Cargando…

Representativeness of Phase III Trial for Osimertinib in Pretreated Advanced EGFR-Mutated Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients and Treatment Outcomes in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) data of osimertinib in pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in real-world practice is limited, and treatment benefits for patients not represented in the pivotal trials (ineligible) are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the representativeness of the AURA3 tr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Lishi, Smit, Egbert F., de Langen, Adrianus J., van Balen, Dorieke E. M., Beijnen, Jos H., Huitema, Alwin D. R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8783869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34894319
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11523-021-00862-x
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) data of osimertinib in pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in real-world practice is limited, and treatment benefits for patients not represented in the pivotal trials (ineligible) are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the representativeness of the AURA3 trial for NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib in a real-world setting and to determine outcomes of patients who were represented in the AURA3 trial (eligible) and those who were ineligible. METHODS: Advanced NSCLC patients receiving post first-line osimertinib were included in this retrospective study and were divided into two groups based on eligibility criteria of the AURA3 trial. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox models were used to estimate the association of eligibility criteria with OS. RESULTS: 328 patients were included; 126 (38%) patients were eligible and 202 (62%) patients were ineligible. The most common ineligibility reasons were the number of earlier treatment lines and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) > 1. PFS of eligible and ineligible patients was not statistically different (8.0 vs. 5.8 months, p = 0.062). Eligible patients had a longer OS (24.0 vs. 15.4 months, p = 0.001) compared to ineligible patients. ECOG PS was the best predictor for OS. An ECOG PS of 1 was already associated with poorer survival compared to an ECOG PS of 0 (hazard ratio 1.54; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The majority of the study population was not represented in the AURA3 trial. Survival outcomes of eligible patients are in concordance with the AURA3 trial, while OS of ineligible patients was significantly shorter compared to eligible patients.