Retrospective cohort study compares treatment outcomes of EGFR TKIs in NSCLC patients with co-mutations, suggesting differences in specific subgroups.
To compare treatment outcomes between first- and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with EGFR co-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). EGFR mutation is one of the most common genetic alterations in NSCLC; however, the management of patients harboring EGFR co-mutations has emerged as a major therapeutic challenge in recent years. We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2018–2025) at Vietnam National Lung Hospital analyzing 81 treatment-naïve advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR co-mutations identified by next-generation sequencing. Patients received first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs, with efficacy evaluated using RECIST v1.1 criteria. Among 81 patients with EGFR co-mutations, dual EGFR mutations were the most common (43%), followed by EGFR combined with PIK3CA (20%), ALK (14%), and KRAS (9%). Multivariate analysis suggested patients with EGFR dual mutations were correlated with higher overall survival (OS) compared with other co-mutation patterns (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.76, p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs in objective response rate (56.5% vs. 73.5%, p = 0.181) or disease control rate, with both achieving a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9 months. Subgroup analyses showed significantly longer OS with first-generation TKIs in female patients (27.59 vs. 22.72 months, p = 0.003) and brain metastatic groups (27.59 vs. 10.43 months, p = 0.032), whereas PFS remained comparable (9.10 vs. 7.23 months, p = 0.103). First- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs demonstrated comparable overall treatment outcomes in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR co-mutations. However, subgroup analyses suggested potential differences in clinical benefit among female patients and those with brain metastases, warranting further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dinh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: