ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2024
Clinical Management in NSCLC Patients With EGFR Mutation After Osimertinib Progression With Unknown Resistance Mechanisms.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsimertinib is approved as a standard treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation by FDA. However, the mechanisms of resistance for nearly half of patients after osimertinib progression are still unknown, and the optimal therapies for these patients are still controversial. In this retrospective study, we compared efficacy and safety between immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab in NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms.
methodsAdvanced NSCLC patients with unknown resistance mechanisms after osimertinib progression were retrospectively reviewed and divided into immunotherapy + chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment groups according to the treatment they received after osimertinib progression. Clinicopathological features, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups.
resultsA total of 121 patients were enrolled in this study, 22 in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group, 72 in the chemotherapy group, and 27 in the osimertinib + bevacizumab group. The ORR was much higher in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with chemotherapy or osimertinib + bevacizumab group (55.56% vs. 14.81% vs. 0% in patients after progression on 1st line osimertinib treatment; 30.77% vs. 6.67% vs. 13.33% in patients after progression on 2nd/3rd line osimertinib treatment). Median PFS was also significantly longer in the immunotherapy + chemotherapy group compared with other groups (8.2 months vs. 4.0 months vs. 6.0 months in all patients, p = 0.0066). The median OS did not reach remarkable difference among groups, although osimertinib + bevacizumab group had a numerically longer median OS (37.0 months vs. 37.0 months vs. 47.6 months in all patients, p = 0.6357). Compared with immunotherapy + chemotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of osimertinib + bevacizumab were milder, especially in AEs related to gastrointestinal and bone marrow suppression.
conclusionOur study provides clinical evidence that NSCLC patients after osimertinib progression with unknown resistance mechanisms may benefit from immunotherapy + chemotherapy, with higher ORR and longer PFS compared with osimertinib + bevacizumab or chemotherapy groups. Osimertinib + bevacizumab treatment was also an optional option for patients because OS was numerically longer and safer in this group.
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.