Network Meta-Analysis of Erlotinib, Gefitinib, Afatinib and Icotinib in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR Mutations

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Several EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are currently available as treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor EGFR mutations. However, no head to head trials between these TKIs in mutated populations have been reported, which provides room for indirect and integrated comparisons.

Methods

We searched electronic databases for eligible literatures. Pooled data on objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) were calculated. Appropriate networks for different outcomes were established to incorporate all evidences. Multiple-treatments comparisons (MTCs) based on Bayesian network integrated the efficacy and specific toxicities of all included treatments.

Results

Twelve phase III RCTs that investigated EGFR-TKIs involving 1821 participants with EGFR mutation were included. For mutant patients, the weighted pooled ORR and 1-year PFS of EGFR-TKIs were significant superior to that of standard chemotherapy (ORR: 66.6% vs. 30.9%, OR 5.46, 95%CI 3.59 to 8.30, P<0.00001; 1-year PFS: 42.9% vs. 9.7%, OR 7.83, 95%CI 4.50 to 13.61; P<0.00001) through direct meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between these four TKIs with respect to all outcome measures. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed that the cumulative probabilities of being the most efficacious treatments were (ORR, 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, 2-year OS): erlotinib (51%, 38%, 14%, 19%), gefitinib (1%, 6%, 5%, 16%), afatinib (29%, 27%, 30%, 27%) and icotinib (19%, 29%, NA, NA), respectively. However, afatinib and erlotinib showed significant severer rash and diarrhea compared with gefitinib and icotinib.

Conclusions

The current study indicated that erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib shared equivalent efficacy but presented different efficacy-toxicity pattern for EGFR-mutated patients. Erlotinib and afatinib revealed potentially better efficacy but significant higher toxicities compared with gefitinib and icotinib.

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

Yuankai Shi, Li. Zhang, Xiaoqing Liu … (2013)

Icotinib, an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, had shown antitumour activity and favourable toxicity in early-phase clinical trials. We aimed to investigate whether icotinib is non-inferior to gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial we enrolled patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 27 sites in China. Eligible patients were those aged 18-75 years who had not responded to one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using minimisation methods, to receive icotinib (125 mg, three times per day) or gefitinib (250 mg, once per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the full analysis set. We analysed EGFR status if tissue samples were available. All investigators, clinicians, and participants were masked to patient distribution. The non-inferiority margin was 1·14; non-inferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of gefitinib versus icotinib was less than this margin. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01040780, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-09000506. 400 eligible patients were enrolled between Feb 26, 2009, and Nov 13, 2009; one patient was enrolled by mistake and removed from the study, 200 were assigned to icotinib and 199 to gefitinib. 395 patients were included in the full analysis set (icotinib, n=199; gefitinib, n=196). Icotinib was non-inferior to gefitinib in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·67-1·05; median progression-free survival 4·6 months [95% CI 3·5-6·3] vs 3·4 months [2·3-3·8]; p=0·13). The most common adverse events were rash (81 [41%] of 200 patients in the icotinib group vs 98 [49%] of 199 patients in the gefitinib group) and diarrhoea (43 [22%] vs 58 [29%]). Patients given icotinib had less drug-related adverse events than did those given gefitinib (121 [61%] vs 140 [70%]; p=0·046), especially drug-related diarrhoea (37 [19%] vs 55 [28%]; p=0·033). Icotinib could be a new treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 189 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Afatinib for patients with lung adenocarcinoma and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (LUX-Lung 2): a phase 2 trial.

James Yang, Jin-Yuan Shih, Wu-Chou Su … (2012)

Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB-family blocker with preclinical activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of afatinib in patients with lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations. In this phase 2 study, we enrolled patients from 30 centres in Taiwan and the USA with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb with pleural effusion or stage IV) with EGFR mutations, who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and no previous treatment with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We tested two afatinib starting doses: 50 mg daily and subsequently 40 mg daily, introduced to establish whether tolerability could be improved with retention of anti-tumour activity. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response (complete response or partial response), on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (independent review). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00525148. 129 patients were treated with afatinib, 99 with a starting dose of 50 mg and 30 with a starting dose of 40 mg. 79 (61%) of 129 patients had an objective response (two complete responses, 77 partial responses). 70 (66%) of the 106 patients with the two common activating EGFR mutations (deletion 19 or L858R) had an objective response, as did nine (39%) of 23 patients with less common mutations. Similar proportions of patients had an objective response when analysed by starting dose (18 [60%] of 30 patients at 40 mg vs 61 [62%] of 99 patients at 50 mg). Of the two most common adverse events (diarrhoea and rash or acne), grade 3 events were more common in patients receiving a 50 mg starting dose (22 [22%] of 99 patients for diarrhoea and 28 [28%] of 99 patients for rash or acne) than they were in those receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two [7%] of 30 patients for both diarrhoea and rash or acne); possibly treatment-related serious adverse events were also less common in patients receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two of 30 patients vs 14 of 99 patients). We recorded one possibly drug-related death (interstitial lung disease). Afatinib shows activity in the treatment of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, especially in patients with deletion 19 or L858R mutations. The efficacy of afatinib 40 mg should be compared with chemotherapy or other EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC. Boehringer Ingelheim Inc. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 122 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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.

Tudor Ciuleanu, Lilia Stelmakh, Saulius Cicėnas … (2012)

Erlotinib, docetaxel, and pemetrexed are approved for the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but no head-to-head data from large clinical trials are available. We undertook the Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN) study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of second-line erlotinib versus chemotherapy in patients with refractory NSCLC. TITAN was an international, randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study that was done at 77 sites in 24 countries. Chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC received up to four cycles of first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy, after which patients with disease progression during or immediately after chemotherapy were offered enrolment into TITAN. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a minimisation method to ensure balanced stratification, to receive erlotinib 150 mg/day or chemotherapy (standard docetaxel or pemetrexed regimens, at the treating investigators' discretion), until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or death. Patients were stratified by disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, smoking history, and region of residence. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. TITAN was halted prematurely because of slow recruitment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00556322. Between April 10, 2006, and Feb 24, 2010, 2590 chemotherapy-naive patients were treated with first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy, of whom 424 had disease progression and were enrolled into TITAN. 203 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 221 were assigned to receive chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 11·0-36·0) in the erlotinib group and 24·8 months (12·1-41·6) in the chemotherapy group. Median overall survival was 5·3 months (95% CI 4·0-6·0) with erlotinib and 5·5 months (4·4-7·1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·96, 95% CI 0·78-1·19; log-rank p=0·73). The adverse-event profile of each group was in line with previous studies. Rash (98/196 [50%] in the erlotinib group vs 10/213 [5%] in the chemotherapy group for all grades; nine [5%] vs none for grade 3 or 4) and diarrhoea (36 [18%] vs four [2%] for all grades; five [3%] vs none for grade 3 or 4) were the most common treatment-related adverse events with erlotinib, whereas alopecia (none vs 23 [11%] for all grades; none vs one [<1%] for grade 3/4) was the most common treatment-related adverse event with chemotherapy. No significant differences in efficacy were noted between patients treated with erlotinib and those treated with docetaxel or pemetrexed. Since the toxicity profiles of erlotinib and chemotherapy differ, second-line treatment decisions should take into account patient preference and specific toxicity risk profiles. F Hoffmann-La Roche. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 119 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Apar Kishor Ganti: Role: Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS ONE

Journal ID (publisher-id): plos

Journal ID (pmc): plosone

Title: PLoS ONE

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )

ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203

Publication date Collection: 2014

Publication date (Electronic): 12 February 2014

Volume: 9

Issue: 2

Electronic Location Identifier: e85245

Affiliations

[1]State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States of America

Author notes

* E-mail: zhangli6@ 123456mail.sysu.edu.cn

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Conceived and designed the experiments: ZL,LWH, WX. Performed the experiments: LWH,WX,FWF. Analyzed the data: LWH,HZH,ZYY. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: XC,HY,ZHY. Wrote the paper: LWH,ZL.

Article

Publisher ID: PONE-D-13-32830

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085245

PMC ID: 3922700

PubMed ID: 24533047

SO-VID: 2146889c-3be9-47d0-8faf-6ac85fc55203

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 10 August 2013

Date accepted : 24 November 2013

Page count

Pages: 11

Funding

The authors have no support or funding to report.

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 36

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,308

See all reference authors

Network Meta-Analysis of Erlotinib, Gefitinib, Afatinib and Icotinib in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR Mutations

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

PLOS Climate

Most cited references 20

Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

Afatinib for patients with lung adenocarcinoma and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (LUX-Lung 2): a phase 2 trial.

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.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 638

Cited by 36

Most referenced authors 1,308