The Difference in Clinical Outcomes Between Osimertinib and Afatinib for First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced and Recurrent EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Taiwan

The difference between dacomitinib and afatinib in effectiveness and safety in first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world observational study

OBJECTIVES

The irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) afatinib and dacomitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and dacomitinib in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between September 2020 and March 2023, we retrospectively recruited patients diagnosed with advanced-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC who were treated with first-line irreversible EGFR-TKIs. The enrolled patients were assigned to two groups based on whether they received afatinib or dacomitinib.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients were enrolled in the study (70 to afatinib and 31 to dacomitinib). The partial response rates (PR) for first-line treatment with afatinib and dacomitinib were 85.7 and 80.6% (p = 0.522). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (18.9 vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.975) and time to treatment failure (TTF) (22.7 vs. 15.9 months, p = 0.324) in patients with afatinib and dacomitinib treatment were similar. There was no significant difference observed in the median PFS (16.1 vs. 18.9 months, p = 0.361) and TTF (32.5 vs. 19.6 months, p = 0.182) between patients receiving the standard dose and those receiving the reduced dose. In terms of side effects, the incidence of diarrhea was higher in the afatinib group (75.8% vs. 35.5%, p <  0.001), while the incidence of paronychia was higher in the dacomitinib group (58.1% vs. 31.4%, p = 0.004). The PFS (17.6 vs. 24.9 months, p = 0.663) and TTF (21.3 vs. 25.1 months, p = 0.152) were similar between patients younger than 75 years and those older than 75 years.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that afatinib and dacomitinib had similar effectiveness and safety profiles. However, they have slightly different side effects. Afatinib and dacomitinib can be safely administered to patients across different age groups with appropriate dose reductions.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Lung Cancer and the Risk of Keratitis

Importance

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRis) have been reported to be associated with cutaneous and ocular side effects; however, there is limited evidence of an association between EGFRi treatment and keratitis.

Objective

To determine the association between EGFRi treatment and agents and the risk of new-onset keratitis among patients with lung cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This US population-based cohort study examined TriNetX data of patients with lung cancer treated with or without EGFRis between May 1, 2003, and October 30, 2023.

Exposures

Treatment with EGFRis, including the first-generation agents gefitinib and erlotinib, the second-generation agent afatinib, and the third-generation agent osimertinib.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The risk of new-onset keratitis among patients with lung cancer receiving EGFRi treatment was determined using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

Among 1 388 108 patients with lung cancer, 22 225 received EGFRis (mean [SD] age, 69.7 [10.6] years; 62.8% females and 37.2% males). Patients treated with EGFRis had a higher risk of keratitis than nonexposed patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.520; 95% CI, 1.339-1.725). Subtypes of EGFRi-associated keratitis included keratoconjunctivitis (HR, 1.367; 95% CI, 1.158-1.615), superficial keratitis (HR, 1.635; 95% CI, 1.306-2.047), and corneal ulcer (HR, 2.132; 95% CI, 1.515-3.002). Patients taking afatinib had a higher risk of keratitis (HR, 2.229; 95% CI, 1.480-3.356).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that patients with lung cancer treated with EGFRis may have an increased risk of new-onset keratitis, especially with the second-generation EGFRi afatinib, supporting the need for prompt diagnosis and management of EGFRi-associated ocular issues to prevent serious complications or treatment disruptions.

Measured Steps: Navigating the Path of Oligoprogressive Lung Cancer with Targeted and Immunotherapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the definitions, treatment modalities, management, future directions, and ongoing clinical trials of oligoprogressive disease in oncogene-driven and non-oncogene-driven NSCLC.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the last decades, diagnostic and treatment modalities for oligometastatic NSCLC have advanced significantly, leading to improved survival. Additionally, our understanding of the tumor biology of oligoprogressive disease has expanded. However, despite the efforts of organizations, such as EORTC, ESTRO, and ASTRO proposing definitions for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease, heterogeneity in definitions persists in (ongoing) trials. Recognizing the significance of subclassification within oligoprogressive disease in NSCLC and the varying risks associated with subsequent metastatic spread, there is a call for tailored management strategies. A consensus on standardized criteria for the definition of oligoprogressive disease is urgently needed and will not only facilitate meaningful comparisons between studies but also pave the way for the development of personalized treatment plans that take into account the heterogeneous nature of oligoprogressive disease.

Treatment outcomes of non-small cell lung cancers treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a real-world cohort study

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are a standard of care treatment options in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present study investigated real-world EGFR TKI use and patient outcomes in NSCLC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We collected all the patients who had reimbursement for EGFR TKIs in Finland 2011-2020 and had data available at Finnish Cancer Registry. Survival and time-on-treatment (ToT) were analyzed from the first EGFR TKI purchase and patients were stratified according to the TKIs.

RESULTS

Whole patient cohort consisted of 1498 individuals who were treated with erlotinib (n = 998), afatinib (n = 258), or gefitinib (n = 238). In the EGFR mutant cohort (all gefitinib users and afatinib users with non-squamous histology; n = 466), survival was comparable to registrational trials while patients treated with afatinib had improved survival (HR 0.67 CI 95% 0.53-0.85) and longer ToT (13.9 vs 11.9 months, NS) compared to those treated with gefitinib. Females treated with afatinib had improved survival (HR 0.61 CI 95% 0.44-0.83) and longer ToT (15.1 vs 12.5 months, NS) compared to gefitinib while similar was not observed in males. Later line osimertinib treatment was applied for 78 patients. Approximately 20% of the individuals treated with previous gefitinib or afatinib had later line osimertinib treatment. Efficacy analysis of osimertinib treated showed similar ToT and survival regardless of the first line EGFR TKI.

CONCLUSIONS

EGFR mutants treated with afatinib have improved outcomes compared to gefitinib while later-line osimertinib was applied only for around 20% of the individuals. The study further highlights the good real-world performance of EGFR TKIs and sheds light on therapy sequencing.

First- versus Third-Generation EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with Brain Metastases

Introduction: Up to 50% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbor EGFR alterations, the most common etiology behind brain metastases (BMs). First-generation EGFR-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKI) are limited by blood-brain barrier penetration and T790M tumor mutations, wherein third-generation EGFR-TKIs, like Osimertinib, have shown greater activity. However, their efficacy has not been well-studied in later therapy lines in NSCLC patients with BMs (NSCLC-BM). We sought to compare outcomes of NSCLC-BM treated with either first- or third-generation EGFR-TKIs in first-line and 2nd-to-5th-line settings. Methods: A retrospective review of NSCLC-BM patients diagnosed during 2010-2019 at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, US, a quaternary-care center, was performed and reported following 'strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology' (STROBE) guidelines. Data regarding socio-demographic, histopathological, molecular characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Primary outcomes were median overall survival (mOS) and progression-free survival (mPFS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score matching were utilized to adjust for confounders. Results: 239 NSCLC-BM patients with EGFR alterations were identified, of which 107 received EGFR-TKIs after diagnosis of BMs. 77.6% (83/107) received it as first-line treatment, and 30.8% (33/107) received it in later (2nd-5th) lines of therapy, with nine patients receiving it in both settings. 64 of 107 patients received first-generation (erlotinib/gefitinib) TKIs, with 53 receiving them in the first line setting and 13 receiving it in the 2nd-5th lines of therapy. 50 patients received Osimertinib as third-generation EGFR-TKI, 30 in first-line, and 20 in the 2nd-5th lines of therapy. Univariable analysis in first-line therapy demonstrated mOS of first- and third-generation EGFR-TKIs as 18.2 and 19.4 months, respectively (p = 0.57), while unadjusted mPFS of first- and third-generation EGFR-TKIs was 9.3 and 13.8 months, respectively (p = 0.14). In 2nd-5th line therapy, for first- and third-generation EGFR-TKIs, mOS was 17.3 and 11.9 months, (p = 0.19), while mPFS was 10.4 and 6.08 months, respectively (p = 0.41). After adjusting for age, performance status, presence of extracranial metastases, whole-brain radiotherapy, and presence of leptomeningeal metastases, hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.25 (95% CI 0.63-2.49, p = 0.52) for first-line therapy. Adjusted HR for mOS in 2nd-to-5th line therapy was 1.60 (95% CI 0.55-4.69, p = 0.39). Conclusions: No difference in survival was detected between first- and third-generation EGFR-TKIs in either first or 2nd-to-5th lines of therapy. Larger prospective studies are warranted reporting intracranial lesion size, EGFR alteration and expression levels in primary tumor and brain metastases, and response rates.