The efficacy of continuing osimertinib with platinum pemetrexed chemotherapy upon progression in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For patients with EGFR mutant NSCLC who progress on osimertinib, the clinical benefit of continuing osimertinib with next line platinum pemetrexed chemotherapy remains unknown. METHODS: In this international, multi-center, retrospective cohort study, a total of 159 patients with EGFR mutant NSCLC who progressed on osimertinib and received platinum-pemetrexed therapy on progression from 2013 to 2023 were included. The data cutoff was December 31, 2023. Data analysis was conducted from January 2024 to June 2024. The primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Multivariable Cox regression adjusting for patient-specific and cancer-specific factors was performed. RESULTS: 421 patients with EGFR mutant NSCLC with progression on osimertinib were identified, of which159 patients who met pre-specified inclusion criteria were divided into two groups: Cohort 1 (osimertinib + platinum-pemetrexed) included 50 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [30 - 83] years; 36 [72.0 %] female; 11 [22.4 %] Asian) and Cohort 2 (platinum-pemetrexed alone) included 109 patients (median [IQR] age, 54 [25 - 80] years; 62 [56.9 %] female; 74 [64.9 %] Asian). Most patients were never smokers (Cohort 1, 37 [74.0 %]; Cohort 2, 66 [60.6 %]). One third of patients had baseline brain metastases (Cohort 1, 19 [38.0 %]; Cohort 2, 36 [38.3 %]). Both cohorts had a median of two prior lines of anti-cancer therapy. The addition of bevacizumab or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) to next-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy was more common in Cohort 2 (bevacizumab use, 30.3 % vs 8.0 %, p = 0.002; ICI use, 33.0 % vs 2.0 %, p = 0.001). With a median duration of follow up of 30 months, there was a significant PFS benefit to continuing osimertinib with next line platinum pemetrexed chemotherapy (9.0 vs 4.5 months; HR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.32 - 0.74, p = 0.0032), also seen in subset analyses of patients who received first line osimertinib (n = 55, 11.0 vs 6.2 months; HR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.25 - 0.73, p = 0.002). Among patients with EGFR mutant NSCLC without brain metastases after progression on osimertinib, we found that continuing osimertinib with next line platinum pemetrexed significantly reduced the median time to CNS progression (n = 38; 7.0 vs 4.1 months; HR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.48 - 0.98, p = 0.01). After adjusted analysis, there was no significant OS difference between Cohorts 1 and 2 (19 months vs 13 months; HR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.60 - 1.39, p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients with EGFR mutant NSCLC who progress on osimertinib, there is a significant PFS, but not OS, benefit to continuing osimertinib with next line platinum pemetrexed chemotherapy. The continuation of osimertinib with next line platinum pemetrexed chemotherapy appears to reduce the risk of CNS progression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".