pathology | treatment | patient | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
lung cancer (metastatic) | afatinib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
LUX-LUNG 3, 2015 | afatinib vs cisplatin-based chemotherapy | | | | LUX-LUNG 6, 2015 | afatinib vs cisplatin-based chemotherapy | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
LUX-LUNG 3, 2015 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | LUX-LUNG 6, 2015 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | cetuximab | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Lynch, 2010 | cetuximab vs CT | | | OS 0.89 [0.75; 1.05] median 9.69 mo vs. 8.38 mo PFS 0.90 [0.76; 1.07] median 4.40 mo vs. 4.24 mo | FLEX (Pirker), 2009 | cetuximab + CT vs CT alone | OS 0.87 [0.76; 1.00] median 11.3 mo vs. 10.1 mo | | | Rosell, 2008 | cetuximab + CT vs CT alone | | | | Butts, 2007 | cetuximab vs CT alone | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Lynch, 2010 | cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1, 250 mg/m(2) weekly) was administered until progression or unacceptable toxicity plus taxane/carboplatin (n=-9) vs. paclitaxel (225 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)), at the investigator's discretion, and carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) on day 1 every 3 weeks for < or = six cycles (n=-9) | chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or IV NSCLC, without restrictions by histology or epidermal growth factor receptor expression | open-label Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: progression-free survival FU duration: phase III | FLEX (Pirker), 2009 | Cetuximab-at a starting dose of 400 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion over 2 h on day 1, and from day 8 onwards at 250 mg/m(2) over 1 h per week-was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity + CT (n=557) vs. cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle) for up to six cycles (n=568) | chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced EGFR-expressing histologically or cytologically proven stage wet IIIB or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer | open-label Sample size: 557/568 Primary endpoint: overall survival FU duration: | Rosell, 2008 | cetuximab treatment (initial dose 400 mg/m(2), followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter) + same CT (n=43) vs. for a maximum of eight cycles, patients received three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m(2), day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) alone (n=43) | first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: 43/43 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Butts, 2007 | cetuximab (400 mg/m2 i.v (n=65) vs. cisplatin (75 mg/m2 i.v., every 3 weeks) or carboplatin (area under the concentration-versus-time curve of 5 intravenously [i.v.], every 3 weeks), and gemcitabine (1,250 or 1,000 mg/m2 i.v., days 1 and 8) (n=66) | chemotherapy-naïve patients with recurrent/metastatic NSCLC (stage IV or stage IIIB with malignant pleural effusion) | Sample size: 65/66 Primary endpoint: Response rate FU duration: phase II |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | dacomitinib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ARCHER 1050 | dacomitinib (n=-9) vs. gefitinib (n=-9) | Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed stage IIIB/IV/ recurrent NSCLC harboring an EGFR- activating mutation (exon 19 del or exon 21 L858R mu +/- exon 20 T790M mu) | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: IRC PFS FU duration: |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | erlotinib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 11 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
OPTIMAL | erlotinib vs Platinum-based CT | PFS 0.16 [0.10; 0.26] median 13.1 mo vs. 4.6 mo | | | EUTRAC | erlotinib vs Platinum-based CT | PFS 0.37 [0.25; 0.54] | | | TITAN | erlotinib vs Platinum-based CT | | | OS 0.96 [0.78; 1.19] | TRIBUTE (Herbst) | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | | | OS 1.00 [0.86; 1.16] ORR 1.11 [0.73; 1.68] | Gatzemeier | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | | | PFS 0.98 [0.86; 1.11] ORR 1.05 [0.89; 1.24] | Mok | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | PFS 0.71 [0.62; 0.82] | | OS 1.09 [0.70; 1.69] ORR 1.46 [0.89; 2.39] | SATURN (Cappuzzo) | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | OS 0.81 [0.70; 0.94] | | | Boutsikou | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | | | OS 0.81 [0.39; 1.69] | Lee | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | PFS 0.58 [0.39; 0.86] ORR 1.56 [1.02; 2.38] | | OS 0.75 [0.49; 1.14] | Stinchcombe | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | | | OS 1.20 [0.76; 1.90] PFS 0.87 [0.60; 1.27] ORR 3.16 [0.94; 10.62] | FASTACT-2 (Wu) | erlotinib + Platinum-based CT vs Platinum-based CT | OS 0.79 [0.64; 0.98] PFS 0.57 [0.47; 0.69] ORR 2.36 [1.72; 3.23] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
OPTIMAL | oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects (n=83) vs. up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin (n=82) | Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) | open-label Sample size: 83/82 Primary endpoint: progression-free survival FU duration: | EUTRAC | oral erlotinib 150 mg per day (n=-9) vs. 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). (n=-9) | adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ¡Ý 6 months before study entry was allowed) | open-label Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | TITAN | erlotinib 150 mg/day (n=-9) vs. chemotherapy (standard docetaxel or pemetrexed regimens, at the treating investigators' discretion) until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or death (n=-9) | second-line treatment of patients with advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer with poor prognosis | open-label Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | TRIBUTE (Herbst) | erlotinib 150 mg/d combined with up to six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by maintenance monotherapy with erlotinib (n=526) vs. placebo combined with up to six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by maintenance monotherapy with erlotinib (n=533) | patients with good performance status and previously untreated advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC | Sample size: 526/533 Primary endpoint: overall survival FU duration: | Gatzemeier | Erl 150 mg/day plus (Gem 1,250 mg/m2 D1,8 and Cis 80 mg/m2 D1)*6 cycles (n=579) vs. Gem 1,250 mg/m2 D1,8 and Cis 80 mg/m2 D1)*6 cycles (n=580) | first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: 579/580 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Mok | Erl 150 mg/day plus (Gem 1,250 mg/m2 D1,8 and either Cis75 mg/m2 D1 or Car AUC = 5, D1) (n=57) vs. Gem 1,250 mg/m2 D1,8 and either (n=57) | first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: 57/57 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | SATURN (Cappuzzo) | Erl 150 mg/day plus select one of seven standard chemotherapy regimens (n=438) vs. Cis75 mg/m2 D1 or Car AUC = 5, D1 (n=451) | maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: 438/451 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Boutsikou | Erl 150 mg/day plus (Doc 100 mg/ m 2 and Car AUC = 5.5 q28d*4) (n=52) vs. Doc 100 mg/m2 and Car AUC = 5.5 q28d*4 (n=61) | first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC | Sample size: 52/61 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Lee | Erl 150 mg/day plus Pem 500 mg/ m 2 D1 q21d (n=78) vs. Pem 500 mg/m2 D1 q21d (n=80) | second-line treatment for never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer | Sample size: 78/80 Primary endpoint: progression-free survival FU duration: | Stinchcombe | Erl 150 mg/day plus Gem 1,200 mg/m2 D1,8 q21d (n=51) vs. Gem 1,200 mg/m2 D1,8 q21d (n=44) | elderly patients (age ¡Ý70 years) with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer | Sample size: 51/44 Primary endpoint: progression-free survival FU duration: | FASTACT-2 (Wu) | Erl 150 mg/day plus Gem 1,250 mg/m2 D1,8, six cycles and Car AUC = 5 or Cis 75 mg/ m 2,D1 (n=226) vs. Gem 1,250 mg/m2, d1,8, six cycles and Car AUC = 5 or Cis 75 mg/ m 2,D1 (n=255) | patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: 226/255 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | gefitinib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy gefitinib inferior to in terms of PFS in CTONG0806 (Yang), 2013 | 10 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
West Japan | gefitinib vs | | | | Northeast Japan | gefitinib vs | | | | CTONG0806 (Yang), 2013 | gefitinib vs | | PFS 1.96 [1.38; 2.79] | | NCIC CTG BR19 (Goss), 2013 | gefitinib vs placebo | | | | INFORM; C-TONG 0804, 2012 | gefitinib vs placebo | | | | IFCT-0301 study (Morère), 2010 | gefitinib vs docetaxel | | | | WJTOG0203 (Takeda), 2010 | gefitinib vs continued platinum-doublet chemotherapy | | | | WJTOG3405 (Mitsudomi), 2010 | gefitinib vs cisplatin plus docetaxel | | | | SWOG S0023 (Kelly), 2008 | gefitinib vs placebo | | | | Tsuboi, 2005 | gefitinib vs placebo | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
West Japan | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Northeast Japan | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | CTONG0806 (Yang), 2013 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | NCIC CTG BR19 (Goss), 2013 | gefitinib 250 mg per day (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer | double-blind Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | INFORM; C-TONG 0804, 2012 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | IFCT-0301 study (Morère), 2010 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2 or 3 | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | WJTOG0203 (Takeda), 2010 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | Japanese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | WJTOG3405 (Mitsudomi), 2010 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | SWOG S0023 (Kelly), 2008 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Tsuboi, 2005 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | gefitinib | 1L | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 8 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
IPASS | gefitinib vs carboplatin/paclitaxel | | | | First Signal | gefitinib vs gemcitabine and cisplatin | | | | INTACT 1. | gefitinib + gemcitabine/cisplatin vs placebo + gemcitabine / cisplatin | | | | INTACT 2, 2004 | gefitinib paclitaxel and carboplatin vs paclitaxel and carboplatin | | | | NEJ002, 2013 | gefitinib vs carboplatin-paclitaxel | | | | IPASS (Mok), 2009 | gefitinib vs carboplatin-paclitaxel | | | | Goss, 2009 | gefitinib vs placebo | | | | INVITE (Crinò), 2008 | gefitinib vs vinorelbine | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
IPASS | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously untreated never-smokers and light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | First Signal | gefitinib (250 mg daily) (n=159) vs. GP chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8; cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks, for up to nine courses (n=150) | first-line therapy of never-smokers with adenocarcinoma of the lung | Sample size: 159/150 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | INTACT 1. | gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC | double blind Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | INTACT 2, 2004 | gefitinib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin (n=-9) vs. paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under concentration/time curve of 6 mg/min/mL (day 1 every 3 weeks) (n=-9) | chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC | double-blind Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | NEJ002, 2013 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | chemo-naïve non-small cell lung cancer with sensitive EGFR gene mutations | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | IPASS (Mok), 2009 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Goss, 2009 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and poor performance status | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | INVITE (Crinò), 2008 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | chemotherapy-naive elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | gefitinib | 2L | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 8 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ISTANA (Lee), 2010 | gefitinib vs docetaxel | ORR 3.69 [1.59; 8.58] | | OS 0.87 [0.61; 1.24] PFS 0.73 [0.53; 1.00] | V-15-32 (Maruyama), 2008 | gefitinib vs docetaxel | ORR 1.77 [1.18; 2.65] | | OS 1.12 [0.89; 1.40] PFS 0.90 [0.72; 1.12] | INTEREST (Kim), 2008 | gefitinib vs docetaxel | | | OS 1.01 [0.90; 1.14] PFS 1.04 [0.92; 1.17] ORR 1.20 [0.84; 1.72] | SIGN (Cufer), 2006 | gefitinib vs docetaxel | | | OS 0.97 [0.61; 1.53] PFS 0.94 [0.64; 1.39] ORR 0.97 [0.42; 2.24] | Kris, 2003 | gefitinib vs gefitinib | | | | EORTC 08021/ILCP 01/03, 2011 | gefitinib vs placebo | | | | Maemondo, 2010 | gefitinib vs carboplatin-paclitaxel | | | | ISEL, 2006 | gefitinib vs placebo | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ISTANA (Lee), 2010 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously treated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | V-15-32 (Maruyama), 2008 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously treated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | INTEREST (Kim), 2008 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously treated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | SIGN (Cufer), 2006 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously treated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Kris, 2003 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | Patients either stage IIIB or IV NSCLC for which they had received at least 2 chemotherapy regimens | double blind Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | EORTC 08021/ILCP 01/03, 2011 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with advanced NSCLC, non-progressing after first line platinum-based chemotherapy | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Maemondo, 2010 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with metastatic, non-small-cell lung cancer and EGFR mutations who had not previously received chemotherapy | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | ISEL, 2006 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients of Asian origin with refractory advanced non-small cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | osimertinib | 1L | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy osimertinib inferior to placebo in terms of ORR in FLAURA, 2017 (1L patients) | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
FLAURA, 2017 | osimertinib vs placebo | PFS 0.45 [0.36; 0.56] | ORR 0.63 [0.45; 0.88] | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
FLAURA, 2017 | osimertinib (AZD9291) (80 mg or 40 mg orally, once daily) (n=279) vs. first-line standard-of-care treatment erlotinib or gefitinib (n=277) | previously untreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation–positive non–small cell lung cancer | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 279/277 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: crossover permitted |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | osimertinib | 2L | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
AURA 3, 2017 | osimertinib vs platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed | PFS 0.30 [0.22; 0.40] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
AURA 3, 2017 | oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) (n=-9) vs. intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles (n=-9) | patients with EGFR T790M mutation-positive, locally-advanced or metastatic NSCLC, whose disease had progressed after 1st-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|