Adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for the treatment of people with resected stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer and EGFR mutation.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mario Occhipinti, Martina Imbimbo, Roberto Ferrara, Vittorio Simeon, Giulia Fiscon, Corynne Marchal, Nicole Skoetz, Giuseppe Viscardi
{"title":"Adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for the treatment of people with resected stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer and EGFR mutation.","authors":"Mario Occhipinti, Martina Imbimbo, Roberto Ferrara, Vittorio Simeon, Giulia Fiscon, Corynne Marchal, Nicole Skoetz, Giuseppe Viscardi","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015140.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postoperative adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib is the standard care for stage IB-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutation, following complete tumour resection, with or without prior platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the role of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in this setting is debated, particularly concerning long-term curative effects versus recurrence delay. Uncertainties persist around treatment duration, harms, and effectiveness across disease stages, prior chemotherapy, or EGFR-sensitising mutation types.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effectiveness and harms of adjuvant EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in people with resected stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring an activating EGFR mutation.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched major databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase) to 9 December 2024, along with conference proceedings (from 2019) and clinical trial registries.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting benefits or harms of adjuvant EGFR TKIs in adults with resected stage I-III NSCLC. Trials compared EGFR TKIs with platinum-based chemotherapy, placebo/best supportive care (BSC), or second-and/or third-generation EGFR TKIs versus first- and/or second-generation EGFR TKIs. Participants were adults with histologically confirmed stage I-III NSCLC.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Three review authors independently assessed search results, resolving disagreements with a fourth author. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and adverse events (AEs); secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), relapse risk during drug-off time, and brain relapse risk. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects and fixed-effect models with hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity with the I² statistic.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included nine RCTs involving 2603 participants, and identified six ongoing trials. Five trials compared EGFR TKIs with placebo/BSC, and four compared them with chemotherapy. We found no trials comparing second-and/or third-generation to first- and/or second-generation EGFR TKIs. Six trials had low selection bias risk; most had unclear or high risk for detection or performance bias; and four were high risk for other biases. The certainty of the evidence (GRADE) ranged from moderate to very low, depending on the outcome. First-, second-, and/or third-generation EGFR TKIs versus placebo/BSC EGFR TKIs probably improve overall survival compared to placebo/BSC (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73; 3 studies, 864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TKIs may improve disease-free survival compared to placebo/BSC, but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.41; 5 studies, 1153 participants). We are uncertain if there is a difference between groups in serious adverse events (≥ grade 3) as the evidence is very uncertain, with wide confidence intervals spanning both potential harm and no effect (RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 14.37; 4 studies, 1134 participants). Mild-to-moderate adverse events (grades 1 and 2) may be more frequent with EGFR TKIs compared to placebo/BSC, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.29; 4 studies, 1134 participants). One study assessed HRQoL, with no clinically meaningful decline compared to placebo/BSC (592 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). First-, second-, and/or third-generation EGFR TKIs versus chemotherapy Overall survival was similar between EGFR TKIs and chemotherapy (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.18; 4 studies, 878 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TKIs may have improved disease-free survival compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.83; 4 studies, 878 participants; low-certainty evidence). TKIs may have reduced serious adverse events (≥ grade 3) compared to chemotherapy (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; 4 studies, 811 participants; low-certainty evidence). TKIs may have increased mild-to-moderate adverse events (grades 1 and 2) (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.78; 4 studies, 811 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed HRQoL, showing no clear difference compared to chemotherapy, as assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung instrument (2 studies, 399 participants) and the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (2 studies, 400 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Adjuvant EGFR TKIs may improve disease-free survival compared to both placebo/BSC and chemotherapy. There is moderate-certainty evidence that EGFR TKIs increase overall survival compared to placebo/BSC. However, they likely result in little to no difference in overall survival compared to chemotherapy. We could not rule out a potential survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in people with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Approximately 50% of participants experienced relapse or death within one year of stopping TKI therapy, indicating that the disease-free survival benefit may wane after withdrawal. This raises the possibility that prolonged adjuvant TKI therapy could be associated with improved long-term outcomes, although further research is needed to clarify this.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"5 ","pages":"CD015140"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107686/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015140.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Postoperative adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib is the standard care for stage IB-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutation, following complete tumour resection, with or without prior platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the role of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in this setting is debated, particularly concerning long-term curative effects versus recurrence delay. Uncertainties persist around treatment duration, harms, and effectiveness across disease stages, prior chemotherapy, or EGFR-sensitising mutation types.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and harms of adjuvant EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in people with resected stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring an activating EGFR mutation.

Search methods: We searched major databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase) to 9 December 2024, along with conference proceedings (from 2019) and clinical trial registries.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting benefits or harms of adjuvant EGFR TKIs in adults with resected stage I-III NSCLC. Trials compared EGFR TKIs with platinum-based chemotherapy, placebo/best supportive care (BSC), or second-and/or third-generation EGFR TKIs versus first- and/or second-generation EGFR TKIs. Participants were adults with histologically confirmed stage I-III NSCLC.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors independently assessed search results, resolving disagreements with a fourth author. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and adverse events (AEs); secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), relapse risk during drug-off time, and brain relapse risk. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects and fixed-effect models with hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity with the I² statistic.

Main results: We included nine RCTs involving 2603 participants, and identified six ongoing trials. Five trials compared EGFR TKIs with placebo/BSC, and four compared them with chemotherapy. We found no trials comparing second-and/or third-generation to first- and/or second-generation EGFR TKIs. Six trials had low selection bias risk; most had unclear or high risk for detection or performance bias; and four were high risk for other biases. The certainty of the evidence (GRADE) ranged from moderate to very low, depending on the outcome. First-, second-, and/or third-generation EGFR TKIs versus placebo/BSC EGFR TKIs probably improve overall survival compared to placebo/BSC (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73; 3 studies, 864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TKIs may improve disease-free survival compared to placebo/BSC, but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.41; 5 studies, 1153 participants). We are uncertain if there is a difference between groups in serious adverse events (≥ grade 3) as the evidence is very uncertain, with wide confidence intervals spanning both potential harm and no effect (RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 14.37; 4 studies, 1134 participants). Mild-to-moderate adverse events (grades 1 and 2) may be more frequent with EGFR TKIs compared to placebo/BSC, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.29; 4 studies, 1134 participants). One study assessed HRQoL, with no clinically meaningful decline compared to placebo/BSC (592 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). First-, second-, and/or third-generation EGFR TKIs versus chemotherapy Overall survival was similar between EGFR TKIs and chemotherapy (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.18; 4 studies, 878 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TKIs may have improved disease-free survival compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.83; 4 studies, 878 participants; low-certainty evidence). TKIs may have reduced serious adverse events (≥ grade 3) compared to chemotherapy (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; 4 studies, 811 participants; low-certainty evidence). TKIs may have increased mild-to-moderate adverse events (grades 1 and 2) (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.78; 4 studies, 811 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed HRQoL, showing no clear difference compared to chemotherapy, as assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung instrument (2 studies, 399 participants) and the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (2 studies, 400 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence.

Authors' conclusions: Adjuvant EGFR TKIs may improve disease-free survival compared to both placebo/BSC and chemotherapy. There is moderate-certainty evidence that EGFR TKIs increase overall survival compared to placebo/BSC. However, they likely result in little to no difference in overall survival compared to chemotherapy. We could not rule out a potential survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in people with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Approximately 50% of participants experienced relapse or death within one year of stopping TKI therapy, indicating that the disease-free survival benefit may wane after withdrawal. This raises the possibility that prolonged adjuvant TKI therapy could be associated with improved long-term outcomes, although further research is needed to clarify this.

佐剂表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKIs)用于治疗切除的I至III期非小细胞肺癌和EGFR突变患者。
背景:术后辅助表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)抑制剂奥希替尼是IB-IIIB期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的标准治疗,EGFR外显子19缺失或外显子21 L858R突变,在完全肿瘤切除后,有或没有先前的铂基辅助化疗。然而,EGFR酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKIs)在这种情况下的作用是有争议的,特别是关于长期疗效和复发延迟。治疗时间、危害、疾病分期、既往化疗或egfr致敏突变类型的有效性存在不确定性。目的:评估EGFR酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKIs)在切除的1至3期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者中具有激活EGFR突变的有效性和危害。检索方法:我们检索了截至2024年12月9日的主要数据库(CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase),以及会议记录(从2019年开始)和临床试验注册。选择标准:我们纳入了报告佐剂EGFR TKIs对切除的I-III期NSCLC成人患者的益处或危害的随机对照试验(RCTs)。试验比较了EGFR TKIs与铂基化疗、安慰剂/最佳支持治疗(BSC),或第二代和/或第三代EGFR TKIs与第一代和/或第二代EGFR TKIs。参与者为组织学证实的I-III期非小细胞肺癌成人。数据收集和分析:三位综述作者独立评估搜索结果,解决与第四作者的分歧。主要结局是总生存期(OS)、无病生存期(DFS)和不良事件(ae);次要结局包括与健康相关的生活质量(HRQoL)、停药期间的复发风险和脑复发风险。我们使用随机效应和固定效应模型进行了meta分析,这些模型具有风险比(hr)或风险比(rr)和95%置信区间(ci)。我们用I²统计量评估异质性。主要结果:我们纳入了9项随机对照试验,涉及2603名受试者,并确定了6项正在进行的试验。5项试验将EGFR TKIs与安慰剂/BSC进行比较,4项试验将其与化疗进行比较。我们没有发现比较第二代和/或第三代与第一代和/或第二代EGFR TKIs的试验。6项试验的选择偏倚风险较低;大多数具有不明确或高风险的检测或性能偏差;其中4个存在其他偏见的风险很高。证据的确定性(GRADE)范围从中等到非常低,取决于结果。第一代、第二代和/或第三代EGFR TKIs与安慰剂/BSC相比,EGFR TKIs可能提高了总生存率(HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40至0.73;3项研究,864名参与者;moderate-certainty证据)。与安慰剂/BSC相比,TKIs可能改善无病生存,但证据非常不确定(HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 ~ 0.41;5项研究,1153名参与者)。我们不确定各组之间严重不良事件(≥3级)是否存在差异,因为证据非常不确定,有很宽的置信区间跨越潜在危害和无影响(RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.44至14.37;4项研究,1134名参与者)。与安慰剂/BSC相比,EGFR TKIs的轻中度不良事件(1级和2级)可能更频繁,但证据非常不确定(RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08至2.29;4项研究,1134名参与者)。一项研究评估了HRQoL,与安慰剂/BSC相比,没有临床意义的下降(592名参与者;moderate-certainty证据)。第一代、第二代和/或第三代EGFR TKIs与化疗之间的总生存率相似(HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52至1.18;4项研究,878名参与者;moderate-certainty证据)。与化疗相比,TKIs可能改善无病生存(HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 ~ 0.83;4项研究,878名参与者;确定性的证据)。与化疗相比,TKIs可能减少了严重不良事件(≥3级)(RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 ~ 0.52;4项研究,811名参与者;确定性的证据)。tki可能增加了轻中度不良事件(1级和2级)(RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.20 ~ 3.78;4项研究,811名参与者;确定性的证据)。两项研究评估HRQoL,与化疗相比无明显差异,采用癌症治疗-肺功能评估仪(2项研究,399名受试者)和肺癌症状量表(2项研究,400名受试者)进行评估,均具有中等确定性证据。作者的结论是:与安慰剂/BSC和化疗相比,辅助EGFR TKIs可以改善无病生存。有中等确定性的证据表明,与安慰剂/BSC相比,EGFR TKIs可提高总生存率。然而,与化疗相比,它们在总生存率方面可能几乎没有差异。我们不能排除辅助化疗对egfr突变型非小细胞肺癌患者的潜在生存益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信