Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2020 Aug 21;99(34):e21826. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021826

The efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating nonsmall cell lung cancer

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

Jing Liu 1, Xuemei Li 1, Yinghong Shao 1, Xiyun Guo 1, Jinggui He 1,∗
Editor: Robert Chen1
PMCID: PMC7447427  PMID: 32846826

Abstract

Background:

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) is the primary treatment in treating with EGFR mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the third-generation EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, and summarize the risk factors associating with outcome after osimertinib treatment.

Method:

The Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were systematically searched due to December 10, 2019. All the studies that mentioned the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), treatment response, and adverse events (AEs) of osimertinib were involved in our study. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals was used for comparing OS and PFS.

Result:

A total of 47 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 14 studies were used to compare the efficacy between osimertinib and other EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy. Patients treating with osimertinib favors a higher OS and PFS in all the patients (HR = 0.56 and 0.38, P < .001, respectively), and in subgroup analysis, compared with other treatments. Median 55% T790 mutant NSCLC patients might experience partial response, and 25% of patients remained as stable disease. The incidence of severe AE ranged from 0% to 5%, and the most common severe AE was pneumonia (3%). Patients with the T858R mutation may have a better OS than Del 19 mutation (HR = 0.55, P = .037), while patients who have a smoking history may have a higher risk of progression than never-smoker patients (HR = 1.47, P = .028).

Conclusion:

Osimertinib has an impressive antitumor activity compared with prior EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy with an acceptable response and tolerable AEs. EGFR mutation type and smoking status were the risk factors for mortality and progression in NSCLC patients.

Keywords: EGFR-TKI, nonsmall cell lung cancer, osimertinib, toxicity

1. Introduction

Lung cancer is the most common cancer globally, and its incidence is still increasing.[1] Most recently, the research report shows that 222,500 new lung cancer cases occurred in the United States in 2017, accounting for 13.3% of all new tumors.[2] In China, more than 800,000 lung cancer patients were newly diagnosed each year, and the mortality rate ranks first in malignant tumors.[3] Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for about 80% of the total number of lung cancers, and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is one of the most common driver genes of NSCLC.[4] Paez, Lynch, and other studies confirmed that EGFR mutations are related to the efficacy of gefitinib, and further revealed the molecular mechanism of NSCLC's sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI).[5] Subsequently, several prospective clinical studies have confirmed that EGFR-sensitive mutations play a pivotal role in screening TKIs predominant populations (such as Asian, female, adenocarcinoma, and nonsmoking).[6,7] Currently, the first-generation EGFR-TKI, gefitinib and erlotinib, and second-generation EGFR-TKI afatinib and dacotinib were widely used in treating EGFR-positive mutations.[8] A large number of randomized phase III clinical trials have concluded that gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib are more effective when applied to untreated advanced NSCLC with mutations in the EGFR gene, with longer survival rate and lower toxicity than standard platinum 2-drug combination chemotherapy.[9,10] As a result, EGFR-TKI is currently recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.[11,12] Unfortunately, most patients undergoing initial EGFR-TKI treatment will progress within 10 to 12 months after initial treatment and develop resistance, and several mechanisms of first-generation EGFR-TKI acquired resistance have been reported.[13] In more than half of the cases, a common drug resistance mechanism is a unique missense mutation in exon 20, the so-called T790 M mutation, in which threonine at 790th is replaced by methionine.[14] Compared with reversible EGFR-TKIs such as gefitinib and erlotinib, it has an increased affinity for ATP, and ATP competes for alternative drugs in the binding site, thus making the tumor resistant to the reversible EGFR-TKI inhibition.[15]

Osimertinib is an oral, selective third-generation EGFR-TKI inhibitor, which has an excellent inhibitory effect on the T790 M mutation. It can selectively and irreversibly target mutant EGFR and T790 while retaining wild-type EGFR tyrosine kinase, and targeting EGFR gene catalysis through the formation of covalent bonds. The C797 of the ATP-binding site of the domain forms a covalent bond, thereby irreversibly binding to a specific EGFR mutant form, inhibiting downstream signal pathway activity, and exerting a role in inhibiting tumor cell proliferation and promoting apoptosis.[16] The third-generation EGFR-TKI osimertinib has achieved significant results in patients with NSCLC who have progressed to T790 M mutation after treatment with EGFR-TKIs.[17,18] The AURA3 study showed that it reached 71% overall response rate (ORR) and 10.1 month progression-free survival (PFS) in treating T790 M mutant NSCLC patients.[19] Moreover, in terms of adverse reactions, osimertinib has a lower rate of grade 3 adverse events (AEs) than the first-generation TKIs, especially for the patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastasis.[20] Due to the excellent efficacy of the AURA series, osimertinib is currently the standard treatment protocol for obtaining T790 M mutation after the first-line application of EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutations.[21] Based on the results of the FLAURA study in October 2017, osimertinib is recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutations, and it is listed as a priority recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in 2019.[20] Although some meta-analysis showed the efficacy of osimertinib was superior to other treatments in treating NSCLC, the safety and the outcome evaluation of osimertinib itself had not fully reported yet. Moreover, due to the strict criteria that the randomized control studies (RCT) involved, the results seemed contrarious with mixed results with the real-world trial data. Thus, we designed this systematic review and meta-analysis, aiming to evaluate the response rate, AEs, and survival outcome in NSCLC patients treating with osimertinib. In this study, we included observational, real-world, cohort, and RCT to summarize the risk factors associated with outcome after osimertinib treatment.

2. Methods

This study was designed following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.[22]

2.1. Search strategy

A systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to compare the effectiveness of osimertinib with other EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating NSCLC. The Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were systematically searched due to December 10, 2019. Besides, the gray literature was undertaken using important related conferences (European Society of Medical Oncology, European Cancer Conference, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and World Conference on Lung Cancer) and Google Scholar. The key words were designed by an experienced librarian. In brief, the keywords included “osimertinib” OR “AZD9291” OR “third-generation EGFR-TKI,” and “nonsmall cell lung cancer.” All the studies containing abstracts and titles were imported into Endnote X7 to find duplicate studies and then for literature screening.

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All the studies mentioned the overall survival (OS), PFS, treatment response, and AEs of osimertinib were involved in our study. The inclusion criteria were: The studies enrolled patients with histologically diagnosed as NSCLC with EGFR activating mutation; The studies reported the survival outcome, treatment response rate, or toxicity rate at least in osimertinib treatment group and the data of the outcome could be extracted. The meta-analysis, reviews, conference abstracts, and comments were recorded for the further inclusion of the papers. Only English written papers were involved in systematic reviews.

The exclusion criteria were: in vitro or in vivo experiment; case reports, case series, or the case less than 10; non-English written studies. Data from the same project or center will be selected as one for further meta-analysis.

2.3. Literature screening and data extraction

Two researchers (JL and XM L) independently screened the titles and abstracts based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full text was further evaluated if the abstracts could not be determined and the data could not be extracted. The third investigator (JGH) was adapted for discussion if any disagreement existed.

A standard form was designed for data extraction and the data were collected according to the following information: the study characteristics (author, publish year, country, institution, recruitment period, study design, subcategory, etc.), patient characteristics (treatment, total sample, median age, gender, smoking status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance status etc.), and outcome assessment (treatment response, toxicity, and survival status). The treatment response, including ORR, disease control rate (DCR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progression disease (PD), was assessed in accordance with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.[23] PFS was defined as the time from randomization to first progression or death. OS was defined as the time from treatment until death from any cause.

2.4. Quality assessment

Two researchers (JL and YHS) independently assess the quality of the including papers. Generally speaking, a modified Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the randomized control studies. The scores of low-quality studies ranged from 0 to 3, whereas those of high-quality studies ranged from 4 to 8. For nonrandomized studies, the quality was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, with a high quality of 6 to 9, whereas low quality was scored as 0 to 5.[24]

2.5. Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed by Stata 15.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). P value < .05 was set as significant difference. When comparing the outcome between 2 different treatments or risk factors, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was extracted. For 1 study, the single proportion, such as AEs rate and response rate, was derived using the Wilson score method.[25] The I2 statistic and χ2 test were used for heterogeneity assessment (I2 ≥ 50% indicating the presence of heterogeneity). When the heterogeneity not existed, the fix-effects model was used while the random-effect model was used in the opposite way. Finally, the forest plots were drawn, and funnel plots were used for evaluating the publication bias.

3. Results

3.1. Literature selection

A total of 4051 studies were found according to the search strategy. The literature screening process was shown in the flowchart (Fig. 1). After screening the abstracts and titles, 236 studies were scanned in full-text. After excluding the incompatible studies, a total of 47 studies were included in the systematic review, in which 14 studies were used to compare the efficacy between osimertinib and other EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy,[19,20,26–37] and 40 studies were used to evaluate the treatment response and AEs.[16,20,21,26,28,30,31,34,35,38–68]

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of literature screening of the meta-analysis.

3.2. The comparison of efficacy between osimertinib and other treatments

The characteristics of the studies comparing osimertinib and other treatments were summarized in Table 1. A total of 4229 patients were included. However, 7 studies were from the FLAURA program and 4 studies were from the AURA3 program. The median age was 62 years old, while 62% were female, and 67% were never-smoking patients. FLAURA trial was mainly compared with osimertinib with other EGFR-TKI, AURA3, AURA, and IMPRESS were mainly compared with chemotherapy, and CAURAL study was mainly compared with combining the use of Durvalumab. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated as low risk

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies comparing osimertinib with EGFR-TKI/chemotherapy in treating NSCLC.

3.2.

Open in a new tab

The meta-analysis comparing OS and PFS was shown in Fig. 2. In terms of OS, the patients treating with osimertinib favors a higher survival rate compared with other treatments (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44–0.71, P < .001). Similarly, osimertinib increased the PFS in comparison with other treatments (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.33–0.44, P < .001). Moreover, osimertinib was superior in PFS than other treatments in the subgroup analysis, such as gender, age, smoking status, and EGFR driving mutation (all P < .05, Supplement Figure).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The forest plot comparing of overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) between osimertinib and other treatments.

3.3. The characteristics and treatment response of patients treating with osimertinib

A total of 6900 patients in 40 studies were involved in assessing the safety and efficacy of osimertinib (Table 2 ). The recruitment year was between 2013 and 2018, and the median age was 64.1 years old. 64.9% of patients were female, 71.4% of patients had no smoking history, and 60.9% of patients (range from 35.1% to 84.1%) were positive Del 19 mutation. In terms of the prior EGFR-TKI treatment, 63.1% of patients were treated with gefitinib, and 32.6% were treated with erlotinib previously. The median ORR was 54.7%, and the median DCR was 86.0%. The treatment response was shown in Figure 3. The median CR was 3% (95% CI = 1%–4%), while 55% of patients might experience PR when treating with osimertinib (95% CI = 46%–64%). Twenty-five percent of patients had SD experience (95% CI = 18%–32%), but 11% of patients may have a progression response eventually (95% CI = 9%–14%).

Table 2.

Characteristics of involved studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of osimertinib.

3.3.

Open in a new tab

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

The forest plot of single proportion in evaluating complete response (A), partial response (B), stable disease (C), and progression disease (D) after osimertinib treatment.

3.4. Toxicities

The common AEs, including all grades and grades≥III, associated with osimertinib were listed in Table 3. The highest incidence of all-grade AEs was rash, occupying 42% patients (95% CI 34%–50%). The second common was diarrhea, occupying 35% of patients (95% CI 22%–49%). Besides, the incidence of all grade paronychia, dry skin, stomatitis was higher than 20%. The prevalence of headache, nausea, anorexia, headache, vomiting, anemia, pruritus, constipation, fatigue, and cough was between 10% and 20%. However, most of the results presented a higher heterogeneity (median I2 = 64.9%, range from 0% to 99.0%). The increasing number of involved studies was related to a higher I2 (r2 = 0.566, P = .001).

Table 2 (Continued).

Characteristics of involved studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of osimertinib.

3.4.

Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Meta-analysis of the common adverse events.

3.4.

Open in a new tab

In terms of the grade ≥III AE, the result indicated that the highest common AE was pneumonia, which was 3% (95% CI 0%–5%, I2 = 58.6%). The second common was anorexia, which was 2% (95% CI 1%–3%, I2 = 60.0%). The incidence of other AE was 0% to 1%, with an acceptable heterogeneity.

3.5. Risk factors associated with survival outcome in treating with osimertinib

The risk factors associated with the survival outcome were presented in Figure 4 OS and Figure 5 PFS. Age and ECOG performance status were not the significant risk factor associated with survival outcomes in patients treating with osimertinib. Patients with the T858R mutation may have a better OS than Del 19 mutation (HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.31–0.96, P = .037, I2 = 10.4%), but no significant statistical difference in PFS (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.37–1.09, P = .103, I2 = 67.8%). Patients who have a smoking history may have a higher risk of progression than never-smoker patients (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.04–2.08, P = .028, I2 = 3.5%), with no significant difference in mortality (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.78–2.14, P = .313, I2 = 0%).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

The forest plot indicating the risk factors, including EGFR mutation, ECOG PS, smoking status and age, for overall survival after osimertinib treatment. EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor, ECOG PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance status.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

The forest plot indicating the risk factors, including EGFR mutation, ECOG PS, smoking status and age, for progression-free survival after osimertinib treatment. EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor, ECOG PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance status.

4. Discussion

This is the largest-scale systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients. Our meta-analysis suggested that osimertinib presented a better long-term survival outcome compared with other EGFR-TKI treatments and chemotherapy, with an acceptable AE. The EGFR mutation and smoking status were the risk factors associated with outcome in patients treating with osimertinib. More RCTs and real-world data analysis need to be performed to demonstrate its efficacy in different regions and populations.

Osimertinib, also named as AZD9291, has a distinctive and unique chemical structure. Compared with wild-type EGFR, osimertinib has a nearly 200-fold potency in resistance to L858R/T790 M, which confirm its selectivity to the mutant EGFR NSCLC.[69] In establishing in vitro models to evaluate the specificity of different EGFR TKI mutations, osimertinib has shown a full therapeutic window of resistance to EGFR T790 M mutations.[70] It has also demonstrated minimal off-target kinase activity when studying a variety of other kinases, thus demonstrating the overall selectivity of osimertinib. Interestingly, osimertinib did not show activity on insulin-like growth factor receptor 1, and insulin receptors in vitro and this observation was confirmed in vivo studies, indicating that osimertinib was associated with low risk of hyperglycemia-related dose-limiting toxicity.[69] Unlike the first-generation TKI, osimertinib is more effective to inhibit phosphorylation in T790 M mutant cell lines (H1975 and PC −9), can also more effectively inhibit downstream signal transduction substrates (pAKT, pERK). Based on the encouraging results of preclinical studies, osimertinib has mostly demonstrated its continued antitumor activity as a selective inhibitor of EGFR mutations.[69,70]

In terms of clinical trials, the phase I/II AURA trials were designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of osimertinib in the progression of disease after receiving EGFR TKI in patients with advanced NSCLC.[16] In this study, a total of 253 patients with known EGFR sensitization mutations or those who have benefited from the clinical treatment of EGFR-TKI and have significant disease progression during treatment were included: a total of 31 patients in a dose-escalation cohort.[5] There were 222 patients in the extended queue. In the expanded cohort, tumor biopsies were performed on all patients to determine the mutation status of EGFR T790 M, of which 138 (62%) were mutation-positive. Of the 239 evaluable patients, 123 (51%) had a clear objective response, including 122 patients with PR and 1 CR with a DCR of 84%, and the median PFS duration was 8.2 months. The results and safety of the AURA I/II were encouraging, and the subsequent phase II AURA also presented an inspiring result in multicenter, single-course analysis. A total of 210 patients with EGFR T790 M mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were enrolled and received 80 mg orally daily osimertinib treatment.[68] As of the data deadline (January 1, 2015), the median follow-up time was 13 months, and 58% of patients were still receiving treatment. Of the 199 evaluable patients, the ORR was 70%, of which CR was 3% and, DCR was 92%. The high proportion of objective responses was consistent across all subgroups, including patients with CNS metastases. Subsequent phase II AURA extended studies also confirmed that after EGFR TKI treatment, patients with EGFR-sensitive and T790M-positive NSCLC benefited from osimertinib treatment.[21] Afterward, a randomized phase III clinical trial (AURA3) was designed to demonstrate that osimertinib is superior to platinum in patients with EGFR mutations and T790M-positive NSCLC who have disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy with Pemetrexed. Patients with EGFR mutations and T790M-positive NSCLC after disease progression after TKI treatment are superior to standard chemotherapy with platinum and Pemetrexed.[19] Compared with the control group, the median PFS and ORR in the osimertinib group were significantly improved. FLAURA is a phase III, double-blind, international multicenter study that assessed the safety and efficacy of first-line treatment of osimertinib and early EGFR TKI in locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-positive NSCLC. The risk of disease progression or death was significantly reduced by 54% in the osimertinib group (HR = 0.46), and this advantage was observed in all subgroups, includes patients with CNS metastases at baseline.[20] These were the most extensive and analytical studies comparing osimertinib and other treatments up to now. After combining the results of the clinical studies, our meta-analysis still demonstrated that osimertinib has superior efficacy than other treatments in treating with EGFR mutation NSCLC patients.

Rash and diarrhea were the most common AEs in patients treating with osimertinib, among which only 1% patients will have severe toxicity. Interstitial pneumonia is one of the severe AEs that causes discontinuation of treatment with osimertinib. Our meta-analysis summarized 22 patients had severe pneumonia occupying 3% of the patients. Some clinical trials also stated that the incidence of these AEs is 3.3%, of which 0.5% is life-threatening.[59] The results of the geographical distribution study showed that the impact of pneumonia in the Japanese population was relatively high, reaching 9%, while the impact in the non-Japanese Asian population was comparable to that of Whites, approximately 4%.[21] Also, some studies have pointed out the use of programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors or both at the same time as the risk factors for interstitial pneumonia.[71] Ahn et al[72] reported that the incidence of interstitial pneumonia was as high as 38% in patients who used both osimertinib and duvazumab, which may be related to the enhanced immunological activity of lymphocyte T cells CD8 + by PD-1 inhibitors. The median time to interstitial pneumonia after using osimertinib was 34.5 days (4–114 days). After the occurrence of interstitial pneumonia, it is generally necessary to discontinue osimertinib and receive supportive care, including glucocorticoids.[21] In our meta-analysis, the heterogeneity remained higher, which was related to the increasing number of involved studies.

There were some limitations to our study. First, almost all the RCTs were from the AURA3 or FLAURA studies, and most of the studies were not controlled studies, which may decrease the quality of the meta-analysis. Therefore, more RCTs comparing osimertinib and other therapy are needed to validate the current result. Second, the subgroup analysis of T790 positive and negative, first-line use, and second use of osimertinib was not performed due to the insufficient data. Third, although we included a large scale of NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib, this study was not a meta-analysis based on the “individual patients,” thus much of essential data were lost when reviewing from each manuscript. While due to the lower incidence of the AEs, the rate remains heterogeneity, which could not be avoided in our current meta-analysis. Further efforts need to be made in individual patient meta-analyses and regressions to discuss the efficacy and safety in patients treating with osimertinib.

5. Conclusion

Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that osimertinib has an impressive antitumor activity compared with prior EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy. The sequential use of osimertinib could achieve an acceptable response with tolerable AEs. EGFR mutation type and smoking status were the risk factors for mortality and progression in NSCLC patients. Further clinical trials, real-world data are needed to update this meta-analysis and investigate the role of osimertinib in treating NSCLC patients.

Author contributions

Design of the meta-analysis: Jing Liu and Jinggui He

Literature screening: Jing Liu and Xuemei Li

Quality assessment: Yinghong Shao and Jing Liu

Statistics analysis: Xiyun Guo

Write and revise: Jing Liu, Xuemei Li, Yinghong Shao, Xiyun Guo, and Jinggui He

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Digital Content

Footnotes

Abbreviations: AE = adverse event, CI = confidence intervals, CNS = central nervous system, CR = complete response, DCR = disease control rate, EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor, HR = hazard ratio, NSCLC = nonsmall cell lung cancer, ORR = overall response rate, OS = overall survival, PD = progression disease, PFS = progression-free survival, PR = partial response, RCT = randomized control study, SD = stable disease, TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

How to cite this article: Liu J, Li X, Shao Y, Guo X, He J. The efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating non-small cell lung cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2020;99:34(e21826).

This study was waived from our local ethical committee due to the data from the publication studies.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  • [1].Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:7–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Chen W, Zheng R, Zhang S, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2013. Cancer Lett 2017;401:63–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Molina JR, Yang P, Cassivi SD, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clinic Proceedings; 2008: Elsevier. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Haber D, Bell D, Sordella R, et al. Molecular targeted therapy of lung cancer: EGFR mutations and response to EGFR inhibitors. Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology; 2005: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Fukuoka M, Wu Y-L, Thongprasert S, et al. Biomarker analyses and final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer in Asia (IPASS). J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2866–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Maemondo M, et al. Updated overall survival results from a randomized phase III trial comparing gefitinib with carboplatin–paclitaxel for chemo-naïve non-small cell lung cancer with sensitive EGFR gene mutations (NEJ002). Ann Oncol 2012;24:54–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Mitsudomi T. Erlotinib, gefitinib, or chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung cancer? Lancet Oncol 2011;12:710–1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:239–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Han J-Y, Park K, Kim S-W, et al. First-SIGNAL: first-line single-agent iressa versus gemcitabine and cisplatin trial in never-smokers with adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1122–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Masters GA, Temin S, Azzoli CG, et al. Systemic therapy for stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:3488–515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Reck M, Popat S, Reinmuth N, et al. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014;25: suppl_3: iii27–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Cortot AB, Jänne PA. Molecular mechanisms of resistance in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant lung adenocarcinomas. Eur Respir Soc 2014;23:356–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Helena AY, Arcila ME, Rekhtman N, et al. Analysis of tumor specimens at the time of acquired resistance to EGFR-TKI therapy in 155 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:2240–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Sequist LV, Waltman BA, Dias-Santagata D, et al. Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Sci Transl Med 2011;3:75ra26–175ra. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Janne PA, Yang JC, Kim DW, et al. AZD9291 in EGFR inhibitor-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1689–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Helena AY, Tian SK, Drilon AE, et al. Acquired resistance of EGFR-mutant lung cancer to a T790M-specific EGFR inhibitor: emergence of a third mutation (C797S) in the EGFR tyrosine kinase domain. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:982–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Watanabe S, Sone T, Matsui T, et al. Transformation to small-cell lung cancer following treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in a patient with lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer 2013;82:370–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Mok TS, Wu YL, Ahn MJ, et al. Osimertinib or Platinum-Pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;376:629–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;378:113–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Yang JC, Ahn MJ, Kim DW, et al. Osimertinib in pretreated T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: AURA study phase II extension component. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:1288–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17:857–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Ramalingam SS, Vansteenkiste J, Planchard D, et al. Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med 2019;382:41–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Planchard D, Boyer MJ, Lee JS, et al. Postprogression outcomes for osimertinib versus standard-of-Care EGFR-TKI in patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:2058–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Ohe Y, Imamura F, Nogami N, et al. Osimertinib versus standard-of-care EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for EGFRm advanced NSCLC: FLAURA Japanese subset. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2019;49:29–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Gray JE, Okamoto I, Sriuranpong V, et al. Tissue and plasma EGFR mutation analysis in the FLAURA trial: osimertinib versus comparator EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:6644–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Cho BC, Chewaskulyong B, Lee KH, et al. Osimertinib versus standard of care EGFR TKI as first-line treatment in patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC: FLAURA Asian Subset. J Thorac Oncol 2019;14:99–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Chih-Hsin Yang J, Shepherd FA, Kim DW, et al. Osimertinib plus durvalumab versus osimertinib monotherapy in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC following previous EGFR TKI therapy: CAURAL brief report. J Thorac Oncol 2019;14:933–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Sebastian M, Ryden A, Walding A, et al. Patient-reported symptoms possibly related to treatment with osimertinib or chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2018;122:100–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Reungwetwattana T, Nakagawa K, Cho BC, et al. CNS response to osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018;JCO2018783118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Odogwu L, Mathieu L, Goldberg KB, et al. FDA benefit-risk assessment of osimertinib for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor T790 M mutation. Oncologist 2018;23:353–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Nie K, Zhang Z, Zhang C, et al. Osimertinib compared docetaxel-bevacizumab as third-line treatment in EGFR T790 M mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2018;121:5–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Mann H, Andersohn F, Bodnar C, et al. Adjusted indirect comparison using propensity score matching of osimertinib to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with EGFRm T790 M NSCLC who have progressed after EGFR-TKI. Clin Drug Investig 2018;38:319–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Akamatsu H, Katakami N, Okamoto I, et al. Osimertinib in Japanese patients with EGFR T790 M mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: AURA3 trial. Cancer Sci 2018;109:1930–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Zhao S, Li X, Zhao C, et al. Loss of T790 M mutation is associated with early progression to osimertinib in Chinese patients with advanced NSCLC who are harboring EGFR T790 M. Lung Cancer 2019;128:33–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Yoshimura A, Yamada T, Okura N, et al. Clinical characteristics of osimertinib responder in non-small cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-T790 M mutation. Cancers 2019;11: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Yang JCH, Kim SW, Kim DW, et al. Osimertinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and leptomeningeal metastases: the BLOOM study. J Clin Oncol 2019;38:538–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Xing P, Mu Y, Hao X, et al. Data from real world to evaluate the efficacy of osimertinib in non-small cell lung cancer patients with central nervous system metastasis. Clin Transl Oncol 2019;21:1424–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Xie L, Nagpal S, Wakelee HA, et al. Osimertinib for EGFR-mutant lung cancer with brain metastases: results from a single-center retrospective study. Oncologist 2019;24:836–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Su PL, Yang SC, Chen YL, et al. Real-world outcomes of NSCLC patients receiving tissue or circulating tumor DNA-guided osimertinib treatment. Cancer Med 2019;8:5939–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Park CK, Cho HJ, Choi YD, et al. A phase II trial of osimertinib in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with the EGFR T790 M mutation, detected from circulating tumor DNA: LiquidLung-O-Cohort 2. Cancer Res Treat 2019;51:777–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Ono T, Igawa S, Ozawa T, et al. Evaluation of osimertinib efficacy according to body surface area and body mass index in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring an EGFR mutation: a prospective observational study. Thorac Cancer 2019;10:880–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Nakashima K, Kimura M, Akamatsu H, et al. Osimertinib for patients with EGFR T790 M mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and a poor performance status. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2019;49:671–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Nakao A, Hiranuma O, Uchino J, et al. Osimertinib in elderly patients with epidermal growth factor receptor T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer who progressed during prior treatment: a phase II trial. Oncologist 2019;24:593–e170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Mu Y, Xing P, Hao X, et al. Real-world data of osimertinib in patients with pretreated non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. Cancer Manag Res 2019;11:9243–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [49].Mu Y, Hao X, Yang K, et al. Clinical modality of resistance and subsequent management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer failing treatment with osimertinib. Target Oncol 2019;14:335–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Marinis F, Wu YL, de Castro G, Jr, et al. ASTRIS: a global real-world study of osimertinib in >3000 patients with EGFR T790 M positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol 2019;15:3003–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Kuo CS, Huang CH, Liu CY, et al. Prior EGFR-TKI Treatment in EGFR-Mutated NSCLC affects the allele frequency fraction of acquired T790 M and the subsequent efficacy of osimertinib. Target Oncol 2019;14:433–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [52].Kawamura T, Kenmotsu H, Kobayashi H, et al. Negative impact of malignant effusion on osimertinib treatment for non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutation. Invest New Drugs 2019;38:194–201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [53].Kato Y, Hosomi Y, Watanabe K, et al. Impact of clinical features on the efficacy of osimertinib therapy in patients with T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer and acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Thorac Dis 2019;11:2350–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [54].Jaiswal R, Pinninti R, Krishna MM, et al. T790 M mutation and clinical outcomes with osimertinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2019;40:73–8. [Google Scholar]
  • [55].Igawa S, Ono T, Kasajima M, et al. Impact of EGFR genotype on the efficacy of osimertinib in EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor-resistant patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective observational study. Cancer Manag Res 2019;11:4883–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [56].Ichihara E, Hotta K, Ninomiya K, et al. Re-administration of osimertinib in osimertinib-acquired resistant non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2019;132:54–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [57].Hirashima T, Satouchi M, Hida T, et al. Osimertinib for Japanese patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled subgroup analysis. Cancer Sci 2019;110:2884–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [58].Cho JH, Lim SH, An HJ, et al. Osimertinib for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring uncommon EGFR mutations: a multicenter, open-label, phase II trial (KCSG-LU15-09). J Clin Oncol 2019;38:488–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [59].Cho BC, Kim DW, Park K, et al. Real-world use of osimertinib in non-small cell lung cancer: ASTRIS study Korean subgroup analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2019;36:477–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [60].Cao Y, Qiu X, Xiao G, et al. Effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in patients with metastatic EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC: an observational real-world study. PLoS One 2019;14:e0221575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [61].Ahn MJ, Tsai CM, Shepherd FA, et al. Osimertinib in patients with T790 M mutation-positive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer: long-term follow-up from a pooled analysis of 2 phase 2 studies. Cancer 2019;125:892–901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [62].Stratmann JA, Michels S, Hornetz S, et al. Efficacy and safety analysis of the German expanded access program of osimertinib in patients with advanced, T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2018;144:2457–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [63].Lee H, Lee HY, Sun JM, et al. Transient asymptomatic pulmonary opacities during osimertinib treatment and its clinical implication. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:1106–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [64].Furuta H, Uemura T, Yoshida T, et al. Efficacy and safety data of osimertinib in elderly patients with NSCLC who Harbor the EGFR T790 M mutation after failure of initial EGFR-TKI treatment. Anticancer Res 2018;38:5231–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [65].Buder A, Hochmair MJ, Schwab S, et al. Cell-free plasma DNA-guided treatment with osimertinib in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:821–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [66].Remon J, Caramella C, Jovelet C, et al. Osimertinib benefit in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with T790M-mutation detected by circulating tumour DNA. Ann Oncol 2017;28:784–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [67].Fujiwara Y, Goto Y, Kanda S, et al. Efficacy and safety of osimertinib in a Japanese compassionate use program. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2017;47:625–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [68].Goss G, Tsai CM, Shepherd FA, et al. Osimertinib for pretreated EGFR Thr790Met-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (AURA2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1643–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [69].Cross DA, Ashton SE, Ghiorghiu S, et al. AZD9291, an irreversible EGFR TKI, overcomes T790M-mediated resistance to EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer. Cancer Discov 2014;4:1046–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [70].Hirano T, Yasuda H, Tani T, et al. In vitro modeling to determine mutation specificity of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors against clinically relevant EGFR mutants in non-small-cell lung cancer. Oncotarget 2015;6:38789–803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [71].Mamesaya N, Kenmotsu H, Katsumata M, et al. Osimertinib-induced interstitial lung disease after treatment with anti-PD1 antibody. Invest New Drugs 2017;35:105–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [72].Ahn M-J, Yang J, Yu H, et al. Osimertinib combined with durvalumab in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: results from the TATTON phase Ib trial. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:S115. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Digital Content
medi-99-e21826-s001.tif (4.8MB, tif)

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES