EGFR-targeted therapies combined with chemotherapy for treating advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Chen ◽  
Long Wang ◽  
Bing Liu ◽  
Hai-Zhong Zhang ◽  
Hong-Chen Liu ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii204-ii204
Author(s):  
Karanbir Brar ◽  
Yosef Ellenbogen ◽  
Behnam Sadeghirad ◽  
Jiawen Deng ◽  
Winston Hou ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Brain metastases (BM) are common in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to assess the comparative effectiveness of treatments for BM from NSCLC. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL and references of key studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until October 2018. We also searched the Chinese databases Wanfang Data, Wanfang Med Online, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chongqing VIP Information for RCTs published until September 2019. Trials including > 10 patients were selected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and intracranial progression-free survival (PFS). We used a frequentist random-effects model for network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS Among 8798 abstracts, 106 RCTs (9452 patients) met inclusion criteria. Median sample size was 67 (range 25-554). All trials included adult patients with histologically proven NSCLC and >1 BM proven on CT/MRI. Of trials that reported performance status (e.g. ECOG or KPS, n=67), 63/67 excluded patients with non-favorable performance status. Interventions assessed included surgery, WBRT, SRS, targeted therapies (i.e. EGFR/ALK inhibitors), and chemotherapy. Compared to WBRT alone, several interventions demonstrated a statistically significant increase in median OS, including non-targeted chemotherapy + surgery (MD: 415.3 days, 95% CI: 31.3-799.4), WBRT + EGFRi (MD: 200.2 days, 95% CI:146.3-254.1), and EGFRi alone (MD: 169.7 days, 95% CI: 49.7-289.7). Among all interventions, only WBRT + EGFRi showed a significant improvement in median PFS (MD: 108.0 days, 95%CI: 48.5-167.5). CONCLUSIONS Our preliminary analyses indicate an OS and PFS benefit on the addition of EGFR inhibitors to WBRT for the treatment of BMs from NSCLC. Further analyses of hazard ratios for OS/PFS are underway, and subgroup analyses are planned. These data support the growing role of targeted therapies in the treatment of BMs, particularly in susceptible mutant tumours.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung Hoang ◽  
Seung-Kwon Myung ◽  
Thu Thi Pham ◽  
Jeongseon Kim ◽  
Woong Ju

This study aims to investigate the efficacy of targeted therapies in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by using a network meta-analysis of clinical trials. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched by using keywords related to the topic on 19 September 2018. Two investigators independently selected relevant trials by pre-determined criteria. A pooled response ratio (RR) for overall response rate (ORR) and a hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated based on both the Bayesian and frequentist approaches. A total of 128 clinical trials with 39,501 participants were included in the final analysis of 14 therapeutic groups. Compared with chemotherapy, both ORR and PFS were significantly improved for afatinib, alectinib, and crizotinib, while only PFS was significantly improved for cabozantinib, ceritinib, gefitinib, and osimertinib. Consistency was observed between the direct and indirect comparisons based on the Bayesian approach statistically and the frequentist approach visually. Cabozantinib and alectinib showed the highest probability for the first-line treatment ranking in ORR (62.5%) and PFS (87.5%), respectively. The current network meta-analysis showed the comprehensive evidence-based comparative efficacy of different types of targeted therapies, which would help clinicians use targeted therapies in clinical practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii12-ii13
Author(s):  
Karanbir Brar ◽  
Yosef Ellenbogen ◽  
Behnam Sadeghirad ◽  
Jiawen Deng ◽  
Winston Hou ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Brain metastases (BM) are common in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to assess the comparative effectiveness of treatments for BM from NSCLC. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL and references of key studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until October 2018. We also searched the Chinese databases Wanfang Data, Wanfang Med Online, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chongqing VIP Information for RCTs published until September 2019. Trials including > 10 patients were selected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and intracranial progression-free survival (PFS). We used a frequentist random-effects model for network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS Among 8798 abstracts, 106 RCTs (9452 patients) met inclusion criteria. Median sample size was 67 (range 25–554). All trials included adult patients with histologically proven NSCLC and >1 BM proven on CT/MRI. Of trials that reported performance status (e.g. ECOG or KPS, n=67), 63/67 excluded patients with non-favorable performance status. Interventions assessed included surgery, WBRT, SRS, targeted therapies (i.e. EGFR/ALK inhibitors), and chemotherapy. Compared to WBRT alone, several interventions demonstrated a statistically significant increase in median OS, including non-targeted chemotherapy + surgery (MD: 415.3 days, 95% CI: 31.3–799.4), WBRT + EGFRi (MD: 200.2 days, 95% CI:146.3–254.1), and EGFRi alone (MD: 169.7 days, 95% CI: 49.7–289.7). Among all interventions, only WBRT + EGFRi showed a significant improvement in median PFS (MD: 108.0 days, 95%CI: 48.5–167.5). CONCLUSIONS Our preliminary analyses indicate an OS and PFS benefit on the addition of EGFR inhibitors to WBRT for the treatment of BMs from NSCLC. Further analyses of hazard ratios for OS/PFS are underway, and subgroup analyses are planned. These data support the growing role of targeted therapies in the treatment of BMs, particularly in susceptible mutant tumours.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing-Di Yan ◽  
Xiao-Feng Cong ◽  
Sha-Sha Zhao ◽  
Meng Ren ◽  
Zi-Ling Liu ◽  
...  

Background and Objective: We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of antigen-specific immunotherapy (Belagenpumatucel-L, MAGE-A3, L-BLP25, and TG4010) in the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). </P><P> Methods: A comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted. Eligible studies were clinical trials of patients with NSCLC who received the antigenspecific immunotherapy. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and the incidence of adverse events. </P><P> Results: In total, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,806 patients were included. Pooled results showed that, antigen-specific immunotherapy did not significantly prolong OS (HR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.83, 1.01; P=0.087) and PFS (HR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.85, 1.01; P=0.088), but improved ORR (RR=1.72, 95%CI: 1.11, 2.68; P=0.016). Subgroup analysis based on treatment agents showed that, tecemotide was associated with a significant improvement in OS (HR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.74, 0.99; P=0.03) and PFS (HR=0.70, 95%CI: 0.49, 0.99, P=0.044); TG4010 was associated with an improvement in PFS (HR=0.87, 95%CI: 0.75, 1.00, P=0.058). In addition, NSCLC patients who were treated with antigen-specific immunotherapy exhibited a significantly higher incidence of adverse events than those treated with other treatments (RR=1.11, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.24; P=0.046). </P><P> Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the clinical survival benefits of tecemotide and TG4010 in the treatment of NSCLC. However, these evidence might be limited by potential biases. Therefore, further well-conducted, large-scale RCTs are needed to verify our findings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document