Osimertinib vs. Afatinib in 1L therapy of atypical EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC): A multi-institution, real-world survival analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the efficacy of different TKIs for patients with atypical EGFR-mutated (AM) mNSCLC, a heterogeneous group excluding classical mutations (CM) L858R and exon19del. In our previous single-institution analysis, AM patients had longer survival with osimertinib than afatinib, but outcomes for patients with specific mutations could not be compared due to sample size. METHODS: We performed a multi-institution, retrospective survival analysis of atypical EGFR mutated (AM) mNSCLC patients treated with 1L osimertinib or afatinib between 2015-2021 at 12 US institutions. Time to discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log rank tests between treatment or mutation groups. RESULTS: Among 52 patients identified, 32 (62 %) were treated with osimertinib and 20 (38 %) with afatinib. 20 had mutations in G719X (38 %), 12 in L861Q (23 %), and 5 in S768I (10 %). 34(65 %) had compound mutations: 20(62 %) had AM + CM, and 14(38 %) had ≥ 2 AMs. Among G719X (n = 20), afatinib was associated with longer time to discontinuation (TTD) (log-rank: p = 0.047) and longer OS (p = 0.043) vs. osimertinib. Median TTD (mTTD) was 20.3 m[95 %CI 7.3-24.2] and 9.4[1.7-14.0], respectively. For L861Q (n = 12), osimertinib was associated with longer TTD vs. afatinib (p = 0.004), with no statistical difference in OS (p = 0.215). mTTD was 7.2 m[2.2-12.3] and 1.3[0-3.1], respectively. In AM + CM (n = 20), osimertinib was associated with longer TTD and OS compared to those receiving afatinib (p = 0.037, p = 0.042, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with G719X alterations experienced longer TTD and OS with afatinib than osimertinib. In contrast, patients with L861Q alterations had longer TTD with osimertinib. In AM + CM pts, TTD and OS with osimertinib were longer than afatinib, suggesting that classical mutations may be driving the outcomes. Atypical EGFR mutations may warrant distinct treatment recommendations based on the specific mutation(s) identified, but more studies are needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".