Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men, is less associated with smoking, but occurs at a younger age than sporadic tumours.

To assess the clinical effectiveness of single-agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included response rate, symptom palliation, toxicity, and health-related quality of life.

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 27th July 2020), Embase (1980 to 27th July 2020), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 27th July 2020). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (July 2020); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles.

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent.

Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis.

Twenty-two trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 3023, of whom approximately 2563 were of Asian origin. Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo. Erlotinib was used in eight trials, gefitinib in nine trials, afatinib in two trials, cetuximab in two trials, and icotinib in one trial. The findings of FASTACT 2 suggested a clinical benefit for OS for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, as did the Han 2017 trial for gefitinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, but both results were based on a small number of participants (n = 97 and 122, respectively). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of four trials showed evidence of clinical benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.39 ; 583 participants ; high-certainty evidence). A pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48 ; 491 participants high-certainty evidence), and a pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance also showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, 371 participants ; moderate-certainty evidence). Afatinib showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53, 709 participants high-certainty evidence). All but one small trial showed a corresponding improvement in response rate with tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy. Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events associated with afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and icotinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms; fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies. Seven trials reported on health-related quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, two trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the TKI compared to chemotherapy. The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged PFS compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adverse effect and health-related quality of life. We found limited evidence for increased OS for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy, but the majority of the included trials allowed participants to switch treatments on disease progression, which will have a confounding effect on any OS analysis. Single agent-TKI remains the standard of care and the benefit of combining a TKI and chemotherapy remains uncertain as the evidence is based on small patient numbers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib or icotinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There are no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy. Icotinib is not available outside China.

Up to 20% of lung adenocarcinomas in the United States and Europe and 50% in Asia have activating mutations of the tyrosine kinase domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The identification and subsequent targeting of mutations with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) led to significant advances in treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer. Newer-generation EGFR-TKIs resulted in improvement in outcomes, with less toxic side effects and better tolerability. Resistance to EGFR-TKIs remains a significant barrier, and better understanding of resistance mechanisms is needed. Efforts are ongoing to incorporate targeted therapy into treatment of patients with earlier-stage disease.

Osimertinib is a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved for the treatment of metastatic EGFR T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients failing previous TKI therapy. The T790M mutation is an acquired resistance mechanism found in over half of patients with NSCLC progressing on first-generation TKIs. First- and second-generation TKIs do not inhibit the T790M mutation at clinically relevant concentrations. Osimertinib is selective for mutated forms of EGFR, including the TKI-sensitizing mutations L858R and exon 19 deletions, as well as the acquired T790M resistance mutation. In a trial comparing osimertinib to platinum doublet therapy among patients with the T790M mutation progressing on first-line TKI therapy, median progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients receiving osimertinib. Osimertinib has a favorable safety profile compared to platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Common adverse events include diarrhea, skin rash, dry skin, and paronychia; however, because it spares wild-type EGFR, these toxicities appear to occur with less frequency and severity compared to other TKIs. Serious, but rare, adverse events include pneumonitis, interstitial lung disease-like events, QT interval prolongation, and reduced ejection fraction. Osimertinib has the unique ability to distribute readily into brain tissue compared with other TKIs, giving it a potential role in the treatment and/or prevention of CNS metastases; future studies are warranted in this area. An ongoing study evaluating osimertinib versus first-generation TKIs as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC may help to define the role of osimertinib as front-line therapy.

To determine the efficacy of first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) in molecularly selected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we performed this pooled analysis.

Randomized trials of EGFR-TKIs as treatment for advanced NSCLC were included for this meta-analysis. We used published hazard ratios (HRs), if available, or derived treatment estimates from other survival data. Pooled estimates of treatment efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in the selected patients by EGFR-mutation status were calculated.

Out of 2134 retrieved articles, 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling more than 4053 patients with wild-type EGFR tumors and 1592 patients with mutant EGFR tumors were identified. For EGFR mutant patients, EGFR-TKIs treatment improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy: the summary HRs were 0.41 (p < 0.00001) for the first-line setting and 0.46 (p = 0.02) for second/third-line setting, respectively. Also, the same superior trend was found with TKIs maintenance over placebo (HR = 0.14, p < 0.00001) and with TKIs combined with chemotherapy over chemotherapy (HR = 0.49, p = .002) in both the first-line and maintenance therapy settings. For EGFR wild-type patients, EGFR-TKIs have fared worse than chemotherapy in the first-line setting (HR = 1.65, p = .03) and in the second/third-line setting (HR = 1.27, p = .005). However, EGFR-TKIs maintenance still produced a reduction of 19 % in the risk of progression over placebo (HR = 0.81, p = .02). Furthermore, EGFR-TKIs added to chemotherapy as first-line treatment resulted in an improvement of PFS over chemotherapy alone in such wild-type EGFR patients (HR = 0.82, p = .03). In overall survival (OS) analysis, only EGFR-TKIs single agent was inferior to chemotherapy in EGFR wild-type patients (HR = 1.13, p = .02). No statistically significant difference in terms of OS was observed in any other subgroup analysis.

For EGFR mutant patients, EGFR-TKIs therapy produced a prominent PFS benefit in all settings. Among EGFR wild-type patients, EGFR-TKIs were inferior to chemotherapy both for first-line treatment and for second/third-line treatment. However, EGFR-TKIs maintenance and addition of EGFR-TKIs to chemotherapy could provide additive benefit over chemotherapy alone in such EGFR wild-type patients.

In Japan, the clinical efficacy of erlotinib monotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer was demonstrated in the phase II JO22903 trial, which reported a median progression-free survival of 11.8 months. Here we report final overall survival data from JO22903.

JO22903 (JapicCTI-101085) was a single-arm, multicenter, phase II, open-label, non-randomized study of first-line erlotinib monotherapy in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Eligible patients (≥20 years) with stage IIIB/IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer and confirmed activating mutations of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or L858R point mutation in exon 21) received oral erlotinib 150 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival and safety; overall survival was a secondary endpoint.

At the final analysis, 102 patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population and 103 in the safety population. Median follow-up was 32.3 months. Median overall survival was 36.3 months (95 % confidence interval 29.4-not reached). Subgroup analyses of overall survival suggested that the presence of brain metastases was a negative prognostic factor (median overall survival 22.7 months, 95 % confidence interval 19.6-29.4). The impact on overall survival of using versus not using EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in any line of treatment following disease progression was unclear (median 32.8 versus 36.3 months, respectively). No new safety issues were observed.

In this survival update, single-agent erlotinib achieved a median overall survival of more than 3 years in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is emerging as an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men and is less associated with smoking.

To assess the clinical effectiveness of single -agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, response rate, toxicity, and quality of life.

We conducted electronic searches of the the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 1 June 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 1 June 2015), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 1 June 2015). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (1 June 2015); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles.

Parallel randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent.

Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis.

Nineteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 2317, of whom 1700 were of Asian origin.Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo.Erlotinib was the intervention treatment used in eight trials, gefitinib in seven trials, afatinib in two trials, and cetuximab in two trials. The findings of one trial (FASTACT 2) did report a statistically significant OS gain for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, but this result was based on a small number of participants (n = 97). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of 3 trials (n = 378) demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.38).In a pooled analysis with 491 participants administered gefitinib, 2 trials (IPASS and NEJSG) demonstrated a statistically significant PFS benefit of gefitinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48).Afatinib (n = 709) showed a statistically significant PFS benefit when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of 2 trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53).Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events for afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms, fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies.No statistically significant PFS or OS benefit for cetuximab plus cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 81) compared to chemotherapy alone was reported in either of the two trials.Six trials reported on quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, 2 trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy.The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged progression-free survival compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We also found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, we found no increase in overall survival for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There were no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy.

Erlotinib is active in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) particularly in patients with EGFR-sensitizing mutations. The thymidylate synthase inhibitors are active in NSCLC, but capecitabine is not well studied. This study explored the safety and activity of this oral combination.

This phase Ib trial used a 3 + 3 escalation design with a combination of erlotinib (100 mg daily) with increasing doses of capecitabine (500, 750 and 1000 mg/m(2) BD, 14/21 days), in first- and second-line aNSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology. The DLT was any drug-induced toxicity ≥grade (G)2 causing dose interruption or dose delay during the first 2 cycles.

Forty patients were recruited, and 1 patient had an EGFR mutation. Dose escalation stopped at capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) with expansion to 6 patients due to unpredicted DLTs in 2/6 patients: G2 creatinine rise, G2 anaemia, G3 atrial fibrillation and G3 pneumonia. MTD was capecitabine 750 mg/m(2). First-line dose escalation at the MTD led to unpredicted DLTs in 3/4 patients (G3 troponin rise, G2 rash and G2 hyperbilirubinaemia). MTD expansion in the second-line setting was well tolerated. The most common drug toxicities were gastrointestinal (35 %), followed by skin disorders (28 %). The response rate was 3 % with a disease control rate of 34 %. Median progressive-free survival was 1.6 months (95 % CI 1.4-3.5), and median overall survival was 6.1 months (95 % CI 5.1-10.1).

The MTD for the combination of capecitabine and erlotinib is 750 mg/m(2) BD, 14/21 days, and 100 mg daily, respectively, which is lower than predicted. Capecitabine did not improve the efficacy of erlotinib in aNSCLC unselected for EGFR mutation.

The OPTIMAL study was the first study to compare efficacy and tolerability of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) erlotinib, versus standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Findings from final overall survival (OS) analysis and assessment of post-study treatment impact are presented.

Of 165 randomised patients, 82 received erlotinib and 72 gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Final OS analyses were conducted when 70% of deaths had occurred in the intent-to-treat population. Subgroup OS was analysed by Cox proportional hazards model and included randomisation stratification factors and post-study treatments.

Median OS was similar between the erlotinib (22.8 months) and chemotherapy (27.2 months) arms with no significant between-group differences in the overall population [hazard ratio (HR), 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.71; P = 0.2663], the exon 19 deletion subpopulation (HR, 1.52; 95% CI 0.91-2.52; P = 0.1037) or the exon 21 L858 mutation subpopulation (HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.55-1.54; P = 0.7392). More patients in the erlotinib arm versus the chemotherapy arm did not receive any post-study treatment (36.6% versus 22.2%). Patients who received sequential combination of EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy had significantly improved OS compared with those who received EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy only (29.7 versus 20.7 or 11.2 months, respectively; P < 0.0001). OS was significantly shorter in patients who did not receive post-study treatments compared with those who received subsequent treatments in both arms.

The significant OS benefit observed in patients treated with EGFR-TKI emphasises its contribution to improving survival of EGFR mutant NSCLC patients, suggesting that erlotinib should be considered standard first-line treatment of EGFR mutant patients and EGFR-TKI treatment following first-line therapy also brings significant benefits to those patients.

NCT00874419.

In LUX-Lung 3, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus cisplatin/pemetrexed in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma patients and overall survival (OS) in Del19 patients. Preplanned analyses in Japanese patients from LUX-Lung 3 were performed. Patients were randomized 2:1 to afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed, stratified by mutation type (Del19/L858R/Other). Primary endpoint was PFS (independent review). Secondary endpoints included OS, objective response, and safety. Median PFS (data cut-off: February 2012) for afatinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed was 13.8 vs 6.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.70; P = 0.0014) in all Japanese patients (N = 83), with more pronounced improvements in those with common mutations (Del19/L858R; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15-0.52; P < 0.0001) and Del19 mutations (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.39; P < 0.0001). PFS was also improved in L858R patients (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.25; P = 0.1309). Median OS (data cut-off: November 2013) with afatinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed was 46.9 vs 35.8 months (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40-1.43; P = 0.3791) in all Japanese patients, with greater benefit in patients with common mutations (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.12; P = 0.0966) and Del19 mutations (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.87; P = 0.0181); OS was not significantly different in L858R patients (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.40-3.21; P = 0.8212). Following study treatment discontinuation, most patients (93.5%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, nail effects and stomatitis with afatinib and nausea, decreased appetite, neutropenia, and leukopenia with cisplatin/pemetrexed. Afatinib significantly improved PFS versus cisplatin/pemetrexed in Japanese EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma patients and OS in Del19 but not L858R patients (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00949650).

In the past decade, a dramatic shift has been witnessed in cancer therapy in China. Although traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy still remains the treatment of choice for many malignancies, targeted therapies are now a component of treatment for many types of cancer, including lung cancer. As molecular target agents are widely used in clinical practice and relevant studies have been conducted, we have accumulated valuable experience in the treatment strategy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. On this basis we have successfully developed our Class-I new drug through independent research, which significantly accelerates the clinical development of targeted therapy for lung cancer. This article summarizes the clinical practice and relevant studies of current targeted therapies for lung cancer in China.

First-generation, reversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), erlotinib and gefitinib, represented an important addition to the treatment armamentarium for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating EGFR mutations. However, all patients inevitably develop acquired resistance to these agents, primarily due to secondary EGFR mutations, molecular aberrations affecting other signaling pathways, or transformation to small-cell histology. It was hypothesized that development of second-generation TKIs with broader inhibitory profiles could confer longer-lasting clinical activity and overcome acquired resistance to first-generation inhibitors. Here, we review the development of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker that potently inhibits signaling of all homodimers and heterodimers formed by the EGFR, human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, HER3, and HER4 receptors. In two phase III trials in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, first-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and health-related quality of life versus standard-of-care chemotherapy. Moreover, in preplanned sub-analyses, afatinib significantly improved overall survival in patients harboring EGFR Del19 mutations. Afatinib has also demonstrated clinical activity in NSCLC patients who had progressed on erlotinib/gefitinib, particularly when combined with cetuximab, and offers 'treatment beyond progression' benefit when combined with paclitaxel versus chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, a recent phase III study demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus erlotinib for the second-line treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. The activity of afatinib in both first-line and relapsed/refractory settings may reflect its ability to irreversibly inhibit all ErbB family members. Afatinib has a well-defined safety profile with characteristic gastrointestinal (diarrhea, stomatitis) and cutaneous (rash/acne) adverse events.

Historically, patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were treated with chemotherapy alone, but a therapeutic plateau has been reached. Advances in the understanding of molecular genetics have led to the recognition of multiple molecularly distinct subsets of NSCLC. This in turn has led to the development of rationally directed molecular targeted therapy, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Tumour genotyping for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangement has meant chemotherapy is no longer given automatically as first-line treatment but reserved for when patients do not have a 'druggable' driver oncogene. In this review, we will address the current status of clinically relevant driver mutations and emerging new molecular subsets in lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, and the role of targeted therapy and mechanisms of acquired resistance to targeted therapy.

Personalized medicine involves the selection of the safest and most effective pharmacological treatment based on the molecular characteristics of the patient. In the case of anticancer drugs, tumour cell alterations can have a great impact on drug activity and, in fact, most biomarkers predicting response originate from these cells. On the other hand, the risk of developing severe toxicity may be related to the genetic background of the patient. Thus, understanding the molecular characteristics of both the tumour and the patient, and establishing their relation with drug outcomes will be critical for the identification of predictive biomarkers and to provide the basis for individualized treatments. This is a complex scenario where multiple genes as well as pathophysiological and environmental factors are important; in addition, tumours exhibit large inter- and intraindividual variability in space and time. Against this background, the huge amounts of biological and genetic data generated by the high-throughput technologies will facilitate pharmacogenomic progress, suggest novel druggable molecules and support the design of future strategies aimed at disease control. Here, we will review the current challenges and opportunities for pharmacogenomic studies in oncology, as well as the clinically established biomarkers. Lung and renal cancer, two areas in which huge progress has been made in the last decade, will be used to illustrate advances in personalized cancer treatment; we will review EGFR mutation as the paradigm of targeted therapies in lung cancer, and discuss the dissection of lung cancer into clinically relevant molecular subsets and novel advances that suggest an important role of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the response to antiangiogenic agents, as well as the challenges that remain in these fields. Finally, we will present new approaches and future prospects for personalizing medicine in oncology.

We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials.

Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393.

Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35-44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31-37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28.2 months (95% CI 24.6-33.6) in the afatinib group and 28.2 months (20.7-33.2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17, p=0.39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23.1 months (95% CI 20.4-27.3) in the afatinib group and 23.5 months (18.0-25.6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.22, p=0.61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33.3 months (95% CI 26.8-41.5) in the afatinib group versus 21.1 months (16.3-30.7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.79, p=0.0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31.4 months (95% CI 24.2-35.3) versus 18.4 months (14.6-25.6), respectively (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p=0.023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27.6 months (19.8-41.7) in the afatinib group versus 40.3 months (24.3-not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80-2.11, p=0.29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19.6 months (95% CI 17.0-22.1) versus 24.3 months (19.0-27.0), respectively (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81-1.83, p=0.34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3-4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]).

Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Boehringer Ingelheim.

Analyses of tumor biopsy samples from non-small cell lung cancer patients with acquired epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance are expected to reveal the molecular mechanisms of resistance. However, due to limited tissue availability, performing such analyses can be challenging. We herein investigated the feasibility of tumor rebiopsy in this patient population.

From April 2004 to March 2013, 53 consecutive patients were treated with EGFR-TKIs at our department. A retrospective medical chart review was conducted among patients with progressive disease (PD) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, as assessed radiographically. Sites of progression were evaluated at the time of PD.

Forty patients experienced PD at the following sites: isolated central nervous system (CNS) in 10 patients; isolated bone in five patients; isolated lymph nodes in two patients; the primary lesion in 10 patients; and systemic disease in 11 patients. Concerning the site of progression, 20 of the 40 patients had a lesion that could be accessed using endobronchial, transbronchial or percutaneous biopsy procedures. Among the 19 patients with oligoprogressive disease or CNS failure, the median overall survival was 24.1 months in eight patients who had received continuing treatment with EGFR-TKIs following radiotherapy and 16.8 months in 11 patients who received other therapies after PD.

In this study, few patients had a site of progression capable of being accessed using relatively noninvasive biopsy procedures. Further investigations are warranted to develop more optimal treatment strategies after PD in patients with oligoprogressive disease or CNS failure.

EGFR-TKIs added to chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs single agent have been used as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with and without EGFR mutations. However, direct head-to-head comparison between them is still lacking. We performed indirect comparisons to assess the treatment effects of EGFR-TKIs added to chemotherapy versus EGFR-TKIs alone via common comparator of standard chemotherapy in both subgroups. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken. Finally, 12 randomized controlled trials enrolling more than 2,160 patients with EGFR mutation analysis met the inclusion criteria. We found that EGFR-TKIs combined with chemotherapy did confer an additive PFS advantage over standard chemotherapy both for patients with mutant EGFR tumors (HR 0.54, 95 % CI [0.30, 0.95], P = 0.03) and for patients with wild-type EGFR tumors (HR 0.82, [0.68, 0.98], P = 0.03), but no survival difference between the treatments in both subgroups. When using standard chemotherapy as common comparator, indirect comparison indicated that addition of chemotherapy to EGFR-TKIs did confer an additive PFS benefit (HR 0.38, [0.32, 0.46], P < 0.001) and survival benefit (HR 0.75, [0.66, 0.85], P < 0.001) over EGFR-TKIs alone in patients with wild-type EGFR, but showed a PFS disadvantage (HR 1.35, [1.03, 1.77], P = 0.03) and a marginal trend toward survival disadvantage (HR 1.16, [0.99, 1.35], P = 0.06) compared with EGFR-TKIs alone in patients with mutant EGFR tumors. In summary, addition of chemotherapy to EGFR-TKIs as first-line treatment did confer an additive benefit over EGFR-TKIs alone in patients with wild-type EGFR tumors, but was inferior to EGFR-TKIs alone in patients with mutant EGFR tumors.

Drugs that target the EGFR have a major impact on the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). EGFR mutations in NSCLC are associated with a dramatic and sustained response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This review summarizes the results of randomized trials using EGFR TKIs or EGFR monoclonal antibodies with chemotherapy in the first-line setting, and discusses several unresolved issues regarding the use of the EGFR TKIs as the first-line therapy in advanced NSCLC.

In the EU, the approved use of erlotinib (Tarceva(®)), an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has recently been expanded to include first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients with EGFR-activating mutations. In randomized, open-label, phase III clinical trials, oral erlotinib reduced the risk of progression, improved response rates, and was well tolerated relative to standard platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in Caucasian and Asian populations with advanced NSCLC with EGFR-activating mutations.

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway is crucial for regulating tumorigenesis and cell survival and may be important in the development and progression of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined the impact of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced NSCLC patients with and without EGFR mutations.

Randomized trials that compared EGFR-TKIs monotherapy or combination EGFR-TKIs-chemotherapy with chemotherapy or placebo were included. We used published hazard ratios (HRs), if available, or derived treatment estimates from other survival data. Pooled estimates of treatment efficacy of EGFR-TKIs for the EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRmut(+)) and EGFR mutation-negative (EGFRmut(-)) subgroups were calculated with the fixed-effects inverse variance weighted method. All statistical tests were two-sided.

We included 23 eligible trials (13 front-line, 7 second-line, 3 maintenance; n = 14570). EGFR mutation status was known in 31% of patients. EGFR-TKIs treatment prolonged PFS in EGFRmut(+) patients, and EGFR mutation was predictive of PFS in all settings: The front-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.49; P < .001), and the front-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 1.06 (95% CI = 0.94 to 1.19; P = .35; P interaction < .001). The second-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.34 (95% CI = 0.20 to 0.60; P < .001), and the second-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.46; P = .01; P interaction < .001). The maintenance hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.15 (95% CI = 0.08 to 0.27; P < .001), and the maintenance hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.97; P = .02; P interaction < .001). EGFR-TKIs treatment had no impact on OS for EGFRmut(+) and EGFRmut(-) patients.

EGFR-TKIs therapy statistically significantly delays disease progression in EGFRmut(+) patients but has no demonstrable impact on OS. EGFR mutation is a predictive biomarker of PFS benefit with EGFR-TKIs treatment in all settings. These findings support EGFR mutation assessment before initiation of treatment. EGFR-TKIs should be considered as front-line therapy in EGFRmut(+) advanced NSCLC patients.