4.3 Review

Current and Emerging Options in the Management of EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Considerations in the Elderly

Journal

DRUGS & AGING
Volume 32, Issue 11, Pages 907-916

Publisher

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-015-0305-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2012-13157]
  2. Fondazione Ricerca Traslazionale (FoRT)
  3. Istituto Toscano Tumori (ITT) [F13/16]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The elderly population with cancer is increasing worldwide. Currently, the median age at lung cancer diagnosis is approximately 70 years. Clinicians are increasingly dealing with a population of elderly non-small-cell lung cancer patients characterised by relevant co-morbidities and ageing-related characteristics, making treatment choice more challenging. Robust evidence demonstrated that activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are the best predictor for sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Nine large phase III trials conducted in both the Asian and Caucasian populations demonstrated that gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib are superior to standard platinum-based chemotherapy as front-line treatment and subgroup analyses confirmed the superiority of erlotinib or gefitinib over chemotherapy in the second-line setting. Although no large phase III trials have been specifically conducted in EGFR mutation-positive (EGFR (mut+)) elderly non-small-cell lung cancer patients, available data, coming from subgroup analysis, retrospective series or small prospective phase II trials, replicated in the elderly the results observed in the general population, thus suggesting that age per se does not represent a criterion for treatment selection. In addition, the favourable toxicity profile of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors makes these agents the preferred option in such a group of patients, for which concomitant medications are often required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available