Efficacy of gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell carcinoma of the lung harboring common, uncommon and complex EGFR mutations

2021 ◽  
Vol 08 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang Chun Kwok ◽  
Ka Yan Chiang ◽  
James Chung Man Ho ◽  
Terence Chi Chun Tam ◽  
Mary Sau Man Ip ◽  
...  

Background: As the commonest EGFR-TKI being used in Hong Kong, gefitinib has shown to be efficacious and safe as first line treatment for L858R mutation and exon 19 deletion with less gastrointestinal and cutaneous adverse events than erlotinib and afatinib. However, the evidence for therapeutic efficacy for uncommon and complex EGFR mutations is lacking. Whether gefitinib is efficacious for uncommon and complex EGFR mutations worth studying. Objectives: To assess the therapeutic efficacy of gefitinib, as measured by progression-free survival and overall survival, among advanced stage lung cancer patients with common, uncommon and complex EGFR mutations. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study that included 241 Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell carcinoma of lung harboring EGFR mutations and received gefitinib 250 mg daily as first-line treatment. The progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS] for patients with different EGFR mutations, namely exon 19 deletion, L858R mutation in exon 21, uncommon EGFR mutations and complex EGFR mutations were analyzed. Results: Among the 241 patients, 118 [49%] had exon 19 deletion, 104 [43%] had L858R mutation in exon 21, 6 [2.5%] had uncommon EGFR mutations, 13 [5.4%] had complex EGFR mutations. The mean age was 69. 72% of the patients were female and with 81% being non-smoker. For patients with complex EGFR mutations, regardless of the presence of exon 19 deletion and L858R mutation as the component, have better PFS and OS than patients with single common EGFR mutations [Exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation]. Patients with uncommon EGFR mutations have inferior PFS and OS than those with common EGFR mutations. Conclusion: Gefitinib is a possible option for patients with complex EGFR mutations while it may not be the preferred treatment option in patients with single uncommon EGFR mutations.

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuejun He ◽  
Jijun You ◽  
Haibing Ding ◽  
Zhisheng Zhang ◽  
Lin Cui ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Vascular mimicry (VM) was associated with the prognosis of cancers. The aim of the study was to explore the association between VM and anticancer therapy response in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Methods This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with lung adenocarcinoma between March 1st, 2013, to April 1st, 2019, at the Second People’s Hospital of Taizhou City. All included patients were divided into the VM and no-VM groups according to whether VM was observed or not in the specimen. Vessels with positive PAS and negative CD34 staining were confirmed as VM. The main outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Sixty-six (50.4%) patients were male. Eighty-one patients received chemotherapy as the first-line treatment, and 50 patients received TKIs. Forty-five (34.4%) patients were confirmed with VM. There was no difference regarding the first-line treatment between the VM and no-VM groups (P = 0.285). The 86 patients without VM had a median PFS of 279 (range, 90–1095) days, and 45 patients with VM had a median PFS of 167 (range, 90–369) days (P < 0.001). T stage (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10–1.71), N stage (HR = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.09–1.86), M stage (HR = 2.85, 95%CI: 1.76–4.61), differentiation (HR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.29–2.65), therapy (HR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.21–0.49), VM (HR = 2.12, 95%CI: 1.33–3.37), and ECOG (HR = 1.41, 95%CI: 1.09–1.84) were independently associated with PFS. Conclusion The benefits of first-line TKIs for NSCLC with EGFR mutation are possibly better than those of platinum-based regimens in patients without VM, but there is no difference in the benefit of chemotherapy or target therapy for VM-positive NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 1281-1287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcello Tiseo ◽  
Luca Boni ◽  
Francesca Ambrosio ◽  
Andrea Camerini ◽  
Editta Baldini ◽  
...  

Purpose Considering promising results in phase II studies, a randomized phase III trial was designed to assess the efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line cisplatin plus etoposide for treatment of extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients and Methods Treatment-naive patients with ED-SCLC were randomly assigned to receive either cisplatin plus etoposide (arm A) or the same regimen with bevacizumab (arm B) for a maximum of six courses. In the absence of progression, patients in arm B continued bevacizumab alone until disease progression or for a maximum of 18 courses. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Two hundred four patients were randomly assigned and considered in intent-to-treat analyses (103 patients in arm A and 101 patients in arm B). At a median follow-up of 34.9 months in arm A and arm B, median OS times were 8.9 and 9.8 months, and 1-year survival rates were 25% and 37% (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = .113), respectively. A statistically significant effect of bevacizumab on OS in patients who received maintenance was seen (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.91; P = .011). Median progression-free survival times were 5.7 and 6.7 months in arm A and arm B, respectively ( P = .030). Regarding hematologic toxicity, no statistically significant differences were observed; for nonhematologic toxicity, only hypertension was more frequent in arm B (grade 3 or 4, 1.0% v 6.3% in arms A v B, respectively; P = .057). Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to cisplatin and etoposide in the first-line treatment of ED-SCLC had an acceptable toxicity profile and led to a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival, which, however, did not translate into a statistically significant increase in OS. Further research with novel antiangiogenic agents, particularly in the maintenance setting, is warranted.


Endocrine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone De Leo ◽  
Marta Di Stefano ◽  
Luca Persani ◽  
Laura Fugazzola ◽  
Carla Colombo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document