Abstract:Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non‐squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men, is less associated with smoking, but occurs at a younger age than sporadic tumours. To assess the clinical effectiveness of single‐agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first‐line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression‐free survival. Secondary outcomes included response rate, symptom palliation, toxicity, and health‐related quality of life. We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 27th July 2020), Embase (1980 to 27th July 2020), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 27th July 2020). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (July 2020); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Parallel‐group randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR‐targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy‐naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent. Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta‐analyses using a fixed‐effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random‐effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis. Twenty‐two trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 3023, of whom approximately 2563 were of Asian origin. Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR‐targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo. Erlotinib was used in eight trials, gefitinib in nine trials, afatinib in two trials, cetuximab in two trials, and icotinib in one trial. The findings of FASTACT 2 suggested a clinical benefit for OS for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, as did the Han 2017 trial for gefitinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, but both results were based on a small number of participants (n = 97 and 122, respectively). For progression‐free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of four trials showed evidence of clinical benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.39 ; 583 participants ; high‐certainty evidence). A pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48 ; 491 participants high‐certainty evidence), and a pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance also showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, 371 participants ; moderate‐certainty evidence). Afatinib showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53, 709 participants high‐certainty evidence). All but one small trial showed a corresponding improvement in response rate with tyrosine‐kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy. Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events associated with afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and icotinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms; fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies. Seven trials reported on health‐related quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, two trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the TKI compared to chemotherapy. The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged PFS compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic c -Abstract Truncated-

The survival after discontinuation of EGFR‐TKIs due to intolerable adverse events in patients with EGFR‐mutated non–small cell lung cancer

[Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy Subsequent EGFR-TKI in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with EGFR-TKI Acquired Resistance].

Continuing EGFR-TKI beyond radiological progression in patients with advanced or recurrent, EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: an observational study

Clinical Experience on Treatment of Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma with Unknown EGFR Gene Status from a Tertiary Care Center in China

PS02.20 Subsequent Therapies Post-Afatinib among Patients with EGFR Mutation-Positive (egfrm+) NSCLC in LUX-Lung 3, 6 and 7

Clinical outcomes and secondary epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation among first‐line gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib‐treated non‐small cell lung cancer patients with activating EGFR mutations

Retreatment after the Failure of Initial Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Feasibility and effectiveness of afatinib for poor performance status patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study

First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

The Efficacy and Toxicity of Afatinib in Advanced EGFR-positive Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Patients after Failure of First-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Treatment Patterns and Resource Use After Osimertinib Discontinuation in Patients with EGFR + Metastatic NSCLC

Efficacy and Safety of Gefitinib Plus Anlotinib for Patients with EGFR Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Exploratory Study

Do patient characteristics affect EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment outcomes? A network meta‐analysis of real‐world survival outcomes of East Asian patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer treated with first‐line EGFR‐TKIs

First‐line treatment with irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitors associated with longer OS in EGFR mutation‐positive non‐small cell lung cancer

Intercalating and Maintenance Gefitinib Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Selected Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Unknown EGFR Status.

Clinical Outcomes of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Recurrent Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Lung after Resection

The efficacy of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors combined with co-medications in Asian patients with EGFR mutation non-small cell lung cancer

Real-world Outcomes of Chemo-Antiangiogenesis Versus Chemo-Immunotherapy Combinations in EGFR-mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients after Failure of EGFR-TKI Therapy.

Immediate Versus Delayed Treatment with Egfr Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors after First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for non-adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients harboring EGFR-sensitizing mutations in China

Survival benefit of thoracic radiotherapy plus EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-oligometastatic advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-center retrospective study