Health-Related Quality of Life in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Methodological Appraisal Based on a Systematic Literature Review

Background: The majority of lung cancer patients are diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the bulk of which receive palliative systemic treatment with the goal to provide effective symptom palliation and safeguard health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Advanced NSCLC trials with HRQoL endpoints face methodological constraints limiting interpretability. Objectives: We provide a comprehensive overview of recent clinical trials evaluating the impact of systemic therapies on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC, focusing on the methodological quality, with the ultimate goal to improve interpretation, comparison and reporting of HRQoL data. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. Prospective studies published over the last decade evaluating the impact of systemic treatments on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC were included. Methodological quality of HRQoL reporting was assessed with the CONSORT-PRO extension. Results: Hundred-twelve manuscripts describing 85 trials met all criteria. No formal conclusion can be drawn regarding the impact on HRQoL of different treatments. We report an important variety in methodological quality in terms of definitions of HRQoL, missing data points, lack of standardization of analyzing and presenting HRQoL and no standard follow-up time. The quality of HRQoL data reporting varies substantially between studies but improves over time. Conclusion: This review shows that in the heterogeneous landscape of trials addressing HRQoL in advanced stage NSCLC. Methodology reporting remains generally poor. Adequate reporting of HRQoL outcome data is equally important to support clinical decision-making as to correctly inform health policy regarding direct approval and reimbursement of the new drugs and combinations that will come online.

Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

IMPORTANCE

Progression-free survival (PFS) has become a commonly used outcome to assess the efficacy of new cancer drugs. However, it is not clear if delay in progression leads to improved quality of life with or without overall survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between PFS and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncology through a systematic review and quantitative analysis of published randomized clinical trials. Eligible trials addressed oral, intravenous, intraperitoneal, or intrapleural chemotherapy or biological treatments, and reported PFS or health-related quality of life.

DATA SOURCES

For this systematic review and quantitative analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with cancer, we searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2000, through May 4, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We examined the association of difference in median PFS duration (in months) between treatment groups with difference in global, physical, and emotional HRQoL scores between groups (standardized to a range of 0-100, with higher scores representing better HRQoL) using weighted simple regressions.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

The association between PFS duration and HRQoL.

RESULTS

Of 35 960 records screened, 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials involving 13 979 patients across 12 cancer types using 6 different HRQoL instruments were included. The mean (SD) difference in median PFS between the intervention and the control arms was 1.91 (3.35) months. The mean (SD) differences in change of HRQoL adjusted to per-month values were -0.39 (3.59) for the global domain, 0.26 (5.56) for the physical domain, and 1.08 (3.49) for the emotional domain. The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in change for global HRQoL (n = 30 trials) was 0.12 (95% CI, -0.27 to 0.52); for physical HRQoL (n = 20 trials) it was -0.20 (95% CI, -0.62 to 0.23); and for emotional HRQoL (n = 13 trials) it was 0.78 (95% CI, -0.05 to 1.60).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQoL in cancer clinical trials. These findings raise questions regarding the assumption that interventions prolonging PFS also improve HRQoL in patients with cancer. Therefore, to ensure that patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure HRQoL directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up.

Gefitinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence from all randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of gefitinib as first-line, second-line or maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 17 February 2017. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, clinical trial registries and references lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials assessing gefitinib, alone or in combination with other treatment, compared to placebo or other treatments in the first- or successive-line treatment of patients with NSCLC, excluding compassionate use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed the search results to select those with sound methodological quality. We carried out all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We recorded the following outcome data: overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, tumour response and quality of life. We also collected data for the following subgroups: Asian ethnicity and positive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which examined 12,089 patients.General populationGefitinib did not statistically improve overall survival when compared with placebo or chemotherapy in either first- or second-line settings. Second-line gefitinib prolonged time to treatment failure (TTF) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90, P < 0.0001) when compared with placebo. Maintenance gefitinib improved progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91, P = 0.007) after first-line therapy.Studies in patients of Asian ethnicity or that conducted subgroup analysesSecond-line gefitinib prolonged overall survival over placebo (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P = 0.01). In the first-line setting, progression-free survival was improved with gefitinib over chemotherapy alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98, P = 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Gefitinib given in combination with a chemotherapy regimen improved progression-free survival versus either gefitinib alone or chemotherapy alone (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96, P = 0.03; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively). In the second-line setting, progression-free survival was superior in patients given gefitinib over placebo or chemotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, P = 0.009; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, P = 0.002; moderate quality of evidence, respectively). Combining gefitinib with chemotherapy in the second-line setting was superior to gefitinib alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97, P = 0.04). As maintenance therapy, gefitinib improved progression-free survival when compared with placebo (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.54, P < 0.00001).Patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumoursStudies in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumours showed an improvement in progression-free survival in favour of gefitinib over first-line and second-line chemotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.61, P < 0.00001; HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47, P < 0.0001, respectively). Gefitinib as maintenance therapy following chemotherapy improved overall and progression-free survival (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98, P = 0.05; HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, P < 0.0001, respectively) in one phase III study when compared to placebo.Toxicities from gefitinib included skin rash, diarrhoea and liver transaminase derangements. Toxicities from chemotherapy included anaemia, neutropenia and neurotoxicity.In terms of quality of life, gefitinib improved Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 10.50, 95% CI 9.55 to 11.45, P < 0.000001), lung cancer subscale (SMD 3.63, 95% CI 3.08 to 4.19, P < 0.00001) and Trial Outcome Index (SMD 9.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 18.48, P < 0.00001) scores when compared with chemotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that gefitinib, when compared with standard first- or second-line chemotherapy or maintenance therapy, probably has a beneficial effect on progression-free survival and quality of life in selected patient populations, particularly those with tumours bearing sensitising EGFR mutations.Patients with EGFR mutations lived longer when given maintenance gefitinib than those given placebo.One study conducted subgroup analysis and showed that gefitinib improved overall survival over placebo in the second-line setting in patients of Asian ethnicity. All other studies did not detect any benefit on overall survival. The data analysed in this review were very heterogenous. We were limited in the amount of data that could be pooled, largely due to variations in study design. The risk of bias in most studies was moderate, with some studies not adequately addressing potential selection, attrition and reporting bias. This heterogeneity may have an impact on the applicability of the resultsCombining gefitinib with chemotherapy appears to be superior in improving progression-free survival to either gefitinib or chemotherapy alone, however further data and phase III studies in these settings are required.Gefitinib has a favourable toxicity profile when compared with current chemotherapy regimens. Although there is no improvement in overall survival, gefitinib compares favourably with cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutations with a prolongation of progression-free survival and a lesser side effect profile.

EGFR-TKIs versus taxanes agents in therapy for nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Currently, the nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a worldwide disease, which has very poor influence on life quality, whereas the therapeutic effects of drugs for it are not satisfactory. The aim of our PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) with Taxanes in patients with lung tumors.

METHODS

We collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib) versus Taxanes (docetaxel, paclitaxel) for the treatment of NSCLC by searching PubMed, EMbase, and the Cochrane library databases until April, 2016. The extracted data on progression-free survival (PFS), progression-free survival rate (PFSR), overall survival (OS), overall survival rate (OSR), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL), and adverse event rates (AEs) were pooled. Disease-relevant outcomes were evaluated using RevMan 5.3.5 software and STATA 13.0 software.

RESULTS

We systematically searched 26 RCTs involving 11,676 patients. The results showed that EGFR-TKIs could significantly prolong PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.92) and PFSR (risk ratio [RR] = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.17-3.77), and improve ORR (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.38-1.91) and QoL. EGFR-TKIs had similar therapeutic effects to taxanes with respect to OS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.95-1.05) and OSR (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94-1.14). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between them in DCR (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.88-1.03). Finally, EGFR-TKIs were superior to taxanes in most of all grades or grade ≥3 AEs.

CONCLUSION

In the efficacy and safety evaluation, EGFR-TKIs had an advantage in the treatment of NSCLC, especially for patients with EGFR mutation-positive. The project was prospectively registered with PROSPERO database of systematic reviews, with number CRD42016038700.

Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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.

Gefitinib: a review of its use in adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Gefitinib (Iressa®) is a selective small-molecule epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations of EGFR tyrosine kinase. Large phase III or IV clinical trials in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC showed that gefitinib as first- or subsequent-line treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and improved objective response rates and/or health-related quality of life parameters in patients with activating EGFR mutations and in clinically selected patients (e.g., Asian patients or never-smokers) who are more likely to harbour these mutations. Overall survival did not increase significantly with gefitinib, although post-study treatments may have had a confounding effect on this outcome. Gefitinib was generally well tolerated in these studies, with mild or moderate skin reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances and elevations in liver enzymes among the most common adverse reactions in gefitinib recipients; interstitial lung disease has also been reported in <6 % of gefitinib recipients. Compared with chemotherapy, gefitinib as first- or subsequent-line therapy provided similar or greater PFS benefit and was generally associated with fewer haematological adverse events, neurotoxicity, asthenic disorders, as well as grade ≥3 adverse events. Although the position of gefitinib with respect to other EGFR TKIs is not definitively established, current evidence indicates that gefitinib monotherapy is an effective and generally well-tolerated first- or subsequent-line treatment option for patients with NSCLC and activating EGFR mutations who have not received an EGFR TKI previously.

Efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with/without EGFR-mutation: evidence based on recent phase III randomized trials

Background

EGFR mutation might be a predictive factor for applying EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs, including gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLS) patients. Thus, it is necessary to pool previous trials to compare the effect of EGFR-TKIs versus cytotoxic chemotherapy in EGFR mutation positive (mut+) and negative (mut−) patients.

Material/Methods

This study identified 8 first-line and 9 second-line phase III trials in databases. Hazard ratio (HR) was pooled to assess the risk of progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), while odds ratio (OR) was pooled to assess objective response, disease control, and toxicity of EGFR-TKIs verses chemotherapy.

Results

In EGFR mut+ patients, EGFR-TKIs were associated with significantly lower risk of disease progression in the first-line setting, but this trend was only observed in the gefitinib group, not in the erlotinib group in the second-line setting. In EGFR mut− patients, gefitinib and erlotinib had significantly higher risk of disease progression in first-line and second-line setting, respectively. Compared with chemotherapy, the effects of EGFR-TKIs on OS in both first-line and second-line settings were not evident. Regarding toxicity, EGFR-TKIs had significantly higher risk of rash and lower hematological toxicity compared with chemotherapy.

Conclusions

All of the 3 EGFR-TKIs and gefitinib alone regimens had better effects in prolonging PFS in EGFR mut+ patients in first-line and second-line setting, respectively, but chemotherapy seemed more effective in EGFR mut− patients than EGFR-TKIs. Therefore, accurate identification of EGFR mutation status is useful to decide on an appropriate regimen for treatment of NSCLC patients.

Molecular Targeted Drugs and Biomarkers in NSCLC, the Evolving Role of Individualized Therapy

Lung cancer first line treatment has been directed from the non-specific cytotoxic doublet chemotherapy to the molecular targeted. The major limitation of the targeted therapies still remains the small number of patients positive to gene mutations. Furthermore, the differentiation between second line and maintenance therapy has not been fully clarified and differs in the clinical practice between cancer centers. The authors present a segregation between maintenance treatment and second line and present a possible definition for the term “maintenance” treatment. In addition, cancer cell evolution induces mutations and therefore either targeted therapies or non-specific chemotherapy drugs in many patients become ineffective. In the present work pathways such as epidermal growth factor, anaplastic lymphoma kinase, met proto-oncogene and PI3K are extensively presented and correlated with current chemotherapy treatment. Future, perspectives for targeted treatment are presented based on the current publications and ongoing clinical trials.

Gefitinib: re-emerging from the shadows

SUMMARY In the past decade, the identification of mutations in the EGFR gene and the sensitivity of activating mutations to EGF receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors has improved survival in a subset of non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Over 70% of patients with EGFR mutations have a response to gefitinib therapy. Gefitinib, a first-generation EGF receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well tolerated and continues to be widely used. However, eventually most patients develop resistance to gefitinib. This article reviews the pharmacology of gefitinib and summarizes the clinical trials that have resulted in its current day indications.

Health-related quality of life questionnaires in lung cancer trials: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. Treatment goals are the relief of symptoms and the increase of overall survival. With the rising number of treatment alternatives, the need for comparable assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) parameters grows. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe measurement instruments applied in lung cancer patients under drug therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review at the beginning of 2011 using the electronic database Pubmed.

RESULTS

A total of 43 studies were included in the review. About 17 different measurement instruments were identified, including 5 generic, 5 cancer-specific, 4 lung cancer-specific and 3 symptom-specific questionnaires. In 29 studies at least 2 instruments were used. In most cases these were cancer and lung cancer-specific ones. The most frequently used instruments are the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its lung cancer modules LC13 or LC17. Only 5 studies combined (lung) cancer-specific questionnaires with generic instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The EORTC-C30 and EORTC-LC13 are the most frequently used health-related quality of life measurement instruments in pharmacological lung cancer trials.

Gefitinib versus placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (INFORM; C-TONG 0804): a multicentre, double-blind randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Maintenance treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy is a subject of ongoing research. The aim of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, INFORM study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the EGFR-tyrosine-kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the maintenance setting.

METHODS

Patients were aged 18 years or older, were of east Asian ethnic origin, had a life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, a WHO performance status of 0-2, and had completed four cycles of first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy without disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Between Sept 28, 2008 and Aug 11, 2009, 296 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either gefitinib (250 mg per day orally) or placebo (orally) within 3-6 weeks after chemotherapy until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was done via an interactive web response system with computer-generated randomisation codes. Our primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This completed study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00770588.

FINDINGS

Progression-free survival was significantly longer with gefitinib (n=148) than with placebo (148) (median progression-free survival 4·8 months [95% CI 3·2-8·5] vs 2·6 months [1·6-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·42, 95% CI 0·33-0·55; p<0·0001). Adverse events occurred more frequently with gefitinib than with placebo; the most common adverse events of any grade were rash (73 [50%] of 147 in the gefitinib group vs 14 [9%] of 148 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (37 [25%] vs 13 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increase (31 [21%] vs 12 [8%]). The most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 adverse event was alanine aminotransferase increase (3 [2%] of 147 in the gefitinib group, none of 148 in the placebo group). Ten of 147 (7%) patients given gefitinib and five of 148 (3%) patients given placebo had serious adverse events. Three deaths were thought to be related to treatment with gefitinib: one from interstitial lung disease; one from lung infection; and one from pneumonia.

INTERPRETATION

Maintenance treatment with gefitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients from east Asia with advanced NSCLC who achieved disease control after first-line chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider these data when making decisions about maintenance treatment in such patients.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Health-related quality-of-life in a randomized phase III first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients from Asia with advanced NSCLC (IPASS)

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and symptom improvement were preplanned secondary objectives for the overall population and posthoc analyses for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive/negative subgroups in IPASS.

METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI); symptom improvement by the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS). Improvements defined as: 6 or more (FACT-L; TOI), 2 or more (LCS) points increase maintained for 21 or more days.

RESULTS

Overall (n = 1151/1217 evaluable), HRQoL improvement rates were significantly greater with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel; symptom improvement rates were similar for both treatments. Significantly more patients recorded improvements in HRQoL and symptoms with gefitinib in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n = 259; FACT-L 70.2% versus 44.5%; odds ratio, 3.01 [95% confidence interval, 1.79-5.07]; p < 0.001; TOI 70.2% versus 38.3%; 3.96 [2.33-6.71]; p < 0.001; LCS 75.6% versus 53.9%; 2.70 [1.58-4.62]; p < 0.001), and with carboplatin/paclitaxel in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (n = 169; FACT-L 14.6% versus 36.3%; odds ratio, 0.31 [0.15-0.65]; p = 0.002; TOI 12.4% versus 28.8%; 0.35 [0.16-0.79]; p = 0.011; LCS 20.2% versus 47.5%; 0.28 [0.14-0.55]; p < 0.001). Median time-to-worsening (months) FACT-L score was longer with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for the overall population (8.3 versus 2.5) and EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (15.6 versus 3.0), and similar for both treatments in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (1.4 versus 1.4). Median time-to-improvement with gefitinib was 8 days in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors who improved.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL and symptom endpoints were consistent with efficacy outcomes in IPASS and favored gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors and carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with EGFR mutation-negative tumors.

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the efficacy, quality of life (QOL), symptom improvement and toxicities of gefitinib with docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

The PubMed database, the Cochrane Library and references of published trials were searched. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data. The hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), relative risks (RRs) for overall response rate, QOL and symptom improvement, and odds ratios (ORs) for main toxicities were pooled using STATA package.

RESULTS

Four multicenter, randomized controlled trials involving 2257 patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC were ultimately analyzed. The pooled HRs showed no significant difference in OS and PFS between the two groups (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.92-1.12, p = 0.70; HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.88-1.07, p = 0.57, respectively). Gefitinib significantly improved overall response rate (RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.02-2.45, p = 0.04) and QOL (RR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.27-1.88, p = 0.00 by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and RR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.43-2.42, p = 0.00 by Trial Outcome Index, respectively). Gefitinib had fewer grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and fatigue (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01-0.03, p = 0.00; and OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.32-0.70, p = 0.00, respectively), but more grade 3 or 4 rash (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.24-6.63, p = 0.01) than docetaxel. The grade 3 or 4 nausea, vomiting and diarrhea and symptom improvement were comparable between the two drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, although similar OS and PFS, gefitinib showed an advantage over docetaxel in terms of objective response rate, QOL and tolerability. Therefore, gefitinib is an important and valid treatment option for previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

[Gefitinib for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta analysis]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Malignant grade and death rate are very high for non-small cell lung cancer, and gefitinib is a new molecule target anticancer drug. The aim of this meta analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of gefitinib for non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8, 2010), PubMed (1966-2010.8), EMBASE (1974-2010.8), CNKI (1994-2010.8), VIP (1989-2010.8), and CMD Digital Periodicals (1998-2010.8). Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. Meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 6,207 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: gefitinib showed no remarkable advantage in media survival time, 1 year survival rate, complete response rate (CRR), partial response rate (PRR), stable disease (SD) when compared to Placebo, Docetaxel, Cisplatin+Docetaxel, Pemetrexed. Gifitinib could increase overall survival rate compared to Docetaxel, Cisplatin+Docetaxel (RR=1.41, 95%CI: 1.10-1.80; RR=1.93, 95%: 1.26-2.94). When compared to Placebo, Docetaxel, gifitinib could improve life quality of Total-FACT-L improve rate (RR=1.42, 95%CI: 1.16-1.74; RR=1.66, 95%CI: 1.39-1.97). The major adverse event for gifitinib were rash/acne, dry skin, diarrhea. While gifitinib showed lower hematology toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Gifitinib shows more superiority for non-small cell lung cancer, and its clinical application is worthy to be advocated.

Emerging role of gefitinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) present with advanced disease and their long-term prognosis remains poor. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapies, such as gefitinib, have been subjected to comprehensive clinical development. Several phase II and III trials evaluated the clinical efficacy of gefitinib as monotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC, as well as both monotherapy and combined with chemotherapy in chemotherapy-naive patients. A phase III trial (ISEL) in heavily pretreated advanced NSCLC patients demonstrated some improvement in survival with gefitinib compared with placebo; however, the difference was not statistically significant within the overall population. A large phase III trial in pretreated patients (INTEREST) demonstrated the non-inferiority of gefitinib in comparison with docetaxel for overall survival, together with an improved quality of life and tolerability profiles. In a large phase III trial (IPASS) in Asian chemotherapy-naive, never or former light-smoker patients with adenocarcinoma, gefitinib was more effective than carboplatin-paclitaxel in prolonging progression-free survival, particularly in patients harboring EGFR gene mutations. Gefitinib was a generally well tolerated treatment, with skin rash and diarrhea being the most common treatment adverse events. As a result, gefitinib is expected to have a large impact on the management of patients with advanced NSCLC, in particular in EGFR mutated patients.

Oncogenic mutant forms of EGFR: lessons in signal transduction and targets for cancer therapy

The EGF-receptor is frequently mutated in a large variety of tumors. Here we review the most frequent mutations and conclude that they commonly enhance the intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity, or they represent loss-of-function of suppressive regulatory domains. Interestingly, the constitutive activity of mutant receptors translates to downstream pathways, which are subtly different from those stimulated by the wild-type receptor. Cancer drugs intercepting EGFR signaling have already entered clinical application. Both kinase inhibitors specific to EGFR, and monoclonal antibodies to the receptor are described, along with experimental approaches targeting the HSP90 chaperone. Deeper understanding of signaling pathways downstream to mutant receptors will likely improve the outcome of current EGFR-targeted therapies, as well as help develop new drugs and combinations.