Osimertinib as Second- and ≥Third-Line Treatment in Advanced and Recurrence EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Patients Harboring Acquired T790M Mutation
2024

Osimertinib for Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment

Sample size: 158 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Peng Mu-Han, Huang Yen-Hsiang, Hsu Kuo-Hsuan, Tseng Jeng-Sen, Lee Po-Hsin, Chen Kun-Chieh, Chang Gee-Chen, Yang Tsung-Ying

Primary Institution: Taichung Veterans General Hospital

Hypothesis

Does osimertinib provide different clinical outcomes when used as a second-line treatment compared to a third-line or later treatment in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with acquired T790M mutations?

Conclusion

Osimertinib is effective as both a second-line and third-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with acquired T790M mutations, showing no significant difference in survival outcomes between the two treatment lines.

Supporting Evidence

  • 158 patients were analyzed for the study.
  • Osimertinib showed a median PFS of 10.7 months in the 2nd-line group.
  • The median OS from first-line treatment was 73.2 months in the 2nd-line group.
  • No significant differences in survival outcomes were found between treatment lines.
  • 62.7% of patients received osimertinib as 2nd-line treatment.
  • Median OS was 57.5 months for patients receiving osimertinib as ≥3rd-line treatment.
  • Patients with exon 19 deletion had a trend of better PFS than those with exon 21 L858R mutation.
  • Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0.

Takeaway

This study shows that a medicine called osimertinib works well for patients with a type of lung cancer, whether they take it second or later in their treatment.

Methodology

This was a single-center, observational, retrospective analysis of patients who received sequential osimertinib treatment from September 2014 to March 2023.

Potential Biases

Potential selection bias due to the retrospective nature and single-center design.

Limitations

The study was a single-center, retrospective analysis, which may introduce bias, and the findings may not be applicable to other ethnic populations.

Participant Demographics

{"median_age":62,"gender_distribution":{"female":108,"male":50},"smoking_status":{"non_smokers":137,"former_or_current_smokers":21},"clinical_stage":{"stage_IVA":60,"stage_IVB":77,"recurrence_after_surgery":21}}

Statistical Information

Confidence Interval

{"pfs":"10.7 months (95% CI, 6.1 to 15.3) for 2nd-line; 8.9 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 11.4) for ≥3rd-line","os":"73.2 months (95% CI, 47.1 to 99.3) for 2nd-line; 57.5 months (95% CI, 52.9 to 62.1) for ≥3rd-line"}

Statistical Significance

p=0.222 for PFS, p=0.123 for OS

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.3390/cancers16244174

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication