Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficacy and safety of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs for resected non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized control trials

BMC Cancer volume 22, Article number: 328 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Postoperative adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy had been the standard care in patients with completely resected high-risk stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for decades. However, the survival benefits were far from satisfactory in clinical practice. Thus, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) in patients with resected NSCLC based on updated literature and research.

Methods

A systematic literature search based on random control trials (RCTs) was conducted with keywords on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases. All articles compared EGFR-TKIs to placebo or chemotherapy as adjuvant therapies for early-stage resected NSCLC. A meta-analysis was performed to generate combined hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for disease recurrence and adverse events (AEs). The Stata statistical software (version 14.0) was used to synthesis the data.

Results

A total of 9 RCTs comprising 3098 patients were included. Adjuvant EGFR-TKIs could significantly prolong DFS in patient with resected NSCLC harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29–0.72), but had no impact on OS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69–1.11). The subgroup analyses indicated that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs were superior in regard to DFS in most subgroups, including varied smoking status, EGFR mutations type, gender, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and adenocarcinoma. Osimertinib resulted in decreased brain recurrence than first generation of EGFR-TKIs (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04–0.34 vs. RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64–1.78, respectively). The AEs were generally manageable and tolerable. The incidence of high-grade (≥ 3) AEs including diarrhea (RR 5.68, 95% CI 2.94–10.98) and rash (RR 27.74, 95% CI 11.43–67.30) increased after adjuvant EGFR-TKIs treatment.

Conclusions

Adjuvant EGFR-TKIs therapy could significantly prolong DFS in patients with completely resected early-stage EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, but had no impact on OS. Adjuvant EGFR-TKIs could be an important treatment option in patients with resected early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Peer Review reports

Background

Lung cancer is considered as the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the world [1]. Completed anatomical pulmonary resection and intrathoracic lymph node dissection with at least six stations of lymph nodes have been the most effective and preferred strategy in the treatment of early-stage (stage I-IIIA) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, only 30% of patients with NSCLC are considered candidates for surgical resection at first diagnosed [2, 3]. Approximately 30–70% of patients will relapse and progress with metastases despite undergoing complete resection and adequate adjuvant treatment [4, 5]. Therefore, an effective adjuvant therapy is necessary to eliminate the microscopic residual lesions. According to the recommendations from previous studies and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline, postoperative adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy has been the standard care in patients with completely resected high-risk stage IB and stage II-IIIA NSCLC irrespective of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status for decades [6, 7]. However, only a 16% decrease in the risk of disease recurrence or death and a 5-year absolute survival benefit of 5.4% and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) benefit of 5.8% are obtained with adjuvant chemotherapy [6,7,8,9]. A recent meta-analysis published in 2015 showed that DFS increased by just 4.0% with adjuvant chemotherapy relative to resection alone [2]. In general, comparison of these analyses suggests that the contribution of cisplatin-based adjuvant treatment has reached a therapeutic plateau and has been no substantial improvement in the overall outcomes during the past two decades. The prognosis of operable NSCLC is still far from satisfactory, at present. Further survival improvements should be sought through the use of alternative treatments with better tolerability than adjuvant chemotherapy.

EGFR mutation has a vital pathogenic and oncogenic role in NSCLC, which is observed in approximately up to 50% of patients with adenocarcinoma of lung in Asia. Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), such as erlotinib [10], gefitinib [11] and osimertinib [12] are the recommended first-line treatments for advanced NSCLC harboring driver gene mutations (such as small multi-nucleotide in-frame deletions in exon 19 and a point mutation in exon 21 resulting in substitution of leucine for arginine at position 858 (L858R) of EGFR) [13, 14]. The effectiveness in response rates and significantly prolonged survival of EGFR-TKIs compared with doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC have led to a series of studies involving EGFR-TKIs as an adjuvant treatment for resected NSCLC. A retrospective study indicated that adjuvant gefitinib could provide a significantly prolonged DFS compared to adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected EGFR-mutant stage II-IIIA NSCLC, which was 34.9 months versus 19.3 months [15]. Previous cohort study demonstrated that adjuvant erlotinib for 2 years after standard adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy could improve the survival of patients with surgically resected EGFR-mutant stage IA-IIIA NSCLC, with a remarkable improved 2-year DFS greater than 85% [16]. Nevertheless, subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded conflicting results with respect to whether adjuvant EGFR-TKIs treatment compared to placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy could improve the prognosis of patients with operable NSCLC [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].

Three previous meta-analyses showed that therapy consisting of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs had specific advantage over placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of DFS for NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations undergoing complete resection, but the overall survival (OS) could not be synthesized because of immature follow-up data. However, adjuvant EGFR-TKIs had no survival benefit in patients without EGFR mutations [25,26,27,28]. EGFR-TKIs could be an alternative adjuvant treatment for patients who had undergone complete resection of histologically or pathologically confirmed early-stage NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations, with better tolerability and survival improvements than chemotherapy. So far, adjuvant EGFR-TKI of osimertinib has been considered to be recommended for resected NSCLC as an adjuvant treatment option by guidelines, but adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is still the preferred recommendation [29]. Thus, in order to further improve the treatment strategy and management of resected NSCLC, we performed this updated meta-analysis to summarize the efficacy and safety of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs for patients with resected NSCLC based on updated data and new evidence.

Eligibility criteria

We included trials that met the following criteria in our meta-analysis: (1) Patients with completely resected, early-stage (stage I to III) pathological confirmed NSCLC; (2) Phase 2/3 RCTs comparing adjuvant EGFR-TKIs with chemotherapy or placebo; (3) Primary endpoints such as OS or DFS were reported; (4) Safety and adverse events (AEs) of EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy were evaluated in these trials. Only officially published English literature was included in the analysis.

Literature research strategy

The meta-analysis was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [30]. Two researchers (Pengfei ZHAO and Hong ZHAO) separately searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases for studies between January 1, 2010 and February 16, 2022 using common keywords related to adjuvant EGFR-TKI and resected NSCLC. The following keywords were included: “EGFR-TKI OR epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors OR erlotinib OR gefitinib OR osimertinib OR icotinib OR dacomitinib OR afatinib” AND “lung neoplasms OR carcinoma, non-small-cell lung OR non-small cell lung cancer OR NSCLC OR resected NSCLC OR operable NSCLC” AND “adjuvant therapy”. Bibliographies of published articles and clinical trial registers were searched and reviewed for additional articles.

Data extraction and quality evaluation

Two investigators (Pengfei ZHAO and Hongchao ZHEN) independently reviewed all the articles and extracted the data. The discrepancies were resolved by discussing with a third investigator until a consensus was reached. For individual study, trial name, authors’ last name, publication year, phase, country, study design, stage, number of patients in the EGFR-TKIs treatment and the control group, treatment regimes, percentage of EGFR mutations, percentage of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, duration of EGFR-TKIs, follow-up, survival outcomes, adverse events and place of relapse were extracted carefully. Patients with early-stage NSCLC administering adjuvant EGFR-TKIs (sequential after chemotherapy or single used) after disease resection were defined as experimental group, and receiving adjuvant chemotherapy or placebo were as control group. The risk of bias tool (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions) was used to assess the methodological quality of individual included studies, in which random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome data, incomplete date, selective reporting and other bias were assessed [31, 32]. High risk, unclear risk and low risk were assessed and described in above-mentioned bias. The results were performed with risk of bias summary and risk of bias graph by using Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration 2014, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark).

Statistical analysis

The Stata 14.0 statistical software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, UAS) was used to conduct the meta-analysis. We chose DFS as the primary endpoint in this meta-analysis. DFS was defined as the time from randomization to disease recurrence or death from any cause. The other endpoints included OS, safety and toxicities and places of relapse. Hazards ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was extracted from individual studies for survival outcome data. Risk ratio (RR) was estimated to represent the combined effect for dichotomous outcomes such as adverse events and places of relapse by extracting the number of events and the no occurred events in each group. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on variables such as smoking status, EGFR mutations type, histology, gender, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, stage, receiving adjuvant chemotherapy or not, different EGFR-TKIs type. Heterogeneity analysis was performed by Chi-square test and χ2 P value < 0.1or an I2 statistic index > 50% indicated as statistical significance. A fixed-effects statistical model was used when there was no heterogeneity. Otherwise, a random-effects statistical model was applied. For safety and relapse, RR > 1 indicated that higher incidence of adverse events and higher recurrence occurred in patients treated with EGFR-TKIs than placebo or chemotherapy. The combined effects were confirmed statistically significant when P value < 0.05. Publication bias was assessed according to the Begg’s and Egger’s tests.

Results

Characteristic of the included studies and risk of bias

In total, 3483 articles were identified in the initial search from the database. After checking the titles and abstracts, 3451 articles were excluded due to duplicated articles, not relevant, reviews, case reports and in vitro basic research. Among the 32 articles, 23 articles were excluded due to not RCTs, no outcome of interest and insufficient information after reviewing the full text. Nine studies containing a total of 3098 patients met the including criteria finally. All the included trials evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs with placebo or chemotherapy in patients with resected NSCLC. Among the nine studies, one involved osimertinib, two involved icotinib, four involved gefitinib and two involved erlotinib. In addition, four studies included patients with stage IB to IIIA, two studies included stage II to IIIA, one included stage II to III and the other two included patients with stage IIIA. Furthermore, seven studies had data from patients harboring EGFR mutations only and two studies were involved regardless of the EGFR mutations status. The flow chart of the study retrieval and data selection was displayed in Fig. 1. The basic characteristics of the included studies was summarized in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of the exclusion and inclusion of studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of the eligible clinical trials
Full size table

The quality of the included studies was evaluated by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The contents of the risk of bias for each study were presented in Fig. 2. In all, the quality of the trials was satisfactory except a lack of report of HR and 95% CIs of DFS in Feng et al. study [19]. The data of Feng et al. study was captured and extracted by using a software named Engauge Digitizer and the HR and the 95% CIs of DFS was evaluated by using the method according to the Jayne F Tierney’s introduction [33]. The combined effect of DFS in our meta-analysis was calculated by whether adding Feng’s trial or not.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias based on the evaluation elements listed in the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool: risk of bias graph (A), risk of bias summary (B)

Full size image

Effects of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo on DFS

As shown in Fig. 3A, eight RCTs reported the data of HR and 95% CI for DFS following adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected NSCLC. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies, so random-effects statistical models were conducted (I2 = 91.9%, P = 0.000 and I2 = 85.4%, P = 0.000 respectively). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs could significantly prolonged DFS compared to control group in the intent-to-treat patients with resected NSCLC regardless of the EGFR mutations status (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33–0.81). The benefit of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs upon DFS was also significant when involving Feng’s study (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33–0.79) (See Additional file 1). As shown in Fig. 3B, the effect of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs in resected NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations was further analyzed. The combined results indicated that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs could significantly increase DFS compared to control group in resected NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29–0.72). The effect of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs on DFS was also beneficial when involving Feng’s study (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29–0.71) (See Additional file 1). We further analyzed the effect of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus different control subgroup on DFS (See Additional file 2). The results showed that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs had significant DFS benefit when compared with adjuvant chemotherapy alone (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.82). Adjuvant chemotherapy plus EGFR-TKIs was superior in regard to DFS than adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17–0.83). There was no different between adjuvant EGFR-TKIs and adjuvant placebo group on DFS (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15–1.59).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of DFS between adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo in resected NSCLC patients. A DFS for the intent-to-treat patients with regardless of the EGFR mutations status. B DFS for patients harboring EGFR mutations

Full size image

Effects of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo on OS

As shown in Fig. 4, eight RCTs reported the data of HR and 95% CI for OS following adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs had no impact on OS compared to placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy in the intent-to-treat patients with resected NSCLC regardless of the EGFR mutations status (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69–1.20). There was also no significant increase on OS for adjuvant EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69–1.11). The subgroup analysis with respect to control group demonstrated that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs had no OS benefit when compared with adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.16) or adjuvant placebo group (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60–1.91). Adjuvant chemotherapy plus EGFR-TKIs was not superior in regard to OS than adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12–1.13) (See Additional file 2).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Comparison of OS between adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo in resected NSCLC patients. A OS for the intent-to-treat patients with regardless of the EGFR mutations status. B OS for patients harboring EGFR mutations

Full size image

The subgroup analyses of the effects of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo on DFS

As shown in Fig. 5, the effects of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs on DFS were analyzed in the subgroup of smoking status, EGFR mutations type, histology, gender, age, ECOG performance status, stage and adjuvant chemotherapy. Our subgroup meta-analyses demonstrated that the benefit of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs over control group with respect to DFS were evident in most subgroups, including smoker (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23–0.77), non-smoker (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29–0.75), EGFR exon 19 deletion (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23–0.77), EGFR exon 21 L858R (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37–0.84), adenocarcinoma (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36–0.69), male (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22–0.85), female (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22–0.66), age < 65 (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34–0.56), age ≥ 65 (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.30–0.56), ECOG was 0 (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18–0.60) and 1 (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24–0.59). The DFS was not improved in patients with non-adenocarcinoma (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15–2.71), stage IB (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24–1.62), stage II (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.23–1.04), stage IIIA (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.11–1.26), stage III (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66–1.41), receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.07–1.99) or not (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12–2.00). Additionally, the results indicated that icotinib (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24–0.55), osimertinib (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11–0.26), and erlotinib (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19–0.94) could significantly prolong DFS compared to placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy in the NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations. However, the benefit was not presented in patients who receiving gefitinib (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46–1.09).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Comparison of DFS between adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo in the subgroup

Full size image

Effect of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs on disease recurrence

In our meta-analysis, the incidence of relapse was evaluated and analyzed in patients treated with adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy. The data of disease relapse was available and reported in IMPACT, EVIDENCE ADAURA, ADJUVANT, RADIANT, BR19 and Li et al. trials. In general, the combined results indicated that for local recurrence, distant metastasis, brain, bone, lung, liver, pleural effusion relapse and regional lymph node recurrences, no significant differences were observed between the two groups (See Additional file 3). However, subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of brain recurrence significantly decreased in patients treated with osimertinib (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04–0.34) than the first generation of EGFR-TKIs of gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60–1.35) when compared with control group. The result was consistent with the findings in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04–0.34 and RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64–1.78, separately). The brain recurrence rate in IMPACT, EVIDENCE, ADAURA, ADJUVANT, RADIANT, BR19 and Li et al. studies was 22.4, 7 1.2, 27.4, 7.7, 10 and 9.9% in patents receiving adjuvant EGFR-TKIs therapies, respectively. All the related results were shown in Fig. 6 and Additional file 3.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Comparison of brain recurrence between adjuvant first or third-generation of EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo. A The risk of brain recurrence in intent-to-treat patients with regardless of the EGFR mutations status. B The risk of brain recurrence in patients harboring EGFR mutations

Full size image

Safety outcomes

The safety outcomes were evaluated and all these adverse events were generally tolerable. As shown in Fig. 7, when compared with the control group, patients treated with adjuvant EGFR-TKIs had lower risk of grade 1–5 AEs (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15–0.59). However, the risk of grade 1–5 diarrhea and rash significantly increased in adjuvant EGFR-TKIs group (Diarrhea: RR 3.17, 95% CI 2.71–3.71; Rash: RR 4.12, 95% CI 3.51–4.84). The risk of grade 1–5 vomiting, nausea, neutropenia, leucopenia, platelet count decrease, anaemia and fatigue significantly increased in control group when compared with adjuvant EGFR-TKIs. For high-grade adverse events, patients treated with adjuvant EGFR-TKIs had lower risk of all grade 3–5 AEs (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11–0.97). However, the pooled RRs of grade 3–5 diarrhea and rash incidence were significant for the adjuvant EGFR-TKIs group (Diarrhea: RR 5.68, 95% CI 2.94–10.98; Rash: RR 27.74, 95% CI 11.43–67.30). The pooled RRs for grade 3–5 vomiting, nausea, neutropenia, leukopenia, anaemia and fatigue incidence were significant in control group. All the related results in regard to the use of EGFR-TKIs versus control group in resected NSCLC were showed in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Comparison of RRs of grade 1–5 AEs and grade ≥ 3 AEs between adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo

Full size image

Publication bias

The P value was 0.902 for Begg’s test and 0.734 for Egger’s test. Therefore, there was no evidence of publication bias for DFS in this meta-analysis (P > 0.05).

Discussion

In our current meta-analysis, the results showed that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs could significantly prolong DFS in patients with resected early-stage EGFR mutations-positive NSCLC, with manageable and tolerable toxicity. However, no significant difference with respect to OS improvement was observed. Besides, the treatment failure patterns in terms of relapse places were analyzed and the results demonstrated that brain recurrence was significantly lower in patients with adjuvant osimertinib than with the first generation of EGFR-TKIs of gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib.

To our knowledge, whether EGFR-TKIs could be an adjuvant treatment in operable NSCLC patients had been a controversial subject for decades. Several studies had reported conflicting results on the clinical effect of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs in resected NSCLC in the past and in recent years [6, 17,18,19,20,21,22]. IMPACT, RADIANT, BR19 and Feng et al. studies demonstrated that no survival benefits were observed in resected NSCLC patients with adjuvant erlotinib, gefitinib or icotinib [17, 19, 20, 28]. Whereas the DFS with adjuvant gefitinib in ADJUVANT and Li et al. trials and erlotinib in EVAN trial was significantly improved [18, 22]. It was worth noted that the DFS was prolonged with statistically significant in patients with EGFR mutations in RADIANT trial [20]. Moreover, the recent studies of ADAURA and EVIDENCE showed that adjuvant osimertinib or icotinib could provide significant survival benefits against placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations [23, 24]. The reasons for the contradictory results might be caused, at least in part, by that as follows: (1) there was apparent inconsistency in clinical stage; (2) the percentages of EGFR mutations were different, which varied from 4% in BR19 to 100% in most of studies; (3) different generation of EGFR-TKIs was chosen as intervention therapies; (4) the duration of EGFR-TKIs was non-uniform. (5) the timing with respect to medication was inconsistent.

Prior meta-analysis had noted the importance of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs on DFS benefit in resected NSCLC [25,26,27, 34, 35]. The present updated meta-analysis showed that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs could improve the DFS of resected early-stage NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations, when compared with the control group. Whereas only osimertinib is recommended historically initially as a considerable adjuvant treatment followed adjuvant chemotherapy by NCCN guideline, and none of the other EGFR-TKIs are recommended by guideline [29]. The reason might be that although the DFS benefits of first generation of EGFR-TKIs were significant in EVIDENCE, ADJUVANT, EVAN and other studies, the DFS advantage associated with adjuvant icotinib, gefitinib and erlotinib did not translate into a significant OS improvement [21, 22, 24]. However, in ADAURA study, the median DFS was not reached in adjuvant osimertinib versus 27.5 months in placebo group [23]. The statistically significant HR for DFS was as low as 0.20 in resected NSCLC with stage IB-IIIA, and was 0.17 in stage II-IIIA patients, which was the historic lows in adjuvant therapies [23]. Even though the OS data was immature, 98% of the patients in the osimertinib and 85% of those in the placebo group were alive without central nervous system (CNS) metastasis at 24 months and the median CNS DFS was not reached and 48.2 months, respectively. Additionally, it also couldn’t be ignored that icotinib achieved an impressive median DFS of 47 months in EVIDENCE trial and erlotinib achieved 42.4 months in EVAN trial compared to adjuvant chemotherapies [21, 24]. They might be alternative adjuvant therapies in some certain occasions in clinic.

Despite improvements in DFS, adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus chemotherapy or placebo had not substantially improved OS in patients with operable NSCLC, not matter what the EGFR mutations status were. The final OS could be affected by many factors. The subsequent treatment options, such as chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, operation, continuing the same EGFR-TKIs or changing to another generation of EGFR-TKIs, the best supportive cere or wait and watch, were markedly different between individuals after disease recurrence or metastasis [36]. The final median OS had no significant difference between gefitinib and vinorelbine plus cisplatin group in the ADJUVANT trial (median OS: 75.5 months versus 62.8 months; HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62–1.36; P = 0.574, 36]. The updated data showed that subsequent therapies greatly influenced OS and continuing EGFR-TKIs contributed most to OS in ADJUVANT trial. In addition, the duration of EGFR-TKIs might also influenced the prognosis. The average duration of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs was 24 months in most of the clinical trials [17, 20,21,22]. In the ADAURA trial, adjuvant osimertinib medication was required for up to 36 months [23, 29]. So, the point is, whether a longer maintenance treatment with EGFR-TKIs can further improve the OS remains unclear. The subsequent final OS data in ADAURA trial is anticipated and more investigations are urgently needed.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the risk of brain recurrence was significant reduced when patients treated with adjuvant osimertinib than with first generation of EGFR-TKIs. Why osimertinib could reduce the rate of brain metastasis? First, osimertinib was a potent and irreversible inhibitor of EGFR kinase activity and was structurally different from other generations of TKI [37]. Second, the preclinical study revealed that it can suppress the growth of cells in both EGFR sensitizing mutations and EGFR second mutation cell lines, which resulted in substitution of threonine at amino acid 790 to methionine (T790M), in vitro [38]. In addition, the preclinical data displayed osimertinib demonstrated better penetration of blood-brain barrier, achieved brain exposure and high distribution in central nervous system, and could cause sustained disease remission than gefitinib, rociletinib, or afatinib in mouse xenograft models harboring EGFR mutations [38]. On the basis of the excellent outcomes of osimertinib from previous studies, it was approved as a second-line and first-line treatment for patients with metastatic EGFR sensitizing mutations and T790M positive NSCLC, subsequently [39, 40]. The longer median progressive-free survival in CNS metastases patients treated with osimertinib than first-generation EGFR-TKIs was also observed and reported [12].

However, there still remains a few problems in the treatment of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs. First, the final goal of adjuvant treatment was to improve the OS, but DFS rather than OS was designed as the primary endpoint in most clinical trials. Although DFS could be applied as a surrogate of OS for NSCLC, this pattern was mainly existed in studies treated with chemotherapies in which DFS was consistent with OS [41]. However, this situation was different in adjuvant EGFR-TKIs treatment patterns. Second, whether adjuvant EGFR-TKIs can lead to tumor resistance untimely and develop complex resistance mechanisms that without effective drugs in the absence of bulky tumor burden remains unclear. When the disease progress after adjuvant EGFR-TKIs in resected NSCLC, how the illness should be handled? Whether continuing the same EGFR-TKIs or other generations of EGFR-TKIs as first-line treatment can gain the equivalent efficacy, when compared with first usage of EGFR-TKIs in metastatic settings? If not, patients will lose a genuine opportunity of receiving the first-line EGFR-TKIs when disease relapses [42]. Third, although adjuvant EGFR-TKIs were considered to be well-tolerated, our analysis indicated that the risks of diarrhea and rash were significantly higher. Therefore, if long-term survival benefits were not unequivocal, suffering such side effects for serval years during the medication period seemed no rewarding. Forth, the economic conditions must be considered since it was not easy for most of patients to afford target drugs for long period. To sum up, although adjuvant EGFR-TKI is recommended in operable NSCLC, the situations mentioned above should be fully concerned and overtreatments should be avoided in clinical practice.

Besides, there were some limitations in our analysis. First, the definition of experimental and control groups had a shortcoming that the control group included adjuvant placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy without specific distinguishing. In order to reduce the bias, additional analyses were conducted according to different interventions of experimental and control groups (See Additional file 2). The reasons why adjuvant EGFR-TKIs were not superior to placebo might be as follows: (1) a certain percentage of extra adjuvant chemotherapies were allowed in the placebo group; (2) the proportion of EGFR mutations was too low in BR 19 trial which may influenced the result greatly (4 and 4.3%, respectively). Second, both first and third-generation EGFR-TKIs were included in this meta-analysis. The reasons were as follows: (1) both of them belonged to small molecule EGFR-TKIs, aiming at blocking the EGFR signal pathway and inhibiting tumor growth; (2) they were all recommended in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations; (3) few published articles focused on the effect of third-generation TKIs as adjuvant treatment and the excellent outcome generated from ADAURA trial made us produce the data synthesis in one single analysis. Third, the follow-up was short in most of the included studies. The IMPACT had a median follow-up of 70 months and the result showed adjuvant gefitinib seemed to prevent early relapse than adjuvant cisplatin plus vinorelbine, but the two curves with respect to DFS crossed about 4 years after surgery. Therefore, longer follow-up might represent different outcomes. Forth, most clinical trials excluded patients with uncommon EGFR mutations, which harbored heterogeneous molecular alterations within exons 18–21 and collectively accounted for 10% of EGFR mutations. Previous studies showed that the clinical efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR uncommon mutations was variable and the OS was shorter when compared to classical mutations [43,44,45]. Moreover, the lack of sufficient high-quality prospective clinical evidence, no firm standard of care and obvious heterogeneity in detection methods had limited the exploration of EGFR-TKIs as adjuvant therapy in NSCLC patients with less common EGFR mutations.

Conclusions

Our up-to-date analysis demonstrated that adjuvant EGFR-TKIs therapy could significantly prolong DFS in patients with resected early-stage NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. However, no OS benefit was observed when compared with placebo or adjuvant chemotherapy in this population. The third-generation EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, was superior in preventing the incidence of brain metastasis than the first-generation of EGFR-TKIs as adjuvant therapy in resected NSCLC. The toxicity of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs therapy was generally manageable and tolerable. Although there were possible shortcomings in the included studies, such as study design deficiency, inconsistency in clinical stage, various EGFR-TKIs included, non-uniform duration of EGFR-TKIs, inconsistent timing of medication and economic condition limiting and so on, the present study still provided an important and relative satisfactory clinical practice options for early-stage resected NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

NSCLC:

Non-small cell lung cancer

EGFR:

Epidermal growth factor receptor

EGFR-TKIs:

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors

RCTs:

Random control trials

HR:

Hazard ratio

CI:

Confidence intervals

DFS:

Disease-free survival

OS:

Overall survival

RR:

Risk ratio

AEs:

Adverse events

ECOG:

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

NCCN:

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

CNS:

Central nervous system

L858R:

Point mutation in exon 21 resulting in substitution of leucine for arginine at position 858

T790M:

Substitution of threonine at amino acid 790 to methionine

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Burdett S, Pignon JP, Tierney J, Tribodet H, Stewart L, Le Pechoux C, Auperin A, Le Chevalier T, Stephens RJ, Arriagada R, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(3):CD011430.

  3. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, Giroux DJ, Groome PA, Rami-Porta R, Postmus PE, Rusch V, Sobin L, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer International Staging C, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2(8):706–14.

  4. Wong ML, McMurry TL, Stukenborg GJ, Francescatti AB, Amato-Martz C, Schumacher JR, et al. Impact of age and comorbidity on treatment of non-small cell lung cancer recurrence following complete resection: a nationally representative cohort study. Lung Cancer. 2016;102:108–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sugimura H, Nichols FC, Yang P, Allen MS, Cassivi SD, Deschamps C, et al. Survival after recurrent nonsmall-cell lung cancer after complete pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83(2):409–17 discussioin 417–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradbury P, Sivajohanathan D, Chan A, Kulkarni S, Ung Y, Ellis PM. Postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy in completely resected non-small-cell lung Cancer: a systematic review. Clin Lung Cancer. 2017;18(3):259–273 e258.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pignon JP, Tribodet H, Scagliotti GV, Douillard JY, Shepherd FA, Stephens RJ, et al. Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: a pooled analysis by the LACE collaborative group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3552–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Remon J, Lianes P, Martinez S, Velasco M, Querol R, Zanui M. Adjuvant treatment in resected non-small cell lung cancer: current and future issues. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;88(2):375–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kris MG, Gaspar LE, Chaft JE, Kennedy EB, Azzoli CG, Ellis PM, et al. Adjuvant systemic therapy and adjuvant radiation therapy for stage I to IIIA completely resected non-small-cell lung cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(25):2960–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A, Massuti B, Felip E, et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):239–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown T, Boland A, Bagust A, Oyee J, Hockenhull J, Dundar Y, et al. Gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(Suppl. 2):71–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, Reungwetwattana T, Chewaskulyong B, Lee KH, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):113–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Sugawara S, Oizumi S, Isobe H, et al. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(25):2380–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu YL, Zhou C, Liam CK, Wu G, Liu X, Zhong Z, et al. First-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses from the phase III, randomized, open-label. ENSURE study Ann Oncol. 2015;26(9):1883–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xie H, Wang H, Xu L, Li M, Peng Y, Cai X, et al. Gefitinib versus adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II-IIIA non-small-cell lung Cancer harboring positive EGFR mutations: a single-center retrospective study. Clin Lung Cancer. 2018;19(6):484–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pennell NA, Neal JW, Chaft JE, Azzoli CG, Janne PA, Govindan R, et al. SELECT: a phase II trial of adjuvant Erlotinib in patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small-cell lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(2):97–104.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goss GD, O'Callaghan C, Lorimer I, Tsao MS, Masters GA, Jett J, et al. Gefitinib versus placebo in completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the NCIC CTG BR19 study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(27):3320–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Li N, Ou W, Ye X, Sun HB, Zhang L, Fang Q, et al. Pemetrexed-carboplatin adjuvant chemotherapy with or without gefitinib in resected stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations: a randomized, phase II study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(6):2091–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Feng S, Wang Y, Cai K, Wu H, Xiong G, Wang H, et al. Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy of EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung Cancer patients with or without Icotinib consolidation therapy. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140794.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kelly K, Altorki NK, Eberhardt WE, O'Brien ME, Spigel DR, Crino L, et al. Adjuvant Erlotinib versus placebo in patients with stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung Cancer (RADIANT): a randomized, double-blind. Phase III Trial J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(34):4007–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yue D, Xu S, Wang Q, Li X, Shen Y, Zhao H, et al. Erlotinib versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin as adjuvant therapy in Chinese patients with stage IIIA EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EVAN): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(11):863–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhong WZ, Wang Q, Mao WM, Xu ST, Wu L, Shen Y, et al. Gefitinib versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin as adjuvant treatment for stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFR-mutant NSCLC (ADJUVANT/CTONG1104): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):139–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu YL, Tsuboi M, He J, John T, Grohe C, Majem M, et al. Osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(18):1711–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. He J, Su C, Liang W, Xu S, Wu L, Fu X, et al. Icotinib versus chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (EVIDENCE): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(9):1021–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheng H, Li XJ, Wang XJ, Chen ZW, Wang RQ, Zhong HC, et al. A meta-analysis of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs for patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2019;137:7–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yin Q, Xun X, Yang G, Cui H, Liu H. Efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting for patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor mutant non-small cell lung Cancer: a Meta-analysis with 11 trials. Oncol Res Treat. 2021;44(6):344–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen RL, Sun LL, Cao Y, Chen HR, Zhou JX, Gu CY, et al. Adjuvant EGFR-TKIs for patients with resected EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung Cancer: a Meta-analysis of 1,283 patients. Front Oncol. 2021;11:629394.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tada H, Mitsudomi T, Misumi T, Sugio K, Tsuboi M, Okamoto I, et al. Randomized phase III study of Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus Vinorelbine for patients with resected stage II-IIIA non-small-cell lung Cancer with EGFR mutation (IMPACT). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(3):231–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical PracticeGuidelines in oncology: non-small cell lung Cancer, version 7. 2021. Available at https://www.nccn.org/guidelines.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Raphael J, Vincent M, Boldt G, Shah PS, Rodrigues G, Blanchette P. Adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in resected non-small cell lung Cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Am J Clin Oncol. 2019;42(5):440–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Huang Q, Li J, Sun Y, Wang R, Cheng X, Chen H. Efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment for operable non-small cell lung Cancer by a Meta-analysis. Chest. 2016;149(6):1384–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhong WZ, Wang Q, Mao WM, Xu ST, Wu L, Wei YC, et al. Gefitinib versus Vinorelbine plus cisplatin as adjuvant treatment for stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFR-mutant NSCLC: final overall survival analysis of CTONG1104 phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(7):713–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cross DA, Ashton SE, Ghiorghiu S, Eberlein C, Nebhan CA, Spitzler PJ, et al. AZD9291, an irreversible EGFR TKI, overcomes T790M-mediated resistance to EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2014;4(9):1046–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ballard P, Yates JW, Yang Z, Kim DW, Yang JC, Cantarini M, et al. Preclinical comparison of Osimertinib with other EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutant NSCLC brain metastases models, and early evidence of clinical brain metastases activity. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(20):5130–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mok TS, Wu YL, Ahn MJ, Garassino MC, Kim HR, Ramalingam SS, et al. Osimertinib or platinum-Pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-positive lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):629–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Goss G, Tsai CM, Shepherd FA, Ahn MJ, Bazhenova L, Crino L, et al. CNS response to osimertinib in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: pooled data from two phase II trials. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(3):687–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mauguen A, Pignon JP, Burdett S, Domerg C, Fisher D, Paulus R, et al. Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients’ data. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):619–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gyawali B, West HJ. Lessons from ADAURA on adjuvant Cancer drug trials: evidence, ethics, and economics. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(3):175–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gristina V, Malapelle U, Galvano A, Pisapia P, Pepe F, Rolfo C, et al. The significance of epidermal growth factor receptor uncommon mutations in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Cancer Treat Rev. 2020;85:101994.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Evans M, O'Sullivan B, Smith M, Hughes F, Mullis T, Trim N, et al. Large-scale EGFR mutation testing in clinical practice: analysis of a series of 18,920 non-small cell lung Cancer cases. Pathol Oncol Res. 2019;25(4):1401–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Passaro A, Leighl N, Blackhall F, Popat S, Kerr K, Ahn MJ, et al. ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small cell lung Cancer. Ann Oncol. 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks for the help of the members of the cancer center in Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82173056) and Research Foundation of Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University (No. yyqdkt2017–19).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiotherapy, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.95 Yong An Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100050, China

    Pengfei Zhao & Hong Zhao

  2. Department of Oncology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.95 Yong An Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100050, China

    Hongchao Zhen, Lei Zhao & Bangwei Cao

Authors
  1. Pengfei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongchao Zhen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hong Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bangwei Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PFZ designed experiments, HCZ and LZ developed methodology, PFZ, HCZ and HZ collected data, PFZ, BWC analyzed data, and PFZ wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bangwei Cao.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All the authors declared that they had no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1 Supplementary Fig. 1.

Comparison of DFS between adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo in resected NSCLC patients when involving Feng’s study. (A) DFS for the intent-to-treat patients with regardless of the EGFR mutations status. (B) DFS for patients harboring EGFR mutations.

Additional file 2 Supplementary Fig. 2.

Comparison of DFS and OS among adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus chemotherapy subgroup, adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus placebo, adjuvant chemotherapy plus EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy subgroup. (A) DFS comparison. (B) OS comparison.

Additional file 3 Supplementary Fig. 3.

Comparison of local recurrence, distant metastasis and other subgroup recurrences between adjuvant EGFR-TKIs versus adjuvant chemotherapy/placebo. (A) Local recurrence. (B) Distant metastasis. (C) The subgroup recurrences (including bone recurrence, lung local recurrence and distant metastasis, liver recurrence, pleural diffusion recurrence and regional lymph node recurrence)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, P., Zhen, H., Zhao, H. et al. Efficacy and safety of adjuvant EGFR-TKIs for resected non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized control trials. BMC Cancer 22, 328 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09444-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09444-0

Keywords

  • Resected tumor
  • Adjuvant EGFR-TKI
  • NSCLC
  • Adjuvant therapy
  • Adjuvant chemotherapy

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us