Manoela Manova, Boryana Ivanova, Jeliazko Arabadjiev, Radoslav Mangaldzhiev, Assen Dudov, Daniel Penchev, Zornitsa Katrandzhieva, Lyubomir Bakalivanov, Boryana Zidarova, Dimitrina Apostolova, Mariya Vasileva, Silvia Terezova, Alexandra Savova
{"title":"保加利亚患者一线奥西替尼有效性的真实世界证据:回顾性分析。","authors":"Manoela Manova, Boryana Ivanova, Jeliazko Arabadjiev, Radoslav Mangaldzhiev, Assen Dudov, Daniel Penchev, Zornitsa Katrandzhieva, Lyubomir Bakalivanov, Boryana Zidarova, Dimitrina Apostolova, Mariya Vasileva, Silvia Terezova, Alexandra Savova","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2535636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) osimertinib is approved as a first-line treatment against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations. Herein, we perform a retrospective analysis of real-world data on first-line osimertinib treatment among Bulgarian patients with NSCLC, comparing treatment outcomes to FLAURA results.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>Patient data were obtained from electronic health records over a 4-year period. Baseline characteristics and endpoints (progression-free survival [PFS], objective response rate [ORR], and clinical benefit rate [CBR]) were compared. Iterative proportional fitting was performed to balance patient characteristics prior to survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 365 patients on first-line osimertinib were included. Partial responses were more frequent in the RWE cohort (24% vs 13%), while the opposite was noted for stable disease (63% vs 80%). Complete response frequency was comparable (2% vs 1%). The ORR was higher in the real world compared to in FLAURA (26% vs 14%), whereas CBR was slightly higher in the trial (89% vs 94%). The real-world PFS was higher than reported in FLAURA (19.1 vs 18.9 months), with more favorable outcomes in the RWE cohort beyond 18 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RWE closely aligns with FLAURA results, suggesting even greater benefit of first-line osimertinib in the real-world setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world evidence of first-line osimertinib effectiveness in Bulgarian patients: a retrospective analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Manoela Manova, Boryana Ivanova, Jeliazko Arabadjiev, Radoslav Mangaldzhiev, Assen Dudov, Daniel Penchev, Zornitsa Katrandzhieva, Lyubomir Bakalivanov, Boryana Zidarova, Dimitrina Apostolova, Mariya Vasileva, Silvia Terezova, Alexandra Savova\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2025.2535636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) osimertinib is approved as a first-line treatment against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations. Herein, we perform a retrospective analysis of real-world data on first-line osimertinib treatment among Bulgarian patients with NSCLC, comparing treatment outcomes to FLAURA results.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>Patient data were obtained from electronic health records over a 4-year period. Baseline characteristics and endpoints (progression-free survival [PFS], objective response rate [ORR], and clinical benefit rate [CBR]) were compared. Iterative proportional fitting was performed to balance patient characteristics prior to survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 365 patients on first-line osimertinib were included. Partial responses were more frequent in the RWE cohort (24% vs 13%), while the opposite was noted for stable disease (63% vs 80%). Complete response frequency was comparable (2% vs 1%). The ORR was higher in the real world compared to in FLAURA (26% vs 14%), whereas CBR was slightly higher in the trial (89% vs 94%). The real-world PFS was higher than reported in FLAURA (19.1 vs 18.9 months), with more favorable outcomes in the RWE cohort beyond 18 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RWE closely aligns with FLAURA results, suggesting even greater benefit of first-line osimertinib in the real-world setting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2535636\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2535636","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:第三代EGFR酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(EGFR- tki)奥西替尼被批准作为治疗含有EGFR致敏突变的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的一线药物。在此,我们对保加利亚NSCLC患者一线奥西替尼治疗的真实数据进行了回顾性分析,并将治疗结果与FLAURA结果进行了比较。研究设计和方法:从4年期间的电子健康记录中获得患者数据。比较基线特征和终点(无进展生存期(PFS)、客观缓解率(ORR)和临床获益率(CBR))。在生存分析之前,进行迭代比例拟合以平衡患者特征。结果:共纳入365例一线奥希替尼患者。部分缓解在RWE队列中更为常见(24%对13%),而在稳定的疾病中则相反(63%对80%)。完全缓解频率具有可比性(2% vs 1%)。与FLAURA相比,现实世界中的ORR更高(26%对14%),而试验中的CBR略高(89%对94%)。实际PFS高于FLAURA的报告(19.1个月vs 18.9个月),RWE队列在18个月以上的结果更有利。结论:RWE与FLAURA结果密切一致,表明一线奥西替尼在现实环境中有更大的益处。
Real-world evidence of first-line osimertinib effectiveness in Bulgarian patients: a retrospective analysis.
Background: Third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) osimertinib is approved as a first-line treatment against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations. Herein, we perform a retrospective analysis of real-world data on first-line osimertinib treatment among Bulgarian patients with NSCLC, comparing treatment outcomes to FLAURA results.
Research design and methods: Patient data were obtained from electronic health records over a 4-year period. Baseline characteristics and endpoints (progression-free survival [PFS], objective response rate [ORR], and clinical benefit rate [CBR]) were compared. Iterative proportional fitting was performed to balance patient characteristics prior to survival analysis.
Results: A total of 365 patients on first-line osimertinib were included. Partial responses were more frequent in the RWE cohort (24% vs 13%), while the opposite was noted for stable disease (63% vs 80%). Complete response frequency was comparable (2% vs 1%). The ORR was higher in the real world compared to in FLAURA (26% vs 14%), whereas CBR was slightly higher in the trial (89% vs 94%). The real-world PFS was higher than reported in FLAURA (19.1 vs 18.9 months), with more favorable outcomes in the RWE cohort beyond 18 months.
Conclusion: RWE closely aligns with FLAURA results, suggesting even greater benefit of first-line osimertinib in the real-world setting.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.