Skip to main content

Table 3 Best Overall Tumor Response to Second-Line Treatment

From: Real-world effectiveness of second-line Afatinib versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma in immunotherapy-naïve patients

 

Original cohort

Propensity-score matching cohort

Afatinib

(n = 19)

Chemotherapy

(n = 89)

p-value

Afatinib

(n = 19)

Chemotherapy

(n = 19)

p-value

Disease control, n (%)

16 (84.2)

41 (46.1)

0.003*

16 (84.2)

8 (42.1)

0.007*

Objective response, n (%)

5 (26.3)

7 (7.9)

0.020*

5 (26.3)

2 (10.5)

0.209*

CR, n (%)

0 (0)

0 (0)

..

0 (0)

0 (0)

..

PR, n (%)

5 (26.3)

7 (7.9)

..

5 (26.3)

2 (10.5)

..

SD, n (%)

11 (57.9)

34 (38.2)

..

11 (57.9)

6 (31.6)

..

PD, n (%)

2 (10.5)

43 (48.3)

..

2 (10.5)

7 (36.8)

..

NE, n (%)

1 (5.3)

5 (5.6)

..

1 (5.3)

2 (10.5)

..

Time on first-line treatment, months (95% CI)

6 (1.2–9.1)

5.4 (0.9–11.2)

..

6 (1.2–9.1)

3.5 (0.4–13.9)

..

PFS, months (95% CI)

4.7 (0.1–7.5)

2.6 (0.9–6.7)

..

4.7 (0.1–7.5)

1.9 (0.4–8.4)

..

OS, months (95% CI)

16.0 (6.1–22.0)

12.3 (6.2–33.9)

..

16.0 (6.1–22.0)

9.9 (6.2–39.4)

..

  1. CR complete response; PR partial response; SD stable disease; PR progressive disease; NE not evaluable; PFS progression-free survival of second-line treatment; OS overall survival
  2. *Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher’s exact test