Front-line therapy for brain metastases and non-brain metastases in advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis

作     者：Zhu Yixiang Liu Chengcheng Xu Ziyi Zou Zihua Xie Tongji Xing Puyuan Wang Le Li Junling Yixiang Zhu;Chengcheng Liu;Ziyi Xu;Zihua Zou;Tongji Xie;Puyuan Xing;Le Wang;Junling Li

作者机构：Department of Medical Oncology National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital  3. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College  4. Beijing 100021  5. China  6. Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology  7. The Second Affiliated Hospital  8. Zhejiang University School of Medicine  9. Hangzhou  10. Zhejiang 310009  11. Department of Cancer Prevention  12. Zhejiang Cancer Hospital  13. Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC)  14. Chinese Academy of Sciences  15. Zhejiang 310022 

出 版 物：《中华医学杂志(英文版)》 (Chinese Medical Journal)

年 卷 期：2023年第136卷第21期

页      面：2551-2561页

核心收录：

学科分类：1002[医学-临床医学] 100214[医学-肿瘤学] 10[医学] 

主　　题：Non-small cell lung carcinoma Epidermal growth factor receptor Brain metastases Survival analysis Network meta-analysis First-line treatment 

摘      要：Background: The brain is a common metastatic site in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), resulting in a relatively poor prognosis. Systemic therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended as the first-line treatment forEGFR-mutated, advanced NSCLC patients. However, intracranial activity varies in different drugs. Thus, brain metastasis (BM) should be considered when choosing the treatment regimens. We conducted this network meta-analysis to explore the optimal first-line therapeutic schedule for advancedEGFR-mutated NSCLC patients with different BM statuses.Methods: Randomized controlled trials focusing on EGFR-TKIs (alone or in combination) in advanced andEGFR-mutant NSCLC patients, who have not received systematic treatment, were systematically searched up to December 2021. We extracted and analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A network meta-analysis was performed with the Bayesian statistical model to determine the survival outcomes of all included therapy regimens using the R software. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare intervention measures, and overall rankings of therapies were estimated under the Bayesian framework.Results: This analysis included 17 RCTs with 5077 patients and 12 therapies, including osimertinib + bevacizumab, aumolertinib, osimertinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, standards of care (SoC, including gefitinib, erlotinib, or icotinib), SoC + apatinib, SoC + bevacizumab, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT), PbCT, and pemetrexed free chemotherapy (PfCT). For patients with BM, SoC + PbCT improved PFS compared with SoC (HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.17-0.95), and osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank first in PFS, with a cumulative probability of 34.5%, followed by aumolertinib, with a cumulative probability of 28.3%. For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab, osimertinib, aumolertinib, SoC + PbCT, dacomitinib, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + bevacizumab, and afatinib showed superior efficacy compared with SoC (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.90; HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68; HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.77; HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66; HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.89; HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50-1.00), PbCT (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.18-0.64; HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.82; HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22-0.87; HR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74; HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31-0.75), and PfCT (HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32; HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.09-0.26; HR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.29; HR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.35; HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.31; HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.34) in terms of PFS. And, SoC + apatinib showed relatively superior PFS when compared with PbCT (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.92) and PfCT (HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39), but similar PFS to SoC (HR= 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.03). No statistical differences were observed for PFS in patients without BM between PbCT and SoC (HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.84-2.64), but both showed favorable PFS when compared with PfCT (PfCTvs. SoC, HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.06-4.55; PbCTvs. PfCT, HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32). For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank the first, with cumulative probabilities of 47.1%. For OS, SoC + PbCT was most likely to rank first in patients with and without BM, with cumulative probabilities of 46.8%, and 37.3%, respectively.Conclusion: Osimertinib + bevacizumab is most likely to rank first in PFS in advancedEGFR-mutated NSCLC patients with or without BM, and SoC + PbCT is most likely to rank first in OS.