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

Greenhalgh, Janette ORCID: 0000-0003-4812-1904, Dwan, Kerry, Boland, Angela ORCID: 0000-0002-5435-8644, Bates, Victoria, Vecchio, Fabio, Dundar, Yenal, Jain, Pooja and Green, John A (2016) First‐line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016 (5). CD010383-.

	Text First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.pdf - Submitted version Download (884kB)
	Text Greenhalgh_et_al-2016-Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews.pdf - Published Version Download (833kB) | Preview

Abstract

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.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Mutation, Afatinib, Antineoplastic Agents [adverse effects, *therapeutic use], Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols [therapeutic use], Carcinoma, Non‐Small‐Cell Lung [*drug therapy, genetics, mortality], Cetuximab [adverse effects, therapeutic use], ErbB Receptors [*genetics], Erlotinib Hydrochloride [adverse effects, therapeutic use], Gefitinib, Lung Neoplasms [*drug therapy, genetics, mortality], Protein Kinase Inhibitors [therapeutic use], Quality of Life, Quinazolines [adverse effects, therapeutic use], Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	26 Jun 2020 08:31
Last Modified:	18 Jan 2023 23:48
DOI:	10.1002/14651858.CD010383.pub2
Related URLs:	Author Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3091606

Available Versions of this Item

• First‐line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer. (deposited 19 Aug 2016 09:47)
  • First‐line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer. (deposited 26 Jun 2020 08:31) [Currently Displayed]