Real-world outcomes of first- And second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors first-line in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective observational cohort study

7Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The sequencing of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a matter of controversy. This cohort study analyzed the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of afatinib compared with erlotinib and gefitinib first-line. EGFRm+, advanced NSCLC patients treated with either afatinib, erlotinib or gefitinib were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 107 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS among the 3 groups. In the 60 years age group, the afatinib group had longer survival compared to the gefitinib group (p = 0.01). Median OS were 19.1, 22.9, and 35.6 months for gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib groups, respectively, with statistical significance between the gefitinib and afatinib groups (p = 0.009). Patients on afatinib also had longer median OS than erlotinib and gefitinib pooled together (35.5 versus 21.4 months; hazard ratio = 0.54, p = 0.016), despite similar median PFS. In conclusion, afatinib is a better choice compared to gefitinib or erlotinib for EGFRm+ patients. The OS obtained with afatinib is just 3 months shorter than osimertinib in the FLAURA trial. Direct comparison studies with osimertinib are still needed to determine optimal sequencing.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ng, W. W., Lin, C. C., Cheng, C. Y., Jiang, J. S., Kao, S. J., & Yeh, D. Y. (2021). Real-world outcomes of first- And second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors first-line in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective observational cohort study. PLoS ONE, 16(6 June). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253335

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free