↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of afatinib in Chinese patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously responsive to first-generation tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) and…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy and safety of afatinib in Chinese patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously responsive to first-generation tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) and chemotherapy: comparison with historical cohort using erlotinib
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2201-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor H. F. Lee, Dennis K. C. Leung, Tim-Shing Choy, Ka-On Lam, Pui-Mei Lam, To-Wai Leung, Dora L. W. Kwong

Abstract

Afaitnib has shown anti-tumor activity against metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC after prior failure to first generation EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy. We prospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of afatinib in Chinese patients who previously failed first-generation TKI and chemotherapy under a compassionate use program (CUP) and compared to the erlotinib cohort. Patients who suffered from metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC previously responsive to first-generation TKI and chemotherapy received afatinib until progression, loss of clinical benefits or intolerable toxicity. Treatment response, survival and safety were evaluated and compared to the erlotinib cohort. Twenty-five and 28 patients received afatinib and erlotinib respectively. More patients in the afatinib group had worse performance status (ECOG 2) than the erlotinib group (p = 0.008). After a median follow-up of 12.1 months, afatinib demonstrated comparable objective response rate (ORR) (20.0 % vs. 7.1 %, p = 0.17) but significantly higher disease control rate (DCR) (68.0 % vs. 39.3 %, p = 0.04) compared to erlotinib. Median progression-free survival (PFS) (4.1 months [95 % CI, 2.7-5.5 months] vs. 3.3 months [95 % CI, 2.2-4.3 months], p = 0.97) and overall survival (OS) were not different between the two groups (10.3 months [95 % CI, 7.5-13.0 months] vs. 10.8 months [95 % CI, 7.4-14.2 months], p = 0.51). Multivariate analyses revealed that age ≤70 years and time to progression (TTP) ≥18 months for the 1(st) TKI therapy were prognostic of PFS (p = 0.006 and p = 0.008 respectively). Afatinib caused less rash (60.0 % vs. 67.9 %, p = 0.04) but more diarrhea (60.0 % vs. 10.7 %, p = 0.002) compared to erlotinib. Afatinib produced encouraging clinical efficacy as 2(nd) TKI therapy with manageable safety profiles in our Chinese patients after failure to another TKI and systemic chemotherapy. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02625168 ) on 3(rd) December 2015.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 26%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,302,171
of 7,295,661 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,609
of 3,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,143
of 282,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#129
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,295,661 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,218 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.