^
Association details:
Evidence:
Evidence Level:
Sensitive: C3 – Early Trials
Source:
Title:

Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Published date:
10/30/2017
Excerpt:
Our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of all second-line treatments for advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown status for EGFR by a systematic review and network meta-analysis....For PFS, erlotinib plus cabozantinib was more effective than docetaxel (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.18–0.84), pemetrexed (0.38, 0.18–0.82), erlotinib (0.37, 0.18–0.78), and gefitinib (0.38, 0.18–0.82). Cabozantinib and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than the four recommended treatments.
DOI:
10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x
Evidence Level:
Sensitive: C3 – Early Trials
Title:

Erlotinib, cabozantinib, or erlotinib plus cabozantinib as second-line or third-line treatment of patients with EGFR wild-type advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ECOG-ACRIN 1512): a randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial

Published date:
12/01/2016
Excerpt:
Compared with erlotinib alone (median 1·8 months [95% CI 1·7–2·2]), progression-free survival was significantly improved in the cabozantinib group (4·3 months [3·6–7·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 80% CI 0·27–0·55; one-sided p=0·0003) and in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group (4·7 months [2·4–7·4]; HR 0·37, 0·25–0·53; one-sided p=0·0003)....in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC, cabozantinib alone or combined with erlotinib has clinically meaningful, superior efficacy to that of erlotinib alone...
DOI:
10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30561-7