ReviewInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2025
Efficacy and safety of EGFR-TKI for EGFR-mutated NSCLC: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-marketing safety surveillance of EGFR-targeted agents and disseminated intravascular coagulation risk: a disproportionality analysis based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Dose-escalated icotinib in frail, older adults patients withFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfatinib, Dacomitinib, Osimertinib, Aumolertinib, Furmonertinib, Gefitinib, Erlotinib, and Icotinib have all been shown to work and be safe for people with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in recent years, but differences in efficacy, safety, and lack of comparative trials cause clinical confusion in treatment selection. This study analyzes their efficacy and safety via network meta-analysis to inform clinical decisions.
methodWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for pertinent studies. The objective response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), median overall survival (mOS), and adverse events (AEs) were then extracted.
resultIn the efficacy analysis, Afatinib had the greatest ORR at SUCRA=95.9%, outperforming Gefitinib (SUCRA=22.7%) and Icotinib (SUCRA=30.7%). Furmonertinib had the longest mPFS of SUCRA=92.6%, outperforming Gefitinib (SUCRA=10.1%) and Afatinib (SUCRA=11.8%). Dacomitinib had the best TTF (SUCRA=84.1%), followed by Afatinib and Icotinib, which had a longer TTF than Gefitinib (SUCRA=7.0%). In safety evaluations, Aumolertinib performed best in overall grade 1-5 AEs (SUCRA=30.0%) and high-grade (≥3) AEs safety (SUCRA=9.5%), while Afatinib had the worst overall safety rating (SUCRA=68.3%), and Osimertinib had the worst high-grade (≥3) AEs profile. Afatinib and Osimertinib showed significantly greater grade ≥3 AEs compared to Furmonertinib, Icotinib, and Gefitinib. Aumolertinib had reduced frequencies of rash and diarrhea, while Afatinib/Dacomitinib had increased risks of vomiting.
conclusionThis network meta-analysis reveals that in first-line treatment, the third-generation EGFR-TKI Furmonertinib has exceptional advantages in mPFS and safety and is suited for patients with long-term disease control needs. Although second-generation Afatinib has the highest objective remission rate, it also increases the possibility of grade ≥3 AEs. Clinically, personalized programs should be devised based on the patient's mutation type, tolerance, and other factors. More head-to-head trials will be required in the future to validate the findings and optimize treatment techniques.
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.