About the Authors:
Ning Li
Contributed equally to this work with: Ning Li, Lu Yang
Affiliation: Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
Lu Yang
Contributed equally to this work with: Ning Li, Lu Yang
Affiliation: Department of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
Wei Ou
Affiliation: Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
Liang Zhang
Affiliation: Department of Thoracic Surgery, Tianjin First Center Hospital, Tianjin, China
Song-liang Zhang
Affiliation: Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
Si-yu Wang
* E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliation: Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
Introduction
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the world and approximately accounts for 13% of total cases and 18% of total deaths globally [1]. Although patients received standard first-line chemotherapy, most of them progressed ultimately. Docetaxel is considered as standard second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [2], [3]. Pemetrexed was approved for second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC after findings of a phase III trial by Hanna et al. showed equivalent outcomes. Pemetrexed was associated with few adverse events compared with docetaxel and comparable efficacy [4].
Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs, including Erlotinib and Gefitinib) have been approved as second-line therapy [5], [6], [7]. The BR.21 trial reported prolonged survival with erlotinib compared with placebo (median survival, 7.9 versus 3.7 months) in patients with advanced NSCLC after failure of previous chemotherapy [5].
However, the debate on the selection of EGFR-TKIs or chemotherapy in the second-line setting has heated up, even though several meta-analyses have been performed to address this issue. The editorial in 2012 gave an illustration of this debate [8]. Although the meta-analysis by Qi et al. demonstrated both EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy had comparable efficacy in the second-line setting, the potential effect of EGFR mutation status on survival was not analysed [9]. The subsequent comprehensive meta-analysis by Lee et al. showed that an EGFR mutation is a predictive marker of PFS with EGFR-TKIs in all settings, but it included only 5 studies comparing EGFR-TKIs with chemotherapy in the second-line setting [10]. Recently, several trials showed that chemotherapy had superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) over EGFR-TKIs for EGFR mutation-negative (EGFR M−) patients [11], [12], [13]. A meta-analysis which included 3 trials in the 2013 ASCO annual meeting demonstrated chemotherapy can improve PFS compared with EGFR-TKIs for EGFR M− patients [14]. To further investigate the optimal treatment and the role of EGFR mutation status in second-line setting, we performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of EGFR-TKIs versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for pretreated advanced NSCLC.
Methods
Search Strategy
An internet search of PubMed, the Embase database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database (CENTRAL), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the World Conference of Lung Cancer (WCLC) was performed in July 2013, via the various combinations of the following terms: “lung cancer”, “gefitinib”, “erlotinib”, “EGFR-TKI”, “second-line”, “randomized”. The language was limited to English. The relevant review articles and meta-analyses concerning the second-line treatment for patients with lung cancer were examined for inclusive trials and were listed.
Selection Criteria
The relevant clinical trials were included if they met the following criteria: (1) they compared an EGFR-TKI with standard second-line chemotherapy (docetaxel or pemetrexed); (2) they were prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (3) enrolled patients were previously treated with platinum compounds; (4) they reported sufficient data for extraction or sufficient data to calculate the effect measure. Two reviewers (L.N. and Y.L.) independently screened each reference to assess their eligibility for inclusion with disagreements settled by the third reviewer (W.SY.) until a consensus was reached.
Data Extraction
Information from studies was extracted independently by 2 researchers (L.N. and Y.L.) and the following data were collected: publication details (such as the first author’s last name, year of publication, country in which the study was performed), trial information (such as study design, inclusion criteria, the number of the patients, chemotherapy regimens, type of end point used), patient characteristics (such as age, gender, stage, EGFR mutation status), outcome measures (such as HRs for PFS and OS and their 95%CIs, log-rank test P values, grade 3–4 adverse events). PFS and overall survival (OS) were defined as starting from randomization. The quality of the study was assessed on the Jadad score [15] to assess the trials according to randomization (0–2), appropriate blinding method (0–2), withdrawals and dropouts (0–1). The information extracted by the two researchers achieved excellent consistence.
Statistical Analysis
The analysis was undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis. The results were presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs). For time-to-event data, the HRs and their 95%CIs were estimated by the methods proposed by Tierney et al. in the absence of published HRs or their CIs [16]. The summary HRs and their 95%CIs were estimated by a general variance-based method. The drug-related adverse events (AEs) were analyzed as grades 3 or above toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria (NCI-CTC) version 3. ORs were computed for dichotomous variables by the methods reported by Mantel and Haenszel [17]. Preplanned subgroup analyses to explore potential effect on PFS, OS based on EGFR mutation status were scheduled. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect between studies was estimated on the Q statistic and the heterogeneity I2 statistic [18]. If heterogeneity was considered statistically significant, random effects models were used and otherwise fixed effects models were used. Egger’s test and Begg’s funnel plots were used to check for potential publication bias [19], [20]. All the reported P values are 2-sided. STATA (version 12.0) was used for all analyses.
Results
Characteristics of the Included Studies
A total of 10 publications were included in the analysis, of which 6 trials [7], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] were identified from previous meta-analyses, 4 trials [11], [12], [13], [26] were identified from internet searching. The flow diagram of our study is shown in Figure 1. Seven trials were reported in full text [7], , and the other 3 in conference abstracts [11], [12], [13]. The total number of randomized patients in these trials was 3825, with 1905 in the EGFR-TKI arm and 1920 in the chemotherapy arm. The total number of randomized patients of each trial ranged from 135 to 1466. None of the 10 included trials were placebo-controlled double-blinded trials and therefore none of them scored Jadad score 4 or above. Eight [7], [11], of the 10 trials were phase III RCTs, and the other 2 trials [13], [21] were phase II trials. Four trials [21], [22], [23], [24] compared gefitinib and docetaxel, 2 [11], [12] compared erlotinib and docetaxel, 2 [13], [25] compared gefitinib and pemetrexed, 1 [26] compared erlotinib and pemetrexed, and 1 [7] compared erlotinib and docetaxel/pemetrexed. The baseline characteristics of these studies are listed in Table 1. This meta-analysis followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The PRISMA Flow Diagram and Checklist are shown in Figure S1 and Checklist S1.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Figure 1. Flow diagram of trial identification process.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.g001
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Table 1. Information of trials included in this meta-analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.t001
Efficacy Analysis Results
All 10 trials reported PFS data. Overall, the pooled hazard ratio for PFS showed that there was no significant difference between an EGFR-TKI and second-line chemotherapy (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.87–1.21; P = 0.73, Figure 2). Random effect model was used since heterogeneity across the trials was significant (I2 = 78.7%, P<0.001).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Figure 2. Comparison of PFS between EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.g002
Data for OS were available from 8 trials [7], [12], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and the pooled HR for OS showed that there was no significant difference between an EGFR-TKI and second-line chemotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95%CI, 0.92–1.08; P = 0.90, Figure 3). Fixed effect model was used since heterogeneity across the trials was not significant (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.88).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Figure 3. Comparison of OS between EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.g003
Data for objective response rate (ORR) were available from all 10 trials. The pooled OR for ORR showed that there was no significant difference between an EGFR-TKI and second-line chemotherapy (OR, 1.34; 95%CI, 0.86–2.08; P = 0.20, Figure 4). Between-study heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 73.1%, P<0.001), and the pooled OR for ORR was performed through random effect model.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Figure 4. Comparison of ORR between EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.g004
Subgroup Analysis Based on EGFR Mutation Status
Six trials [7], [11], [12], [13], [22], [25] reported HRs for PFS of EGFR M− lung cancer and 2 [7], [22] reported HRs for OS of EGFR M− lung cancer. Totally, the reported number of EGFR M− patients was 1119. The pooled HR for PFS and OS showed that there was a significant improvement in PFS for second-line chemotherapy compared with EGFR-TKI therapy for EGFR M− patients (HR, 1.35; 95%CI, 1.09–1.66; P = 0.01, Figure 5), whereas the OS between them was not significantly different (HR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.77–1.19; P = 0.69, Figure 5).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Figure 5. Comparison of PFS and OS between EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy in subgroup of EGFR M− patients.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.g005
Data for PFS of EGFR mutation-positive (EGFR M+) lung cancer were available from 3 trials [7], [22], [25] and data for OS of EGFR M+ lung cancer were available from 2 trials [7], [22]. Totally, the reported number of EGFR M+ patients was 150. The pooled HRs for PFS and OS showed that there was a significant improvement in PFS for EGFR-TKI therapy compared with second-line chemotherapy for EGFR M+ patients (HR, 0.28; 95%CI, 0.15–0.53; P<0.001, Figure 6), whereas the OS between them was not significantly different (HR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.44–1.68; P = 0.65, Figure 6).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Figure 6. Comparison of PFS and OS between EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy in subgroup of EGFR M+ patients.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.g006
Toxicity Analysis Results
Drug-related toxicity was described as patient-experienced grade 3–4 toxicity in this analysis. The main toxicities of these trials are listed in table 2. Compared with chemotherapy, EGFR-TKIs led to more grade 3–4 rash (OR, 7.55; 95%CI: 3.97–14.37; P<0.001). Additionally, compared with chemotherapy, a statistically significant decrease in fatigue/asthenia disorder, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia was observed (OR, 0.45; 95%CI: 0.32–0.64; P<0.001; OR, 0.04; 95%CI: 0.01–0.10; P<0.001; OR, 0.25; 95%CI: 0.08–0.83; P = 0.02, respectively). With regard to the risk of grade 3–4 diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and anemia, equivalent frequencies were found between the EGFR-TKI arm and the chemotherapy arm. The analyses of toxicities were performed on the fixed effect model except for leukopenia (because of heterogeneity).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Table 2. Comparison of grade 3–4 toxicities between EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.t002
Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analysis
Egger’s test was used to check potential publication bias and the results showed that no evidence of publication bias exists (P = 0.95 for PFS, P = 0.11 for OS and P = 0.73 for ORR). The symmetry Begg’s funnel plots indicated that there was no evidence of publication bias in our meta-analysis (Figure S2). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results of this pooled analysis were not affected by exclusion of a particular trial from the analysis.
Discussion
Standard first-line treatment for advanced lung cancer usually consists of platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, but progression eventually occurs for most patients [27], [28]. Available second-line treatment options for patients who have failure of first-line treatment include targeted therapy or further chemotherapy. In the second-line setting, an EGFR mutation status examination was thought to be time-consuming and unnecessary. Recent studies about second-line treatment found that chemotherapy was superior to EGFR-TKIs in PFS for EGFR M− NSCLC [11], [12], [13]. Our meta-analysis combined 3825 patients from 10 randomized trials. Our analysis demonstrated that regardless of EGFR mutation status, EGFR-TKIs and second-line chemotherapy had equivalent efficacy for pretreated advanced NSCLC patients. In addition, our analysis demonstrated that in terms of PFS, chemotherapy showed a significant improvement for EGFR M− patients compared with EGFR-TKIs, and EGFR-TKIs were superior to chemotherapy for EGFR M+ patients. Overall, these data suggest that obtaining information on EGFR mutational status before initiation of second-line treatment is worth it.
Previously, the meta-analysis by Qi et al. also demonstrated both EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy had comparable efficacy. However, the potential effect of EGFR mutation status on PFS, OS was not analysed in the analysis [9]. Subsequently, the meta-analysis by Lee et al. investigated the impact of EGFR-TKIs on PFS and OS in NSCLC and showed that an EGFR mutation is a predictive marker of PFS in all settings. However, of the 7 second-line studies included in their meta-analysis, only 5 studies compared an EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy [10]. A meta-analysis comparing EGFR-TKIs with chemotherapy as second-line therapy for wild-type EGFR lung cancer patients was presented in part at the 2013 ASCO annual meeting and also demonstrated chemotherapy had superiority in PFS over EGFR-TKIs for EGFR M− patients. However, that meta-analysis only included 3 trials [14]. Our meta-analysis combined 1269 patients with explicit EGFR mutation status. Although the reported number of EGFR M+ patients was only 150 in these trials and caution should be used when these results are interpreted, our meta-analysis provides information to better the relation of second-line therapy and EGFR mutation status.
Our analysis suggested that PFS favored chemotherapy among pretreated EGFR M− patients, whereas it favored EGFR-TKIs among those with EGFR M+ tumors. The possible explanation is that EGFR mutation may be a predictive biomarker for benefit of EGFR-TKIs over chemotherapy beyond first-line treatment. The IPASS trial suggested that the presence of an EGFR mutation is the strongest predictor for benefit of gefitinib in the first-line setting [29]. In IPASS, the PFS benefit of gefitinib was limited to EGFR M+ patients and gefitinib was associated with poorer PFS than carboplatin–paclitaxel for EGFR M− patients [30]. The above combined with the results of our study suggests that the predictive value of EGFR mutation may be applied to both first-line and second-line treatment.
In our analysis, the prolonged PFS advantage in different EGFR mutational status didn’t translate into an OS advantage. This is mostly because of the high crossover rate after progression. None of these trials prohibited patients from crossing over to the other group. For example, in the INTEREST trial, of the patients in the gefitinib arm, 31% received docetaxel as subsequent therapy, and of the patients in the docetaxel arm, 37% received an EGFR-TKI subsequently [22]. Additionally, in the V-15-32 trial, 36% of patients in the gefitinib arm received subsequent docetaxel, 53% of patients in the docetaxel arm received subsequent gefitinib [23]. The high crossover rate confounded the interpretation of OS. Since there are more and more active agents emerging in the treatment of NSCLC, a PFS advantage is rarely associated with an OS advantage any more [31], [32]. Considering patients’ benefit and ethical issues, crossover treatment may be inevitable. So PFS should be deemed as a good end point. More work is still required to demonstrate the impact of PFS on OS.
Regarding grade 3–4 toxicity data, our analysis demonstrated that although EGFR-TKIs produced more rash, they produced less fatigue/asthenia disorder, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia than second-line chemotherapy. Since most of rash can be managed, as far as toxicity profiles are concerned, an EGFR-TKI is favourable. Since the toxicity profiles of EGFR-TKIs are manageable, and the combination of EGFR-TKIs with chemotherapy has shown advantage as first-line treatment [33] and as adjuvant treatment [34], this therapeutic pattern should be explored in this setting.
Several limitations should be noted from this meta-analysis. To begin with, like many other meta-analyses, this is a meta-analysis based on published data as well, so caution should be used when the results are interpreted. Secondly, the assessed EGFR M+ patients were only 150, which restricted our results. Thirdly, the methods for detecting EGFR mutation of these trials were not unified. For example, direct gene sequencing was used to detect EGFR mutation in most trials, while polymerase chain reaction was used in the HORG trial [26]. Different methods have different sensitivity in detecting EGFR mutations. Additionally, several trials were not 100% second-line setting studies, and geographic origin was another concern. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the best treatment in the second-line setting for advanced NSCLC.
In conclusion, based on this meta-analysis, treatment with chemotherapy can prolong PFS in EGFR M− patients, whereas has no impact on OS. EGFR-TKIs seem superior over chemotherapy as second-line therapy for EGFR M+ patients. It is worthwhile to obtain information on EGFR mutational status before initiation of second-line treatment. These results, combined with the toxicities, should be taken into consideration in the second-line treatment.
Supporting Information
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Figure S1.
PRISMA Flow Diagram.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.s001
(DOC)
Figure S2.
Begg’s funnel plots of publication bias.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.s002
(TIF)
Checklist S1.
PRISMA Checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777.s003
(DOC)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: NL WO SW. Performed the experiments: NL LY. Analyzed the data: NL LY WO. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LY LZ SZ. Wrote the paper: NL SW.
Citation: Li N, Yang L, Ou W, Zhang L, Zhang S-l, Wang S-y (2014) Meta-Analysis of EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Compared with Chemotherapy as Second-Line Treatment in Pretreated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. PLoS ONE 9(7): e102777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102777
1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 61: 69–90.
2. Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr RN, Crawford J, Natale RR, et al. (2000) Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. The TAX 320 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 18: 2354–2362.
3. Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, Mattson K, Gralla R, et al. (2000) Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18: 2095–2103.
4. Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV, Pereira JR, De Marinis F, et al. (2004) Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 22: 1589–1597.
5. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, Tan EH, Hirsh V, et al. (2005) Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. The New England journal of medicine 353: 123–132.
6. Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. (2005) Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer). Lancet 366: 1527–1537.
7. Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, Cicenas S, Miliauskas S, Grigorescu AC, et al. (2012) Efficacy and safety of erlotinib versus chemotherapy in second-line treatment of patients with advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer with poor prognosis (TITAN): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 13: 300–308.
8. Paz-Ares L (2012) Beyond first-line NSCLC therapy: chemotherapy or erlotinib? Lancet Oncol 13: 225–227.
9. Qi WX, Shen Z, Lin F, Sun YJ, Min DL, et al. (2012) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of EFGR tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy with standard second-line chemotherapy in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 13: 5177–5182.
10. Lee CK, Brown C, Gralla RJ, Hirsh V, Thongprasert S, et al. (2013) Impact of EGFR inhibitor in non-small cell lung cancer on progression-free and overall survival: a meta-analysis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 105: 595–605.
11. Garassino MC, Martelli O, Bettini A, Floriani I, Copreni E, et al. (2012) TAILOR: A phase III trial comparing erlotinib with docetaxel as the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients with wild-type (wt) EGFR. J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 (suppl; abstr LBA7501).
12. Okano Y, Ando M, Asami K, Fukuda M, Nakagawa H, et al. (2013) Randomized phase III trial of erlotinib (E) versus docetaxel (D) as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have wild-type or mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR): Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 8006).
13. Yang JJ, Cheng Y, Zhao MF, Zhou Q, Yan HH, et al. (2013) A phase II trial comparing pemetrexed with gefitinib as the second-line treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR (CTONG0806). J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 8042).
14. Gao GH, Ren SX, Li AW, He YY, Chen XX, et al. (2013) A meta-analysis of comparing EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy as the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR. J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr e19166).
15. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1–12.
16. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR (2007) Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 8: 16.
17. Kuritz SJ, Landis JR, Koch GG (1988) A general overview of Mantel-Haenszel methods: applications and recent developments. Annu Rev Public Health 9: 123–160.
18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327: 557–560.
19. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629–634.
20. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50: 1088–1101.
21. Cufer T, Vrdoljak E, Gaafar R, Erensoy I, Pemberton K (2006) Phase II, open-label, randomized study (SIGN) of single-agent gefitinib (IRESSA) or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIb or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs 17: 401–409.
22. Kim ES, Hirsh V, Mok T, Socinski MA, Gervais R, et al. (2008) Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial. Lancet 372: 1809–1818.
23. Maruyama R, Nishiwaki Y, Tamura T, Yamamoto N, Tsuboi M, et al. (2008) Phase III study, V-15-32, of gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated Japanese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 26: 4244–4252.
24. Lee DH, Park K, Kim JH, Lee JS, Shin SW, et al. (2010) Randomized Phase III trial of gefitinib versus docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer patients who have previously received platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 16: 1307–1314.
25. Sun JM, Lee KH, Kim SW, Lee DH, Min YJ, et al. (2012) Gefitinib versus pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (KCSG-LU08-01): an open-label, phase 3 trial. Cancer 118: 6234–6242.
26. Karampeazis A, Voutsina A, Souglakos J, Kentepozidis N, Giassas S, et al. (2013) Pemetrexed versus erlotinib in pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG) randomized phase 3 study. Cancer 119: 2754–2764.
27. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, et al. (2002) Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. The New England journal of medicine 346: 92–98.
28. Scagliotti GV, De Marinis F, Rinaldi M, Crino L, Gridelli C, et al. (2002) Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 4285–4291.
29. Fukuoka M, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Sunpaweravong P, Leong SS, et al. (2011) Biomarker analyses and final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Asia (IPASS). J Clin Oncol 29: 2866–2874.
30. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, et al. (2009) Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The New England journal of medicine 361: 947–957.
31. Soria JC, Massard C, Le Chevalier T (2010) Should progression-free survival be the primary measure of efficacy for advanced NSCLC therapy? Ann Oncol 21: 2324–2332.
32. Hotta K, Suzuki E, Di Maio M, Chiodini P, Fujiwara Y, et al. (2013) Progression-free survival and overall survival in phase III trials of molecular-targeted agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 79: 20–26.
33. Mok TS, Wu YL, Yu CJ, Zhou C, Chen YM, et al. (2009) Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study of sequential erlotinib and chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 27: 5080–5087.
34. Wang SY, Ou W, Li N, Sun HB, Zhang L, et al. (2013) Pemetrexed-carboplatin adjuvant chemotherapy with or without gefitinib in resected stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations: A randomized phase II study. J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 7519).
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2014 Li et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Background
Since efficacy and safety of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) versus chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with pretreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remain controversial, we performed a meta-analysis to compare them.
Methods
An internet search of several databases was performed, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Randomized trials that compared an EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy in the second-line setting were included. The outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade 3–4 toxicities. The PFS, OS for the EGFR mutation-positive (EGFR M+) and EGFR mutation-negative (EGFR M−) subgroups were pooled. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on the STATA software.
Results
Our meta-analysis combined 3,825 patients from 10 randomized trials. Overall, EGFR-TKIs and second-line chemotherapy have equivalent efficacy in terms of PFS (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.87–1.21; P = 0.73; I2 = 78.7%, Pheterogeneity<0.001), OS (HR, 1.00; 95%CI, 0.92–1.08; P = 0.90; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.88), and ORR (OR, 1.34; 95%CI, 0.86–2.08; P = 0.20; I2 = 73.1%, Pheterogeneity<0.001). However, subgroup analysis based on EGFR mutation status showed that second-line chemotherapy significantly improved PFS (HR, 1.35; 95%CI, 1.09–1.66; P = 0.01; I2 = 55.7%, Pheterogeneity = 0.046) for EGFR M− patients, whereas OS was equal (HR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.77–1.19; P = 0.69; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.43); EGFR-TKIs significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.28; 95%CI, 0.15–0.53; P<0.001; I2 = 4.1%, Pheterogeneity = 0.35) for EGFR M+ patients, whereas OS was equal (HR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.44–1.68; P = 0.65; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.77). Compared with chemotherapy, EGFR-TKIs led to more grade 3–4 rash, but less fatigue/asthenia disorder, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia.
Conclusions
Our analysis suggests that chemotherapy in the second-line setting can prolong PFS in EGFR M− patients, whereas it has no impact on OS. EGFR-TKIs seem superior over chemotherapy as second-line therapy for EGFR M+ patients. Our findings support obtaining information on EGFR mutational status before initiation of second-line treatment.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer