ArticleThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2026
Clinical Outcomes of Different Generation EGFR TKIs in Susceptible EGFR-Mutated Advanced Nonsmall-Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2026. 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.
- Nanotechnology-Enabled Precision Therapy for Lung Cancer in Never-Smokers.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are indicated for advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients harboring susceptible EGFR mutations. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the effectiveness of different generations of EGFR TKIs. We enrolled 421 patients with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma and sensitizing EGFR mutations receiving an EGFR-TKI as their first-line therapy, including first-generation (1st G, gefitinib and erlotinib), second-generation (2nd G, afatinib), and third-generation (3rd G, osimertinib) EGFR TKIs. The median progression free survival (PFS) (12.10 vs. 16.67 months vs. not reached; p = 0.0002) and overall survival (OS) (31.23 vs. 45.97 months vs. not reached; p = 0.0215) were significantly different between different generations of EGFR TKIs. 3rd G EGFR TKI provided the best PFS, particularly in patients with exon 19 deletion. The patients receiving 1st G EGFR TKIs (p = 0.005), with exon 19 deletion (p = 0.001) and PFS ≥ 270 days (p = 0.012) had a significantly higher T790M mutation rate. There was no survival difference between the patients receiving frontline 3rd G EGFR TKI and those receiving 3rd G EGFR TKI as sequential therapy (median OS 46.60 months vs. not reached, p = 0.1941). The OS of the patients who did not receive 3rd G EGFR TKI as sequential therapy was significantly worse than those receiving 3rd G EGFR TKI as first-line therapy (median OS 22.47 months vs. not reached, p = 0.0042). In conclusion, 3rd G EGFR TKI may provide better survival benefits as first-line therapy for patients harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations, particularly those with exon 19 deletion.
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.