Front-line therapy for brain metastases and non-brain metastases in advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The brain is a common metastatic site in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), resulting in a relatively poor prognosis. Systemic therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR -mutated, advanced NSCLC patients. However, intracranial activity varies in different drugs. Thus, brain metastasis (BM) should be considered when choosing the treatment regimens. We conducted this network meta-analysis to explore the optimal first-line therapeutic schedule for advanced EGFR -mutated NSCLC patients with different BM statuses.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials focusing on EGFR-TKIs (alone or in combination) in advanced and EGFR -mutant NSCLC patients, who have not received systematic treatment, were systematically searched up to December 2021. We extracted and analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A network meta-analysis was performed with the Bayesian statistical model to determine the survival outcomes of all included therapy regimens using the R software. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare intervention measures, and overall rankings of therapies were estimated under the Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

This analysis included 17 RCTs with 5077 patients and 12 therapies, including osimertinib + bevacizumab, aumolertinib, osimertinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, standards of care (SoC, including gefitinib, erlotinib, or icotinib), SoC + apatinib, SoC + bevacizumab, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT), PbCT, and pemetrexed free chemotherapy (PfCT). For patients with BM, SoC + PbCT improved PFS compared with SoC (HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.17-0.95), and osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank first in PFS, with a cumulative probability of 34.5%, followed by aumolertinib, with a cumulative probability of 28.3%. For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab, osimertinib, aumolertinib, SoC + PbCT, dacomitinib, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + bevacizumab, and afatinib showed superior efficacy compared with SoC (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.90; HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68; HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.77; HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66; HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.89; HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50-1.00), PbCT (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.18-0.64; HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.82; HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22-0.87; HR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74; HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31-0.75), and PfCT (HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32; HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.09-0.26; HR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.29; HR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.35; HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.31; HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.34) in terms of PFS. And, SoC + apatinib showed relatively superior PFS when compared with PbCT (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.92) and PfCT (HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39), but similar PFS to SoC (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.03). No statistical differences were observed for PFS in patients without BM between PbCT and SoC (HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.84-2.64), but both showed favorable PFS when compared with PfCT (PfCT vs. SoC, HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.06-4.55; PbCT vs. PfCT, HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32). For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank the first, with cumulative probabilities of 47.1%. For OS, SoC + PbCT was most likely to rank first in patients with and without BM, with cumulative probabilities of 46.8%, and 37.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Osimertinib + bevacizumab is most likely to rank first in PFS in advanced EGFR -mutated NSCLC patients with or without BM, and SoC + PbCT is most likely to rank first in OS.