Comparison of effectiveness and adverse effects of gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib among patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis.

The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two reviewers searched the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals and Wanfang databases for relevant studies. Studies were then screened and evaluated, and data was extracted. End-points evaluated for NSCLC included complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), median survival time (MST) and adverse effects, including rash, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue and abnormal liver function. For the analysis of incorporated studies, RevMan, SPSS, R and Stata software were used. A total of 43 studies with 7,168 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed in CR, PR, SD, PD, ORR or DCR between gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib by using network meta analysis. Compared with gefitinib, erlotinib resulted in a higher rate of nausea and vomiting [adjusted odds ratio (OR)=2.0; 95% credible interval, 1.1-3.7]. However, no significant differences were observed in the rates of rash, diarrhea, fatigue or abnormal liver function using network meta-analysis. Compared with erlotinib, gefitinib resulted in a lower SD rate [OR=0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.99; P=0.04], and lower rates of rash (OR=0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.55; P<0.00001), diarrhea (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P=0.005), nausea and vomiting (OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P=0.01) and fatigue (OR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P=0.004) through meta-analysis of two congruent drugs. However, gefitinib resulted in a higher rate of rash compared with icotinib (OR=1.57; 95% CI, 1.18-2.09; P=0.002). Otherwise, no significant differences were observed in CR, PR, PD, ORR, DCR and abnormal liver function between gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib through meta-analysis of two congruent drugs. The PFS rate for gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib was 5.48, 5.15 and 5.81 months, respectively. The MST was 13.26, 13.52, 12.58 months for gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib, respectively. Gefitinib and icotinib resulted in significantly higher PFS rates compared with erlotinib (P<0.05). Erlotinib resulted in a significantly longer MST compared with gefitinib and icotinib (P<0.05). In conclusion, gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib had similar effectiveness for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. However, gefitinib resulted in a lower frequency of fatigue, and nausea and vomiting, compared with the other two drugs. Icotinib resulted in a lower frequency of rash. Erlotinib resulted in a longer MST, but was also associated with a higher frequency of rash, and nausea and vomiting.