Xin Liao, Tingting He, Xiong Wan, Pian Liu, Jing Li, Yong He, Yubo Wang
{"title":"奥希替尼进展后表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)突变且耐药机制不明的 NSCLC 患者的临床治疗","authors":"Xin Liao, Tingting He, Xiong Wan, Pian Liu, Jing Li, Yong He, Yubo Wang","doi":"10.1111/crj.70025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Osimertinib is approved as a standard treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation by FDA. However, the mechanisms of resistance for nearly half of patients after osimertinib progression are still unknown, and the optimal therapies for these patients are still controversial. In this retrospective study, we compared efficacy and safety between immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab in NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Advanced NSCLC patients with unknown resistance mechanisms after osimertinib progression were retrospectively reviewed and divided into immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment groups according to the treatment they received after osimertinib progression. Clinicopathological features, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 121 patients were enrolled in this study, 22 in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group, 72 in the chemotherapy group, and 27 in the osimertinib + bevacizumab group. The ORR was much higher in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with chemotherapy or osimertinib + bevacizumab group (55.56% vs. 14.81% vs. 0% in patients after progression on 1st line osimertinib treatment; 30.77% vs. 6.67% vs. 13.33% in patients after progression on 2nd/3rd line osimertinib treatment). Median PFS was also significantly longer in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with other groups (8.2 months vs. 4.0 months vs. 6.0 months in all patients, <i>p</i> = 0.0066). The median OS did not reach remarkable difference among groups, although osimertinib + bevacizumab group had a numerically longer median OS (37.0 months vs. 37.0 months vs. 47.6 months in all patients, <i>p</i> = 0.6357). Compared with immunotherapy + chemotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of osimertinib + bevacizumab were milder, especially in AEs related to gastrointestinal and bone marrow suppression.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our study provides clinical evidence that NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms may benefit from immunotherapy + chemotherapy, with higher ORR and longer PFS compared with osimertinib + bevacizumab or chemotherapy groups. Osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment was also an optional option for patients because OS was numerically longer and safer in this group.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55247,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"18 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/crj.70025","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Management in NSCLC Patients With EGFR Mutation After Osimertinib Progression With Unknown Resistance Mechanisms\",\"authors\":\"Xin Liao, Tingting He, Xiong Wan, Pian Liu, Jing Li, Yong He, Yubo Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/crj.70025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Osimertinib is approved as a standard treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation by FDA. However, the mechanisms of resistance for nearly half of patients after osimertinib progression are still unknown, and the optimal therapies for these patients are still controversial. In this retrospective study, we compared efficacy and safety between immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab in NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Advanced NSCLC patients with unknown resistance mechanisms after osimertinib progression were retrospectively reviewed and divided into immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment groups according to the treatment they received after osimertinib progression. Clinicopathological features, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 121 patients were enrolled in this study, 22 in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group, 72 in the chemotherapy group, and 27 in the osimertinib + bevacizumab group. The ORR was much higher in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with chemotherapy or osimertinib + bevacizumab group (55.56% vs. 14.81% vs. 0% in patients after progression on 1st line osimertinib treatment; 30.77% vs. 6.67% vs. 13.33% in patients after progression on 2nd/3rd line osimertinib treatment). Median PFS was also significantly longer in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with other groups (8.2 months vs. 4.0 months vs. 6.0 months in all patients, <i>p</i> = 0.0066). The median OS did not reach remarkable difference among groups, although osimertinib + bevacizumab group had a numerically longer median OS (37.0 months vs. 37.0 months vs. 47.6 months in all patients, <i>p</i> = 0.6357). Compared with immunotherapy + chemotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of osimertinib + bevacizumab were milder, especially in AEs related to gastrointestinal and bone marrow suppression.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our study provides clinical evidence that NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms may benefit from immunotherapy + chemotherapy, with higher ORR and longer PFS compared with osimertinib + bevacizumab or chemotherapy groups. Osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment was also an optional option for patients because OS was numerically longer and safer in this group.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":\"18 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/crj.70025\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crj.70025\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crj.70025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景奥希替尼被美国食品药品管理局批准为表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)突变的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者的标准治疗药物。然而,近一半患者在奥希替尼治疗进展后出现耐药的机制仍不清楚,这些患者的最佳治疗方法仍存在争议。在这项回顾性研究中,我们比较了免疫疗法+化疗、单纯化疗和奥希替尼+贝伐单抗治疗耐药机制不明的奥希替尼进展后 NSCLC 患者的疗效和安全性。 方法 回顾性分析奥希替尼进展后耐药机制不明的晚期NSCLC患者,根据他们在奥希替尼进展后接受的治疗分为免疫治疗+化疗组、单纯化疗组和奥希替尼+贝伐单抗治疗组。比较各组的临床病理特征、客观反应率(ORR)、无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。 结果 本研究共纳入121例患者,其中免疫疗法+化疗组22例,化疗组72例,奥希替尼+贝伐单抗组27例。与化疗或奥希替尼+贝伐单抗组相比,免疫疗法+化疗组的ORR更高(奥希替尼一线治疗进展后患者的ORR为55.56% vs. 14.81% vs. 0%;奥希替尼二线/三线治疗进展后患者的ORR为30.77% vs. 6.67% vs. 13.33%)。免疫疗法+化疗组的中位生存期也明显长于其他组(所有患者的中位生存期分别为8.2个月 vs. 4.0个月 vs. 6.0个月,p = 0.0066)。虽然奥希替尼+贝伐珠单抗组的中位OS在数字上更长(所有患者中为37.0个月 vs. 37.0个月 vs. 47.6个月,p = 0.6357),但各组间的中位OS并无显著差异。与免疫疗法+化疗和化疗相比,奥希替尼+贝伐珠单抗的治疗相关不良事件(AEs)较轻,尤其是与胃肠道和骨髓抑制相关的不良事件。 结论 我们的研究提供了临床证据,证明耐药机制不明的奥希替尼进展后NSCLC患者可从免疫治疗+化疗中获益,与奥希替尼+贝伐单抗组或化疗组相比,免疫治疗+化疗组的ORR更高,PFS更长。奥希替尼+贝伐单抗治疗也是患者的一种可选方案,因为该组患者的OS在数量上更长、更安全。
Clinical Management in NSCLC Patients With EGFR Mutation After Osimertinib Progression With Unknown Resistance Mechanisms
Background
Osimertinib is approved as a standard treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation by FDA. However, the mechanisms of resistance for nearly half of patients after osimertinib progression are still unknown, and the optimal therapies for these patients are still controversial. In this retrospective study, we compared efficacy and safety between immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab in NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms.
Methods
Advanced NSCLC patients with unknown resistance mechanisms after osimertinib progression were retrospectively reviewed and divided into immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment groups according to the treatment they received after osimertinib progression. Clinicopathological features, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups.
Results
A total of 121 patients were enrolled in this study, 22 in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group, 72 in the chemotherapy group, and 27 in the osimertinib + bevacizumab group. The ORR was much higher in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with chemotherapy or osimertinib + bevacizumab group (55.56% vs. 14.81% vs. 0% in patients after progression on 1st line osimertinib treatment; 30.77% vs. 6.67% vs. 13.33% in patients after progression on 2nd/3rd line osimertinib treatment). Median PFS was also significantly longer in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with other groups (8.2 months vs. 4.0 months vs. 6.0 months in all patients, p = 0.0066). The median OS did not reach remarkable difference among groups, although osimertinib + bevacizumab group had a numerically longer median OS (37.0 months vs. 37.0 months vs. 47.6 months in all patients, p = 0.6357). Compared with immunotherapy + chemotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of osimertinib + bevacizumab were milder, especially in AEs related to gastrointestinal and bone marrow suppression.
Conclusion
Our study provides clinical evidence that NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms may benefit from immunotherapy + chemotherapy, with higher ORR and longer PFS compared with osimertinib + bevacizumab or chemotherapy groups. Osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment was also an optional option for patients because OS was numerically longer and safer in this group.
期刊介绍:
Overview
Effective with the 2016 volume, this journal will be published in an online-only format.
Aims and Scope
The Clinical Respiratory Journal (CRJ) provides a forum for clinical research in all areas of respiratory medicine from clinical lung disease to basic research relevant to the clinic.
We publish original research, review articles, case studies, editorials and book reviews in all areas of clinical lung disease including:
Asthma
Allergy
COPD
Non-invasive ventilation
Sleep related breathing disorders
Interstitial lung diseases
Lung cancer
Clinical genetics
Rhinitis
Airway and lung infection
Epidemiology
Pediatrics
CRJ provides a fast-track service for selected Phase II and Phase III trial studies.
Keywords
Clinical Respiratory Journal, respiratory, pulmonary, medicine, clinical, lung disease,
Abstracting and Indexing Information
Academic Search (EBSCO Publishing)
Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing)
Embase (Elsevier)
Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest)
Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
HEED: Health Economic Evaluations Database (Wiley-Blackwell)
Hospital Premium Collection (ProQuest)
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics)
MEDLINE/PubMed (NLM)
ProQuest Central (ProQuest)
Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate Analytics)
SCOPUS (Elsevier)