A retrospective study of first‐line therapy and subsequent pyrotinib treatment in advanced lung adenocarcinoma with HER2 mutations

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesHER2 is an infrequently mutated driver gene in non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). At present, there has been no comprehensive large‐scale clinical study to establish the optimal first‐line treatment strategy for advanced lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) with HER2‐Mutant. Besides that, the effectiveness and safety of pyrotinib, a pan‐HER inhibitor, in the context of NSCLC are still undergoing investigation.Materials and MethodsIn this study, we conducted a retrospective data collection of HER2‐Mutated advanced LUAD who received first‐line treatment and pyrotinib between May 2014 and June 2023. Patients treated with chemotherapy, chemotherapy + immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chemotherapy + bevacizumab and pyrotinib in first‐line treatment. Furthermore, we collected data on the efficacy and safety of pyrotinib in these patients after disease progression. The main endpoint of the study was progression‐free survival (PFS).ResultsIn the final analysis, 89 patients were included in the first‐line cohort and 30 patients were included in the pyrotinib cohort. In the first‐line treatment cohort, chemotherapy + ICIs, chemotherapy + bevacizumab, and pyrotinib exhibited notable survival benefits compared to chemotherapy (median PFS: 9.87 vs. 7.77 vs. 7.10 vs. 5.40 months, p‐value < 0.05). Furthermore, patients with a first‐line treatment PFS of less than 6 months may potentially benefit from subsequent treatment with pyrotinib (median PFS: 7.467 vs. 3.000, p‐value = 0.0490).ConclusionsIn the first‐line treatment of HER2‐Mutant LUAD, regimens involving combinations like chemotherapy + ICIs, chemotherapy + bevacizumab, and pyrotinib may confer enhanced survival advantages compared to chemotherapy. Nevertheless, no significant distinctions were observed among these three treatment strategies, underscoring the imperative to identify biomarkers for the discerning selection of suitable therapeutic modalities. Moreover, patients with suboptimal response to first‐line treatment may potentially derive more benefit from pyrotinib.