Title |
Gefitinib provides similar effectiveness and improved safety than erlotinib for east Asian populations with advanced non–small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Cancer, August 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12885-018-4685-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Wenxiong Zhang, Yiping Wei, Dongliang Yu, Jianjun Xu, Jinhua Peng |
Abstract |
The first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib have both been proven effective for treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially in East Asian patients. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety in treating advanced NSCLC in this population. We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for the relevant studies. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse effects (AEs) were analyzed as primary endpoints. We identified 5829 articles, among which 31 were included in the final analysis. Both gefitinib and erlotinib were effective for treating advanced NSCLC, with comparable PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97-1.10, p = 0.26), OS (95% CI: 0.89-1.21, p = 0.61), ORR (95% CI: 1.00-1.18, p = 0.06), and DCR (95% CI: 0.93-1.05, p = 0.68). Erlotinib induced a significantly higher rate of dose reduction (95% CI: 0.13-0.65, p = 0.002) and grade 3-5 AEs (95% CI: 0.27-0.71, p = 0.0008). In subgroup analysis of AEs, the erlotinib group had a significantly higher rate and severity of skin rash, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and stomatitis. With equal anti-tumor efficacy and fewer AEs compared with erlotinib, gefitinib is more suitable for treating advanced NSCLC in East Asian patients. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our findings. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 17% |
Other | 7 | 17% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
Other | 6 | 14% |
Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 26% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 19% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 10% |
Unknown | 13 | 31% |