Second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer with wild-type EGFR status. What is the best approach?

Ibrahim Elghissassi,Hanane Inrhaoun,Hassan Errihani,Saber Boutayeb,Hind Mrabti

doi:10.3747/co.23.2849

Ibrahim Elghissassi, Hanane Inrhaoun + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.2849

Copy DOI

Journal: Current Oncology	Publication Date: Apr 1, 2016
Citations: 1	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Mohammed V University

Abstract

Highlights

We read with great interest the article of Ma and colleagues titled “An exploratory comparative analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors or docetaxel in second-line treatment of EGFR wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective real-world practice review at a single tertiary care centre”[1]
The authors concluded that second-line therapy with tki for EGFR wild-type nsclc was associated with statistically better progression-free survival and event-free survival, and noninferior overall survival
Considering the results of two large randomized phase iii trials[2,3] and a meta-analysis[4], it is well established that chemotherapy is better than erlotinib in terms of pfs in the second-line treatment of nsclc with wild-type EGFR status

Summary

Introduction

We read with great interest the article of Ma and colleagues titled “An exploratory comparative analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors or docetaxel in second-line treatment of EGFR wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective real-world practice review at a single tertiary care centre”[1]. The authors concluded that second-line therapy with tki for EGFR wild-type nsclc (compared with docetaxel) was associated with statistically better progression-free survival (pfs) and event-free survival, and noninferior overall survival. In addition to the limitations reported by the authors (the relatively small size of the cohort, the selection bias, the variability in the timing of imaging, and the retrospective nature of the analysis), we can make several comments.

Results

Conclusion