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-

Comparison Of Gefitinib, Erlotinib And Afatinib In Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor‐tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy is Effective As First‐line Treatment of Advanced Non‐small‐cell Lung Cancer with Mutated EGFR: A Meta‐analysis from Six Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials

Gefitinib and erlotinib in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of toxicity and efficacy of randomized clinical trials

Gefitinib or Erlotinib Vs Chemotherapy for EGFR Mutation-Positive Lung Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Overall Survival

Gefitinib provides similar effectiveness and improved safety than erlotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer A meta-analysis

Erlotinib in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: an Update for Clinicians

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

Comparative Outcome Assessment of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: a Network Meta-Analysis.

Therapeutic Efficacy Comparison of Six Major EGFR-TKIs in Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Patients with an Activating EGFR Mutation: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of EFGR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Monotherapy with Standard Second-line Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Critical Appraisal of the Role of Gefitinib in the Management of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Evaluation of Three Small Molecular Drugs for Targeted Therapy to Treat Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

Therapeutic Efficacy Comparison of 5 Major Egfr-Tkis in Advanced Egfr-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis Based on Head-To-Head Trials

Critical appraisal of the role of gefitinib in the management of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

REPORT- Clinical outcomes of using second - versus first-Generation EGFR-tkis for the First-Line treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations: A meta-analysis

Targeted Therapy for Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Using EGFR-TKIs

The Efficacy of Erlotinib Versus Conventional Chemotherapy for Advanced Nonsmall-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

Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

First-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis

The Efficacy and Safety of EGFR Inhibitor Monotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review