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