A Bayesian network meta-analysis of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer
Background: To date, no direct comparisons have been performed to compare the effectiveness of all epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) against EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of EGF...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Cancer Pathogenesis and Therapy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949713224000454 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: To date, no direct comparisons have been performed to compare the effectiveness of all epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) against EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of EGFR-TKIs in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing osimertinib, lazertinib, aumolertinib, befotertinib, furmonertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, icotinib, and chemotherapy. Pooled estimations of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity (grade ≥ 3 adverse events) were performed within the Bayesian framework. Results: Twenty-three trials involving 11 treatments were included. All EGFR-TKIs improved PFS relative to chemotherapy, except for icotinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26–1.44). All EGFR-TKIs demonstrated significant ORR benefits over chemotherapy. Osimertinib seemed to prolong PFS compared with icotinib (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.1–0.86), gefitinib (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.21–0.74), and erlotinib (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29–1.0). In addition, osimertinib showed favorable superiority in improving OS compared with chemotherapy (HR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.43–0.82), gefitinib (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45–0.83), erlotinib (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48–0.89), and afatinib (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44–0.94). Among these regimens, afatinib showed the highest ORR (cumulative probability: 96.96%). Icotinib was associated with minimal toxicity among the EGFR-TKIs, followed by furmonertinib and osimertinib. Moreover, the toxicity spectra differed among the EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses of patients with two common types of EGFR mutations indicated that furmonertinib possessed the greatest PFS benefit in patients with exon 19 deletion, and lazertinib showed the greatest PFS benefit in patients with Leu858Arg mutation. We also identified differences between EGFR-TKIs in prolonging PFS in patients with brain metastasis. Conclusions: Osimertinib is the first choice of treatment with considerable efficacy and safety for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. The treatments associated with the best PFS in patients with exon 19 deletions and Leu858Arg mutations were furmonertinib and lazertinib, respectively. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2949-7132 |