Cited by 103Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies

Treating Patients With EGFR-Sensitizing Mutations: First Line or Second Line—Is There a Difference?

Mok, Tony, Yang, Jin-Ji, Lam, Kwok-Chi·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

First-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) is a standard treatment for patients with activating EGFR mutations. Six randomized studies have demonstrated consistent improvement in tumor response rate and progression-free survival over platinum-based combination chemotherapy. The only reason to consider EGFR TKI as second-line therapy is that none of the six comparative studies has shown improvement in overall survival, which can be explained by the high proportion of patients from the chemotherapy arm crossing over to the EGFR TKI arm on progression. It is true that patients with EGFR mutations may benefit from second-line EGFR TKI therapy, but we cannot conclude that the benefit is either equal to or inferior to first-line EGFR TKI therapy. To date, there are no direct comparative data between first- and second-line EGFR TKI in patients with activating EGFR mutations. Tumor response rates to second-line EGFR TKI have been inconsistent, which could potentially be explained by the impact of first-line chemotherapy on the abundance of tumor cells with activating EGFR mutations. However, numerous arguments, including assurance on drug exposure, improvement in quality of life, better tolerance by patients with poor performance status, and deferral of whole-brain radiation therapy for patients with brain metastasis, support the general application of first-line EGFR TKI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2012.43.0652

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lack of overall survival difference is most likely due to confounding from crossover treatment.

    “As seen in randomized phase 3 studies of first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus chemotherapy in EGFRmutation-positive NSCLC, this finding is most likely attributable to the confounding effects of crossover treatment.32”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mok, T., Yang, J.-J., & Lam, K.-C.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2013-03-10
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
1081-1088
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2100093357
Cited by
103
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › HER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Keywords
EGFR mutation, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, first-line therapy, second-line therapy, non-small cell lung cancer, platinum-based chemotherapy, progression-free survival, overall survival, brain metastases, quality of life
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Mutation, Prognosis, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, ErbB Receptors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review