Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Real-life Effectiveness of Afatinib Versus Gefitinib in Patients With Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: A Czech Multicentre Study

MARTIN SVATON, MONIKA BRATOVA, ONDREJ FISCHER, JANA KREJCI, LEONA KOUBKOVA, MARKETA CERNOVSKA, MICHAL HRNCIARIK, MILADA ZEMANOVA, HELENA COUPKOVA, BEDRICH PORZER, DANIEL DOLEZAL, TANA TUZOVA, KAROLINA HURDALKOVA, MAGDA BARINOVA and JANA SKRICKOVA
Anticancer Research April 2021, 41 (4) 2059-2065; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14975
MARTIN SVATON
1Department of Pneumology and Phthisiology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: svatonm@fnplzen.cz
MONIKA BRATOVA
2Department of Respiratory Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ONDREJ FISCHER
3Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JANA KREJCI
4Department of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery, Bulovka Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LEONA KOUBKOVA
5Department of Pneumology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARKETA CERNOVSKA
6Department of Respiratory Medicine, Thomayer Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MICHAL HRNCIARIK
7Department of Pneumology, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MILADA ZEMANOVA
8Department of Oncology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HELENA COUPKOVA
9Clinic of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
BEDRICH PORZER
10Department of Respiratory Medicine and Tuberculosis, Medical faculty, Ostrava University, Ostrava, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DANIEL DOLEZAL
11Department of Pneumology, Masaryk Hospital Usti nad Labem, Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TANA TUZOVA
12Department of Oncology, Jihlava Hospital, Jihlava, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KAROLINA HURDALKOVA
13Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Ltd., Brno, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MAGDA BARINOVA
13Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Ltd., Brno, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JANA SKRICKOVA
2Department of Respiratory Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: We investigated efficacy differences for afatinib versus gefitinib in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analysed data for 343 patients with NSCLC with performance status 1 having EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib or afatinib. Overall response rate (ORR) was tested by Fisher’s exact test. Overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Results: ORR did not differ in any group or subgroup. Among all patients, we observed significantly longer PFS for those treated with afatinib vs. gefitinib (median 13.4 vs. 9.5 months, p=0.026), but only a nonsignificant trend was observed for OS. We showed nonsignificant trends of better PFS and OS using afatinib for exon 19 deletion and L858R subgroups. We observed no significant PFS differences for other EGFR mutations but a nonsignificant trend towards better OS for those treated with afatinib. Conclusion: Afatinib led to longer PFS for patients with common EGFR mutations but not for those with rare mutations.

Key Words:
  • Afatinib
  • gefitinib
  • NSCLC
  • real world data

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) constitute standard treatments for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially lung adenocarcinomas, with sensitive EGFR mutations (1). First- (gefitinib, erlotinib), second- (afatinib, dacomitinib), and third-generation (osimer-tinib) TKIs are used (1). Osimertinib has been shown not only to confer significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) but also longer overall survival (OS) in comparison with first-generation TKIs in cases with common EGFR mutations (i.e. EGFR exon 19 deletions and EGFR exon 21 L858R mutations) (2, 3). This trial did not, however, include other (‘rare’) EGFR mutations, and second-generation TKIs were also not evaluated. Moreover, in many countries, including the Czech Republic, osimertinib is not reimbursed by public health insurance. Therefore, it is appropriate to assess whether it is better to use treatment with afatinib or a first-generation EGFR TKI (in the Czech Republic, particularly gefitinib). The Lux-Lung 7 (LL7) trial sought an answer to this question (4). It was not a phase III trial, however, only a IIB trial. In addition, clinical practice shows that results from clinical trials and real-life data may differ somewhat (5, 6). In addition, apart from the excellent efficacy of afatinib in particular on the EGFR mutation at exon 19, its use also appears to be effective for rare EGFR mutations (7, 8). These rare mutations were not included in the LL7 study (4). Therefore, we decided to examine real-life data from the Czech Republic.

Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of afatinib compared with gefitinib, both in general and in relation to specific mutations (common as well as rare EGFR mutations).

Patients and Methods

Study design and treatment. This study retrospectively analysed clinical data of patients with cytologically or histologically confirmed advanced NSCLC that were treated with afatinib or gefitinib during 2010-2020 at 12 oncology and pneumo-oncology centres in the Czech Republic. Inclusion criteria were stage III or IV lung adenocarcinoma with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 1 at treatment initialization, first-line treatment, and with record of EGFR mutation. Afatinib was administered orally at the approved doses of 40 mg (reduction to 30 or 20 mg due to adverse events was permitted). Gefitinib was administered orally at the approved doses of 250 mg daily. The treatments were administered until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Clinical follow-up included physical examination, chest X-ray, and routine laboratory tests performed at least every 4 weeks. Computed tomography was performed at regular intervals according to the local standards or when progression was suspected based on clinical or chest X-ray examination. The data source was the Czech Republic’s national TULUNG register, a non-interventional post-registration database of epidemiological and clinical data from patients with advanced-stage NSCLC receiving expensive oncology treatments in the Czech Republic. The patients had given their informed consent to be included in this database and for use of these data for scientific purposes.

Statistical methods. Patients’ demographic and disease characteristics were summarized. Continuous parameters are described using the mean with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the median with minimum and maximum, together with the total number of non-missing observations. Categorical parameters were summarized using absolute and relative frequencies.

For comparison of treatment groups, the representation of baseline parameters was evaluated and statistically significant differences were noted. Continuous parameters were tested using Mann–Whitney U-test, and categorical parameters by Fisher’s exact test. In cases of incomparability in observed baseline characteristics, matching technique was used. Comparable patients were matched by nearest neighbour of propensity score method with calliper of 0.2 and max ratio 1:2. Patients were matched based on: Exon 19 subgroup: age, smoking, and M classification; L858R subgroup: age, M, and T classification; all mutations: age, smoking, M, and T classification (7th or 8th edition of TNM classification - according to the date of diagnosis) (9, 10). Subgroups of patients were chosen from treatment groups with propensity score so that differences in baseline parameters between treatment groups were no longer significant.

The overall response rate [ORR, i.e. complete response plus partial response defined by RECIST 1.1. (11)] was tested by Fisher’s exact test. OS was defined as the time from treatment initiation to the date of death due to any cause. PFS was defined as the time from treatment initiation to the date of first documented progression or death due to any cause. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method and all point estimates include 95% CIs. Differences in OS and PFS were tested by log-rank test, or Tarone– Ware test when crossing survival curves appeared.

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS, Statistics (version 25.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R software (version 3.5.1). For decisions on statistical significance, α=0.05 was used.

Ethics. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committees of all participating centres of the TULUNG registry [University Hospital Brno, University Hospital Pilsen, University Hospital Olomouc, University Hospital Hradec Kralove, University Hospital Motol (Prague), University Hospital Prague-Bulovka, Thomayer Hospital (Prague), and VFN (Prague)]. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University Hospital Hradec Kralove on 11 May 2018, reference number: 201805 I134R.

Results

Patient characteristics. In total, 343 patients (114 males and 229 females) with a median age of 68.1 years were included in this retrospective analysis. The baseline patient characteristics are summarized in Table I. For the whole analysis, 292 patients with matched data were used; 154 patients for the subgroup with EGFR deletion 19; 79 patients for the subgroup with EGFR L858R; and 51 patients for the subgroup with other mutations. Other mutation types (i.e. so-called rare EGFR mutations) are specified in Table II.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Baseline patient characteristics (whole group).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Characterization of rare epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (whole cohort).

ORR, PFS, and OS for the whole group of patients. We observed no significant difference in ORR between afatinib- and gefitinib-treated groups (46.4% vs. 44.4%, p=0.809). We determined significantly longer PFS in afatinib group (median=13.4 months, 95% CI=3.6-45.7 months) compared to gefitinib group (median=9.5 months, 95% CI=3.9-11.2 months), p=0.026. There was only a nonsignificant trend, however, in differences in OS between those treated with afatinib (median=36.2 months, 95% CI=21.2- not achieved) and gefitinib (median=19.7 months, 95% CI=16.3-25.3), p=0.267. Kaplan– Meier curves for PFS and OS are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier curves for overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival for the whole cohort according to therapy.

ORR, PFS, and OS according to EGFR mutation subgroups. We observed no significant differences in ORR between afatinib-, and gefitinib-treated patients within subgroups divided by mutation types (EGFR exon 19 deletion, EGFR point mutation L858R, and patients with other EGFR mutations). We found only a trend for more favourable median PFS and OS for the subgroup with EGFR exon 19 deletion and that with EGFR L858R within the afatinib-treated group. We also observed a trend for better OS within the afatinib-treated patients of the other mutation subgroups. In the other mutation subgroups PFS did not significantly differ by afatinib and gefitinib treatment. Detailed results can be seen in Table III and Figure 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Comparison of overall response rate (ORR), and progression-free (PFS), and overall (OS) survival results between afatinib vs. gefitinib according to mutation type.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves for overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival by epidermal growth factor receptor mutation type according to therapy.

Discussion

This multicentre trial presents a retrospective analysis from the Czech Republic comparing the efficacy of afatinib and gefitinib treatments. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing real-life data in a Caucasian population on such a large sample of patients. In addition, our analysis provides data not only on common EGFR mutations but also for rare EGFR mutations.

Similarly as in the LL7 trial (4), we showed significantly better PFS considering the whole group. Numerically, the median PFS for afatinib was even longer in our study than that reported for the LL7 trial. This has been typical for a number of modern NSCLC treatment modalities used in the Czech Republic (5). An influence of centralizing care within regional centres having sufficient experience as well as a close connection between oncological and pneumological care may be contributing factors here. As in the LL7 trial, we demonstrated only a nonsignificant trend for longer PFS in patients treated with afatinib for individual types of frequent EGFR mutation and also for OS. This may be related to the lower numbers of patients in the subgroups for PFS and an overall insufficient number of patients for OS evaluation (4, 12). According to the results of the LL7 trial, possible reductionsof afatinib dose to avoid side effects should not play a role in its efficacy. The network meta-analysis from randomized phase III control trials showed no significant differences in efficacy between afatinib gefitinib, erlotinib, and icotinib (13). Although 2-year OS was better in patients treated by afatinib and 12-month PFS was also higher in the afatinib-treated group than in the gefitinib-treated group, these two regimens were not compared to one another due to the design of this study.

The use of afatinib in first-line treatment is also supported by studie by Tamiya et al., who showed a trend towards better PFS with osimertinib in patients with acquired EGFR T79M after pretreatment with afatinib versus gefitinib (14).

Results similar to those in our study were also presented for two Asian trials (15, 16). Kim et al. compared efficacy of afatinib versus first-generation TKIs for 467 patients (15). Afatinib also led to significantly longer PFS (median of 19.1 months for afatinib vs. 13.7 and 14.0 months for gefitinib and erlotinib, respectively). On the other hand, no difference was observed in OS. This was despite a significantly higher proportion of more patients with the favourable EGFR exon 19 deletion in the afatinib-treated group (15, 17). On the contrary, we consider an advantage of our work to be the relatively even distribution of EGFR mutation types between the afatinib and gefitinib arms. Moreover, our analyses differ in their results regarding rare EGFR mutations from those of Kim et al., who had reported a strong trend in favour of afatinib for better PFS (15). This might be due to the different proportions of EGFR mutation types between these analyses, and, in particular, the low number of patients with rare EGFR mutations in the data of Kim et al. compared to our study. The difference between the studies in terms of patient ethnic group should also not be forgotten. Tu et al. also compared efficacy of afatinib vs. gefitinib vs. erlotinib in a group of 422 Asian patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC (16). Similarly to our study, they demonstrated significantly longer PFS in the afatinib-treated group compared with gefitinib-treated (median: 12.2 vs. 9.8 months, p=0.035). That study again differed in the efficacy of afatinib for those with rare mutations (the median PFS for those treated with gefitinib was similar to that in our study). Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine which specific types of EGFR rare mutations were treated in the study of Tu et al.

Lau et al. presented a Canadian study with mixed Asian and Caucasian population (ca 50:50) consisting of 484 patients treated with first-generation TKIs or afatinib (18). That trial examined only OS, and afatinib conferred significantly better OS compared to first-generation EGFR TKIs. In a subgroup analysis based on mutation type, results were significantly positive only for the group with EGFR exon 19 deletion but not for the EGFR L858R group, where there was a trend only very slightly favouring afatinib. This was seen also for PFS in the study of Tu et al. (16). That was in contrast to our results indicating a similar trend with better efficacy of afatinib as well in the group with EGFR exon 19 deletion.

A possible important influence of region of origin was shown by an Italian study from Del Re et al., who reported a longer time to progression in the group treated with gefitinib (median=14.4 months) compared to afatinib (median=10.2 months) (19). This result was not statistically significant (p=0.09), however, and might have been due to the relatively low number of patients and imbalance between the two groups. Krawczyk et al. published an analysis comparing efficacy in patients treated with afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib (20). They observed no significant differences in PFS or OS. Only 16 patients were treated with afatinib in that study, however, and, similarly to our study, the median PFS and OS showed trends favouring afatinib over gefitinib. If we also take into account the predominance of the Asian population in the LL7 trial, our work is the first study within a predominantly Caucasian population demonstrating better efficacy of afatinib over gefitinib in PFS and a trend in this direction for OS.

The present study has several limitations. Firstly, this was a retrospective study with a possible bias in the choice of treatment for specific patients. In general, until 2020, gefitinib was used in patients with ECOG PS 0-2 in the Czech Republic and afatinib only in patients with ECOG PS 0-1. This may have led to the treatment of frail patients with gefitinib. We tried to prevent this bias by selecting only patients with ECOG PS1 for both groups and then by matching of patients. Secondly, the PFS was not reviewed by an independent commission. Finally, subgroups of patients according to EGFR mutations contained relatively few patients, and this probably led to suboptimal strength of statistical tests. This might similarly be the case for OS for the overall group, where we showed a clear numerical trend but one that did not reach statistical significance.

In conclusion, our data point to a longer PFS and trend for OS in patients treated with afatinib compared to gefitinib. However, these results concerned only common EGFR mutations, in the group of rare EGFR mutations we did not notice any differences.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the grant of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic – Conceptual Development of Research Organization (Faculty Hospital in Pilsen - FNPl, 00669806).

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    MS and JS conceived the presented idea. MS, MB, OF, JK, LK, MC, MH, MZ, HC, BP, DD, and TT conceived and planned the study and collected the data. KH and MB analysed the data. MS wrote the article with support from JS. JS helped supervise the project.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    In connection with this article, the Authors declare that they have in the past provided consulting services to both Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca.

  • Received January 30, 2021.
  • Revision received February 17, 2021.
  • Accepted February 18, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. O’Leary C,
    2. Gasper H,
    3. Sahin KB,
    4. Tang M,
    5. Kulasinghe A,
    6. Adams MN,
    7. Richard DJ and
    8. O’Byrne KJ
    : Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 13(10): 2020. PMID: 32992872. DOI: 10.3390/ph13100273
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Soria JC,
    2. Ohe Y,
    3. Vansteenkiste J,
    4. Reungwetwattana T,
    5. Chewaskulyong B,
    6. Lee KH,
    7. Dechaphunkul A,
    8. Imamura F,
    9. Nogami N,
    10. Kurata T,
    11. Okamoto I,
    12. Zhou C,
    13. Cho BC,
    14. Cheng Y,
    15. Cho EK,
    16. Voon PJ,
    17. Planchard D,
    18. Su WC,
    19. Gray JE,
    20. Lee SM,
    21. Hodge R,
    22. Marotti M,
    23. Rukazenkov Y,
    24. Ramalingam SS and FLAURA Investigators.
    : Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 378(2): 113-125, 2018. PMID: 29151359. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Ramalingam SS,
    2. Vansteenkiste J,
    3. Planchard D,
    4. Cho BC,
    5. Gray JE,
    6. Ohe Y,
    7. Zhou C,
    8. Reungwetwattana T,
    9. Cheng Y,
    10. Chewaskulyong B,
    11. Shah R,
    12. Cobo M,
    13. Lee KH,
    14. Cheema P,
    15. Tiseo M,
    16. John T,
    17. Lin MC,
    18. Imamura F,
    19. Kurata T,
    20. Todd A,
    21. Hodge R,
    22. Saggese M,
    23. Rukazenkov Y,
    24. Soria JC and FLAURA Investigators.
    : Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med 382(1): 41-50, 2020. PMID: 31751012. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1913662
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Park K,
    2. Tan EH,
    3. O’Byrne K,
    4. Zhang L,
    5. Boyer M,
    6. Mok T,
    7. Hirsh V,
    8. Yang JC,
    9. Lee KH,
    10. Lu S,
    11. Shi Y,
    12. Kim SW,
    13. Laskin J,
    14. Kim DW,
    15. Arvis CD,
    16. Kölbeck K,
    17. Laurie SA,
    18. Tsai CM,
    19. Shahidi M,
    20. Kim M,
    21. Massey D,
    22. Zazulina V and
    23. Paz-Ares L
    : Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): A phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 17(5): 577-589, 2016. PMID: 27083334. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30033-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Brat K,
    2. Bratova M,
    3. Skrickova J,
    4. Barinova M,
    5. Hurdalkova K,
    6. Pesek M,
    7. Havel L,
    8. Koubkova L,
    9. Hrnciarik M,
    10. Krejci J,
    11. Fischer O,
    12. Zemanova M,
    13. Coupkova H and
    14. Svaton M
    : Real-life effectiveness of first-line anticancer treatments in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients: Data from the Czech TULUNG Registry. Thorac Cancer 11(11): 3346-3356, 2020. PMID: 33016001. DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13679
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Cramer-van der Welle CM,
    2. Peters BJM,
    3. Schramel FMNH,
    4. Klungel OH,
    5. Groen HJM,
    6. van de Garde EMW, Santeon NSCLC Study Group. and Santeon NSCLC study group.
    : Systematic evaluation of the efficacy-effectiveness gap of systemic treatments in metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J 52(6): 2018. PMID: 30487206. DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01100-2018
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Tamiya M,
    2. Tamiya A,
    3. Suzuki H,
    4. Moriizumi K,
    5. Nakahama K,
    6. Taniguchi Y,
    7. Kunimasa K,
    8. Kimura M,
    9. Inoue T,
    10. Kuhara H,
    11. Nishino K,
    12. Hirashima T,
    13. Atagi S,
    14. Imamura F and
    15. Kumagai T
    : Which Is Better EGFR-TKI Followed by Osimertinib: Afatinib or Gefitinib/Erlotinib?. Anticancer Res 39(7): 3923-3929, 2019. PMID: 31262922. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13544
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Yamada Y,
    2. Tamura T,
    3. Yamamoto Y,
    4. Ichimura H,
    5. Hayashihara K,
    6. Saito T,
    7. Yamada H,
    8. Endo T,
    9. Nakamura R,
    10. Inage Y,
    11. Satoh H,
    12. Iguchi K,
    13. Saito K,
    14. Inagaki M,
    15. Kikuchi N,
    16. Kurishima K,
    17. Ishikawa H,
    18. Sakai M,
    19. Kamiyama K,
    20. Shiozawa T,
    21. Hizawa N,
    22. Sekine I,
    23. Sato Y,
    24. Funayama Y,
    25. Miyazaki K,
    26. Kodama T,
    27. Hayashi S,
    28. Nomura A,
    29. Nakamura H,
    30. Furukawa K,
    31. Yamashita T,
    32. Okubo H,
    33. Suzuki H,
    34. Kiyoshima M and
    35. Kaburagi T
    : Treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with uncommon EGFR mutations in clinical practice. Anticancer Res 40(10): 5757-5764, 2020. PMID: 32988903. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14592
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Mirsadraee S,
    2. Oswal D,
    3. Alizadeh Y,
    4. Caulo A and
    5. van Beek E Jr.
    : The 7th lung cancer TNM classification and staging system: Review of the changes and implications. World J Radiol 4(4): 128-134, 2012. PMID: 22590666. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v4.i4.128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Lim W,
    2. Ridge CA,
    3. Nicholson AG and
    4. Mirsadraee S
    : The 8th lung cancer TNM classification and clinical staging system: Review of the changes and clinical implications. Quant Imaging Med Surg 8(7): 709-718, 2018. PMID: 30211037. DOI: 10.21037/qims.2018.08.02
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Eisenhauer EA,
    2. Therasse P,
    3. Bogaerts J,
    4. Schwartz LH,
    5. Sargent D,
    6. Ford R,
    7. Dancey J,
    8. Arbuck S,
    9. Gwyther S,
    10. Mooney M,
    11. Rubinstein L,
    12. Shankar L,
    13. Dodd L,
    14. Kaplan R,
    15. Lacombe D and
    16. Verweij J
    : New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2): 228-247, 2009. PMID: 19097774. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Paz-Ares L,
    2. Tan EH,
    3. O’Byrne K,
    4. Zhang L,
    5. Hirsh V,
    6. Boyer M,
    7. Yang JC,
    8. Mok T,
    9. Lee KH,
    10. Lu S,
    11. Shi Y,
    12. Lee DH,
    13. Laskin J,
    14. Kim DW,
    15. Laurie SA,
    16. Kölbeck K,
    17. Fan J,
    18. Dodd N,
    19. Märten A and
    20. Park K
    : Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial. Ann Oncol 28(2): 270-277, 2017. PMID: 28426106. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw611
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Liang W,
    2. Wu X,
    3. Fang W,
    4. Zhao Y,
    5. Yang Y,
    6. Hu Z,
    7. Xue C,
    8. Zhang J,
    9. Zhang J,
    10. Ma Y,
    11. Zhou T,
    12. Yan Y,
    13. Hou X,
    14. Qin T,
    15. Dinglin X,
    16. Tian Y,
    17. Huang P,
    18. Huang Y,
    19. Zhao H and
    20. Zhang L
    : Network meta-analysis of erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutations. PLoS One 9(2): e85245, 2014. PMID: 24533047. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085245
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Banno E,
    2. Togashi Y,
    3. Kobayashi Y,
    4. Hayashi H,
    5. Mitsudomi T and
    6. Nishio K
    : Afatinib is especially effective against non-small cell lung cancer carrying an EGFR exon 19 deletion. Anticancer Res 35(4): 2005-2008, 2015. PMID: 25862853.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Kim Y,
    2. Lee SH,
    3. Ahn JS,
    4. Ahn MJ,
    5. Park K and
    6. Sun JM
    : Efficacy and safety of Afatinib for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, compared with Gefitinib or Erlotinib. Cancer Res Treat 51(2): 502-509, 2019. PMID: 29898592. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2018.117
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Tu CY,
    2. Chen CM,
    3. Liao WC,
    4. Wu BR,
    5. Chen CY,
    6. Chen WC,
    7. Hsia TC,
    8. Cheng WC and
    9. Chen CH
    : Comparison of the effects of the three major tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. Oncotarget 9(36): 24237-24247, 2018. PMID: 29849936. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24386
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Sheng J,
    3. Kang S,
    4. Fang W,
    5. Yan Y,
    6. Hu Z,
    7. Hong S,
    8. Wu X,
    9. Qin T,
    10. Liang W and
    11. Zhang L
    : Patients with exon 19 deletion were associated with longer progression-free survival compared to those with L858R mutation after first-line EGFR-TKIs for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(9): e107161, 2014. PMID: 25222496. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Lau SC,
    2. Chooback N,
    3. Ho C and
    4. Melosky B
    : Outcome differences between first- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors in advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC in a large population-based cohort. Clin Lung Cancer 20(5): e576-e583, 2019. PMID: 31178389. DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2019.05.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Del Re M,
    2. Petrini I,
    3. Mazzoni F,
    4. Valleggi S,
    5. Gianfilippo G,
    6. Pozzessere D,
    7. Chella A,
    8. Crucitta S,
    9. Rofi E,
    10. Restante G,
    11. Miccoli M,
    12. Garassino MC and
    13. Danesi R
    : Incidence of T790M in patients with NSCLC progressed to Gefitinib, Erlotinib, and Afatinib: A Study on circulating cell-free DNA. Clin Lung Cancer 21(3): 232-237, 2020. PMID: 31735523. DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2019.10.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Krawczyk P,
    2. Kowalski DM,
    3. Ramlau R,
    4. Kalinka-Warzocha E,
    5. Winiarczyk K,
    6. Stencel K,
    7. Powrózek T,
    8. Reszka K,
    9. Wojas-Krawczyk K,
    10. Bryl M,
    11. Wójcik-Superczyńska M,
    12. Głogowski M,
    13. Barinow-Wojewódzki A,
    14. Milanowski J and
    15. Krzakowski M
    : Comparison of the effectiveness of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in patients with common and rare EGFR gene mutations. Oncol Lett 13(6): 4433-4444, 2017. PMID: 28599445. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.5980
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (4)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 4
April 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Real-life Effectiveness of Afatinib Versus Gefitinib in Patients With Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: A Czech Multicentre Study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
12 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Real-life Effectiveness of Afatinib Versus Gefitinib in Patients With Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: A Czech Multicentre Study
MARTIN SVATON, MONIKA BRATOVA, ONDREJ FISCHER, JANA KREJCI, LEONA KOUBKOVA, MARKETA CERNOVSKA, MICHAL HRNCIARIK, MILADA ZEMANOVA, HELENA COUPKOVA, BEDRICH PORZER, DANIEL DOLEZAL, TANA TUZOVA, KAROLINA HURDALKOVA, MAGDA BARINOVA, JANA SKRICKOVA
Anticancer Research Apr 2021, 41 (4) 2059-2065; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14975

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Real-life Effectiveness of Afatinib Versus Gefitinib in Patients With Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: A Czech Multicentre Study
MARTIN SVATON, MONIKA BRATOVA, ONDREJ FISCHER, JANA KREJCI, LEONA KOUBKOVA, MARKETA CERNOVSKA, MICHAL HRNCIARIK, MILADA ZEMANOVA, HELENA COUPKOVA, BEDRICH PORZER, DANIEL DOLEZAL, TANA TUZOVA, KAROLINA HURDALKOVA, MAGDA BARINOVA, JANA SKRICKOVA
Anticancer Research Apr 2021, 41 (4) 2059-2065; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14975
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Efficacy of Molecular-targeted Agents in Vertebral Metastasis Management in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
  • The Effects of Nebivolol-Gefitinib-Loratadine Against Lung Cancer Cell Lines
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Four Different Artificial Intelligence Models Versus Logistic Regression to Enhance the Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in the Detection of Colorectal Carcinoma in a Screening Setting
  • In-hospital Outcomes Between Total Parenteral Nutrition and Enteral Feeding in Esophageal and Gastric Cancer: A Nationwide Analysis
  • Phase II Study of the Effectiveness of the Germinated Wheat-derived Rigenase Plus Polyhexanide in the Prophylaxis for Hypofractionated Radiation-induced Acute Skin Toxicity in Breast Cancer
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • afatinib
  • gefitinib
  • NSCLC
  • real world data
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire