Skin rash could predict the response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor and the prognosis for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the role of skin rash in predicting the efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and the prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHOD: We systematically searched for eligible articles investigating the association between rash and the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs and the prognosis of patients with NSCLC. The summary risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) were calculated using meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 33 eligible trials involving 6,798 patients. We used two different standards to group the patients [standard 1: rash vs. no rash, standard 2: rash (≥ stage 2) vs. rash (stage 0, 1)]. For standard 1, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) of the rash group were significantly higher than the no rash group [RR = 3.28; 95% CI: 2.41-4.47(corrected RR = 2.225, 95% CI: 1.658-2.986); RR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.58-2.43]. The same results were observed for standard 2. For standards 1 and 2, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.37-0.53; HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.65) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.52; HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35-0.71) of the rash group were significantly longer than the control group, and the same results were observed in the subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: skin rash after EGFR-TKI treatment may be an efficient clinical marker for predicting the response of patients with NSCLC to EGFR-TKIs. Furthermore, skin rash is also the prognostic factor of patients with NSCLC. Patients with skin rash have a longer PFS and OS.

Chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) require systemic chemotherapy. Chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; e.g., sorafenib, sunitinib, cediranib, vandetanib, BIBF 1120, pazopanib, axitinib) has recently been evaluated in patients with NSCLC. However, the advantage of this therapy over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced NSCLC remains largely unknown. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic TKI with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced NSCLC. PubMed, the ASCO and ESMO databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched for references to published articles. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials. Data were extracted, and overall response rate (ORR), pooled progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI), and major toxicities/adverse effects were analyzed. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 3,337 patients with advanced NSCLC were ultimately analyzed. Compared to chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic TKI significantly increased the ORR [relative risk (RR) 1.71, 95 % CI 1.43-2.05] and PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95 % CI 0.76-0.90], but not OS (HR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.83-1.03). Patients who received chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic TKI exhibited more rash, diarrhea and hypertension (OR 2.78, 95 % CI 2.37-3.26; OR 1.92, 95 % CI 1.65-2.24; OR 2.90, 95 % CI 2.19-3.84, respectively) and less nausea and vomiting (OR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.60-0.83; OR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.61-0.92, respectively). The incidence of hemorrhage, fatigue, cough, constipation, anorexia, and alopecia were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy consisting of chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic TKI was found to have specific advantages over chemotherapy alone in terms of PFS and ORR. The toxicity was comparable between the two therapies. Therefore, chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic TKI may be a safe and valid therapeutic option for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Chemotherapy plus Vandetanib or chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of four randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: Most patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) require systemic chemotherapy. Vandetanib, targeting epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor signalling in NSCLC, has recently been evaluated in combination chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. However, the advantage of chemotherapy plus vandetanib over chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC remains largely unknown. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was carried out to compare the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy plus vandetanib with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed database, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and the Cochrane Library and references of published trials were searched. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials. Data were extracted and the overall response rate, pooled progression-free survival, overall survival with 95% confidence intervals and main toxicity were analysed. RESULTS: Four randomised controlled trials involving 2160 patients with advanced NSCLC were ultimately analysed. Compared with chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus vandetanib significantly increased the overall response rate (relative risk = 1.96, 95% confidence interval = 1.53--2.52) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-0.87), but there was no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.79-1.03). Patients who received chemotherapy plus vandetanib had more rash, diarrhoea, hypertension and QTc prolongation (odds ratio = 2.32, 95% confidence interval = 1.93-2.79; odds ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval = 1.37-1.97; odds ratio = 4.08, 95% confidence interval = 2.51-6.01, odds ratio = 17.77, 95% confidence interval = 3.54-61.66, respectively), and less nausea and vomiting (odds ratio = 0.70, 95% confidence interval = 0.58-0.85; odds ratio = 0.69, 95% confidence interval = 0.55-0.86, respectively). The incidences of haemorrhage, fatigue and cough were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although similar in overall survival, chemotherapy plus vandetanib showed particular advantages over chemotherapy alone in terms of progression-free survival and overall response rate. The toxicity was comparable between the two groups. Therefore, chemotherapy plus vandetanib might be a safe and valid therapeutic option for advanced NSCLC patients.