Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib for EGFR-mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, Compared with Gefitinib or Erlotinib

Youjin Kim; Se-Hoon Lee; Jin Seok Ahn; Myung-Ju Ahn; Keunchil Park; Jong-Mu Sun

doi:10.4143/crt.2018.117

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 51(2); 2019 > Article

Original Article Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib for EGFR-mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, Compared with Gefitinib or Erlotinib: Youjin Kim, MD, Se-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD, Jin Seok Ahn, MD, PhD, Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, PhD, Keunchil Park, MD, PhD, Jong-Mu Sun, MD, PhD; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2019;51(2):502-509.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.117
Published online: June 13, 2018

Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Jong-Mu Sun, MD, PhD Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3410-1795 Fax: 82-2-3410-1754 E-mail: jongmu.sun@skku.edu

• Received: February 14, 2018 • Accepted: June 10, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

12,091 Views
802 Download
74 Web of Science
64 Crossref
84 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
We tried to evaluate whether there are any specific features in treatment outcomes of firstline afatinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared with gefitinib or erlotinib.
Materials and Methods
We analyzed patients treated with first-line afatinib, gefitinib, or erlotinib for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC at Samsung Medical Center between 2014 and 2016.
Results
In total, 467 patients received first-line afatinib (n=165), gefitinib (n=230), or erlotinib (n=72). Afatinib was used more often in patients with tumors harboring deletion in exon 19 (Del19), whereas the gefitinib group had more elderly, females, and never smokers. The median progression-free survival (PFS) time for afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib was 19.1 months, 13.7 months, and 14.0 months, respectively (p=0.001). The superior PFS of afatinib was more remarkable in subgroups of Del19 or uncommon EGFR mutations. Overall toxicity profiles of the three drugs were comparable, though more grade 3 or 4 toxicities were detected in afatinib (7.3%) compared with gefitinib (2.6%) or erlotinib (1.8%). The common grade 3 or 4 toxicities of afatinib included diarrhea (3.0%), paronychia (2.4%), and skin rash (1.8%). Dose modification was more frequently required in patients treated with afatinib (112/165, 68%), compared with gefitinib (5/230, 2%) and erlotinib (4/72, 6%). Interestingly, however, dose reduction in the afatinib group did not impair its efficacy in terms of PFS (dose reduction vs. no reduction group, 23.5 months vs. 12.4 months).
Conclusion
First-line afatinib showed satisfactory efficacy data and manageable toxicity profiles.
Key words: Afatinib, First-line therapy, Epidermal growth factor receptor, Non-small cell lung carcinoma

Introduction

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the leading causes of deaths from cancer worldwide [1]. When used as first-line therapy, first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as gefitinib and erlotinib have improved clinical outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations [2,3].

Afatinib, a second-generation EGFR TKI, is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker that selectively and potently blocks signaling from all relevant ErbB family receptors (ErbB1, ErbB2, and ErbB4) [4]. In the Phase III LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials, first-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC [5,6]. These promising results led to the approval of afatinib in many countries from 2013 onwards.

Several large randomized trials have been conducted to compare the clinical efficacies and toxicities of these EGFR TKIs. The WJOG 5108L study was a randomized phase III study comparing gefitinib with erlotinib. It did not demonstrate statistical non inferiority of gefitinib in terms of PFS compared with erlotinib [7]. The LUX-Lung 7 trial compared afatinib with gefitinib as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring common EGFR mutations (Del19 and the L858R point mutation) [8]. Although the median PFS times of afatinib and gefitinib were similar (11.0 months vs. 10.9 months), afatinib showed a statistically superior PFS outcome compared to gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.95) [8].

Currently, afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib are recommended as first-line therapies for EGFR-mutant NSCLC. However, no rules or guidelines are available to choose one of these drugs for a given patient. Thus, the specific drug is typically chosen according to the physician’s preference or experience. In South Korea, these three TKIs are approved, and one of three TKIs can be chosen by physicians as the first-line therapy for their patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

A few years have elapsed since first-line afatinib therapy for EGFR-mutant NSCLC was first reimbursed in Korea (October 2014). Our purpose of this study is to investigate how afatinib is used in real-world practice, and whether it leads to different clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib or erlotinib.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients

This retrospective population-based study included patients with NSCLC who received first-line afatinib, gefitinib, or erlotinib at a single institute (Samsung Medical Center) between October 2014 and December 2016. Eligible patients in the clinical database of the hospital were identified and their medical information was extracted from electronic medical records. Patient demographics such as age, sex, smoking history, performance status, and EGFR mutation type were reviewed. Demographic information was obtained for the time at which first-line EGFR TKI treatment was initiated. EGFR mutations were identified using a PNA clamp kit and real-time polymerase chain reaction. Mutations other than Del19 or the L858R point mutation were classified as uncommon EGFR mutations, which also included the de novo T790M mutation. In the efficacy analysis according to EGFR mutation type, the T790M mutation was excluded since tumors harboring T790M are known to be resistant to afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib.

2. Evaluation of safety and efficacy

All patients were diagnosed with NSCLC by histologic analysis. Tumor stage was evaluated by chest computed tomography (CT), positron-emission tomography‒CT (PET-CT), and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). If the results of staging work-up procedures performed in hospitals other than Samsung Medical Center were of poor quality, we repeated the procedures at our hospital before the patients started treatment.

When starting first-line EGFR TKIs, all patients were informed about the potential adverse events of the TKIs and instructed on how to manage such events if they appear. All patients were recommended to visit the clinic within 2 weeks after starting TKIs so that they could be screened for any adverse events. If any significant adverse event had occurred by the first visit after TKI treatment, dose reduction or a more vigilant follow-up schedule was planned. Otherwise, patients visited every 1 or 2 months for the first 6 months, and every 2 or 3 months thereafter. Tumor responses were checked every 2 or 3 months by chest CT, with or without abdomen/pelvis CT, PET-CT, or brain MRI.

Objective response rate was calculated by checking the best response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor ver. 1.1 guidelines. PFS was defined as the time from starting first-line TKI to disease progression or death; overall survival was defined as the time from starting first-line TKI to death. Toxicity was graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, ver. 4.0.

3. Statistical considerations

To compare baseline characteristics among the three groups or treatments, one-way ANOVA or the chi-square test was used. Overall survival was defined as the time from registration to death from any cause or censored at the time of last contact. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from registration to documented progression or death without progression. Patients without documented progression or death were censored at the time of the last disease assessment. The survival data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Median PFS was calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model. PFS is presented as median values and two-sided 95% CIs. PFS after gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib treatment was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model. For multivariable analysis, a multiple Cox regression model was fitted by adjusting significant prognostic variables (p < 0.05) in the univariable analysis for PFS. All p-values were two-sided and a p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS ver. 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). The data cutoff for the analysis was May 28, 2017.

4. Ethical statement

This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board (IRB No. 2018-02-111) at Samsung Medical Center. The informed consent was waived because this study was done based on the medical record review. The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

1. Patient characteristics and preference for afatinib, gefitinib, or erlotinib

The patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. A total of 467 patients with recurrent or metastatic stage IV NSCLC were included in the analysis, each of whom had Del19, L858R point mutation, or an uncommon EGFR mutation. Patients were treated with afatinib (n=165), gefitinib (n=230), or erlotinib (n=72) as the first-line therapy. Patients in the gefitinib group were significantly elderly (median age, 64 years) than those in the afatinib and erlotinib groups (median age, 57 and 59 years, respectively) (p < 0.001). Female patients comprised less than 50% of the afatinib and erlotinib groups, while 74% of the gefitinib group was female (p < 0.001). Performance status was not significantly different among the three groups. The proportion of never smokers was higher in the gefitinib group (78%) than in the afatinib (60%) and erlotinib groups (57%) (p < 0.001). Approximately 70% of patients in the afatinib group had Del19; this percentage was significantly higher than those in the gefitinib (53%) and erlotinib (56%) groups (p=0.002). A total of 31 patients with uncommon EGFR mutation types were included, broken down by treatment group as follows: afatinib (n=14), gefitinib (n=12), and erlotinib (n=5).

2. Survival outcomes according to EGFR TKI therapy

The median follow-up duration for PFS was 17.7 months (95% CI, 16.5 to 18.9). The median PFS times for afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib were 19.1 months (95% CI, 12.3 to 25.9), 13.7 months (95% CI, 12.3 to 15.1), and 14.0 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 16.8), respectively (p=0.001) (Fig. 1A). In the univariate analysis for PFS, other clinical characteristics such as common EGFR mutation type (p < 0.001), good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 or 1) (p < 0.001), and never smoker status (p=0.014) were associated with longer PFS, while younger age (< 60 years) (p=0.174) and female sex (p=0.523) were not good prognostic factors in terms of predicting PFS. With respect to the other clinical factors considered, afatinib therapy was significantly associated with longer PFS in the multivariate analysis (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.63; p < 0.001).

Regarding overall survival, the median follow-up duration was 17.5 months (95% CI, 16.3 to 18.8). There was no statistically significant difference between the EGFR TKI therapy groups (p=0.21) (Fig. 1B).

3. Progression-free survivals of EGFR TKIs according to EGFR mutation types

We next analyzed PFS according to EGFR mutation types. In the subgroup of patients with Del19, the median PFS times for afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib were 19.1 months, 15.0 months, and 16.3 months, respectively (p=0.01). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the L858R subgroup (p=0.46) (Fig. 2A and B). For the subgroup of uncommon EGFR mutations, the afatinib group showed much longer PFS (median PFS, not reached) compared with the gefitinib (5.0 months) and erlotinib (6.1 months) groups, though it was not statistically significant due to a small sample size (p=0.06) (Fig. 2C).

4. Objective response in the uncommon EGFR mutation subgroup

Table 2 shows the uncommon EGFR mutation types and the objective response of patients with each mutation type to each EGFR TKI. A total of 31 patients had uncommon mutations (exon 21 L861 Q, exon 18 G719X, exon 20 insertion, exon 18 G719X+exon 20 S768I, Del19+L747_P753>Q, and exon 21 L858R+H870R) and seven patients (1.4%) had both active and resistant EGFR mutations (T790M). Seven patients had the de novo T790M mutation (afatinib, 4; gefitinib, 3); these patients had no response. Among the patients harboring uncommon mutations other than T790M, objective response was seen in eight out of the 10 patients in the afatinib group, while four out of nine in the gefitinib group showed a response and one out of five in the erlotinib group showed a response.

5. Toxicity profile

The toxicity profiles were compatible with the expectation (Table 3). The most common adverse events were skin rash, stomatitis, paronychia, and diarrhea. The incidence of grade 1-2 adverse events were comparable among three treatment groups. However, grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequently found in the afatinib group (7.3%), compared with gefitinib (2.6%) and erlotinib groups (1.8%). The common grade 3-4 adverse events of afatinib were diarrhea, paronychia, and skin rash. A total of 10 patients of afatinib permanently discontinued afatinib therapy due to grade 2 paronychia or skin rash (n=3), grade 2 or 3 diarrhea (n=4), grade 2 or 3 stomatitis (n=2), or grade 3 pneumonitis (n=1). One patient with gefitinib hold permanently due to grade 3 interstitial lung disease, and there was no permanent hold in the erlotinib group. No treatment-related deaths occurred for all the three drugs.

6. Dose modification

All patients initiated afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib treatment with 40 mg, 250 mg, and 150 mg once daily, respectively. Dose reduction was performed to control adverse events. In the afatinib group, the first dose reduction was from 40 mg to 30 mg per day. If further reduction was needed, the dose was reduced subsequently from 30 mg to 20 mg per day. In accordance with the dose reduction sequence, dose reduction was performed either once or twice in 112 patients (67.8%). The median interval from starting afatinib to the first dose reduction was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.8). Thus, the final afatinib dose was 30 mg per day in 80 patients (48.5%) and 20 mg per day in 32 patients (19.4%). In the gefitinib group, total five patients reduced dose by increasing the administration interval into every other day, due to skin toxicity and hepatotoxicity. Four patients with erlotinib reduced dose to 100 mg per day due to skin toxicity. A total of 10 patients in the afatinib group permanently discontinued afatinib therapy due to grade 2 paronychia or skin rash (n=3), grade 2 or 3 diarrhea (n=4), grade 2 or 3 stomatitis (n=2), or grade 3 pneumonitis (n=1). One patient with gefitinib permanently stopped medication due to skin toxicity and there was no permanent stop case for erlotinib. No treatment-related deaths occurred for all three TKIs.

We analyzed whether dose reduction of afatinib affected its efficacy. Interestingly, in the survival analysis according to final afatinib dose, reduction did not impair PFS: the median PFS times for the unreduced group (40 mg) and reduced group (30 mg or 20 mg) were 12.4 months and 23.5 months, respectively (S1 Fig.). When the disease burdens were compared by initial brain metastasis status between two groups, there was no significant difference. There were 19 patients (35%) with brain metastasis in the unreduced group (n=55), while 48 patients (43%) initially presented with metastatic brain tumor in the reduced group (n=112) (p=0.53).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively evaluate the pattern of clinical use of three EGFR TKIs (afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib). We found that gefitinib was more commonly used than erlotinib or afatinib in Korea, especially for elderly, which may be due to concerns about treatment related adverse events. A previous retrospective report showed that gefitinib was less associated with significant skin toxicity than the other two TKIs in patients with NSCLC [9]. Compatible with this report, our study also showed that gefitinib was prescribed more often to women, indicating that physicians consider potential cosmetic problems when treating women. Afatinib was more commonly used for patients with tumors harboring Del19. We reason that this observation could be due to a study reporting that the afatinib arm had longer overall survival than the chemotherapy arm in the Del19 subgroup, while this result was not observed in the L858R subgroup [10].

Our results show that afatinib was significantly associated with longer PFS compared with gefitinib and erlotinib, even after adjustment for other potentially confounding prognostic factors. In addition, the significantly longer PFS of afatinib observed even in the Del19 subgroup could preclude the possibility that longer PFS of afatinib for overall population was caused by that more patients with better prognostic factor, Del19, were included in the afatinib group. We confirm the previous data that showed the superior PFS outcome of second-generation EGFR TKIs such as afatinib and dacomitinib to first-generation EGFR TKI such as gefitinib [8,11].

The median PFS times of each TKI in our study (13-19 months) were longer than those (11 months) reported from prospective trials as first-line EGFR TKIs [5,6,8]. Although we do not have a definitive explanation for this result, maintaining TKI treatment for a long-term period with more efficient management of adverse events may in part contribute to the longer PFS. We note that the rate of total grade 3 or 4 adverse events for afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib were approximately 7%, 3%, and 2%, respectively, in our study, which is lower than those reported in prospective studies [5-8].

Although gefitinib and erlotinib have both demonstrated efficacy for treating tumors with common EGFR mutations [12-14], their efficacy against tumors with uncommon EGFR mutations is still under investigation. The response rates and median PFS of first-generation EGFR TKIs for uncommon EGFR mutations were reported to be less than 50% and 5 months, respectively [15,16]. Recently, good efficacy of afatinib for treating tumors with uncommon mutations was reported [17,18]. Our study confirms the previous efficacy data of afatinib for NSCLC harboring uncommon EGFR mutations other than T790M. Compared with gefitinib and erlotinib, afatinib treatment yielded a longer PFS for patients with uncommon EGFR mutations, although this difference did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to the small sample size (p=0.06). Based on our results, we recommend afatinib for first-line therapy in patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations other than the de novo T790M point mutation.

The frequency of adverse events was lower than in previous prospective studies and fewer types of adverse events were observed [5,6,8]. This finding could be related to limitations commonly associated with retrospective studies, which are based on medical records. Despite these limitations, we observed a lower rate of significant toxicity (grade 3 or 4). This finding can be explained by the fact that our practice usually includes dose reduction with or without temporary interruption, in addition to appropriate use of oral antibiotics, anti-diarrheal agents, or steroid ointments for the management of adverse events.

In our study, more patients underwent dose reduction due to adverse events compared to previous prospective trials [5,6,8]. However, this dose reduction did not impair efficacy outcomes in terms of PFS. Therefore, based on our results, we recommend that physicians reduce the afatinib dose when patients experience unacceptable or prolonged adverse events. However, the relationship between dose reduction and PFS should be interpreted with caution, because there are more opportunities for dose reduction when patients take afatinib for longer periods. However, this bias was unlikely to have significantly affected the results because most dose reduction occurred soon after starting afatinib treatment, with a median time of 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.8). In addition, reduced afatinib doses were shown to not impair efficacy in another retrospective study [19]. It showed that there was no difference in time to treatment failure between the group that started afatinib 40 mg and the group that started 30 mg as the first-line therapy for NSCLC [19].

In summary, we evaluated the frequencies of first-line EGFR TKI use in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and found that patient characteristics affected the choice of EGFR TKI. Afatinib showed superior PFS data compared with gefitinib or erlotinib. Afatinib showed more grade 3 or 4 adverse events than gefitinib or erlotinib, though the incidence was much lower than previous data.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (http://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2018-117-suppl.pdf

NOTES

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgements

We thank all participating patients and their families, as well as the research nurses and study coordinators.

Fig. 1.

Progression-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) with afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib. TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Fig. 2.

Progression-free survival of afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation types. (A) Exon 19 deletion. (B) Exon 21 L858R. (C) Uncommon EGFR mutations. TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics

Patient characteristic	Afatinib	Gefitinib	Erlotinib	p-value
No. of patients	165	230	72
Age (yr)
Median (range)	57 (30-79)	64 (29-87)	59 (36-77)	< 0.001
< 60	93 (56.4)	79 (34.3)	38 (52.8)	< 0.001
≥ 60	72 (43.6)	151(65.7)	34 (47.2)
Sex
Male	85 (51.5)	60 (26.1)	39 (54.2)	< 0.001
Female	80 (48.5)	170 (73.9)	33 (45.8)
ECOG PS
0	42 (25.5)	56 (24.3)	24 (33.3)	0.658
1	114 (69.0)	160 (69.6)	44 (61.1)
2	9 (5.5)	14 (6.1)	4 (5.6)
Smoking status
Never smoker	99 (60.0)	180 (78.3)	41 (56.9)	< 0.001
Current or ex-smoker	66 (40.0)	50 (21.7)	31 (43.1)
EGFR mutation type
Exon 19 deletion	114 (69.1)	122 (53.0)	40 (55.6)	0.002
Exon 21 L858R	37 (22.4)	96 (41.8)	27 (37.5)
Uncommon EGFR	14 (8.5)	12 (5.2)	5 (6.9)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%). Uncommon EGFR: the tumor contains a mutation other than del19 or L858R. ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor.

Table 2.

Objective response rates according to uncommon EGFR mutation

EGFR TKI	Afatinib		Gefitinib		Erlotinib
EGFR TKI	Total	Objective response	Total	Objective response	Total	Objective response
*Uncommon EGFR* mutation**	14	8	12	4	5	1
*Uncommon EGFR* mutation other than T790M**	10	8	9	4	5	1
*Uncommon EGFR* mutation**
Exon 21 L858R+exon 20 T790M	3	0	3	0	0	0
Exon 19 deletion+exon 20 T790M	1	0	0	0	0	0
Exon 21 L861 Q	3	3	4	2	0	0
Exon 18 G719X	3	2	4	2	3	1
Exon 20 insertion	1	0	0	0	2	0
Exon 18 G719X+exon 20 S768I	1	1	1	0	0	0
Exon 19 Deletion+L747_P753>Q	1	1	0	0	0	0
Exon 21 L858R+H870R	1	1	0	0	0	0

EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Table 3.

Toxicity profile of afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib

Toxicity	Grade 1-2			Grade 3-4
Toxicity	Afatinib	Gefitinib	Erlotinib	Afatinib	Gefitinib	Erlotinib
Total	116 (70.3)	164 (71.3)	53 (73.6)	12 (7.3)	6 (2.6)	3 (1.8)
Rash and acne	76 (46.1)	131 (57.0)	47 (65.3)	3 (1.8)	1 (1.4)	3 (1.8)
Stomatitis	50 (30.3)	31 (13.5)	8 (11.1)	0	0	0
Paronychia	44 (26.7)	21 (9.1)	13 (18.1)	4 (2.4)	0	0
Diarrhea	32 (19.4)	33 (14.3)	13 (18.2)	6 (3.0)	0	0
Dry skin	18 (10.9)	45 (19.6)	12 (16.7)	0	1 (1.4)	0
Pruritus	17 (10.3)	79 (34.3)	21 (29.2)	0	0	0
Anorexia	7 (4.2)	15 (6.5)	7 (9.7)	1 (0.6)	1 (1.4)	0
Nausea/Vomiting	0	4 (1.7)	1 (1.4)	0	0	0
Fatigue	1 (0.6)	3 (1.3)	1 (1.5)	1 (0.6)	0	0
Alopecia	0	15 (6.5)	2 (2.8)	0	1 (1.4)	0
Interstitial lung disease	0	0	0	1 (0.6)	0	0
Increased AST/ALT	0	2 (0.9)	0	0	2 (2.8)	0

Values are presented as number (%). ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase.

REFERENCES

1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. Article PubMed
2. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, Saijo N, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:947–57. Article PubMed
3. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, Feng J, Liu XQ, Wang C, et al. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:735–42. Article PubMed
4. Li D, Ambrogio L, Shimamura T, Kubo S, Takahashi M, Chirieac LR, et al. BIBW2992, an irreversible EGFR/HER2 inhibitor highly effective in preclinical lung cancer models. Oncogene. 2008;27:4702–11. Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, O'Byrne K, Hirsh V, Mok T, et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327–34. Article PubMed
6. Wu YL, Zhou C, Hu CP, Feng J, Lu S, Huang Y, et al. Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 6): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:213–22. Article PubMed
7. Urata Y, Katakami N, Morita S, Kaji R, Yoshioka H, Seto T, et al. Randomized phase III study comparing gefitinib with erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced lung adenocarcinoma: WJOG 5108L. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3248–57. Article PubMed
8. Park K, Tan EH, O'Byrne K, Zhang L, Boyer M, Mok T, et al. Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:577–89. Article PubMed
9. Chen KL, Lin CC, Cho YT, Yang CW, Sheen YS, Tsai HE, et al. Comparison of skin toxic effects associated with gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:340–2. Article PubMed
10. Yang JC, Wu YL, Schuler M, Sebastian M, Popat S, Yamamoto N, et al. Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:141–51. Article PubMed
11. Mok T, Cheng Y, Zhou X, Lee KH, Nakagawa K, Niho S, et al. Dacomitinib versus gefitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomized, open-label phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(Suppl):LBA9007.Article
12. Jackman DM, Yeap BY, Sequist LV, Lindeman N, Holmes AJ, Joshi VA, et al. Exon 19 deletion mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor are associated with prolonged survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib or erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:3908–14. Article PubMed
13. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, Gurubhagavatula S, Okimoto RA, Brannigan BW, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2129–39. Article PubMed
14. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, Tracy S, Greulich H, Gabriel S, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004;304:1497–500. Article PubMed
15. Wu JY, Shih JY. Effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitors on uncommon E709X epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:6137–45. Article PubMed PMC
16. Baek JH, Sun JM, Min YJ, Cho EK, Cho BC, Kim JH, et al. Efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer except both exon 19 deletion and exon 21 L858R: a retrospective analysis in Korea. Lung Cancer. 2015;87:148–54. Article PubMed
17. Shen YC, Tseng GC, Tu CY, Chen WC, Liao WC, Chen WC, et al. Comparing the effects of afatinib with gefitinib or Erlotinib in patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinoma harboring non-classical epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. Lung Cancer. 2017;110:56–62. Article PubMed
18. Yang JC, Sequist LV, Geater SL, Tsai CM, Mok T, Schuler MH, et al. Activity of afatinib in uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations: findings from three trials of afatinib in Egfr mutation-positive lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(Suppl 2):S141.
19. Liu CY, Wang CL, Li SH, Hsu PC, Chen CH, Lin TY, et al. The efficacy of 40 mg versus dose de-escalation to less than 40 mg of afatinib (Giotrif) as the first-line therapy for patients with primary lung adenocarcinoma harboring favorable epidermal growth factor mutations. Oncotarget. 2017;8:97602–12. Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Novel bioactive 2‐phenyl‐4‐aminopyrimidine derivatives as EGFRDel19/T790M/C797S inhibitors for the treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer
Shidi Xu, Zhihui Zhou, Jie He, Jiaojiao Guo, Xiaoling Huang, Yufeng An, Qingshan Pan, Shan Xu, Wufu Zhu
Archiv der Pharmazie.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Differential efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors according to the types of EGFR mutations and agents in non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world study
Tae-Hwan Kim, Jin-Hyuk Choi, Mi Sun Ahn, Hyun Woo Lee, Seok Yun Kang, Yong Won Choi, Young Wha Koh, Seung-Soo Sheen
BMC Cancer.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
A real-world cohort study of first-line afatinib in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Vietnam
Cam Phuong Pham, Thi Thai Hoa Nguyen, Anh Tu Do, Tuan Khoi Nguyen, Thi Anh Thu Hoang, Tuan Anh Le, Dinh Thy Hao Vuong, Dac Nhan Tam Nguyen, Van Khiem Dang, Thi Oanh Nguyen, Van Luan Pham, Minh Hai Nguyen, Thi Huyen Trang Vo, Hung Kien Do, Ha Thanh Vu, Thi
BMC Cancer.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Unveiling the Landscape of Uncommon EGFR Mutations in NSCLC-A Systematic Review
Maxime Borgeaud, Kaushal Parikh, Giuseppe Luigi Banna, Floryane Kim, Timothée Olivier, Xiuning Le, Alfredo Addeo
Journal of Thoracic Oncology.2024; 19(7): 973. CrossRef
Real-world analysis of afatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer with uncommon EGFR mutations: a multicenter study in Vietnam
Van Luan Pham, Tuan Anh Le, Cam Phuong Pham, Thi Thai Hoa Nguyen, Anh Tu Do, Tuan Khoi Nguyen, Minh Hai Nguyen, Thi Anh Thu Hoang, Dinh Thy Hao Vuong, Dac Nhan Tam Nguyen, Van Khiem Dang, Thi Oanh Nguyen, Thi Huyen Trang Vo, Hung Kien Do, Ha Thanh Vu, Thi
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Harnessing molecular hybridization approach to discover novel quinoline EGFR-TK inhibitors for cancer treatment
Noha Ryad, Ayman Abo Elmaaty, Ibrahim M Ibrahim, Ali Hassan Ahmed Maghrabi, Maryam Abdulrahman Yahya Alahdal, Rasha Mohammed Saleem, Islam Zaki, Lina M A Abdel Ghany
Future Medicinal Chemistry.2024; 16(11): 1087. CrossRef
Lung cancer and pregnancy
A. L. Chernyshova, A. A. Chernyakov, Ju. M. Trushjuk, O. S. Dil, A. E. Chernyshova
PULMONOLOGIYA.2024; 34(4): 544. CrossRef
Cytotoxicity and inhibitory potential of CUDC-101 in non-small cell lung cancer cells with rare EGFR L861Q mutation
Chunhong Chu, Huixia Xu, Chenxue Liu, Xiangkai Wei, Lanxin Li, Rui Wang, Wenrui Cui, Guoliang Zhang, Chenyang Liu, Ke Wang, Lei An, Fei He
Current Research in Toxicology.2024; 7: 100194. CrossRef
Design and synthesis of novel 2-(2-(4-bromophenyl)quinolin-4-yl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole derivatives as anticancer and antimicrobial candidates: in vitro and in silico studies
Noha Ryad, Ayman Abo Elmaaty, Samy Selim, Mohammed S. Almuhayawi, Soad K. Al Jaouni, Mohamed S. Abdel-Aziz, Arwa Sultan Alqahtani, Islam Zaki, Lina M. A. Abdel Ghany
RSC Advances.2024; 14(46): 34005. CrossRef
Treatment Patterns, Clinical Outcomes and Health Care Resource Utilisation in Patients with EGFR-mutated Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Real-World Study in South Korea
Cliff Molife, Jae Min Cho, Jennifer Lapthorn, Min Ju Kang, Yulia D’yachkova, Sangmi Kim, Sam Colman, Saerom Kim, Agota Szende, Ji Hyun Park, Hee Kyung Ahn, Min Hee Hong, Kaisa-Leena Taipale, Hye Ryun Kim
Drugs - Real World Outcomes.2023; 10(1): 131. CrossRef
Case report: Osimertinib administration during pregnancy in a woman with advanced EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer
Pamela Soberanis Pina, Luis Lara-Mejía, Venecia Matias-Cruz, Feliciano Barrón, Andrés F. Cardona, Luis E. Raez, Eduardo Rios-Garcia, Oscar Arrieta
Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Relevance of Targeted Therapy and Immune-Checkpoint Inhibition in Lung Cancer
Gian Marco Leone, Saverio Candido, Alessandro Lavoro, Silvia Vivarelli, Giuseppe Gattuso, Daniela Calina, Massimo Libra, Luca Falzone
Pharmaceutics.2023; 15(4): 1252. CrossRef
Combination of EGFR-Directed Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (EGFR-TKI) with Radiotherapy in Brain Metastases from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A 2010–2019 Retrospective Cohort Study
Vineeth Tatineni, Patrick J. O’Shea, Shreya Saxena, Atulya A. Khosla, Ahmad Ozair, Rupesh R. Kotecha, Xuefei Jia, Yasmeen Rauf, Erin S. Murphy, Samuel T. Chao, John H. Suh, David M. Peereboom, Manmeet S. Ahluwalia
Cancers.2023; 15(11): 3015. CrossRef
Management of diarrhea induced by EGFR-TKIs in advanced lung adenocarcinoma
Daniela Cárdenas-Fernández, Pamela Soberanis Pina, Jenny G. Turcott, Norberto Chávez-Tapia, Emilio Conde-Flores, Andrés F. Cardona, Oscar Arrieta
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Design and Synthesis of Novel Pyrazolopyrimidine Candidates As Promising EGFR-T790M Inhibitors and Apoptosis Inducers
Ahmed A Gaber, Marwa Sharaky, Ayman Abo Elmaaty, Mohamed M Hammouda, Ahmed AE Mourad, Samy Y Elkhawaga, Mahmoud Mohamed Mokhtar, Amr S Abouzied, Mai AE Mourad, Ahmed A Al-Karmalawy
Future Medicinal Chemistry.2023; 15(19): 1773. CrossRef
Do patient characteristics affect EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment outcomes? A network meta‐analysis of real‐world survival outcomes of East Asian patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer treated with first‐line EGFR‐TKIs
Huang‐Chih Chang, Chin‐Chou Wang, Chia‐Cheng Tseng, Kuo‐Tung Huang, Yu‐Mu Chen, Yu‐Ping Chang, Chien‐Hao Lai, Wen‐Feng Fang, Meng‐Chih Lin, Hung‐Yi Chuang
Thoracic Cancer.2023; 14(32): 3208. CrossRef
Survival outcomes of east Asian patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer treated with first‐line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: A network meta‐analysis of real‐world evidence
Huang‐Chih Chang, Kuo‐Tung Huang, Chia‐Cheng Tseng, Yu‐Mu Chen, Chien‐Hao Lai, Yu‐Ping Chang, Yung‐Che Chen, Hung‐Yi Chuang, Chin‐Chou Wang
Thoracic Cancer.2023; 14(32): 3217. CrossRef
Pyrrolo[2,1-f][1,2,4]triazine: a promising fused heterocycle to target kinases in cancer therapy
Sarbjit Singh, Divya Utreja, Vimal Kumar
Medicinal Chemistry Research.2022; 31(1): 1. CrossRef
The Clinical Outcomes of Different First-Line EGFR-TKIs Plus Bevacizumab in Advanced EGFR-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma
Yen-Hsiang Huang, Kuo-Hsuan Hsu, Chun-Shih Chin, Jeng-Sen Tseng, Tsung-Ying Yang, Kun-Chieh Chen, Kang-Yi Su, Sung-Liang Yu, Jeremy J.W. Chen, Gee-Chen Chang
Cancer Research and Treatment.2022; 54(2): 434. CrossRef
Comparison of Different Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Treatment of Poor Performance Status Patients with EGFR-Mutated Lung Adenocarcinoma
Chiao-En Wu, Ching-Fu Chang, Chen-Yang Huang, Cheng-Ta Yang, Chih-Hsi Kuo, Ping-Chih Hsu, John Chang
Cancers.2022; 14(3): 674. CrossRef
Risk Stratification Using a Novel Nomogram for 2190 EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Patients Receiving the First or Second Generation EGFR-TKI
John Wen-Cheng Chang, Chen-Yang Huang, Yueh-Fu Fang, Ching-Fu Chang, Cheng-Ta Yang, Chih-Hsi Scott Kuo, Ping-Chih Hsu, Chiao-En Wu
Cancers.2022; 14(4): 977. CrossRef
Two Unusual Mutations in the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Gene in a Patient With Lung Adenocarcinoma
Martin Zapata Laguado, Andrea Zuluaga, Rafael Parra Medina, Ricardo Bruges
Cureus.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Discovery of Potent PROTACs Targeting EGFR Mutants through the Optimization of Covalent EGFR Ligands
Hong-Yi Zhao, Hai-Peng Wang, Yu-Ze Mao, Hao Zhang, Minhang Xin, Xiao-Xiao Xi, Hao Lei, Shuai Mao, Dong-Hui Li, San-Qi Zhang
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.2022; 65(6): 4709. CrossRef
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Afatinib versus Gefitinib in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Mutation in Indonesia: Observational studies with Retrospectives
Seftika Sari, Tri Murti Andayani, Dwi Endarti, Kartika Widayati
Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology.2022; : 1598. CrossRef
Optimizing Patient Outcomes Through Sequential EGFR TKI Treatment in Asian Patients With EGFR Mutation-Positive NSCLC
Rong Liu, Jianying Zhou, Xia Ling
Clinical Medicine Insights: Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Pharmacokinetic and Safety Comparison of 2 Afatinib Dimaleate Tablets in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under Fasted Conditions: A Randomized, Open‐Label, 2‐Period, Single‐Dose Crossover Study
Ping Shi, Xin Jiang, Ye Tao, Ting Li, Xin Li, Chenjing Wang, Yanping Liu, Yaping Ma, Xiaomeng Gao, Yu Cao
Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development.2022; 11(10): 1177. CrossRef
Grb2 interacts with necrosome components and is involved in rasfonin-induced necroptosis
Bolin Hou, Haiwen Huang, Yueqian Li, Jingnan Liang, Zhijun Xi, Xuejun Jiang, Ling Liu, Erwei Li
Cell Death Discovery.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Overcoming C797S mutation: The challenges and prospects of the fourth-generation EGFR-TKIs
Hong-Yi Zhao, Xiao-Xiao Xi, Minhang Xin, San-Qi Zhang
Bioorganic Chemistry.2022; 128: 106057. CrossRef
Design and synthesis of novel quinazolinone-based derivatives as EGFR inhibitors with antitumor activity
Amr Sonousi, Rasha A. Hassan, Eman O. Osman, Amr M. Abdou, Soha H. Emam
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry.2022; 37(1): 2644. CrossRef
Analysis of non-small cell lung cancer with miliary lung metastasis in patients harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations
Ming-Hung Chang, Kuo-Hwa Chiang, Jiunn-Min Shieh, Kuo-Chen Cheng, Chung-Han Ho
Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Benefit of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Advanced Lung Cancer with EGFR-G719A and Other Uncommon EGFR Mutations
Kartik Sehgal, Deepa Rangachari, Paul A. VanderLaan, Susumu S. Kobayashi, Daniel B. Costa
The Oncologist.2021; 26(4): 281. CrossRef
Phase II open‐label multicenter study to assess the antitumor activity of afatinib in lung cancer patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation from circulating tumor DNA: Liquid‐Lung‐A
Cheol‐Kyu Park, Sung‐Yong Lee, Jae Cheol Lee, Chang‐Min Choi, Shin Yup Lee, Tae‐Won Jang, In‐Jae Oh, Young‐Chul Kim
Thoracic Cancer.2021; 12(4): 444. CrossRef
Effect of Combining EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and Cytotoxic Agents on Cholangiocarcinoma Cells
Boonyakorn Boonsri, Kiren Yacqub-Usman, Pakpoom Thintharua, Kyaw Zwar Myint, Thannicha Sae-Lao, Pam Collier, Chinnawut Suriyonplengsaeng, Noppadol Larbcharoensub, Brinda Balasubramanian, Simran Venkatraman, Isioma U. Egbuniwe, Dhanwant Gomez, Abhik Mukher
Cancer Research and Treatment.2021; 53(2): 457. CrossRef
Treatment Options of First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and Subsequent Systemic Chemotherapy Agents for Advanced EGFR Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients: Implications From Taiwan Cancer Registry Cohort
Sheng-Kai Liang, Li-Ta Keng, Chia-Hao Chang, Yueh-Feng Wen, Meng-Rui Lee, Ching-Yao Yang, Jann-Yuan Wang, Jen-Chung Ko, Jin-Yuan Shih, Chong-Jen Yu
Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparison of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with lung adenocarcinoma harboring different epidermal growth factor receptor mutation types
Sojung Park, Sung Yong Lee, Dojin Kim, Yun Su Sim, Jeong-Seon Ryu, Juwhan Choi, Su Hwan Lee, Yon Ju Ryu, Jin Hwa Lee, Jung Hyun Chang
BMC Cancer.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Real-life comparison of the afatinib and first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in nonsmall cell lung cancer harboring EGFR exon 19 deletion: a Turk Oncology Group (TOG) study
Burak Bilgin, Mehmet Ali Nahit Sendur, Sebnem Yucel, Emir Celik, Deniz Tataroglu Ozyukseler, Murat Ayhan, Tugba Basoglu, Aysegul Ilhan, Nadiye Akdeniz, Ahmet Gulmez, Izzet Dogan, Burak Yasin Aktas, Mustafa Gurbuz, Sinan Koca, Semra Paydas, Ali Murat Tatli
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.2021; 147(7): 2145. CrossRef
Gefitinib reduces oocyte quality by disturbing meiotic progression
Hong-Yong Zhang, Ying-Chun Ouyang, Jian Li, Chun-Hui Zhang, Wei Yue, Tie-Gang Meng, Heide Schatten, Qing-Yuan Sun, Wei-Ping Qian
Toxicology.2021; 452: 152705. CrossRef
Real-World Treatment Patterns, Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Testing and Outcomes in EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients in Belgium: Results from the REVEAL Study
Kristof Cuppens, Liesbet Lodewyckx, Ingel Demedts, Lore Decoster, Benoît Colinet, Koen Deschepper, Annelies Janssens, Daniella Galdermans, Thierry Pieters
Drugs - Real World Outcomes.2021; 8(2): 141. CrossRef
Afatinib as First-Line Treatment in Asian Patients with EGFR Mutation-Positive NSCLC: A Narrative Review of Real-World Evidence
Shun Lu, Jin-Yuan Shih, Tae-Won Jang, Chong-Kin Liam, Yongfeng Yu
Advances in Therapy.2021; 38(5): 2038. CrossRef
PD-L1 Expression and Outcome in Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and EGFR Mutations Receiving EGFR-TKI as Frontline Treatment
Cheng-Yu Chang, Yi-Chun Lai, Yu-Feng Wei, Chung-Yu Chen, Shih-Chieh Chang
OncoTargets and Therapy.2021; Volume 14: 2301. CrossRef
Egfr Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Outcomes in Asian Populations
Edward S Kim, Barbara Melosky, Keunchil Park, Nobuyuki Yamamoto, James C - H Yang
Future Oncology.2021; 17(18): 2395. CrossRef
The impact of different first-line EGFR-TKIs on the clinical outcome of sequential osimertinib treatment in advanced NSCLC with secondary T790M
Yen-Hsiang Huang, Jeng-Sen Tseng, Kuo-Hsuan Hsu, Kun-Chieh Chen, Kang-Yi Su, Sung-Liang Yu, Jeremy J. W. Chen, Tsung-Ying Yang, Gee-Chen Chang
Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Afatinib in EGFR TKI-Naïve Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Three Phase IIIb Studies
Antonio Passaro, Filippo de Marinis, Hai-Yan Tu, Konstantin K. Laktionov, Jifeng Feng, Artem Poltoratskiy, Jun Zhao, Eng Huat Tan, Maya Gottfried, Victor Lee, Dariusz Kowalski, Cheng Ta Yang, BJ Srinivasa, Laura Clementi, Tejaswini Jalikop, Dennis Chin Lu
Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
An open-label expanded access program of afatinib in EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutations
Keunchil Park, Jin-Soo Kim, Joo-Hang Kim, Young-Chul Kim, Hoon-Gu Kim, Eun Kyung Cho, Jong-Youl Jin, Miyoung Kim, Angela Märten, Jin-Hyoung Kang
BMC Cancer.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Sequential treatment of afatinib and osimertinib or other regimens in patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutations: Results from a real‐world study in South Korea
Taeyun Kim, Tae Won Jang, Chang Min Choi, Mi‐Hyun Kim, Sung Yong Lee, Cheol‐Kyu Park, Yoon Soo Chang, Kye Young Lee, Seung Joon Kim, Sei Hoon Yang, Jeong Seon Ryu, Jeong Eun Lee, Shin Yup Lee, Chan Kwon Park, Sang Hoon Lee, Seung Hun Jang, Seong Hoon Yoon
Cancer Medicine.2021; 10(17): 5809. CrossRef
Feasibility and effectiveness of afatinib for poor performance status patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study
Chiao-En Wu, Ching-Fu Chang, Chen-Yang Huang, Cheng-Ta Yang, Chih-Hsi Scott Kuo, Ping-Chih Hsu, John Wen-Cheng Chang
BMC Cancer.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Association of EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment With Progression-Free Survival Among Taiwanese Patients With Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma and EGFR Mutation
Po-Yen Chen, Chin-Chou Wang, Chien-Ning Hsu, Chung-Yu Chen
Frontiers in Pharmacology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Hype or hope – Can combination therapies with third-generation EGFR-TKIs help overcome acquired resistance and improve outcomes in EGFR-mutant advanced/metastatic NSCLC?
Filippo Papini, Janani Sundaresan, Alessandro Leonetti, Marcello Tiseo, Christian Rolfo, Godefridus J. Peters, Elisa Giovannetti
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology.2021; 166: 103454. CrossRef
Relationship between Plasma Concentrations of Afatinib and the Onset of Diarrhea in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Hayato Yokota, Kazuhiro Sato, Sho Sakamoto, Yuji Okuda, Mariko Asano, Masahide Takeda, Katsutoshi Nakayama, Masatomo Miura
Biology.2021; 10(10): 1054. CrossRef
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Gefitinib Plus Chemotherapy versus Gefitinib Alone for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Mutations in China
Yamin Shu, Qilin Zhang, Xucheng He, Li Chen
Cancer Management and Research.2021; Volume 13: 8297. CrossRef
Impact of Dose Reduction of Afatinib Used in Patients With Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ziyu Wang, Xin Du, Ken Chen, Shanshan Li, Zhiheng Yu, Ziyang Wu, Li Yang, Dingding Chen, Wei Liu
Frontiers in Pharmacology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
EFIKASI TERAPI EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR-TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITOR (EGFR-TKIs) PADA KANKER PARU
Fitri Wulandari, Widyaningrum Utami, Evieta Rohana, Wimzy Rizqy Prabhata
Generics: Journal of Research in Pharmacy.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparing the effectiveness of different EGFR‐TKIs in patients with EGFR mutant non–small‐cell lung cancer: A retrospective cohort study in Taiwan
Yao‐Yu Hsieh, Wei‐Tse Fang, Yu‐Wen Lo, Yi‐Han Chen, Li‐Nien Chien
International Journal of Cancer.2020; 147(4): 1107. CrossRef
Afatinib for the Treatment of NSCLC Harboring Uncommon EGFR Mutations: A Database of 693 Cases
James Chih-Hsin Yang, Martin Schuler, Sanjay Popat, Satoru Miura, Simon Heeke, Keunchil Park, Angela Märten, Edward S. Kim
Journal of Thoracic Oncology.2020; 15(5): 803. CrossRef
Anticancer activity evaluation of indazolyl-substituted piperidin-4-yl-aminopyrimidines
Chao Wang, Xiao-Wen Liu, Ting Xiao, Zhi-Qiang Xu, Shuang Cao, Hai-Feng Wang, Qiong-Jiao Yan, Shuang-Xi Gu, Yuan-Yuan Zhu
Medicinal Chemistry Research.2020; 29(5): 910. CrossRef
Alflutinib (AST2818), primarily metabolized by CYP3A4, is a potent CYP3A4 inducer
Xiao-yun Liu, Zi-tao Guo, Zhen-dong Chen, Yi-fan Zhang, Jia-lan Zhou, Yong Jiang, Qian-yu Zhao, Xing-xing Diao, Da-fang Zhong
Acta Pharmacologica Sinica.2020; 41(10): 1366. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of afatinib for non-small-cell lung cancer: state-of-the-art and future perspectives
Giulia Sartori, Lorenzo Belluomini, Fiorella Lombardo, Alice Avancini, Ilaria Trestini, Emanuele Vita, Daniela Tregnago, Jessica Menis, Emilio Bria, Michele Milella, Sara Pilotto
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2020; 20(7): 531. CrossRef
Survival analysis of afatinib versus erlotinib for individuals with advanced del19 lung adenocarcinoma with asymptomatic brain metastasis after pemetrexed-cisplatin chemotherapy: a retrospective study
Ye Jiang, Wenli Chen, Weiguang Yu, Ning Shi, Guowei Han, Shuai Mao, Xinlei Zhang, Meiji Chen
Journal of International Medical Research.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Real‐life effectiveness of first‐line anticancer treatments in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients: Data from the Czech TULUNG Registry
Kristian Brat, Monika Bratova, Jana Skrickova, Magda Barinova, Karolina Hurdalkova, Milos Pesek, Libor Havel, Leona Koubkova, Michal Hrnciarik, Jana Krejci, Ondrej Fischer, Milada Zemanova, Helena Coupkova, Martin Svaton
Thoracic Cancer.2020; 11(11): 3346. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of afatinib in a Chinese population with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with sensitive EGFR mutations
Shouzheng Wang, Puyuan Xing, Ke Yang, Xuezhi Hao, Di Ma, Yuxin Mu, Junling Li
Thoracic Cancer.2019; 10(6): 1461. CrossRef
Afatinib/gefitinib

Reactions Weekly.2019; 1753(1): 17. CrossRef
Current Approaches in NSCLC Targeting K-RAS and EGFR
Veronica Aran, Jasminka Omerovic
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2019; 20(22): 5701. CrossRef
Duration of treatment among patients prescribed afatinib or erlotinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the USA
Jonathan Lim, Carl Samuelsen, Amanda Golembesky, Sulena Shrestha, Li Wang, Ingolf Griebsch
Future Oncology.2019; 15(13): 1493. CrossRef
Sequential treatment with afatinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: an observational study
Maximilian J Hochmair, Alessandro Morabito, Desiree Hao, Cheng-Ta Yang, Ross A Soo, James C-H Yang, Rasim Gucalp, Balazs Halmos, Lara Wang, Amanda Golembesky, Angela Märten, Tanja Cufer
Future Oncology.2018; 14(27): 2861. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib for EGFR-mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, Compared with Gefitinib or Erlotinib

Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(2):502-509. Published online June 13, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.117

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Real World Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of HER2-Mutant Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Detected by Next-Generation Sequencing

Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib for EGFR-mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, Compared with Gefitinib or Erlotinib

Fig. 1. Progression-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) with afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib. TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Fig. 2. Progression-free survival of afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation types. (A) Exon 19 deletion. (B) Exon 21 L858R. (C) Uncommon EGFR mutations. TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib for EGFR-mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, Compared with Gefitinib or Erlotinib

Patient characteristic	Afatinib	Gefitinib	Erlotinib	p-value
No. of patients	165	230	72
Age (yr)
Median (range)	57 (30-79)	64 (29-87)	59 (36-77)	< 0.001
< 60	93 (56.4)	79 (34.3)	38 (52.8)	< 0.001
≥ 60	72 (43.6)	151(65.7)	34 (47.2)
Sex
Male	85 (51.5)	60 (26.1)	39 (54.2)	< 0.001
Female	80 (48.5)	170 (73.9)	33 (45.8)
ECOG PS
0	42 (25.5)	56 (24.3)	24 (33.3)	0.658
1	114 (69.0)	160 (69.6)	44 (61.1)
2	9 (5.5)	14 (6.1)	4 (5.6)
Smoking status
Never smoker	99 (60.0)	180 (78.3)	41 (56.9)	< 0.001
Current or ex-smoker	66 (40.0)	50 (21.7)	31 (43.1)
EGFR mutation type
Exon 19 deletion	114 (69.1)	122 (53.0)	40 (55.6)	0.002
Exon 21 L858R	37 (22.4)	96 (41.8)	27 (37.5)
Uncommon EGFR	14 (8.5)	12 (5.2)	5 (6.9)

EGFR TKI	Afatinib		Gefitinib		Erlotinib
EGFR TKI	Total	Objective response	Total	Objective response	Total	Objective response
*Uncommon EGFR* mutation**	14	8	12	4	5	1
*Uncommon EGFR* mutation other than T790M**	10	8	9	4	5	1
*Uncommon EGFR* mutation**
Exon 21 L858R+exon 20 T790M	3	0	3	0	0	0
Exon 19 deletion+exon 20 T790M	1	0	0	0	0	0
Exon 21 L861 Q	3	3	4	2	0	0
Exon 18 G719X	3	2	4	2	3	1
Exon 20 insertion	1	0	0	0	2	0
Exon 18 G719X+exon 20 S768I	1	1	1	0	0	0
Exon 19 Deletion+L747_P753>Q	1	1	0	0	0	0
Exon 21 L858R+H870R	1	1	0	0	0	0

Toxicity	Grade 1-2			Grade 3-4
Toxicity	Afatinib	Gefitinib	Erlotinib	Afatinib	Gefitinib	Erlotinib
Total	116 (70.3)	164 (71.3)	53 (73.6)	12 (7.3)	6 (2.6)	3 (1.8)
Rash and acne	76 (46.1)	131 (57.0)	47 (65.3)	3 (1.8)	1 (1.4)	3 (1.8)
Stomatitis	50 (30.3)	31 (13.5)	8 (11.1)	0	0	0
Paronychia	44 (26.7)	21 (9.1)	13 (18.1)	4 (2.4)	0	0
Diarrhea	32 (19.4)	33 (14.3)	13 (18.2)	6 (3.0)	0	0
Dry skin	18 (10.9)	45 (19.6)	12 (16.7)	0	1 (1.4)	0
Pruritus	17 (10.3)	79 (34.3)	21 (29.2)	0	0	0
Anorexia	7 (4.2)	15 (6.5)	7 (9.7)	1 (0.6)	1 (1.4)	0
Nausea/Vomiting	0	4 (1.7)	1 (1.4)	0	0	0
Fatigue	1 (0.6)	3 (1.3)	1 (1.5)	1 (0.6)	0	0
Alopecia	0	15 (6.5)	2 (2.8)	0	1 (1.4)	0
Interstitial lung disease	0	0	0	1 (0.6)	0	0
Increased AST/ALT	0	2 (0.9)	0	0	2 (2.8)	0

Table 1. Baseline characteristics

Table 2. Objective response rates according to uncommon EGFR mutation

EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Table 3. Toxicity profile of afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib

Values are presented as number (%). ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase.