Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of gefitinib with pemetrexed maintenance after first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced lung adenocarcinoma: single-center experience
Authors Lin L, Zhao J, Hu J, Huang F, Han J, He Y, Cao X
Received 23 May 2016
Accepted for publication 18 September 2016
Published 14 October 2016 Volume 2016:9 Pages 6305—6314
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Jia Fan
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Prof. Dr. Geoffrey Pietersz
Liping Lin,1,2,* Juanjuan Zhao,3,* Jiazhu Hu,1,2 Fuxi Huang,1,2 Jianjun Han,1,2 Yan He,1,2 Xiaolong Cao1,2
1Department of Oncology, Panyu Central Hospital, 2Cancer Institute of Panyu, 3School of Nursing, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Purpose: Both gefitinib and pemetrexed maintenance were effective therapies for advanced lung adenocarcinoma, but which is better is unclear. For patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, we have no idea whether we should choose gefitinib or pemetrexed maintenance in clinical practice. Here, we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of gefitinib versus pemetrexed maintenance in these patients.
Patients and methods: A total of 101 patients were identified and divided into gefitinib (n=53) or pemetrexed (n=48) maintenance. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status of tumors was analyzed in 67 patients. Disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two groups.
Results: The results showed that DCR (79.2% vs 75%, P=0.642) was similar between gefitinib and pemetrexed groups. The PFS of gefitinib was significantly longer than that of pemetrexed (8 months vs 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.520, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.341–0.791, P=0.002); however, the OS was similar (19.9 months vs 18.8 months, HR: 1.006, 95% CI: 0.664–1.525, P=0.977). In EGFR mutation-positive patients, PFS was significantly longer in gefitinib (12 months vs 5.4 months; HR: 0.158, 95% CI: 0.074–0.333, P<0.001), whereas in EGFR wild-type subgroup gefitinib had a significantly shorter PFS than that by pemetrexed (2.5 months vs 5 months; HR: 2.822, 95% CI: 1.137–7.005, P=0.025). Cox multivariate regression analysis of PFS for overall population showed that smoking status (P=0.001) and maintenance regimens (P=0.013) were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Both gefitinib and pemetrexed were well tolerated.
Conclusion: Gefitinib compared with pemetrexed as maintenance therapy had a significantly longer PFS and a similar OS with good tolerability in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Moreover, for EGFR mutation-positive patients, gefitinib maintenance had a significantly longer PFS; however, pemetrexed maintenance was considered more effective for EGFR wild-type patients.
Keywords: gefitinib, pemetrexed, lung adenocarcinoma, maintenance therapy
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]