ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2025
Optimizing afatinib dosage: enhancing treatment outcomes and minimizing toxicities in advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer patients in Vietnam.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2025. 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.
- Lung cancer across borders: From molecular epidemiology to precision treatment strategies.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Afatinib's efficacy and dose-adjustment strategies have been validated in clinical trials and increasingly supported by real-world evidence. Objectives: This study aimed to provide additional real-world insights into afatinib use and to assess the impact of initial dosing and subsequent dose modifications on treatment outcomes and tolerability in patients with advanced epidermal-growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC who received first-line afatinib between April 2018 and June 2022. Methods: Patients were categorized into four subgroups based on their starting and optimal afatinib doses. The primary endpoints were to analyze the association between afatinib dosing and time-to-treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Results: A total of 343 patients were included. The most common starting afatinib dose was 30 mg (58.6%), followed by 40 mg (39.9%). The optimal dose maintained during treatment was 30 mg in 62.1% of patients, 40 mg in 33.2%, and 20 mg in 4.7%. Dose reductions due to toxicity occurred in 23.6% of cases. Regarding four subgroups: 53.1% of patients started and remained on <40 mg, 25.4% started and maintained 40 mg, 14.6% started at 40 mg but de-escalated to <40 mg, and 7.0% started <40 mg and escalated to 40 mg. After a median follow-up of 36.8 months, the median OS for all patients was 31.3 months (95% confidence interval: 29.3-33.1). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified smoking status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and EGFR mutation subtype as independent prognostic factors for OS. Notably, patients who initiated treatment at 40 mg but de-escalated to <40 mg had the longest median TTF and OS. In terms of safety, the highest incidence of adverse events was observed in this group, followed by those who started and remained at <40 mg. Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, flexible afatinib dosing-either by initiating at 40 mg followed by dose reduction or starting at <40 mg with later escalation-was associated with favorable survival outcomes and manageable tolerability. These findings support the use of individualized afatinib dosing strategies to optimize both efficacy and safety in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.
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.