The Efficacy and Safety of Apatinib and Anlotinib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Xiao Wei,Yun Zhao,Wenyue Yan,Qigang Dai,Hui Wu,Yang Miao,Lei Huang,Qing Liu,Xuyao Zhang,Hongxia Wang,Yanan Liu,Linlin Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S468932
2024-08-06
Abstract:Background: Anlotinib and apatinib, both vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), are clinically established in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China, with anlotinib emerging as a standard treatment strategy. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib and anlotinib, and to compare their differences in treating patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with advanced NSCLC treated with apatinib or anlotinib at a hospital in Eastern China from January 2017 to December 2021. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety profile. Results: A total of 145 patients were included in this study. Median PFS (mPFS) was 3.53 months for the apatinib group and 5.3 months for the anlotinib group (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.84; P = 0.004), and median OS (mOS) was 7.6 months versus 15.6 months (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-1.00; P = 0.048), which all showed significant differences after adjusting for confounders (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that the presence or absence of bone metastases significantly influenced PFS in both treatment groups. The ORR was 3.03% in the anlotinib group versus 10.13% in the apatinib group (P = 0.12), the DCR was 72.73% versus 51.90% (P = 0.21). No unanticipated adverse events (AEs) were observed. The incidence of grade 3-4 AEs was significantly higher in the apatinib group (31.65% vs 13.64%, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Anlotinib demonstrated greater efficacy and safety compared to apatinib in the treatment of advanced NSCLC, particularly in patients with bone metastases and EGFR(-).
What problem does this paper attempt to address?