Cargando…
Clinical Modality of Resistance and Subsequent Management of Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Failing Treatment with Osimertinib
BACKGROUND: The third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib has become the standard treatment for patients with pretreated EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who acquire the T790M resistance mutation. However, no standard treatmen...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6602986/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31124059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11523-019-00644-6 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib has become the standard treatment for patients with pretreated EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who acquire the T790M resistance mutation. However, no standard treatment after osimertinib failure has been established. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to explore the clinical resistance modality upon failure of osimertinib therapy and to assess post-progression treatments in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical data were retrospectively collected in our cancer center of patients with advanced NSCLC treated between 1 March 2017 and 1 July 2018, and who developed resistance to osimertinib. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients were analyzed. Clinical resistance modality varied among patients: 15 (23.1%) with local progression, 29 (44.6%) with gradual progression, and 21 (32.3%) with dramatic progression. Most patients experienced intrathoracic progression only (40/65, 61.5%), while ten (15.4%) cases presented intracranial failure only. Upon progressive disease, 20 patients (30.8%) received subsequent chemotherapy, and showed a trend for longer median overall survival (OS) than in those receiving a non-chemotherapy regimen (25.0 vs. 11.8 months, p = 0.106). Thirty-nine patients (60.0%) continued osimertinib beyond progression with a median post-progression treatment duration of 4.1 months. No significant difference in median OS was seen between patients who continued osimertinib and those who discontinued osimertinib (18.9 vs. 15.1 months, p = 0.802). In subgroup analyses, OS was improved in patients who experienced dramatic progression and were treated with chemotherapy, but data were immature for patients with local or gradual progression. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy could be an effective option after osimertinib failure in unselected patients. |
---|