Cited by 79Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibition in Mutation-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Is Afatinib Better or Simply Newer?

Langer, Corey J.·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

In the last decade we have witnessed a major evolution in both molecular diagnostics and individualized therapy in the management of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The identification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and the centrality of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients whose tumors harbor these mutations have irrevocably altered how we view NSCLC. The more recent recognition of echinoderm microtubuleassociated protein-like 4/anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 translocations as molecular drivers, for which specific treatment exists, has altered our perspective still more. NSCLC is no longer considered a monolithic illness, but it is now readily recognized as a constellation of genotypic entities for which targeted therapy has an increasing role. In this regard, despite clinical, radiographic, and even histologic similarities from tumor to tumor, the genotypic footprint, one believes, should ultimately trump phenotype when it comes to therapeutic decision making. As part of this evolution, we are now observing the second wave of EGFR TKIs. In their seminal article, Sequist et al highlight the results of the LUX-Lung 3 trial, which compared afatinib, a secondgeneration irreversible TKI, to cisplatin and pemetrexed in the firstline treatment of treatment-naive patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung and EGFR mutation. Afatinib is clearly superior with respect to response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS), and these benefits are even more pronounced in the vast majority of patients whose tumors harbor the common activating mutations in exons 19 and 21 (Table 1). In this regard, the LUX-Lung 3 trial joins a number of other trials examining erlotinib and gefitinib in the identical therapeutic setting, each of which has consistently shown a statistically significant and clinically meaningful RR and PFS benefit compared with standard chemotherapy (Table 2). Although many would argue that the results of the LUX-Lung 3 trial were entirely expected and scarcely surprising, this landmark phase III effort comparing afatinib with standard chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC and EGFR mutation is distinguished by a number of factors. It is the largest trial to date in the first-line EGFR mutant setting to be published; it is the first randomized phase III trial to compare a second-generation irreversible EGFR TKI with activity against both human epidermal growth factor receptor 1 (HER1) and HER2 versus platinum-based cytotoxics; it employs a state-of-the-art comparator (pemetrexed and cisplatin); it fully integrates quality-oflife (QoL) evaluation into outcome analysis; it is the first global trial of this sort; and it is explicitly a registration trial. Among those trials that have been confined to patients with actionable EGFR mutations, this trial enrolled nearly double the number of participants, well over 300, making it far more robust and thereby tightening the CIs around the benefits already noted in similar studies. The global nature of this trial and its size make the findings a Table 1. Top-Line Results of the LUX-Lung 3 Trial

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2013.49.8782

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Clinical trials have demonstrated that afatinib performs better in overall survival than chemotherapy for those with EGFR exon 19 deletion, and provides an overall longer period of effective treatment and good disease control compared to gefitinib.

    “Clinical trials have demonstrated that afatinib performs better in terms of overall survival than chemotherapy for those with EGFR exon 19 deletion, and provides an overall longer period of effective treatment and good disease control compared to gefitinib, a first-generation EGFR inhibitor.120–123”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Langer, C. J.
Affiliations
Abramson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Langer, Corey J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2013-09-20
Volume
31
Issue
27
Pages
3303-3306
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2099742478
Cited by
79
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.04
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 › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
afatinib, EGFR mutation, non-small cell lung cancer, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, first-line therapy, gefitinib, erlotinib, platinum-based chemotherapy, ALK rearrangement, ROS1 rearrangement, targeted therapy, progression-free survival, response rate, HER2, EGF receptor, molecular subtyping
MeSH terms
Adenocarcinoma of Lung, Afatinib, Adenocarcinoma, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Mutation, Quinazolines, 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