in such samples. Non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), in patients with advanced-stage disease, are to be classified into more specific types such as adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, whenever possible for several reasons: (1) adenocarcinoma or NSCLC not otherwise specified should be tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations as the presence of these mutations is predictive of responsiveness to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, (2) adenocarcinoma histology is a strong predictor for improved outcome with pemetrexed therapy compared with squamous cell carcinoma, and (3) potential life-threatening hemorrhage may occur in patients with squamous cell carcinoma who receive bevacizumab. If the tumor cannot be classified based on light microscopy alone, special studies such as immunohistochemistry and/or mucin stains should be applied to classify the tumor further. Use of the term NSCLC not otherwise specified should be minimized.
CONCLUSIONS
This new classification strategy is based on a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma that incorporates clinical, molecular, radiologic, and surgical issues, but it is primarily based on histology. This classification is intended to support clinical practice, and research investigation and clinical trials. As EGFR mutation is a validated predictive marker for response and progression-free survival with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced lung adenocarcinoma, we recommend that patients with advanced adenocarcinomas be tested for EGFR mutation. This has implications for strategic management of tissue, particularly for small biopsies and cytology samples, to maximize high-quality tissue available for molecular studies. Potential impact for tumor, node, and metastasis staging include adjustment of the size T factor according to only the invasive component (1) pathologically in invasive tumors with lepidic areas or (2) radiologically by measuring the solid component of part-solid nodules.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 21252716
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221 -
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 -
Cancer Apr 2023This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for patients with advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutated, non-small cell cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Abstracts related to lung cancer presented at important international conferences were also reviewed. Randomized clinical trials that qualified the inclusion criteria were subjected to Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematically reviewed.
RESULTS
The authors included a total of nine studies including 2441 patients and seven first-line treatments (ensartinib, brigatinib, crizotinib, lorlatinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy). Overall, lorlatinib appeared to confer the best progression-free survival (PFS) (probability of being the best [Prbest], 90%; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 98%), and the same conclusion was obtained on paired comparisons (lorlatinib vs. ceritinib [hazard ratio (HR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.47); lorlatinib vs. chemotherapy [HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23]; crizotinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.2]; and brigatinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8]). Alectinib conferred the best overall survival (OS) and safety profile. In the Asian population, ensartinib conferred the best PFS (Prbest 50%, SUCRA 87%), and for patients with brain metastases at baseline, lorlatinib showed the best PFS (Prbest 70%, SUCRA 93%).
CONCLUSIONS
For first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, lorlatinib was associated with the best PFS and objective response rate, but poorer safety profile, whereas alectinib demonstrated the best OS and safety profile. In Asians, ensartinib conferred the best PFS benefit, and in the brain baseline metastasis population, lorlatinib conferred the best PFS benefit.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Among the many molecularly targeted drugs currently used to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer, lorlatinib may be one of the most effective targeted drugs. Lung cancer has long been at the top of cancer rankings in terms of incidence and mortality. Today, the treatment of lung cancer has moved into the era of precision therapy. In this article, we use a statistical approach to compare the efficacy and safety of targeted drugs that have been used in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations to improve the reference for clinicians to make treatment decisions in the real world.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Crizotinib; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 36748799
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34664 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Sep 2019Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of carboplatin- versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A meta-analysis by the Cochrane group (2013) was updated. Systematic searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings were conducted to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013-January 2018 which compared carboplatin and cisplatin combined with: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, irinotecan, or pemetrexed. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), one-year OS, objective response rate (ORR), grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities, and HRQoL.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs (2,048 patients) were identified from 4,139 records for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96, 1.21) and one-year OS (relative risk [RR]: 0.97, CI: 0.89, 1.07) between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A small effect on ORR favouring cisplatin was detected (RR = 0.88; CI: 0.78, 0.99). Differences in drug-related toxicities were observed between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy for thrombocytopenia, anaemia, neurotoxicity, and the risk of nausea/vomiting. Three RCTs comparing HRQoL between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy found no significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated evidence base corroborates findings of previous meta-analyses showing no difference in OS between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, despite a slight benefit in ORR for cisplatin. Toxicity profiles should be considered alongside patients' comorbidities in the choice of therapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31446995
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.07.010 -
PloS One 2016Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).
METHODS
We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW".
CONCLUSIONS
Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Deoxycytidine; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Pemetrexed; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 26954503
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149247 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... 2014Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed and docetaxel for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed and docetaxel for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine Database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and toxicities of pemetrexed versus docetaxel as a treatment for advanced NSCLC. We limited the languages to English and Chinese. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify eligible trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of included trials, and then extracted data. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA12.0.
RESULTS
Six RCTs involving 1,414 patients were identified. We found that there was no statistically significant differences in overall response rate, survival time, progression-free survival, disease control rate, and 1-2 yr survival rate (p>0.050) but it is worthy of mention that patients in the pemetrexed arms had significantly higher 3-yr survival rate (P=0.002). With regard to the grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicity, compared with docetaxel, pemetrexed led to lower rate of grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, and leukocyts toxicity (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in anemia between the two arms (p=0.08). In addition, pemetrexed led to higher rate of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia toxicity (p=0.03). As for the non-hematological toxicities, compared with docetaxel, pemetrexed group had lower rate of grade 3-4 diarrhea and alopecia.
CONCLUSIONS
Pemetrexed was almost as effective as docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. At the same time, pemetrexed might increase the 3-yr survival rate. As for safety, pemetrexed led to lower rate of grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, leukocytes, diarrhea and alopecia toxicity. However, it was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Glutamates; Guanine; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Pemetrexed; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24870732
DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.8.3419 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2007To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of unresectable pleural mesothelioma... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of unresectable pleural mesothelioma in chemotherapy-naive patients.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched up to May 2005.
REVIEW METHODS
The systematic review was conducted following accepted guidelines. An assessment of the economic submission received from the manufacturer of pemetrexed was also carried out. This comprised two sections, each employing an economic model. One of these models was then reformulated in order to carry out a separate exploration of economic performance.
RESULTS
One randomised controlled trial comparing pemetrexed and cisplatin with cisplatin alone, and involving a total study population of 448 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin in this trial showed a 2.8-month gain in median survival compared with cisplatin alone in an intention-to-treat (ITT) population (12.1 and 9.3 months, respectively, p = 0.020, hazard ratio of 0.77). During the trial, increased reporting of severe toxicity in the pemetrexed arm led to a change in the protocol to add folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation to therapy. For fully supplemented patients (n = 331) the hazard ratio for median survival in favour of pemetrexed plus cisplatin was also comparable (0.75), but of borderline significance between treatment arms (p = 0.051). The trial inclusion criteria restricted recruitment to those with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or greater (equivalent to ECOG/WHO 0 or 1 scales more widely used in the UK). Quality of life scores using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale demonstrated significantly greater improvement for pain and dyspnoea for patients in the combination group compared with those in the cisplatin group. In the ITT population, the incidence of serious toxicities with pemetrexed plus cisplatin was higher compared with cisplatin alone. However, the grade 3/4 toxicities of the combination arm, particularly leucopenia, neutropenia and diarrhoea, were found to be greatly improved by the addition of vitamin B12 and folic acid. The existing published economic literature was very limited. The economic evaluation conducted by the study (and that submitted by the manufacturer) suggested that pemetrexed is unlikely to be considered cost-effective at conventionally accepted thresholds in the UK for all patients, mainly because of the high cost of pemetrexed itself compared with cisplatin. These findings were better for some patient subgroups, e.g. especially for fully supplemented (FS) patients with good performance status (0/1) and advanced disease (AD). These findings seem robust. The estimated cost-effectiveness results were for the FS population, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained = pound59,600; for the FS with AD population, ICER per QALY = pound47,600; for the FS with performance status 0/1 population, ICER per QALY = pound49,800; and for the FS with performance status 0/1 and AD population, ICER per QALY = pound36,700.
CONCLUSIONS
The new therapy examined in this document demonstrates an extension of life expectancy and palliation, as measured by time to progression of disease and other end-points. However, the absolute benefit obtained is small, and it needs to be weighed against the benefits of effective palliative care services. The limited benefit was also at the expense of considerable toxicity to patients. The economic evaluation conducted in this study and that of the manufacturers suggest that pemetrexed is not cost-effective at conventional thresholds for all patients. Cost-effectiveness seems better for some patient subgroups, e.g. especially for patients with good performance status and with advanced diseases, where it is estimated the ICER per QALY would be pound36,700. Given the relatively small number of patients with mesothelioma, albeit increasing, the overall budget impact of pemetrexed would be unlikely to be more than pound5 million per year at present costs. Much more research is needed into the optimum chemotherapy for patients with mesothelioma and a clear definition of what constitutes best supportive care.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glutamates; Guanine; Humans; Mesothelioma; Pemetrexed; United Kingdom
PubMed: 17181984
DOI: 10.3310/hta11010 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Feb 2023In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments. A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line-to-progression and second-line treatments for advanced NsqNSCLC informed Bayesian NMAs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end points. Among first-line-to-progression treatments, pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the greatest OS benefit versus other regimens and a PFS benefit versus all but three regimens. Among second-line treatments, an OS benefit was seen for atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab versus docetaxel. Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the maximum OS benefit in the first-line setting. In the second-line setting, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapies were better than docetaxel.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Pemetrexed; Network Meta-Analysis; Platinum; Bayes Theorem; Immunotherapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36621905
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0016 -
BMC Medicine Oct 2017Docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
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.
METHODS
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.
RESULTS
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.
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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42015017592 ).
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Genes, erbB-1; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 29082855
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x -
Cancers Oct 2022(1) Background: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in combination with Efficacy and Safety of Epidermal Growth Factor... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and Safety of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Combination Therapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Advanced -Mutated, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
(1) Background: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in combination with Efficacy and Safety of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor(EGFR)-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer; however, head-to-head comparisons of combination therapies are still lacking. Therefore, this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of various combination treatments. (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE for relevant RCTs. (3) Results: TKI combined with antiangiogenic therapy, chemotherapy, or radiation achieved a significant benefit compared with TKI alone for progression free survival (PFS). A combination with radiation yielded better benefits in PFS than any other treatment. In terms of overall survival (OS), only the combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin (HR = 0.63, 95% credible interval 0.43-0.86)/radiation (0.44, 0.23-0.83) was superior to TKI alone. All of the combination therapies may increase the incidence of ≥Grade 3 AEs, as the pooled RRs are over 1; different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual treatments. (4) Conclusions: The TKI combination of radiation/pemetrexed and carboplatin could provide the best antitumor effects among the first generation TKI-based treatments. Considering safety, ramucirumab and bevacizumab may be the ideal additions to TKIs (systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022350474).
PubMed: 36230817
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194894