Afatinib and Dacomitinib Efficacy, Safety, Progression Patterns, and Resistance Mechanisms in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Carrying Uncommon EGFR Mutations: A Comparative Cohort Study in China (AFANDA Study)

Simple Summary Afatinib has been approved for patients with lung cancer carrying uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutations. Dacomitinib, another second-generation inhibitor, has also shown promising potential for these mutations. This is the first and largest comparative study on second-generation inhibitors in patients with uncommon EGFR mutations to date. We found that dacomitinib demonstrated a more favorable activity with manageable toxicity compared with afatinib, which provided more evidence for dacomitinib application in this setting. (1) Background: Afatinib has been approved for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) carrying major uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutations. Dacomitinib, another second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has also shown promising potential for uncommon EGFR mutations. However, no comparative study has been conducted. (2) Methods: Two cohorts were employed: the AFANDA cohort, an ambispective cohort including 121 patients with uncommon EGFR mutations admitted to two tertiary hospitals in China, and an external validation afatinib cohort (ex-AC), extracted from the Afatinib Uncommon EGFR Mutations Database (N = 1140). The AFANDA cohort was divided into an afatinib cohort (AC) and a dacomitinib cohort (DC) for internal exploration. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed for comparison. Progression patterns and resistance mechanisms were explored. (3) Results: In total, 286 patients with advanced NSCLC carrying uncommon EGFR mutations treated with afatinib or dacomitinib were enrolled, including 79 in the AFANDA cohort (44 in the DC, 35 in the AC) and 207 in the ex-AC. In internal exploration, the ORR of the DC was significantly higher than that of the AC (60.5 vs. 26.7%, p = 0.008), but there was no significant difference in median PFS between the DC and the AC (12.0 months vs. 10.0 months, p = 0.305). Multivariate analysis confirmed an independent favorable effect of dacomitinib on PFS (hazard ratio (HR), 1.909; p = 0.047). In external validation, multivariate analysis confirmed the independent prognostic role of dacomitinib in PFS (HR, 1.953; p = 0.029). Propensity score matching analysis confirmed the superiority of dacomitinib over afatinib in terms of PFS in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Toxicity profiling analysis suggested more G1 (p = 0.006), but fewer G3 (p = 0.036) AEs in the DC than in the AC. Progression patterns revealed that the incidence of intracranial progression in the AC was significantly higher than that in the DC (50 vs. 21.1%, p = 0.002). Drug resistance analysis indicated no significant difference in the occurrence of T790M between the AC and the DC (11.8 vs. 15.4%, p = 0.772). (4) Conclusions: Compared with afatinib, dacomitinib demonstrated a more favorable activity with manageable toxicity and different progression patterns in patients with NSCLC carrying uncommon EGFR mutations.