Suppr超能文献

表皮生长因子受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(EGFR-TKIs)之间是否存在不同的效应?对表皮生长因子受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(EGFR-TKIs)与化疗作为表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)突变患者一线治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Is there evidence for different effects among EGFR-TKIs? Systematic review and meta-analysis of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients harboring EGFR mutations.

作者信息

Haspinger Eva Regina, Agustoni Francesco, Torri Valter, Gelsomino Francesco, Platania Marco, Zilembo Nicoletta, Gallucci Rosaria, Garassino Marina Chiara, Cinquini Michela

机构信息

Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Fondazione IRCCS Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015 May;94(2):213-27. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.11.005. Epub 2014 Nov 22.

Abstract

Three EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been compared to standard chemotherapy as up-front treatment in patients with advanced EGFR-positive NSCLC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using indirect comparisons to estimate the risk/benefit associated with each drug. EGFR-TKIs fared better than chemotherapy in terms of PFS. The relative probability of overall response was gefitinib versus erlotinib 0.96 (95% CI 0.69-1.34), gefitinib versus afatinib 0.91 (95% CI 0.67-1.23), erlotinib versus afatinib 0.94 (95% CI 0.65-1.35). Indirect comparisons for safety showed the RR for diarrhea gefitinib versus erlotinib 0.80 (95% CI 0.63-1.01), gefitinib versus afatinib 0.29 (95% CI 0.20-0.41), erlotinib versus afatinib 0.36 (95% CI 0.25-0.54); for rash gefitinib versus erlotinib 1.00 (95% CI 0.82-1.22), gefitinib versus afatinib 0.41(95% CI 0.25-0.65), erlotinib versus afatinib 0.41 (95% CI 0.25-0.66); for hypertransaminasemia gefitinib versus erlotinib 2.29 (95% CI 1.63-3.23). Our analysis showed that all treatments had similar efficacy but they differ for toxicities.

摘要

三种表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)酪氨酸激酶抑制剂已作为晚期EGFR阳性非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者的一线治疗与标准化疗进行了比较。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,采用间接比较来估计每种药物的风险/获益。在无进展生存期(PFS)方面,EGFR酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(EGFR-TKIs)比化疗表现更好。吉非替尼与厄洛替尼的总体缓解相对概率为0.96(95%置信区间0.69-1.34),吉非替尼与阿法替尼为0.91(95%置信区间0.67-1.23),厄洛替尼与阿法替尼为0.94(95%置信区间0.65-1.35)。安全性的间接比较显示,腹泻的相对危险度(RR):吉非替尼与厄洛替尼为0.80(95%置信区间0.63-1.01),吉非替尼与阿法替尼为0.29(95%置信区间0.20-0.41),厄洛替尼与阿法替尼为0.36(95%置信区间0.25-0.54);皮疹:吉非替尼与厄洛替尼为1.00(95%置信区间0.82-1.22),吉非替尼与阿法替尼为0.41(95%置信区间0.25-0.65),厄洛替尼与阿法替尼为0.41(95%置信区间0.25-0.66);高转氨酶血症:吉非替尼与厄洛替尼为2.29(95%置信区间1.63-3.23)。我们的分析表明,所有治疗方法疗效相似,但毒性不同。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验