Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38373960›Full record

Observational studyBMC cancer2024

The difference between dacomitinib and afatinib in effectiveness and safety in first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world observational study.

Wen-Chien Cheng, Chi-Chien Lin, Wei-Chih Liao, Yu-Chao Lin, Chia-Hung Chen, Hung-Jen Chen, Chih-Yen Tu, Te-Chun Hsia

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. J-REGISTER: real-world study of Japanese patients withFuture oncology (London, England) · 2025
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Wen-Chien ChengDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chi-Chien LinInstitute of Biomedical Science, the iEGG and Animal Biotechnology Center, Advanced Plant and Food Crop Biotechnology Center, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. lincc@email.nchu.edu.tw.
Wei-Chih LiaoDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Yu-Chao LinDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chia-Hung ChenDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Hung-Jen ChenDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chih-Yen TuDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. chesttu@gmail.com.
Te-Chun HsiaDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. hsia1914@gmail.com.
China Medical University Hospital · TWChina Medical University · TWKaohsiung Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) afatinib and dacomitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and dacomitinib in this setting. MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween September 2020 and March 2023, we retrospectively recruited patients diagnosed with advanced-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC who were treated with first-line irreversible EGFR-TKIs. The enrolled patients were assigned to two groups based on whether they received afatinib or dacomitinib.

resultsA total of 101 patients were enrolled in the study (70 to afatinib and 31 to dacomitinib). The partial response rates (PR) for first-line treatment with afatinib and dacomitinib were 85.7 and 80.6% (p = 0.522). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (18.9 vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.975) and time to treatment failure (TTF) (22.7 vs. 15.9 months, p = 0.324) in patients with afatinib and dacomitinib treatment were similar. There was no significant difference observed in the median PFS (16.1 vs. 18.9 months, p = 0.361) and TTF (32.5 vs. 19.6 months, p = 0.182) between patients receiving the standard dose and those receiving the reduced dose. In terms of side effects, the incidence of diarrhea was higher in the afatinib group (75.8% vs. 35.5%, p <  0.001), while the incidence of paronychia was higher in the dacomitinib group (58.1% vs. 31.4%, p = 0.004). The PFS (17.6 vs. 24.9 months, p = 0.663) and TTF (21.3 vs. 25.1 months, p = 0.152) were similar between patients younger than 75 years and those older than 75 years.

conclusionThis study showed that afatinib and dacomitinib had similar effectiveness and safety profiles. However, they have slightly different side effects. Afatinib and dacomitinib can be safely administered to patients across different age groups with appropriate dose reductions.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsQuinazolinonesAfatinibErbB ReceptorsHumansMutationProtein Kinase InhibitorsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAfatinibdacomitinibEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsProtein Kinase InhibitorsQuinazolinonesAfatinibDacomitinibEpidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Identifiers

PMID38373960
PMCPMC10875818
OpenAlexW4391942771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.