Objective To compare the efficacy of the erlotinib versus gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods Fifty patients with untreated advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC were randomly divided into gefitinib group (n=27) and erlotinib group (n=23). The progression-free survival, objective response rate and disease control rate were evaluated to compare the efficacy of gefitinib and erlotinib. Results There were no significant differences in the objective response rate (P=0.711) and disease control rate (P=0.861) between the two groups. The progression-free survival of gefitinib group and erlotinib group was 8.0 months and 10.0 months, respectively. The efficacy of the two drugs was similar (P=0.293). Conclusion There is no significant differences between gefitinib and erlotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

Objective To compare the efficacy of the erlotinib versus gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods Fifty patients with untreated advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC were randomly divided into gefitinib group (n=27) and erlotinib group (n=23). The progression-free survival, objective response rate and disease control rate were evaluated to compare the efficacy of gefitinib and erlotinib. Results There were no significant differences in the objective response rate (P=0.711) and disease control rate (P=0.861) between the two groups. The progression-free survival of gefitinib group and erlotinib group was 8.0 months and 10.0 months, respectively. The efficacy of the two drugs was similar (P=0.293). Conclusion There is no significant differences between gefitinib and erlotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

OBJECTIVETo compare the efficacy of the erlotinib versus gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

METHODSFifty patients with untreated advanced EGFR mutation- positive NSCLC were randomly divided into gefitinib group (n=27) and erlotinib group (n=23). The progression-free survival, objective response rate and disease control rate were evaluated to compare the efficacy of gefitinib and erlotinib.

RESULTSThere were no significant differences in the objective response rate (P=0.711) and disease control rate (P=0.861) between the two groups. The progression-free survival of gefitinib group and erlotinib group was 8.0 months and 10.0 months, respectively. The efficacy of the two drugs was similar (P=0.293).

CONCLUSIONThere is no significant differences between gefitinib and erlotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung ; drug therapy ; Disease-Free Survival ; Erlotinib Hydrochloride ; Humans ; Lung Neoplasms ; drug therapy ; Mutation ; Quinazolines ; therapeutic use ; Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor ; metabolism

Objectives:To explore the clinical characteristics of children with adenoid hypertrophy (AH) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) by detecting the expression of pepsin in adenoids as a standard for AH with LPR.Methods:A total of 190 children who were admitted for surgical treatment due to AH were included in the study. The main clinical symptoms of the patients were recorded, and the degree of adenoid hypertrophy was evaluated. Before the surgery, Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) were used to evaluate the reflux symptoms. After the surgery, pepsin immunohistochemical staining was performed on the adenoid tissue, and according to the staining results, the patients were divided into study group (pepsin staining positive) and control group (pepsin staining negative). SPSS 19.0 software was used for statistical analysis. Quantitative data conforming to normal distribution between the two groups were tested by two-independent sample t test, and quantitative data with skewed distribution were tested by Mann-Whitney U test. Results:The positive rate of pepsin staining in the 190 AH patients was 78.4% (149/190). The study group had higher levels of preoperative symptoms such as erythema and/or congestion of the pharynx(2.1±0.7 vs. 1.8±0.6, t=2.23), vocal cord edema[1.0(0, 1.0) vs. 1.0(0, 1.0), Z=2.00], diffuse laryngeal edema[0(0, 1.0) vs. 0(0, 0), Z=2.48], posterior commissure hypertrophy[(1.4±0.6 vs. 1.1±0.5), t=2.63], and a higher total score on the RFS scale than the control group(6.2±2.7 vs. 5.0±2.6, t=2.47), with statistical differences ( P<0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of RFS score in diagnosing AH with LPR were 24.8% and 80.5%, respectively. When RFS>5 was used as the positive threshold, the sensitivity and specificity of RFS score in diagnosing AH with LPR were 61.1% and 58.5%, respectively. There was a statistical difference in the number of positive cases of RFS score between the study group and the control group(91 vs. 17, χ2=5.04, P=0.032). Conclusions:LPR is common in AH children. Children with AH and LPR have specific performance in electronic laryngoscopy, such as erythema with edema in the pharynx, posterior commissure hypertrophy, and vocal cord edema.