Lifestyle risks exposure and response predictor of gefitinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

被引:9
作者
Ying, Hongyan [1 ]
Yang, Xian-Da [2 ,3 ]
Sun, Zhao [1 ]
Ning, Xiaohong [1 ]
Wang, Yingyi [1 ]
Bai, Chunmai [1 ]
Chen, Shuchang [1 ]
Wang, Yuzhou [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Peking Union Med Coll, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Inst Basic Med Sci, Beijing 100005, Peoples R China
[3] Peking Union Med Coll, Beijing 100005, Peoples R China
基金
高等学校博士学科点专项科研基金;
关键词
Gefitinib; Erlotinib; Non-small cell lung cancer; Epidermal growth factor receptor; Etiology; GROWTH-FACTOR RECEPTOR; 1ST-LINE TREATMENT; NEVER-SMOKERS; OPEN-LABEL; CHEMOTHERAPY; ERLOTINIB; MUTATION; MULTICENTER; SURVIVAL; EGFR;
D O I
10.1007/s12032-014-0220-4
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been shown to improve the prognosis of EGFR-mutated (exon 19/21) non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Positive EGFR mutation status is associated with NSCLC in non-smokers. Genetic and environmental factors have been linked to the etiology of EGFR mutations and sensitivity to EGFR-TKIs in non-smoking NSCLC patients. Cooking fume exposure (CFE) has also been proposed as an etiologic factor for NSCLC in non-smokers; however, the association of CFE with EGFR mutation status and EGFR-TKI response is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the association between CFE and clinical response to EGFR-TKI therapy in NSCLC. The association of CFE, smoking history, occupational hazard exposure, tumor pathological type, EGFR mutation status, environmental exposure, living environment, and performance status with EGFR-TKI efficacy was determined in metastatic NSCLC patients who were treated with EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib or erlotinib). Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used to evaluate EGFR-TKI response. A total of 273 patients with a median age of 60.97 years (range 27-86 years) were included in this study. The proportion of patients receiving gefitinib and erlotinib was 72.53 % (198/273) and 27.47 % (75/273), respectively. ORRs (complete + partial responses) to gefitinib and erlotinib treatment were 20.70 % (41/198) and 14.67 % (11/75), respectively. Of the 273 patients, 98 (36.03 %) had CFE and 112 (44.69 %) had exposed to tobacco smoke. EGFR mutations were present in 55 patients, including exon 19 deletion (n = 43) and exon 21 point mutations (n = 12). Of the 55 EGFR mutation-positive patients, 52 (94.5 %) had CFE. In the multivariate conditional logistic analysis, clinical response to EGFR-TKI was associated with non-smoking status, EGFR mutation, and CFE. Among these factors, CFE was the strongest predictor of EGFR-TKI response (odds ratio 13.66; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.66-32.98; P < 0.001). PFS was associated with a performance status of 0/1, adenocarcinoma pathological type, non-smoking status, EGFR mutation, and CFE. Among these, CFE was the most important factor for longer PFS (hazard ratio 0.37; 95 % CI 0.26-0.52; P < 0.001). The median PFS was 15.15 months in patients with CFE and 4.37 months in those without (P < 0.0001). Knowledge of CFE history might be useful as a response predictor to EGFR-TKI treatment in NSCLC. Furthermore, CFE history might help to assess EGFR mutation status when genetic testing is not available.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 7
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [21] Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study
    Zhou, Caicun
    Wu, Yi-Long
    Chen, Gongyan
    Feng, Jifeng
    Liu, Xiao-Qing
    Wang, Changli
    Zhang, Shucai
    Wang, Jie
    Zhou, Songwen
    Ren, Shengxiang
    Lu, Shun
    Zhang, Li
    Hu, Chengping
    Hu, Chunhong
    Luo, Yi
    Chen, Lei
    Ye, Ming
    Huang, Jianan
    Zhi, Xiuyi
    Zhang, Yiping
    Xiu, Qingyu
    Ma, Jun
    Zhang, Li
    You, Changxuan
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2011, 12 (08) : 735 - 742