Multicenter randomized, open-label phase II trial of sequential erlotinib and gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy as first-line therapy in elderly or ECOG PS two patients with advanced NSCLC

A review on epidermal growth factor receptor's role in breast and non-small cell lung cancer

Epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a cell surface transmembrane receptor that mediates the tyrosine signaling pathway to carry the extracellular messages inside the cell and thereby alter the function of nucleus. This leads to the generation of various protein products to up or downregulate the cellular function. It is encoded by cell erythroblastosis virus oncogene B1, so called C-erb B1/ERBB2/HER-2 gene that acts as a proto-oncogene. It belongs to the HER-2 receptor-family in breast cancer and responds best with anti-Herceptin therapy (anti-tyrosine kinase monoclonal antibody). HER-2 positive breast cancer patient exhibits worse prognosis without Herceptin therapy. Similar incidence and prognosis are reported in other epithelial neoplasms like EGFR + lung non-small cell carcinoma and glioblastoma (grade IV brain glial tumor). Present study highlights the role and connectivity of EGF with various cancers via signaling pathways, cell surface receptors mechanism, macromolecules, mitochondrial genes and neoplasm. Present study describes the EGFR associated gene expression profiling (in breast cancer and NSCLC), relation between mitrochondrial genes and carcinoma, and several in vitro and in vivo models to screen the synergistic effect of various combination treatments. According to this study, although clinical studies including targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, TKi-EGFR combined targeted therapy have been carried out to investigate the synergism of combination therapy; however still there is a gap to apply the scenarios of experimental and clinical studies for further developments. This review will give an idea about the transition from experimental to most advanced clinical studies with different combination drug strategies to treat cancer.

First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

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.

Validation of stage groupings in the eighth edition of the tumor node metastasis classification for lung adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to validate stage groupings in the 8th edition of the tumor node metastasis (TNM) classification for lung adenocarcinoma and explore the non-anatomic factors that influence the prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma patients in China.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 291 lung adenocarcinoma patients at our department between 2008 and 2013. Logrank tests and Cox regression models were used to analyze survival among adjacent stage groupings. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

There were significant differences in OS in adjacent stage groupings in early stages in the 8th edition. There were also significant differences between patients treated with radical surgery and limited resection (P = 0.027). Lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma (LPA) had better survival rates than acinar predominant (APA), papillary predominant, and solid predominant with mucin production adenocarcinoma (SPA) (P = 0.008). Survival rates of micropapillary predominant adenocarcinoma were lower than the others (P = 0.003). EGFR mutations were closely associated with lepidic predominant (65%, P = 0.56) but less commonly associated with solid predominant with mucin production adenocarcinoma (24%, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in survival between EGFR gene mutation-positive and negative groups (P = 0.402).

CONCLUSION

The 8th edition TNM may be more accurate and applicable than the 7th edition for Chinese lung adenocarcinoma patients who have undergone surgical treatment. Stage IV patients may gain survival improvement from radical surgery.

Combination Strategies Using EGFR-TKi in NSCLC Therapy: Learning from the Gap between Pre-Clinical Results and Clinical Outcomes

Although epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors have been used to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for decades with great success in patients with EGFR mutations, acquired resistance inevitably occurs after long-term exposure. More recently, combination therapy has emerged as a promising strategy to overcome this issue. Several experiments have been carried out to evaluate the synergism of combination therapy both in vitro and in vivo. Additionally, many clinical studies have been carried out to investigate the feasibility of treatment with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKi) combined with other NSCLC treatments, including radiotherapy, cytotoxic chemotherapies, targeted therapies, and emerging immunotherapies. However, a significant gap still exists when applying pre-clinical results to clinical scenarios, which hinders the development and use of these strategies. This article is a literature review analysing the rationalities and controversies in the transition from pre-clinical investigation to clinical practice associated with various combination strategies. It also highlights clues and challenges regarding future combination therapeutic options in NSCLC treatment.

Selection of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients for Intercalated Chemotherapy and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

When treating patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy, intercalated schedule with time separation between the two classes of drugs should avoid their mutual antagonism. In a survey of published trials, we focus on relation between eligibility criteria and effectiveness of intercalated treatment.

METHODS

Published documents were identified using major medical databases, conference proceedings and references of published trials. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was taken as the basic parameter of treatment efficacy. Correlation between characteristics of patients and median PFS was assessed through the Pearson's correlation coefficient and the coefficient of determination, separately for first-line and second-line setting.

RESULTS

The series includes 11 single-arm trials and 18 randomized phase II or phase III trials with a total of 2903 patients. Treatment-naive patients or those in progression after first-line treatment were included in 16 and 13 trials, respectively. In 14 trials, only patients with non-squamous histology were eligible. Proportion of patients with non-squamous carcinoma (in first-line setting), proportion of never-smokers (both in first- and second-line setting) and proportion of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant patients (both in first- and second-line setting) showed a moderate or strong correlation with median PFS. In six trials of intercalated treatment applied to treatment-naive EGFR-mutant patients, objective response was confirmed in 83.1% of cases and median PFS was 18.6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Most suitable candidates for intercalated treatment are treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutant tumors, as determined from biopsy or liquid biopsy. For these patients, experience with intercalated treatment is most promising and randomized trials with comparison to the best standard treatment are warranted.

Combination of chemotherapy and gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and sensitive EGFR mutations: A randomized controlled trial

To explore the optimal treatment strategy for patients who harbor sensitive EGFR mutations, a head-to-head study was performed to compare chemotherapy and gefitinib in combination or with either agent alone as first-line therapy, in terms of efficacy and safety. A total of 121 untreated patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma who harbored sensitive EGFR mutations were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib combined with pemetrexed and carboplatin, pemetrexed plus carboplatin or gefitinib alone. The progression-free survival (PFS) of patients in the combination group (17.5 months, 95% CI, 15.3-19.7) was longer than that of patients in the chemotherapy group (5.7 months, 95% CI, 5.2-6.3) or gefitinib (11.9 months, 95% CI, 9.1-14.6) group. The (hazard ratios) HRs of PFS for the combination group vs. chemotherapy and gefitinib groups were 0.16 (95% CI, 0.09-0.29, p < 0.001) and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.29-0.78, p = 0.003), respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) in the combination therapy group, chemotherapy group and the gefitinib group was 82.5%, 32.5% and 65.9%, respectively. The combinational strategy resulted in longer overall survival (OS) than chemotherapy (HR = 0.46, p = 0.016) or gefitinib (HR = 0.36, p = 0.001) alone. Our finding suggested that treatment with pemetrexed plus carboplatin combined with gefitinib could provide better survival benefits for patients with lung adenocarcinoma harboring sensitive EGFR mutations.

[Intercalated Combination of Chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs versus Chemotherapy Alone in the First-line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis]

背景与目的

化疗与表皮生长因子受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, EGFR-TKIs)联合疗法一直是许多研究的焦点，其中间插联合疗法受到了更多研究者的关注。本研究旨在系统评价化疗与EGFR-TKIs间插联合疗法对比单独化疗一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC)的有效性及安全性。

方法

检索The Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMBASE、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、知网和万方等数据库关于化疗间插联合EGFR-TKIs疗法和单独化疗一线治疗晚期NSCLC的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial, RCT)，分析如下结局指标：无进展生存期(progression-free survival, PFS)、总体生存期(overall survival, OS)、客观缓解率(objective response rate, ORR)、疾病控制率(disease control rate, DCR)以及不良反应发生率。由两名研究者根据Cochrane系统评价手册筛选文献、进行质量评价以及提取并交叉核对数据。应用Stata12.0软件进行meta分析。

结果

本研究共纳入6个RCT，共计933例晚期NSCLC患者。Meta分析结果表明，在晚期NSCLC患者一线治疗中，与单独化疗相比，间插联合疗法虽然延长了患者的PFS(HR=0.72, 95%CI: 0.53-0.98, P=0.037)，但并不能提高其OS(HR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.72-1.01, P=0.060)、ORR(OR=1.59, 95%CI: 0.86-2.95, P=0.142)和DCR(OR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.95-1.25, P=0.226)。进一步的亚组分析发现，间插联合疗法提高了女性、腺癌、从不吸烟和EGFR突变等患者的PFS，差异具有统计学意义。在安全性方面，间插联合疗法的主要不良反应为皮疹(OR=7.81, 95%CI: 3.74-16.34, P < 0.001)和腹泻(OR=2.73, 95%CI: 1.92-3.89, P < 0.001)。

结论

一线接受化疗间插联合EGFR-TKIs治疗的NSCLC患者的PFS明显高于接受单独化疗者，其主要不良事件是皮疹和腹泻。因此，间插联合治疗具有一定优势，但仍需要更多大样本、高质量的RCT进一步验证。

Intercalated Chemotherapy and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Patients With Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of concurrent epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) plus chemotherapy for unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) produced negative results. Intercalated administration could avoid the reduction of chemotherapy activity due to G₁ cell-cycle arrest from EGFR-TKIs. A PubMed search was performed in December 2015 and updated in February 2016. The references from the selected studies were also checked to identify additional eligible trials. Furthermore, the proceedings of the main international meetings were searched from 2010 onward. We included RCTs comparing chemotherapy intercalated with an EGFR-TKI versus chemotherapy alone for patients with advanced NSCLC. Ten RCTs were eligible (6 with erlotinib, 4 with gefitinib): 39% of patients had a known EGFR mutational status, 43% of whom EGFR mutation positive. The intercalated combination was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.95; P = .01), progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .00001), and objective response rate (ORR; odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 2.08-3.49; P < .00001). Considering only first-line trials, similar differences were found in OS (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .05), PFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.73; P < .00001), and ORR (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.65-2.95; P < .00001). In EGFR mutation-positive patients, the addition of an intercalated EGFR-TKI produced a significant benefit in PFS (129 patients; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.37; P < .00001) and ORR (168 patients; OR, 11.59; 95% CI, 5.54-24.25; P < .00001). In patients with advanced NSCLC, chemotherapy plus intercalated EGFR-TKIs was superior to chemotherapy alone, although a definitive interpretation was jeopardized by the variable proportion of patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors included.

Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations

Among attempts to delay development of resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), intercalated therapy has not been properly evaluated. In a phase II trial, 38 patients with EGFR mutated NSCLC in advanced stage were treated with 4 to 6 3-weekly cycles of intercalated schedule with gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2, days 1 and 4), cisplatin (75 mg/m2, day 2) and erlotinib (150 mg, days 5 - 15), followed by continuous erlotinib as maintenance. In addition to standard radiologic evaluation according to RECIST, PET/CT was done prior to treatment and at 6 months, using PERCIST as a method for assessment of response. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). In general, tolerance to treatment was good, even among 8 patients with performance status 2-3 and 13 patients with brain metastases; grade 4 toxicity included 2 cases of neutropenia and 4 thrombo-embolic events. Complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were seen in 15 (39.5%) and 17 (44.7%) cases, respectively. All cases of CR were confirmed also by PET/CT. Median PFS was 23.4 months and median overall survival (OS) was 38.3  months. After a median follow-up of 35 months, 8 patients are still in CR and on maintenance erlotinib. In conclusion, intercalated treatment for treatment-naive patients with EGFR activating mutations leads to excellent response rate and prolonged PFS and survival. Comparison of the intercalated schedule to monotherapy with TKIs in a randomized trial is warranted.

First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is emerging as an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men and is less associated with smoking.

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 outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, response rate, toxicity, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 1 June 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 1 June 2015), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 1 June 2015). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (1 June 2015); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel 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

Nineteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Seven 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 2317, of whom 1700 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 the intervention treatment used in eight trials, gefitinib in seven trials, afatinib in two trials, and cetuximab in two trials. The findings of one trial (FASTACT 2) did report a statistically significant OS gain for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, but this result was based on a small number of participants (n = 97). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of 3 trials (n = 378) demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.38).In a pooled analysis with 491 participants administered gefitinib, 2 trials (IPASS and NEJSG) demonstrated a statistically significant PFS benefit of gefitinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48).Afatinib (n = 709) showed a statistically significant PFS benefit when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of 2 trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53).Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events for afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms, fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies.No statistically significant PFS or OS benefit for cetuximab plus cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 81) compared to chemotherapy alone was reported in either of the two trials.Six trials reported on quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, 2 trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (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, and afatinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged progression-free survival compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We also found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, we found no increase in overall survival for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There were no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy.

Chemotherapy plus Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy Alone for Treating Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether a combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is beneficial for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. This study aimed to summarize the currently available evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for treating advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015015).

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with a total of 3599 patients were included. Compared to chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus erlotinib was superior in PFS (HR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], P = 0.006), and no statistically significant difference was observed in OS (HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.86, 1.03], P = 0.16). Intercalated erlotinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated improvements in PFS (HR = 0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.91], P = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98], P = 0.03). Continuous erlotinib plus chemotherapy treatment failed to demonstrate improvements in PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.80, 1.04], P = 0.16) and OS (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.89, 1.09], P = 0.75). The association of chemotherapy plus erlotinib with improvement in PFS was significant in never smoking patients (HR = 0.46 [95% CI 0.37, 0.56], P<0.00001) but not in smoking patients (HR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.49, 1.00], P = 0.05). Among patients with EGFR mutant tumors, chemotherapy plus erlotinib demonstrated significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.31 [95% CI 0.17, 0.58], P = 0.0002) and OS (HR = 0.52 [95% CI 0.30, 0.88], P = 0.01). Among patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, no statistically significant difference was observed with respect to PFS (HR = 0.87 [95% CI 0.70, 1.08], P = 0.21) and OS (HR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.59, 1.01], P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable treatment option for patients with NSCLC, especially for patients who never smoked and patients with EGFR mutation-positive disease. In addition, intercalated administration is an effective combinatorial strategy.

Use of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and icotinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review addresses the use of epidermal growth factor receptor (egfr) inhibitors in three populations of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) patients-unselected, selected, and molecularly selected-in three treatment settings: first line, second line, and maintenance.

METHODS

Ninety-six randomized controlled trials found using the medline and embase databases form the basis of this review.

RESULTS

In the first-line setting, data about the efficacy of egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy are inconsistent. Results from studies that selected patients based on clinical characteristics are also mixed. There is high-quality evidence that an egfrtki is preferred over a platinum doublet as initial therapy for patients with an activating mutation of the EGFR gene. The egfrtkis are associated with a higher likelihood of response, longer progression-free survival, and improved quality of life. Multiple trials of second-line therapy have compared an egfrtki with chemotherapy. Meta-analysis of those data demonstrates similar progression-free and overall survival. There is consequently no preferred sequence for second-line egfrtki or second-line chemotherapy. The egfrtkis have also been evaluated as switch-maintenance therapy. No molecular marker could identify patients in whom a survival benefit was not observed; however, the magnitude of the benefit was modest.

CONCLUSIONS

Determination of EGFR mutation status is essential to making appropriate treatment decisions in patients with nsclc. Patients who are EGFR mutation-positive should be treated with an egfrtki as first-line therapy. An egfrtki is still appropriate therapy in patients who are EGFR wild-type, but the selected agent should be administered as second- or third-line therapy.