Introduction
Median survival time of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has increased in recent two decades after usage of molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy (Hamid et al., 2019; Planchard et al., 2019). However, systemic chemotherapy is still very important for majority of patients (Baxevanos & Mountzios, 2018). In addition, chemotherapy is frequently used as bridge between targeted therapy, or combination with targeted therapy or immunotherapy, and is still the mainstay for heavily treated patients. As for regimens of chemotherapy, previous studies showed combination therapy is better than single agent treatment for NSCLC patients (Lilenbaum et al., 2009; Morth & Valachis, 2014).
Paclitaxel is a well-known cytotoxic agent which would enhance polymerization of tubulin and stabilize microtubules. This mechanism therefore could induce mitotic arrest and cause apoptosis of tumor cells (Dziadyk et al., 2004; Horwitz, 1994). The regimens of paclitaxel based chemotherapy are widely used in NSCLC patients (Bunn Jr, 1996; Ramalingam & Belani, 2004). However, the regimen of paclitaxel combining with TS-1 is not well studied yet.
TS-1 is an oral anticancer agent that contained tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (Ohba et al., 2009; Yoshioka et al., 2013). As a pro-drug of 5-FU, the mechanism is to inhibit DNA synthesis during S phase of the cell cycle (Focaccetti et al., 2015). TS-1 combined with cisplatin or carboplatin has been studied for NSCLC. The result showed that the regimen is similar to cisplatin plus doxetaxel or carboplatin plus paclitaxel (Takeda, 2013). However, platinum combined 3rd generation chemotherapeutic agents is the standard of care for non-small cell lung cancer, which mad platinum not available in later line chemotherapy regimen (Fossella et al., 2003; Gao et al., 2009; Genova et al., 2013). Based on the mechanism of each chemotherapeutic drug, TS1 is S phase specific and Paclitaxel is M phase specific. As the result, we combine these two drugs for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. In addition, most studies of TS1 were performed in Japan and there is only limited data available. The efficacy of TTS1 in Taiwan is not known. A bigger population size from other area is warranted, therefore.
The present retrospective study was designed to determine the efficacy of combination chemotherapy, paclitaxel plus TS1 (TTS1) in heavily treated NSCLC patients with or without EGFR mutation.
Materials & Methods Study design and patients
We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the chart records and image files of our lung cancer patients diagnosed between 1996 and 2017. Only those stage IV (American Joint Committee for Cancer staging system, 7th edition) NSCLC patients who had been treated previously and received paclitaxel plus TS1 were enrolled into the present study. The first-line treatment included tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients with EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement and platinum-based chemotherapy for those who did not have EGFR or ALK mutations. Patients who had been treated with at least one line of platinum-based chemotherapy and with measurable disease; adequate bone marrow reserve with a WBC count ≥4,000/mm3, platelets ≥100,000/mm3 and hemoglobin ≥10 g/dL; and no previous history of paclitaxel nor TS-1 treatment. Patients with inadequate liver function (bilirubin >1.5 times above normal range, alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) > 3 times of normal), and inadequate renal function with creatinine >2.0 mg/dl were excluded from the treatment. The treatment consisted of paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on day 1 and daily TS-1 (80 mg for BSA<1.2 m2 , 100 mg for BSA 1.2–1.5 m2, and 120 mg for BSA>1.5 m2) from day 1 to day 7, every 2 weeks. With regard to dose modifications, the dose of paclitaxel was reduced to 80% and TS-1 reduced 20 mg if the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was from 1.5 to 1.0 × 109/L and/or the platelet count was from 99 to 75 × 109/L on the day of the scheduled chemotherapy. The administration was delayed for one week if the ANC was below 1.0 × 109/L or the platelet count below 75 × 109/L. To evaluate the effectiveness of TTS1, we retrospectively reviewed the cohort from different perspectives. Clinical characteristics, including the patients’ age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), smoking history, type of driver mutations, were recorded. We compared the differences in basic patient characteristics and efficacy of TTS1 between patients with and without tumor EGFR mutations. This data review of the patients was approved by the institutional review board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital (VGHIRB No.: 2018-01-007AC).
Efficacy evaluation
Chest computed tomography scan (including liver and adrenal glands) was performed within 3 weeks before starting chemotherapy, and every 2 to 3 months thereafter, or when confirmation of treatment response or disease progression was required. Types of response were assessed with the use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) (Eisenhauer et al., 2009). PFS was calculated from the date of administration of the first dose of TTS1 to the earliest sign of disease progression, as determined by means of the RECIST criteria, or death from any cause. Survival was measured from administration of the first dose of TTS1 until the date of death.
EGFR mutation analysis
Two examination methods of EGFR mutation status were used. Patients were analyzed with Sanger DNA sequencing before the end of 2010. All the sequence variations were confirmed by multiple, independent polymerase chain reaction amplifications and repeated sequencing reactions. The majority of specimens were tested using the Scorpion amplification refractory mutation system method from 2011.
Statistical analysis
All categorical variables were analyzed with ϰ2 tests. Mann–Whitney u test was conducted for continuous variables when comparing 2 groups. The chemotherapy response rate was compared between 2 groups. Median PFS and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by log-rank test. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 19.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
Results Patients
There were 28 stage IV NSCLC patients enrolled in this study. One of them was squamous cell carcinoma and other 27 patients was adenocarcinoma. Age of the patients was between 39 years old to 84 years old. Patients’ clinical characteristics were shown in Table 1. After treatment, seven patients had partial response, 10 patients had stable disease, 10 patients had progressive disease, and the remaining 1 patient was unevaluable. The percentage of change from baseline in target lesion size of 26 measurable patients was shown in Fig. 1. Median PFS of these 28 patients was 4.0 months (95% CI [2.6–5.4] months), and median survival was 15.8 months (95% CI [10.9–20.6] months). Among all the patients, 17 patients had to get modulated dose due to low WBC count. The PFS is not significantly different between groups that adjusted dose and full dose (4.8 months vs. 4.2 months, p = 0.609). The OS between the two groups that adjusted dose and full dose were not different significantly, either (14.86 months vs. 15.18 months, p = 0.940). We sub-classify these patients according to previous treatment, which are chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus target therapy. Four patients received chemotherapy alone before TTS1 and 23 patients received chemotherapy and EGFR TKI before TTS1. The PFS and OS showed no significantly different. (PFS: 3.7 vs. 4.8 months; OS: 7.4 vs. 15.7 months).
| All (n = 28) | EGFR mutation (n = 17) | Wild type (n = 8) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 62.3 ± 11.5 | 60.3 ± 12.0 | 64.4 ± 10.4 | 0.382 |
| Gender | 0.389 | |||
| Male | 15 (53.6%) | 11 (64.7%) | 3 (37.5%) | |
| Female | 13 (46.4%) | 6 (35.3%) | 5 (62.5%) | |
| Response | 0.869 | |||
| Partial response | 7 (25.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | 2 (25%) | |
| Stable disease | 10 (35.7%) | 6 (35.3%) | 2 (25%) | |
| Disease progression | 10 (35.7%) | 7 (41.2%) | 4 (50%) | |
| Unevaluable | 1 (3.6%) | |||
| Disease control rate | 17 (60.7%) | 10 (58.8%) | 4 (50%) | 1.000 |
| Treatment cycles | 6.3 ± 3.0 | 6.1 ± 3.3 | 5.5 ± 3.1 | 0.630 |
| Previous lines | 5.4 ± 1.9 | 5.5 ± 1.9 | 4.6 ± 1.8 | 0.332 |
| Line after TTS1 | 1.6 ± 1.2 | 1.9 ± 1.1 | 1.0 ± 1.1 | 0.057 |
| PFS (months) | 4.0 (2.6–5.4) | 4.9 (3.2–6.6) | 1.8 (0–3.9) | 0.043 |
| OS (months) | 15.8 (10.9–20.6) | 16.6 (10.6–22.6) | 7.2 (0–14.3) | 0.027 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7767/table-1
Enlarge this image.Figure 1: Waterfall plot. waterfall plot of best % change from baseline in target lesion size of 26. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7767/fig-1
Patients with EGFR mutation vs. patients without EGFR mutation
Among 28 patients who received TTS1 treatment, 17 patients had EGFR mutations, eight patients were wild type, and remaining three patients were unknown EGFR status. The age and gender between those EGFR mutated or wild type groups were not statistically different. Treatment response and treatment cycles, were not statistically different, either. Patients of both groups received similar cycles of treatment before TTS1 (5.5 ± 1.9 cycles vs. 4.6 ± 1.8 cycles, p = 0.332) and after TTS1 (1.9 ± 1.1 cycles vs 1.0 ± 1.1, p =0.057). However, the PFS were longer in patients with EGFR mutations (4.9 months vs. 1.8 months, p = 0.043) (Fig. 2). The overall survival was better in EGFR mutation group, too (16.6 months vs. 7.2 months, p = 0.027) (Fig. 3) (Table 1).
Enlarge this image.Figure 2: Progression free survival of patients who received TTS1. (A) Progression free survival of patients who received TTS1; (B) patient number that are alive. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7767/fig-2
Enlarge this image.Figure 3: Overall survival of patients who received TTS1. (A) Overall survival of patients who received TTS1; (B) patient number that are alive. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7767/fig-3
The responder of TTS1 has longer PFS although they have received more chemotherapy regimens previously
Twenty-eight patients received TTS1 therapy. Fifteen patients responded to TTS1, and 13 patients did not respond to TTS1. The general data including sex, gender, histology, performance status, and ratio of EGFR mutation status was not different (Table 2). Patients who responded to TTS1 usually received more cycles than those who did not respond to TTS1 (7.9 ± 2.9 cycles vs. 4.1 ± 1.8 cycles, p = 0.000). In addition, patients who responded to TTS1 received more previous treatments than those who did not respond to TTS1 (6.3 ± 1.7 lines vs. 4.4 ± 1.6 lines, p = 0.005). The OS of both groups was not significantly different (p = 0.15).
| Disease control (n = 15) | Disease progression (n = 13) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 63.1 ± 10.8 | 61.4 ± 12.6 | 0.433 |
| Gender | 0.476 | ||
| Male | 7 (46.7%) | 8 (61.5%) | |
| Female | 8 (53.3%) | 5 (38.5%) | |
| Histology | 1.000 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 14 (93.3%) | 13 (100%) | |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 1 (6.7%) | 0 (0%) | |
| ECOG PS | 0.139 | ||
| 0 | 1 (6.7%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 1 | 11 (73.3%) | 6 (46.2%) | |
| 2 | 3 (20.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | |
| 3 | 0 (0%) | 3 (23.1%) | |
| Driver mutation | 8 (66.7%) | 9 (69.2%) | 1.000 |
| Treatment cycles | 7.9 ± 2.9 | 4.1 ± 1.8 | 0.000 |
| Previous lines | 6.3 ± 1.7 | 4.4 ± 1.6 | 0.005 |
| Line after TTS1 | 1.5 ± 1.2 | 1.7 ± 1.2 | 0.703 |
| PFS (months) | 4.8 (3.0–6.7) | 1.9 (1.4–2.4) | 0.002 |
| OS (months) | 12.4 (8.3–16.5) | 13.3 (3.5–23.0) | 0.150 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7767/table-2
Discussion
Combination chemotherapy is more effective than single agent chemotherapy in lung cancer treatment (Bluthgen & Besse, 2015; Cheong et al., 2005; Lilenbaum et al., 2009). Paclitaxel is known to inhibit mitosis of tumor cells. The mechanism is to block the transition from G0 to S phase (Long & Fairchild, 1994). Initial study of single-agent paclitaxel for NSCLC patients was done with doses of 200–250 mg/m2. The response rate was 21–24% with PFS of 6-9 months. Subsequent studies administered lower dose of 175–225 mg/m2 and 135–200 mg/m2. The response rate ranged from 20–60% (Akerley 3rd, 2000; Socinski, 1999). TS-1, as a prodrug of 5FU, acts on S phase to inhibit DNA synthesis (Focaccetti et al., 2015). Until now, there were only limited data of TS-1 monotherapy for NSCLC patients. The synergic effect of TTS1 had been reported in gastric cancer treatment previously (Gotoh, Kawabe & Takiuchi, 2006; Mochiki et al., 2006; Sakurai et al., 2008). However, only few studies focus on the effect of TTS1 for NSCLC patients (Aono et al., 2012).
In our study, TTS1 demonstrated a high response rate and good PFS for heavily treated patients. Aono et al. started the regimen of paclitaxel ranged from 70-120 mg/m2 and TS1 of 80 mg/m2. Paclitaxel was used from intravenous infusion on day 1 and day 15, and TS1 was taken orally from day 1 to day 14. Then the patients take a rest for 2 weeks, which meant that the cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. The result showed that the response rate of TTS1 was 32.6% and disease control rate was 65.0% in previously treated NSCLC. 26.1% of their patients who received TTS1 as >4th line chemotherapy (Aono et al., 2012). In our study, paclitaxel was used on day 1 with the dose of 90 mg/m2 intravenous infusion, and TS-1 was took orally daily from day 1 to day 7 with the dose ranged from 80 to 120 according to the body weight of patients. Our data showed that the response rate was 25% and disease control rate was 60.7%. Compared with the result of Aono et al., our patients received much more chemotherapy regimens before the use of TTS1. A total of 25% of our patients received for more than six regimens before receiving TTS1. Therefore, our response rate and disease control rate is a little lower. The response rate of 2nd line chemotherapy is around 20–30% after 1st line EGFR TKI failure (Maemondo et al., 2010; Mitsudomi et al., 2010; Rosell et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2011). The response rate of our study is similar to other second line chemotherapy (Stinchcombe & Socinski, 2008). According to the previous phase II study, the response of TS1 plus gemcitabine was 27%, PFS was 4.2 months (95% CI [3.2–5.7]), and OS was 12.9 months (95% CI [10.4–12.7]) (Seto et al., 2010). In our study, the progression free survival was also similar to conventional second line chemotherapy (Fossella, Lynch & Shepherd, 2002). The OS is not significantly different between TTS1 responder and non-responder group, however. This may be due to the fact that OS is affected by many other chemotherapeutic drugs in addition to TTS1. The patients who respond to TTS1 did not mean that they wound respond to other medications. In addition, our patient numbers were not large. The result may show significantly different if there are more patients who could receive TTS1. Since our patients were all treated for at least two different regimens before they received TTS1, the results were impressive. In addition, no grade 3 or higher treatment related toxicities were found in these 28 patients making this regimen a promising treatment option for later line chemotherapy in previously heavily treated NSCLC.
The frequency of EGFR mutation is high in Asian patients (Liam, Pang & Poh, 2014; Shi et al., 2015). The patients with NSCLC that harbor EGFR mutation is known to respond well to EGFR TKI (Paz-Ares et al., 2017). EGFR mutation have been found in gastric cancer also. However, EGFR TKI seems not to respond as well as lung cancer (Dragovich et al., 2006). In our study, the response rate was 23.5% and the disease control rate was 58.8% in patients with EGFR mutation. The PFS was 4.9 months. According to previous study of EGFR mutated patients, the response rate of 2nd line chemotherapy after receiving first line EGFR-TKI treatment was 24.5% and the PFS was 4.5 months (Tseng et al., 2016). Therefore, our study demonstrated that the response rate and PFS of TTS1 were similar to other regimens for previously treated EGFR mutated patients.
On 2014, Liang and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis and concluded that EGFR mutation status also influenced the efficacy of chemotherapy (Liang et al., 2014). One hypothesis is that EGFR signaling is associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy induced tumor cell apoptosis (Dixit et al., 1997). Therefore PFS and OS may be affected by the nature of the tumor itself and the effect of other drugs. In our data, the PFS and OS for EGFR mutated patients were also higher than those without EGFR mutations after receiving TTS1 treatment. This result is compatible with previous studies, too.
There are some limitations in our study. First, it was a retrospective study. Selection bias was possible. Therefore, the data should be interpreted carefully. Second, the number of patients of this study is small. A large scale trial is warranted in the future. Finally, our data are still from patients of Asia. More patients from other races should be enrolled to analyze this regimen.
Conclusions
In conclusion, TTS1 is an effective regimen for NSCLC previously heavily treated, especially in tumor EGFR mutated patients. Paclitaxel plus TS1 is another treatment of choice for NSCLC patients before a more efficient treatment strategy is found.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Yen-Han Tseng and Yuh-Min Chen conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Jen-Fu Shih and Heng-Sheng Chao conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, approved the final draft.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
This data review of the patients was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital (VGHIRB No.: 2018-01-007AC).
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw measurements are available in the Supplemental File.
Funding
The authors received no funding for this work.
Akerley 3rd W. 2000. Paclitaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an alternative high-dose weekly schedule. Chest 117(4):152S-155S
Aono N, Ito Y, Nishino K, Uchida J, Kumagai T, Akazawa Y, Okuyama T, Yoshinami T, Imamura F. 2012. A retrospective study of the novel combination of paclitaxel and S1 for pretreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Chemotherapy 58:454-460
Baxevanos P, Mountzios G. 2018. Novel chemotherapy regimens for advanced lung cancer: have we reached a plateau? Annals of Translational Medicine 6(8):139
Bluthgen MV, Besse B. 2015. Second-line combination therapies in nonsmall cell lung cancer without known driver mutations. European Respiratory Review 24:582-593
Bunn Jr PA. 1996. Combination paclitaxel and platinum in the treatment of lung cancer: US experience. Seminars in Oncology 23:9-15
Cheong K, Spicer J, Chowdhury S, Harper P. 2005. Combination therapy versus single agent chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 6:1693-1700
Dixit M, Yang JL, Poirier MC, Price JO, Andrews PA, Arteaga CL. 1997. Abrogation of cisplatin-induced programmed cell death in human breast cancer cells by epidermal growth factor antisense RNA. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89:365-373
Dragovich T, McCoy S, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Wang J, Benedetti JK, Baker AF, Hackett CB, Urba SG, Zaner KS, Blanke CD, Abbruzzese JL+1 more. 2006. Phase II trial of erlotinib in gastroesophageal junction and gastric adenocarcinomas: SWOG 0127. Journal of Clinical Oncology 24:4922-4927
Dziadyk JM, Sui M, Zhu X, Fan W. 2004. Paclitaxel-induced apoptosis may occur without a prior G2/M-phase arrest. Anticancer Research 24:27-36
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J+6 more. 2009. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) European Journal of Cancer 45:228-247
Focaccetti C, Bruno A, Magnani E, Bartolini D, Principi E, Dallaglio K, Bucci EO, Finzi G, Sessa F, Noonan DM, Albini A+1 more. 2015. Effects of 5-fluorouracil on morphology, cell cycle, proliferation, apoptosis, autophagy and ROS production in endothelial cells and cardiomyocytes. PLOS ONE 10(2):e0115686
Fossella FV, Lynch T, Shepherd FA. 2002. Second line chemotherapy for NSCLC: establishing a gold standard. Lung Cancer 38(Suppl 4):5-12
Fossella F, Pereira JR, Von Pawel J, Pluzanska A, Gorbounova V, Kaukel E, Mattson KV, Ramlau R, Szczesna A, Fidias P, Millward M, Belani CP+2 more. 2003. Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 21:3016-3024
Gao G, Jiang J, Liang X, Zhou X, Huang R, Chu Z, Zhan Q. 2009. A meta-analysis of platinum plus gemcitabine or vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 65:339-344
Genova C, Rijavec E, Truini A, Coco S, Sini C, Barletta G, Dal Bello MG, Alama A, Savarino G, Pronzato P, Boccardo F, Grossi F+2 more. 2013. Pemetrexed for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 14:1545-1558
Gotoh M, Kawabe S, Takiuchi H. 2006. S-1 combined with weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho [Japanese Journal of Cancer and Chemotherapy] 33(Suppl 1):91-94
Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Wolchok JD, Hersey P, Joseph R, Weber JS, Dronca R, Mitchell TC, Patnaik A, Zarour HM, Joshua AM, Zhao Q, Jensen E, Ahsan S, Ibrahim N, Ribas A+10 more. 2019. Five-year survival outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-001. Annals of Oncology 30:582-588
Horwitz SB. 1994. Taxol (paclitaxel): mechanisms of action. Annals of Oncology 5(Suppl 6):S3-S6
Liam CK, Pang YK, Poh ME. 2014. EGFR mutations in Asian patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 9:e70-e71
Liang W, Zhang Y, Kang S, Pan H, Shao W, Deng Q, Shi X, Wang W, He J. 2014. Impact of EGFR mutation status on tumor response and progression free survival after first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Journal of Thoracic Disease 6:1239-1250
Lilenbaum R, Villaflor VM, Langer C, O’Byrne K, O’Brien M, Ross HJ, Socinski M, Oldham FB, Sandilac L, Singer JW, Bonomi P+1 more. 2009. Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2: prognostic factors and treatment selection based on two large randomized clinical trials. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 4:869-874
Long BH, Fairchild CR. 1994. Paclitaxel inhibits progression of mitotic cells to G1 phase by interference with spindle formation without affecting other microtubule functions during anaphase and telephase. Cancer Research 54:4355-4361
Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Sugawara S, Oizumi S, Isobe H, Gemma A, Harada M, Yoshizawa H, Kinoshita I, Fujita Y, Okinaga S, Hirano H, Yoshimori K, Harada T, Ogura T, Ando M, Miyazawa H, Tanaka T, Saijo Y, Hagiwara K, Morita S, Nukiwa T, North-East Japan Study G .+14 more. 2010. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. New England Journal of Medicine 362:2380-2388
Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y, Negoro S, Okamoto I, Tsurutani J, Seto T, Satouchi M, Tada H, Hirashima T, Asami K, Katakami N, Takada M, Yoshioka H, Shibata K, Kudoh S, Shimizu E, Saito H, Toyooka S, Nakagawa K, Fukuoka M, West Japan Oncology G .+12 more. 2010. Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology 11:121-128
Mochiki E, Ohno T, Kamiyama Y, Aihara R, Haga N, Ojima H, Nakamura J, Ohsawa H, Nakabayashi T, Takeuchi K, Asao T, Kuwano H, North Kanto Gastric Cancer Study G+3 more. 2006. Phase I/II study of S-1 combined with paclitaxel in patients with unresectable and/or recurrent advanced gastric cancer. British Journal of Cancer 95:1642-1647
Morth C, Valachis A. 2014. Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and performance status 2: a literature-based meta-analysis of randomized studies. Lung Cancer 84:209-214
Ohba T, Yamasaki T, Endo Y, Furuie M, Ohtani Y, Inase N, Yoshizawa Y. 2009. A phase I study of TS-1 plus carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Chemotherapy 21:80-85
Paz-Ares L, Tan EH, O’Byrne K, Zhang L, Hirsh V, Boyer M, Yang JC, Mok T, Lee KH, Lu S, Shi Y, Lee DH, Laskin J, Kim DW, Laurie SA, Kolbeck K, Fan J, Dodd N, Marten A, Park K+10 more. 2017. Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial. Annals of Oncology 28:270-277
Planchard D, Boyer MJ, Lee JS, Dechaphunkul A, Cheema PK, Takahashi T, Gray JE, Tiseo M, Ramalingam SS, Todd A, McKeown A, Rukazenkov Y, Ohe Y+3 more. 2019. Postprogression outcomes for osimertinib versus standard-of-care EGFR-TKI in patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clinical Cancer Research 25:2058-2063
Ramalingam S, Belani CP. 2004. Paclitaxel for non-small cell lung cancer. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 5:1771-1780
Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A, Massuti B, Felip E, Palmero R, Garcia-Gomez R, Pallares C, Sanchez JM, Porta R, Cobo M, Garrido P, Longo F, Moran T, Insa A, De Marinis F, Corre R, Bover I, Illiano A, Dansin E, De Castro J, Milella M, Reguart N, Altavilla G, Jimenez U, Provencio M, Moreno MA, Terrasa J, Munoz-Langa J, Valdivia J, Isla D, Domine M, Molinier O, Mazieres J, Baize N, Garcia-Campelo R, Robinet G, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Lopez-Vivanco G, Gebbia V, Ferrera-Delgado L, Bombaron P, Bernabe R, Bearz A, Artal A, Cortesi E, Rolfo C, Sanchez-Ronco M, Drozdowskyj A, Queralt C, De Aguirre I, Ramirez JL, Sanchez JJ, Molina MA, Taron M, Paz-Ares L, Spanish Lung Cancer Group in collaboration with Groupe Francais de P-C, Associazione Italiana Oncologia T+49 more. 2012. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology 13:239-246
Sakurai Y, Yoshida I, Kamoshida S, Inaba K, Isogaki J, Komori Y, Uyama I, Tsutsumi Y. 2008. Effects of combined administration of DPD-inhibitory oral fluoropyrimidine, S-1, plus paclitaxel on gene expressions of fluoropyrimidine metabolism-related enzymes in human gastric xenografts. Annals of Surgical Oncology 15:2301-2309
Seto T, Yamanaka T, Wasada I, Seki N, Okamoto H, Ogura T, Shibuya M, Takiguchi Y, Shinkai T, Masuda N, Ichinose Y, Eguchi K, Watanabe K+3 more. 2010. Phase I/II trial of gemcitabine plus oral TS-1 in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: thoracic oncology research group study 0502. Lung Cancer 69:213-217
Shi Y, Li J, Zhang S, Wang M, Yang S, Li N, Wu G, Liu W, Liao G, Cai K, Chen L, Zheng M, Yu P, Wang X, Liu Y, Guo Q, Nie L, Liu J, Han X+9 more. 2015. Molecular epidemiology of EGFR mutations in asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology—mainland China subset analysis of the PIONEER study. PLOS ONE 10(11):e0143515
Socinski MA. 1999. Single-agent paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist 4:408-416
Stinchcombe TE, Socinski MA. 2008. Considerations for second-line therapy of non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist 13(Suppl 1):28-36
Takeda K. 2013. Clinical development of S-1 for non-small cell lung cancer: a Japanese perspective. Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 5:301-311
Tseng YH, Hung HY, Sung YC, Tseng YC, Lee YC, Whang-Peng J, Chen YM. 2016. Efficacy of chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients who had acquired resistance to first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) Journal of Chemotherapy 28:50-58
Yoshioka H, Okamoto I, Morita S, Ando M, Takeda K, Seto T, Yamamoto N, Saka H, Atagi S, Hirashima T, Kudoh S, Satouchi M, Ikeda N, Iwamoto Y, Sawa T, Nakanishi Y, Nakagawa K+7 more. 2013. Efficacy and safety analysis according to histology for S-1 in combination with carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: updated results of the West Japan Oncology Group LETS study. Annals of Oncology 24:1326-1331
Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, Feng J, Liu XQ, Wang C, Zhang S, Wang J, Zhou S, Ren S, Lu S, Zhang L, Hu C, Hu C, Luo Y, Chen L, Ye M, Huang J, Zhi X, Zhang Y, Xiu Q, Ma J, Zhang L, You C+14 more. 2011. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. The Lancet Oncology 12:735-742
Yen-Han Tseng1,2,3, Jen-Fu Shih1,2, Heng-Sheng Chao1,2, Yuh-Min Chen1,2,4
1 School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
2 Department of Chest Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
3 Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan
4 Center of Excellence for Cancer Research, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
© 2019 Tseng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.