OBJECTIVES: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring sensitive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations derive greater benefits from EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) than those with wild type tumors. However, whether EGFR mutation status is associated with the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy or prognosis in advanced NSCLC patients remained controversial. Thus, we sought to conduct a meta-analysis to answer this question. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for eligible literatures. The primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses stratified by study types, EGFR mutation detection methods, chemotherapy regimens, and patient origins were proposed. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies involving 1,772 advanced NSCLC patients with known EGFR mutation status who had received first-line chemotherapy were included. Patients with positive EGFR mutation had numerically higher ORR than wild type patients (36.2% vs. 30.1%) without significant differences (OR 1.24, 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.70; P=0.19). However, patients with EGFR mutants had significantly superior 6-month PFS rate than wild-type patients (58.6% vs. 47.2%; OR 1.88, 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.65; P=0.0003). Results of the subgroup analyses were concordant with the overall ones. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis revealed that advanced NSCLC patients with sensitivity EGFR mutation had higher 6-month PFS rate and potentially greater ORR compared with wild-type patients after first-line chemotherapy. It suggested that EGFR mutation status should be considered a significant factor for patient stratification in evaluating the efficacy of antitumor agents in addition to EGFR-TKIs.
OBJECTIVES:Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring sensitive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations derive greater benefits from EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) than those with wild type tumors. However, whether EGFR mutation status is associated with the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy or prognosis in advanced NSCLCpatients remained controversial. Thus, we sought to conduct a meta-analysis to answer this question. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for eligible literatures. The primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses stratified by study types, EGFR mutation detection methods, chemotherapy regimens, and patient origins were proposed. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies involving 1,772 advanced NSCLCpatients with known EGFR mutation status who had received first-line chemotherapy were included. Patients with positive EGFR mutation had numerically higher ORR than wild type patients (36.2% vs. 30.1%) without significant differences (OR 1.24, 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.70; P=0.19). However, patients with EGFR mutants had significantly superior 6-month PFS rate than wild-type patients (58.6% vs. 47.2%; OR 1.88, 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.65; P=0.0003). Results of the subgroup analyses were concordant with the overall ones. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis revealed that advanced NSCLCpatients with sensitivity EGFR mutation had higher 6-month PFS rate and potentially greater ORR compared with wild-type patients after first-line chemotherapy. It suggested that EGFR mutation status should be considered a significant factor for patient stratification in evaluating the efficacy of antitumor agents in addition to EGFR-TKIs.
Authors: David G Pfister; David H Johnson; Christopher G Azzoli; William Sause; Thomas J Smith; Sherman Baker; Jemi Olak; Diane Stover; John R Strawn; Andrew T Turrisi; Mark R Somerfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hongbin Ji; Danan Li; Liang Chen; Takeshi Shimamura; Susumu Kobayashi; Kate McNamara; Umar Mahmood; Albert Mitchell; Yangping Sun; Ruqayyah Al-Hashem; Lucian R Chirieac; Robert Padera; Roderick T Bronson; William Kim; Pasi A Jänne; Geoffrey I Shapiro; Daniel Tenen; Bruce E Johnson; Ralph Weissleder; Norman E Sharpless; Kwok-Kin Wong Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-05-25 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: G V Scagliotti; F De Marinis; M Rinaldi; L Crinò; C Gridelli; S Ricci; E Matano; C Boni; M Marangolo; G Failla; G Altavilla; V Adamo; A Ceribelli; M Clerici; F Di Costanzo; L Frontini; M Tonato Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ji-Youn Han; Keunchil Park; Sang-We Kim; Dae Ho Lee; Hyae Young Kim; Heung Tae Kim; Myung Ju Ahn; Tak Yun; Jin Seok Ahn; Cheolwon Suh; Jung-Shin Lee; Sung Jin Yoon; Jong Hee Han; Jae Won Lee; Sook Jung Jo; Jin Soo Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ross A Soo; Marie Loh; Tony S Mok; Sai-Hong I Ou; Byoung-Chul Cho; Wee-Lee Yeo; Dan G Tenen; Richie Soong Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: A Dowlati; M B Lipka; K McColl; S Dabir; M Behtaj; A Kresak; A Miron; M Yang; N Sharma; P Fu; G Wildey Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 32.976