ArticleTargeted oncology2022
The Difference in Clinical Outcomes Between Osimertinib and Afatinib for First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced and Recurrent EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Taiwan.
Article in Targeted oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Afatinib Versus Osimertinib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced EGFR-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A 3-Year Follow-Up Overall Survival Analysis.Targeted oncology · 2026Article
- Dacomitinib as a First-Line Therapy for Advanced EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Brain Metastases: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study.Cancer medicine · 2026Observational
- Clinical Outcomes of Different Generation EGFR TKIs in Susceptible EGFR-Mutated Advanced Nonsmall-Cell Lung Cancer.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Local cranial radiation combined with third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors improve leptomeningeal metastasis disease-free survival in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer and brain metastasis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical outcome analysis of different first‑ and second‑generation EGFR‑tyrosine kinase inhibitors in untreated patients with EGFR‑mutated non‑small cell lung cancer with baseline brain metastasis.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Rebiopsy Enhances Survival with Afatinib vs. Osimertinib in EGFR Exon 19 Deletion Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Study in Taiwan.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Optimal first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated NSCLC: a comparative analysis of osimertinib and second-generation EGFR-TKIs.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Observational
- Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Lung Cancer and the Risk of Keratitis.JAMA ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Measured Steps: Navigating the Path of Oligoprogressive Lung Cancer with Targeted and Immunotherapies.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Osimertinib versus comparator first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment in patients with advancedTranslational lung cancer research · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors are the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced and recurrent EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer.
objectiveThe main objective of the present study was to compare the clinical efficacies between osimertinib and afatinib as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced and recurrent non-small cell lung cancer who harbored an exon 19 deletion or an exon 21 L858R mutation and were being given either osimertinib or afatinib as first-line treatment from January 2018 to December 2020.
resultsA total of 128 patients were selected for this study. The osimertinib group included 47 patients, while 81 patients received afatinib. The median follow-up time was 20.1 months in the osimertinib group and 22.7 months in the afatinib group. The median progression-free survival was 18.8 months and 13.1 months in the osimertinib and afatinib groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.48-1.18]). The median overall survival was not reached in the osimertinib group and was 41.7 months in the afatinib group (hazard ratio 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.36-1.72]). In patients without brain metastasis, the median progression-free survival was 17.9 months and 17.2 months in the osimertinib and afatinib groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.02 [95% confidence interval 0.56-1.85]). In patients with brain metastasis at baseline, the median progression-free survival was 22.1 months in the osimertinib group, and 10.9 months in the afatinib group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.45 [95% confidence interval 0.21-0.96]).
conclusionsOur research demonstrates that there was no strong evidence showing that patients taking osimertinib as first-line treatment experienced longer median progression-free survival and overall survival than patients treated with afatinib. However, there was a statistical significance revealing that osimertinib provided better median progression-free survival than afatinib in patients with brain metastasis at baseline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.