The benefit and risk of addition of chemotherapy to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases: a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

• Published in: Frontiers in oncology Vol. 14; p. 1448336
• Main Authors: Chen, Zhigang, Fu, Xiang, Zhu, Lingping, Wen, Xiurong, Zhang, Shihao
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A 21-10-2024
• Subjects: brain metastases; chemotherapy; EGFR; meta-analysis; non-small cell lung cancer; Oncology; tyrosine kinase inhibitors
• ISSN: 2234-943X; 2234-943X
• DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1448336

Combining epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with chemotherapy (ETC) offers more advantages for patients with EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) than using EGFR TKIs alone (ET). However, whether this conclusion applies to patients with brain metastases (BM) remains controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefits and risks of the two groups.BackgroundCombining epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with chemotherapy (ETC) offers more advantages for patients with EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) than using EGFR TKIs alone (ET). However, whether this conclusion applies to patients with brain metastases (BM) remains controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefits and risks of the two groups.Six databases were systematically searched for relevant literatures comparing ETC versus ET in treating EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with BM. The primary outcome assessed was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), and central nervous system (CNS)-PFS, responses, progression status and safety.MethodsSix databases were systematically searched for relevant literatures comparing ETC versus ET in treating EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with BM. The primary outcome assessed was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), and central nervous system (CNS)-PFS, responses, progression status and safety.Seven studies based on five randomized clinical trials with 550 patients were included. The ETC group exhibited better OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64 [0.48, 0.87]), PFS (HR: 0.42 [0.34, 0.52]), and CNS-PFS (HR: 0.42 [0.31, 0.57]). The benefits in survival for OS, PFS, and CNS-PFS were validated in nearly all subgroups. Meanwhile, the overall objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.25 [1.02, 1.52]) and CNS-ORR (RR: 1.19 [0.93, 1.51]) also tended to favor the ETC group. However, the addition of chemotherapy also brought about more grade 3-5/serious adverse events (AEs). The top five grade 3-5 AEs in the ETC group were alanine aminotransferase increase (11.25%), neutropenia (7.5%), nausea (7.5%), anorexia (5%), and diarrhea (5%).ResultsSeven studies based on five randomized clinical trials with 550 patients were included. The ETC group exhibited better OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64 [0.48, 0.87]), PFS (HR: 0.42 [0.34, 0.52]), and CNS-PFS (HR: 0.42 [0.31, 0.57]). The benefits in survival for OS, PFS, and CNS-PFS were validated in nearly all subgroups. Meanwhile, the overall objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.25 [1.02, 1.52]) and CNS-ORR (RR: 1.19 [0.93, 1.51]) also tended to favor the ETC group. However, the addition of chemotherapy also brought about more grade 3-5/serious adverse events (AEs). The top five grade 3-5 AEs in the ETC group were alanine aminotransferase increase (11.25%), neutropenia (7.5%), nausea (7.5%), anorexia (5%), and diarrhea (5%).ETC appears to be better than ET in treating EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with BM, with better OS, PFS, CNS-PFS, and responses. However, its poorer safety profile also needs to be taken into consideration.ConclusionsETC appears to be better than ET in treating EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with BM, with better OS, PFS, CNS-PFS, and responses. However, its poorer safety profile also needs to be taken into consideration.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024551073.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024551073.