4.6 Article

Radiotherapy plus EGFR TKIs in non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases: an update meta-analysis

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 1055-1065

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.673

关键词

Brain metastases; EGFR TKI; meta-analysis; non-small cell lung cancer; radiotherapy

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81372392]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain metastasis (BM) is the common complication of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a poor prognosis and dismal survival rate. This update meta-analysis aimed to derive a more precise estimation of radiotherapy plus epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in NSCLC patients with BM. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify any relevant publications. After screening the literature and undertaking quality assessment and data extraction, the meta-analysis was performed using STATA Version 12.0. In total, 15 studies involving 1552 participants were included. The results indicated that radiotherapy plus EGFR TKIs was more effective at improving response rate and disease control rate (DCR) (risk ratio (RR) = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.96, P = 0.005; RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60, P = 0.035; respectively) than radiotherapy alone or plus chemotherapy. Moreover, radiotherapy plus EGFR TKIs significantly prolonged the time to central nervous system progression (CNS-TTP) (HR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.33, 0.80]; P = 0.000) and median overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.42, 0.74]; P = 0.000) but significantly increased adverse events (any grade) (RR = 1.25, 95% CI [1.01, 1.57]; P = 0.009), especially rash and dry skin. These results suggested that radiotherapy plus EGFR TKIs produced superior response rate and DCR and markedly prolonged the CNS-TTP and OS of NSCLC patients with BM. However, combined groups had the higher rate of incidence of overall adverse effects, especially rash and dry skin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据