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

Enhanced nuclear localization of YAP1-2 contributes to EGF-induced EMT in NSCLC

YAP1, a key mediator of the Hippo pathway, plays an important role in tumorigenesis. Alternative splicing of human YAP1 mRNA results in two major isoforms: YAP1‐1, which contains a single WW domain, and YAP1‐2, which contains two WW domains, respectively. We here investigated the functions and the underlying regulatory mechanisms of the two YAP1 isoforms in the context of EGF‐induced epithelial‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) in non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Human NSCLC cell lines express both YAP1‐1 and YAP1‐2 isoforms—although when compared to YAP1‐1, YAP1‐2 mRNA levels are higher while its protein expression levels are lower. EGF treatment significantly promoted YAP1 expression as well as EMT process in NSCLCs, whereas EGF‐induced EMT phenotype was significantly alleviated upon YAP1 knockdown. Under normal culture condition, YAP1‐1 stable expression cells exhibited a stronger migration ability than YAP1‐2 expressing cells. However, upon EGF treatment, YAP1‐2 stable cells showed more robust migration than YAP1‐1 expressing cells. The protein stability and nuclear localization of YAP1‐2 were preferentially enhanced with EGF treatment. Moreover, EGF‐induced EMT and YAP1‐2 activity were suppressed by inhibitor of AKT. Our results suggest that YAP1‐2 is the main isoform that is functionally relevant in promoting EGF‐induced EMT and ultimately NSCLC progression.

Anlotinib for refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To assess the efficacy and toxicity of anlotinib for the treatment of refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We systematically searched databases for randomized controlled trials on anlotinib treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC published until November 6, 2020. Articles were assessed and data were extracted independently by two investigators. Further, we analyzed hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively). In addition, we analyzed risk ratio (RR) for overall response and disease control rates (ORR and DCR, respectively) and the odds ratio (OR) for the main adverse events (AEs) using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

This analysis included 594 patients from three clinical studies. The pooled HRs for PFS and OS were 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22–0.33, P < 0.001) and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.56–0.83, P < 0.001), respectively, indicating that anlotinib administration significantly improved PFS and OS in patients with advanced NSCLC. The pooled RRs for ORR and DCR were 11.62 (95% CI: 2.75–49.14, P < 0.001) and 2.30 (95% CI: 1.91–2.77, P < 0.001), respectively, indicating that anlotinib administration in patients with advanced NSCLC improved ORR and DCR. The pooled OR for AEs of grade 3 or higher was 2.94 (95% CI: 1.99–4.35, P < 0.001), indicating that AEs of grade 3 or higher were more prevalent in the anlotinib group than in the placebo group.

Conclusion

Anlotinib, an effective choice of third- or later line therapy for patients with refractory advanced NSCLC, provides clinical benefits in terms of PFS, OS, ORR, and DCR. AEs associated with anlotinib were tolerable.

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.

Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease.

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered.

REVIEW METHODS

Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained).

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC.

CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK

The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition, and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments. We aimed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic reviews to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis over time.

METHODS

We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of randomized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic reviews and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other resources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2, 2015. We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic reviews to the randomized evidence available for inclusion each year. We constructed cumulative networks of randomized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials, patients, treatments, and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic reviews on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015.

RESULTS

We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered.

CONCLUSIONS

We illustrate how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments. This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.

[Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Icotinib with Standard Second-line Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and safety of icotinib with standard second-line chemotherapy (single-agent docetaxel or pemetrexed) in previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients treated with icotinib and 33 consecutive patients treated with standard second-line chemotherapy in Xuanwu Hospital from January 2012 to July 2013 were enrolled in our retrospective research. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were used to evaluate the tumor responses, and the progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Icotinib was comparable with standard second-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC in terms of overall response rate (ORR) (28.1% vs 18.2%, P=0.341), disease control rate (DFS)(43.8% vs 45.5%, P=0.890), and PFS (4.3 months vs 3.8 months, P=0.506). In the icotinib group, the ORR of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant was significantly higher than that of EGFR unknown or wild type (P=0.017). In multivariate analysis, age, gender, histology, and the optimum first-line treatment response were dependent prognostic factors based on the PFS of the icotinib group. The incidence of adverse events was significantly fewer in the icotinib group than in the chemotherapy group (P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the standard second-line chemotherapy, icotinib is active in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients, especially with EGFR unknown in the second line, with an acceptable adverse event profile.

The efficacy and safety of EGFR inhibitor monotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been extensively investigated in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but what it is still unclear is the efficacy of (EFGR-TKIs: gefitinib or erlotinib) monotherapy in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In December 2013, we performed a search in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases and Web of Science for randomized trials exploring the role of gefitinib or erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Through strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, fourteen trials (three front-line, two second-line, nine maintenance, n = 8970 patients) were eligible. EGFR-TKIs significantly increased overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.96, I (2) = 50.5%] and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.81, I (2) = 81.2%] compared with placebo or best support care (BSC). Patients with clinical features such as never smoker, adenocarcinoma, Asian ethnicity and EGFR mutation positive had more pronounced OS and PFS benefit. The main adverse reactions were diarrhea, rashes, anorexia and anemia, [odds ratio (OR) = 3.635, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (2.377 to 5.557)], [OR = 15.664, 95%CI = (8.869 to 27.665)], [OR = 1.555, 95%CI = (1.060 to 2.283)], [OR = 1.481, 95%CI = (1.114 to 1.969)], respectively. The results show that monotherapy therapy with EFGR-TKIs produce a significant OS and PFS benefit for patients with NSCLC compared with placebo or BSC, especially for the patients who had adenocarcinomas, non-smokers and patients with EGFR gene mutations.

Clinical meta-analyses of targeted therapies in adenocarcinoma

Although the interpretation of the data reported in meta-analyses may hide several issues, it is undoubtable that this methodological approach may significantly contribute to implement the results of clinical trials, and represent a useful and practical tool for the evidence-based medicine process. Indeed, level-one recommendations should consider well-conducted meta-analyses as well as large and adequately powered randomized trials as the main contributors for the definition of guidelines for clinical practice. In addition, the role of meta-analyses for issues whereas conflicting data (and/or unpowered results) are provided, is well established. In the field of lung cancer, meta-analyses already participated to change the current standard, and are now facing the challenging issues of predictive biomarkers of prognosis and/or efficacy of targeted agents. With this aim, the meta-analytic approach helped in the recent years to implement the quantification of the magnitude of the benefit of targeted agents, and added new insights by interpreting the data coming from clinical trials by integrating them with biomarkers. The treatment-interaction analyses according to putative predictive factors of efficacy may clarify unknown issues and generate new hypotheses for future perspectives. The current review attempts to put in the context of the clinical data of targeted agents for lung cancer all the pros and cons of the meta-analytic process published to date, and critically analyze all the potential perspectives which this methodology may add for both current practice and forthcoming research.