Erlotinib has better efficacy than gefitinib in adenocarcinoma patients without EGFR-activating mutations, but similar efficacy in patients with EGFR-activating mutations

Sialidase Attenuates Epidermal Growth Factor Response and Abolishes Antiproliferative Effects of Erlotinib in A549Alveolar Epithelial Cells

Erlotinib is a widely used, reversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), targeting pro-proliferative signaling of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The drug is approved for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations. Extracellular glycans can affect EGFR expression, dimerization, phosphorylation, and EGF binding. In this study we investigated the effects of EGF and erlotinib on the cell cycle of naive and sialidase (alpha-neuraminidase)-pretreated human A549 alveolar epithelial cells. A549 cells were labeled with propidium iodide, and fractions of cells in different phases of cycle were quantified by flow cytometry. We found that neither did desialilation nor EGF, as well as erlotinib treatment, increase the number of damaged cells (subG0/G1 cell fraction), while erlotinib did significantly increase the number of G0/G1 cells and decrease S + G2/M cell fractions. In naive cells, EGF increased proliferating cell numbers by more than 40%, and this effect was blocked by erlotinib. In desialylated cells, however, proliferation was significantly decreased by about 29%, and EGF and erlotinib did not exert significant effects. We conclude that changes in alveolar epithelial cell membrane glycosylation may affect function of growth-promoting receptors and erlotinib effectiveness.

Gefitinib provides similar effectiveness and improved safety than erlotinib for east Asian populations with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib have both been proven effective for treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially in East Asian patients. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety in treating advanced NSCLC in this population.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for the relevant studies. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse effects (AEs) were analyzed as primary endpoints.

RESULTS

We identified 5829 articles, among which 31 were included in the final analysis. Both gefitinib and erlotinib were effective for treating advanced NSCLC, with comparable PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97-1.10, p = 0.26), OS (95% CI: 0.89-1.21, p = 0.61), ORR (95% CI: 1.00-1.18, p = 0.06), and DCR (95% CI: 0.93-1.05, p = 0.68). Erlotinib induced a significantly higher rate of dose reduction (95% CI: 0.13-0.65, p = 0.002) and grade 3-5 AEs (95% CI: 0.27-0.71, p = 0.0008). In subgroup analysis of AEs, the erlotinib group had a significantly higher rate and severity of skin rash, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and stomatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

With equal anti-tumor efficacy and fewer AEs compared with erlotinib, gefitinib is more suitable for treating advanced NSCLC in East Asian patients. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our findings.

Gefitinib provides similar effectiveness and improved safety than erlotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib are effective for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis compared their effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

We searched systematically in PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for relevant clinical trials regarding gefitinib versus erlotinib for NSCLC. Antitumor effectiveness (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], objective response rate [ORR] and disease control rate [DCR]) and adverse effects [AEs]) were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty studies comprising 9376 participants were included. The results suggested that gefitinib and erlotinib are effective for advanced NSCLC with comparable PFS (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.98-1.11, P = .15), OS (95% CI: 0.93-1.19, P = .45), ORR (95% CI: 0.99-1.16, P = .07), and DCR (95% CI: 0.92-1.03, P = .35). For erlotinib, dose reduction was significantly more frequent (95% CI: 0.10-0.57, P = .001) as were grade 3 to 5 AEs (95% CI: 0.36-0.79, P = .002). In the subgroup analysis, the erlotinib group had a significant higher rate and severity of skin rash, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, and stomatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Gefitinib was proven to be the better choice for advanced NSCLC, with equal antitumor effectiveness and fewer AEs compared with erlotinib. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our validation.

Comparison of effectiveness and adverse effects of gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib among patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis

The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two reviewers searched the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals and Wanfang databases for relevant studies. Studies were then screened and evaluated, and data was extracted. End-points evaluated for NSCLC included complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), median survival time (MST) and adverse effects, including rash, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue and abnormal liver function. For the analysis of incorporated studies, RevMan, SPSS, R and Stata software were used. A total of 43 studies with 7,168 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed in CR, PR, SD, PD, ORR or DCR between gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib by using network meta analysis. Compared with gefitinib, erlotinib resulted in a higher rate of nausea and vomiting [adjusted odds ratio (OR)=2.0; 95% credible interval, 1.1-3.7]. However, no significant differences were observed in the rates of rash, diarrhea, fatigue or abnormal liver function using network meta-analysis. Compared with erlotinib, gefitinib resulted in a lower SD rate [OR=0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.99; P=0.04], and lower rates of rash (OR=0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.55; P<0.00001), diarrhea (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P=0.005), nausea and vomiting (OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P=0.01) and fatigue (OR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P=0.004) through meta-analysis of two congruent drugs. However, gefitinib resulted in a higher rate of rash compared with icotinib (OR=1.57; 95% CI, 1.18-2.09; P=0.002). Otherwise, no significant differences were observed in CR, PR, PD, ORR, DCR and abnormal liver function between gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib through meta-analysis of two congruent drugs. The PFS rate for gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib was 5.48, 5.15 and 5.81 months, respectively. The MST was 13.26, 13.52, 12.58 months for gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib, respectively. Gefitinib and icotinib resulted in significantly higher PFS rates compared with erlotinib (P<0.05). Erlotinib resulted in a significantly longer MST compared with gefitinib and icotinib (P<0.05). In conclusion, gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib had similar effectiveness for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. However, gefitinib resulted in a lower frequency of fatigue, and nausea and vomiting, compared with the other two drugs. Icotinib resulted in a lower frequency of rash. Erlotinib resulted in a longer MST, but was also associated with a higher frequency of rash, and nausea and vomiting.

Erlotinib Salvage Therapy in Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma Patients With Disease Progression After Previous EGFR-TKI Treatment

BACKGROUND

Erlotinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with promising efficacy in treating pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Treatment choices are few when patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma have failed both EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of erlotinib as salvage treatment for these nonresponsive patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the chart records of our stage IV pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients who were diagnosed and treated between July 2004 and June 2013. Clinical data, including type of response to treatment, time to disease progression, duration between the end of first-line EGFR-TKI treatment and starting erlotinib treatment, and overall survival time, were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were enrolled, and all had been treated with EGFR-TKI, either as a first-line therapy or following platinum-based chemotherapy; of them, 60 patients had a response to initial EGFR-TKI treatment. All received erlotinib as salvage treatment after their disease had progressed following EGFR-TKI treatment. Ninety-three (93.3%) patients had also received previous platinum-based chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival with erlotinib as salvage treatment for patients with and without a response to front-line EGFR-TKI was 4.9 and 3.4 months (P=0.869), respectively. The progression-free survival with erlotinib treatment in the sensitizing EGFR mutation group was 4.3 months, and in the EGFR wild-type group it was 2.6 months (P=0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

In pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients who had been heavily treated, erlotinib could still be a choice, regardless of the EGFR mutation status, or whether the patients had responded to previous EGFR-TKI treatment.

Comparison of gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib are three widely used epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) for treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with proven efficacy. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize existing studies with direct comparisons of EGFR TKIs in NSCLC in terms of both efficacy and safety. Eight randomized trials and 82 cohort studies with a total of 17,621 patients were included for analysis. Gefitinib and erlotinib demonstrated comparable effects on progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.04), overall survival (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.06), overall response rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.11), and disease control rate (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.01), which did not vary considerably with EGFR mutation status, ethnicity, line of treatment, and baseline brain metastasis status. Gefitinib was associated with more grade 3/4 liver dysfunction, but tended to cause lower rates of dose reduction, treatment discontinuation, total grade 3/4 adverse events (RR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94), and a number of specific adverse events such as rash and diarrhea. No solid evidence was found that afatinib had greater efficacy than gefitinib or erlotinib in first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant NSCLC. However, afatinib was more effective than erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma. The grade 3/4 adverse events rate of afatinib was comparable to that of erlotinib but higher than that of gefitinib.

Differential Toxicities of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in the Management of Metastatic Lung Cancer

Introduction:

Erlotinib and gefitinib are the most commonly used epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) in the treatment of EGFR mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Both erlotinib and gefitinib have shown equal efficacy in terms of response rates and overall survival. Hence, their toxicity profile becomes the most important determining factor in choosing these agents when treating EGFR mutant NSCLC. In this study, we compared the toxicity profile of erlotinib and gefitinib among an Indian subset of lung cancer patients.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective nonrandomized study, 85 patients of South Indian origin with NSCLC were tested for EGFR mutation status, and EGFR mutant patients were started on either erlotinib or gefitinib. They were periodically monitored for drug toxicities.

Results:

Out of the 85 patients tested, 34 patients were positive for EGFR mutation. Eleven of them were started on erlotinib and 23 were started on gefitinib. The most common side effect of TKIs was skin rash. Nine out of the 11 patients started on erlotinib and 7 of the 23 patients started on gefitinib had skin rash. Grade 3 and 4 skin rash was significantly more among patients treated with erlotinib which resulted in treatment delays. Other side effects of TKIs such as diarrhea and deranged liver functions were similar among the both subsets of patients.

Conclusion:

Skin toxicity is the major and serious side effect with erlotinib among Indian patients with EGFR mutant lung cancer. This resulted in significant treatment delay, which might adversely affect the overall survival of patients. Gefitinib was better tolerated and had a safer toxicity profile compared to erlotinib in Indian patients.

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.

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer

First-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), including gefitinib and erlotinib, have proven to be highly effective agents for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients harboring an activating EGFR mutation such as the exon 19 deletion mutation and L858R. Although those reversible small molecular targeted agents provide a significant response and survival benefit, all responders eventually acquire resistance. Second-generation EGFR-targeting agents, such as irreversible EGFR/HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors and pan-HER TKIs, may improve survival further and be useful for patients who acquired resistance to first-generation EGFR-TKIs. This review discusses novel therapeutic strategies for EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC using first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs.

Re-Treatment with EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC Patients Who Developed Acquired Resistance

In the era of personalized medicine, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been a mainstay of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with an EGFR mutation. Acquired resistance, especially substitution of methionine for threonine at position 790 (T790M), which has accounted for more than half of the cases, developed inevitably in patients who were previously treated with EGFR-TKI. At present, there is no standard treatment for patients who have developed a resistance to EGFR-TKI. Several strategies have been developed or suggested to treat such patients. This article aimsto review the EGFR-TKI re-treatment strategy and the efficacy of different generations of EGFR-TKIs in patients with acquired resistance to prior EGFR-TKI.

Mutated ephrin receptor genes in non-small cell lung carcinoma and their occurrence with driver mutations-targeted resequencing study on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor material of 81 patients

Non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is the most common subtype of lung cancer. The oncogenic potential of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) is widely known and they are potential targets for tailored therapy. Ephrin receptors (Ephs) form the largest group of RTKs. Nevertheless, Ephs are not widely studied in NSCLC so far. The aim of our study was to investigate novel mutations of Eph genes (EPHA1-8, EPHB1-4, EPHB6) and their association with clinically relevant mutations in BRAF, EML4-ALK, EGFR, INSR, KDR, KRAS, MET, PDGFRA, PDGFRB, PIK3, PTEN, RET, and TP53 in NSCLC patients. Targeted resequencing was conducted on 81 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded NSCLC tumor specimens. We analyzed missense and nonsense mutations harbored in the coding regions of the selected genes. We found 18 novel mutations of Ephs in 20% (16 of 81) of the patients. Nearly half of these mutations occurred in the protein kinase domain. The mutations were not mutually exclusive with other clinically relevant mutations. Our study shows that Ephs are frequently mutated in NSCLC patients, and occur together with other known mutations relevant to the pathogenicity of NSCLC.

Are erlotinib and gefitinib interchangeable, opposite or complementary for non-small cell lung cancer treatment? Biological, pharmacological and clinical aspects

Gefitinib and erlotinib are the two anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for treatment of advanced NSCLC patients. These drugs target one of the most important pathways in lung carcinogenesis and are able to exploit the phenomenon of 'oncogene addiction', with different efficacy according to EGFR gene mutational status in tumor samples. Gefitinib has been approved only for EGFR mutation bearing patients regardless the line of treatment, while erlotinib is also indicated in patients without EGFR mutation who undergo second- or third-line treatment. Some studies evaluated the main differences between these drugs both for direct comparison and to improve their sequential use. In particular, toxicity profile resulted partially different, and these observations may be explained by several molecular and pharmacokinetic features. Therefore, this review integrates preclinical data with clinical evidences of TKIs to guide the optimization of currently available treatments in advanced NSCLC patients.