Effectiveness of second-line treatment with amitinib versus first-line treatment with ositinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations
10.3760/cma.j.cn341190-20231007-00259
- VernacularTitle:阿美替尼二线治疗与奥希替尼一线治疗伴EGFR突变晚期NSCLC患者的效果比较
- Author:
Lei FENG
1
;
Qian SUN
;
Dongyu HU
;
Lanfang LI
Author Information
1. 济宁医学院附属医院临床药学科，济宁 272029
- Keywords:
Carcinoma,non-small-cell lung;
Epidermal growth factor;
Mutation;
Antineoplastic combined chemotherapy protocols;
Quality of life;
Ametinib;
Oshtinib
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2024;31(6):829-834
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy, quality of life, safety, and medical expense of second-line treatment with ametinib versus first-line treatment with oxitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Methods:This is a prospective clinical research study. A total of 72 patients with NSCLC who received second-line treatment with ametinib at the Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University from July 2020 to April 2022 were included in the amitinib group. Sixty-six patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations who underwent first-line treatment with ositinib were included in the ositinib group (one patient dropped out of the study, and sixty-five patients were included in the final analysis). There was no statistically significant difference in general information between the two groups. The ositinib group received ositinib treatment, while the amitinib group received amitinib treatment. After three courses of treatment, the short-term effectiveness was evaluated in both groups. The quality of life was compared before and after three courses of treatment in each group. Adverse reactions and average per-day hospital cost were compared between the two groups.Results:The disease control rate in the amitinib and oxitinib groups were 91.67% (66/72) and 90.77% (59/65), respectively, while the overall response rate was 43.06% (31/72) and 41.54% (27/65), respectively. The disease control rate and overall response rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (both P > 0.05). After treatment, the scores for physical well-being [(21.05 ± 4.18) points vs. (19.16 ± 3.95) points, t = 4.05], social/family well-being [(19.38 ± 2.65) points vs. (17.26 ± 2.28) points, t = 3.11], emotional well-being [(18.83 ± 3.07) points vs. (17.00 ± 2.86) points, t = 3.20], functional well-being [(22.02 ± 3.83) points vs. (20.14 ± 2.98) points, t = 3.83], and additional attention [(26.11 ± 5.00) points vs. (24.33 ± 4.30) points, t = 3.05] in the amitinib group were significantly higher than those in the oxitinib group (all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in incidence rate of grade 3-4 adverse reactions between amitinib and oxitinib groups [6.94% (5/72) vs. 10.77% (7/65), P > 0.05]. Average per-day hospital cost in the amitinib group was significantly lower than that in the oxitinib group ( t = 4.83, P < 0.05). Conclusion:Second-line treatment with ametinib for advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations can significantly enhance the quality of life and offer comparable short-term efficacy and safety to first-line treatment with oxitinib. Advantageously, its medical cost is relatively lower.
