EGFR-TKI Plus Anti-Angiogenic Drugs in EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Journal
JNCI cancer spectrum
ISSN: 2515-5091
Titre abrégé: JNCI Cancer Spectr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721827
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
01
11
2019
revised:
29
05
2020
accepted:
22
07
2020
entrez:
21
12
2020
pubmed:
22
12
2020
medline:
22
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Results of several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing the combination of an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus an anti-angiogenic drug in advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer were reported. We first report a systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs to estimate effectiveness and toxicity of this new therapeutic approach compared with first-generation EGFR-TKI monotherapy. Subsequently, we present a network meta-analysis comparing the combination of an EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug with 2 new treatment options: combination of an EGFR-TKI plus chemotherapy or new EGFR-TKIs of second or third generation as monotherapy. Five RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The progression-free survival (PFS) was statistically significantly larger in patients treated with an EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug compared with EGFR-TKI monotherapy: the pooled PFS-hazard ratio (HR) was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.69). The pooled median-PFS was 17.8 months (95% CI = 16.5 to 19.3 months) for the combination vs 11.7 months (95% CI = 11.1 to 12.7 months) for EGFR-TKI as monotherapy. No statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment arms were observed in overall survival or objective response rate. The rate of grade equal or higher than 3 adverse events was statistically significantly higher in patients treated with EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug: the pooled-relative risk was 1.72 (95% CI = 1.43 to 2.06). Ten RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. All 3 experimental treatments were associated with a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared with first-generation EGFR-TKIs. When compared to each other, none of the 3 experimental treatments were statistically significantly associated with larger PFS or lower rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events. Patients with EGFR-mutated non small-cell lung cancer derived clinically meaningful larger PFS benefit from the addition of an anti-angiogenic drug to a first-generation EGFR-TKI at the cost of an increase of toxicities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Results of several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing the combination of an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus an anti-angiogenic drug in advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer were reported.
METHODS
METHODS
We first report a systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs to estimate effectiveness and toxicity of this new therapeutic approach compared with first-generation EGFR-TKI monotherapy. Subsequently, we present a network meta-analysis comparing the combination of an EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug with 2 new treatment options: combination of an EGFR-TKI plus chemotherapy or new EGFR-TKIs of second or third generation as monotherapy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Five RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The progression-free survival (PFS) was statistically significantly larger in patients treated with an EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug compared with EGFR-TKI monotherapy: the pooled PFS-hazard ratio (HR) was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.69). The pooled median-PFS was 17.8 months (95% CI = 16.5 to 19.3 months) for the combination vs 11.7 months (95% CI = 11.1 to 12.7 months) for EGFR-TKI as monotherapy. No statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment arms were observed in overall survival or objective response rate. The rate of grade equal or higher than 3 adverse events was statistically significantly higher in patients treated with EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug: the pooled-relative risk was 1.72 (95% CI = 1.43 to 2.06). Ten RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. All 3 experimental treatments were associated with a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared with first-generation EGFR-TKIs. When compared to each other, none of the 3 experimental treatments were statistically significantly associated with larger PFS or lower rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with EGFR-mutated non small-cell lung cancer derived clinically meaningful larger PFS benefit from the addition of an anti-angiogenic drug to a first-generation EGFR-TKI at the cost of an increase of toxicities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33344882
doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa064
pii: pkaa064
pmc: PMC7737478
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
pkaa064Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Feb 01;12:9
pubmed: 22297116
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1454-1466
pubmed: 28958502
Trends Cancer. 2018 Apr;4(4):292-319
pubmed: 29606314
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 24;362(25):2380-8
pubmed: 20573926
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 20;34(27):3258-66
pubmed: 27507876
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):113-125
pubmed: 29151359
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 8;:
pubmed: 31393548
Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Jan 15;10(2):784-93
pubmed: 14760102
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1236-44
pubmed: 25175099
Ann Oncol. 2015 May;26(5):888-894
pubmed: 25669832
Prostate. 2006 Dec 1;66(16):1788-98
pubmed: 17013882
Ann Oncol. 2017 Oct 1;28(10):2340-2366
pubmed: 28945867
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Jul 31;15:58
pubmed: 26227148
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;36(22):2244-2250
pubmed: 29864379
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12
pubmed: 8721797
BMJ. 2017 Mar 3;356:j573
pubmed: 28258124
Cancer Res. 2001 Jul 1;61(13):5090-101
pubmed: 11431346
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 20;31(27):3327-34
pubmed: 23816960
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Aug;12(8):735-42
pubmed: 21783417
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Feb;11(2):121-8
pubmed: 20022809
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 10;38(2):124-136
pubmed: 31411950
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20(12):1655-1669
pubmed: 31591063
Lancet Oncol. 2019 May;20(5):625-635
pubmed: 30975627
Cancer Res. 2006 Feb 15;66(4):2173-80
pubmed: 16489018
Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):98-110
pubmed: 26062084
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32(22):2380-5
pubmed: 24982461
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 May 15;15(10):3484-94
pubmed: 19447865
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):239-46
pubmed: 22285168