Fernando M Runzer-Colmenares, Rossana Ruiz, Lorenzo Maco, Mike Maldonado, Luis Puma-Villanueva, Marco Galvez-Nino, Carlos Aliaga, Vicente A Benites-Zapata, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Luis Mas, Diego Urrunaga-Pastor
{"title":"厄洛替尼与奥西替尼治疗晚期或转移性EGFR突变阳性非小细胞肺癌的比较:一项网络荟萃分析","authors":"Fernando M Runzer-Colmenares, Rossana Ruiz, Lorenzo Maco, Mike Maldonado, Luis Puma-Villanueva, Marco Galvez-Nino, Carlos Aliaga, Vicente A Benites-Zapata, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Luis Mas, Diego Urrunaga-Pastor","doi":"10.3390/cancers17111895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of lung cancer cases globally and most patients receive their diagnosis at advanced or metastatic disease stages. The use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as erlotinib (first-generation) and osimertinib (third-generation) to treat NSCLC is possible because of activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Although osimertinib has shown better results in recent trials, direct and updated comparisons with erlotinib, especially in combination regimens, are still limited. <b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of osimertinib versus erlotinib, both as monotherapies and in combination, in treatment-naïve patients with advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC. <b>Methods</b>: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA-NMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025649761). PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to February 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared erlotinib- or osimertinib-based regimens in previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. A frequentist random-effects model was used, and treatments were ranked using p-scores. <b>Results</b>: Eleven RCTs (2341 patients) were included. Osimertinib, alone or with chemotherapy, resulted in significantly longer OS compared to erlotinib-based regimens (HR for OS vs. erlotinib: 1.59, 95% CI 1.09-2.31). All osimertinib and erlotinib regimens outperformed chemotherapy for PFS, but no statistically significant differences were observed between osimertinib and erlotinib. Severe adverse events were comparable, though osimertinib ranked highest for safety. The combination of osimertinib with chemotherapy achieved the highest p-scores for both OS and PFS. <b>Conclusions</b>: Osimertinib is associated with superior overall survival and comparable safety versus erlotinib-based strategies in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. These findings reinforce osimertinib as the preferred first-line option in this setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"17 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153769/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Erlotinib vs. Osimertinib for Advanced or Metastatic EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Prior Treatment: A Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Fernando M Runzer-Colmenares, Rossana Ruiz, Lorenzo Maco, Mike Maldonado, Luis Puma-Villanueva, Marco Galvez-Nino, Carlos Aliaga, Vicente A Benites-Zapata, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Luis Mas, Diego Urrunaga-Pastor\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/cancers17111895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of lung cancer cases globally and most patients receive their diagnosis at advanced or metastatic disease stages. The use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as erlotinib (first-generation) and osimertinib (third-generation) to treat NSCLC is possible because of activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Although osimertinib has shown better results in recent trials, direct and updated comparisons with erlotinib, especially in combination regimens, are still limited. <b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of osimertinib versus erlotinib, both as monotherapies and in combination, in treatment-naïve patients with advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC. <b>Methods</b>: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA-NMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025649761). PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to February 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared erlotinib- or osimertinib-based regimens in previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. A frequentist random-effects model was used, and treatments were ranked using p-scores. <b>Results</b>: Eleven RCTs (2341 patients) were included. Osimertinib, alone or with chemotherapy, resulted in significantly longer OS compared to erlotinib-based regimens (HR for OS vs. erlotinib: 1.59, 95% CI 1.09-2.31). All osimertinib and erlotinib regimens outperformed chemotherapy for PFS, but no statistically significant differences were observed between osimertinib and erlotinib. Severe adverse events were comparable, though osimertinib ranked highest for safety. The combination of osimertinib with chemotherapy achieved the highest p-scores for both OS and PFS. <b>Conclusions</b>: Osimertinib is associated with superior overall survival and comparable safety versus erlotinib-based strategies in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. These findings reinforce osimertinib as the preferred first-line option in this setting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancers\",\"volume\":\"17 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153769/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17111895\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17111895","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)占全球肺癌病例的85%,大多数患者在晚期或转移性疾病阶段得到诊断。由于表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)的激活突变,使用酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKIs)如厄洛替尼(第一代)和奥西替尼(第三代)治疗NSCLC是可能的。尽管奥西替尼在最近的试验中显示出更好的结果,但与厄洛替尼的直接和更新比较,特别是在联合方案中,仍然有限。背景/目的:本研究旨在比较奥西替尼与厄洛替尼在treatment-naïve晚期或转移性egfr突变的NSCLC患者中的单药和联合治疗的疗效和安全性。方法:遵循PRISMA-NMA指南进行系统评价和网络荟萃分析,并在PROSPERO注册(CRD42025649761)。PubMed, EMBASE和Scopus检索了截至2025年2月的随机对照试验(rct),这些试验比较了厄洛替尼或奥西替尼为基础的方案在先前未经治疗的egfr突变晚期NSCLC中的疗效。结果包括总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)和≥3级不良事件。使用频率随机效应模型,并使用p分数对治疗进行排名。结果:纳入11项rct(2341例患者)。与厄洛替尼方案相比,单独使用奥西替尼或与化疗联合使用奥西替尼可显著延长生存期(生存期HR vs厄洛替尼:1.59,95% CI 1.09-2.31)。所有的奥西替尼和厄洛替尼方案都优于化疗治疗PFS,但奥西替尼和厄洛替尼之间没有统计学差异。严重的不良事件可比较,尽管奥西替尼在安全性方面排名最高。奥西替尼联合化疗在OS和PFS方面的p值最高。结论:与厄洛替尼为基础的一线治疗晚期egfr突变NSCLC策略相比,奥西替尼具有更高的总生存期和相当的安全性。这些发现强化了奥西替尼作为首选的一线治疗方案。
Comparison of Erlotinib vs. Osimertinib for Advanced or Metastatic EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Prior Treatment: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of lung cancer cases globally and most patients receive their diagnosis at advanced or metastatic disease stages. The use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as erlotinib (first-generation) and osimertinib (third-generation) to treat NSCLC is possible because of activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Although osimertinib has shown better results in recent trials, direct and updated comparisons with erlotinib, especially in combination regimens, are still limited. Background/Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of osimertinib versus erlotinib, both as monotherapies and in combination, in treatment-naïve patients with advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA-NMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025649761). PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to February 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared erlotinib- or osimertinib-based regimens in previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. A frequentist random-effects model was used, and treatments were ranked using p-scores. Results: Eleven RCTs (2341 patients) were included. Osimertinib, alone or with chemotherapy, resulted in significantly longer OS compared to erlotinib-based regimens (HR for OS vs. erlotinib: 1.59, 95% CI 1.09-2.31). All osimertinib and erlotinib regimens outperformed chemotherapy for PFS, but no statistically significant differences were observed between osimertinib and erlotinib. Severe adverse events were comparable, though osimertinib ranked highest for safety. The combination of osimertinib with chemotherapy achieved the highest p-scores for both OS and PFS. Conclusions: Osimertinib is associated with superior overall survival and comparable safety versus erlotinib-based strategies in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. These findings reinforce osimertinib as the preferred first-line option in this setting.
期刊介绍:
Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.