Virtual Library
Start Your Search
C.K. Lee
Author of
-
+
C - Inaugural Cochrane Workshop (ID 78)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Other Sessions
- Track: Other Topics
- Presentations: 4
- Moderators:R. Rami-Porta, F. Macbeth
- Coordinates: 10/27/2013, 07:30 - 12:00, Bayside 204 A+B, Level 2
-
+
C.00 - Inaugural Cochrane Workshop (ID 4023)
07:30 - 07:30 | Author(s): C.K. Lee
- Abstract
Abstract
The Cochrane Collaboration is an international, independent, not-for-profit organisation of over 28,000 contributors from more than 100 countries, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of health care readily available worldwide. Cochrane contributors work together to produce systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, known as Cochrane Reviews, which are published online in The Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews are intended to help providers, practitioners and patients make informed decisions about health care, and are the most comprehensive, reliable and relevant source of evidence on which to base these decisions. Over 5,000 Cochrane Reviews have been published so far, online in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library. The Collaboration also prepares the largest collection of records of randomised controlled trials in the world, called CENTRAL, published as part of The Cochrane Library. Work from the Cochrane Collaboration is internationally recognised as the benchmark for high quality information about the effectiveness of health care. The Collaboration believes that effective health care is created through equal partnerships between researcher, provider, practitioner and patient. Cochrane Reviews are unique because they are both produced by, and are relevant to, everyone interested in the effects of human health care. Based on the best available evidence, healthcare providers can decide if they should fund production of a particular drug. Practitioners can find out if an intervention is effective in a specific clinical context. Patients and other healthcare consumers can assess the potential risks and benefits of their treatment. The Cochrane Collaboration's contributors are a mix of volunteers and paid staff who are affiliated to the organisation through Cochrane entities: healthcare subject-related review groups, thematic networks (called 'fields'), groups concerned with the methodology of systematic reviews, and regional centres. Many are world leaders in their field of medicine, health policy, research methodology or consumer advocacy, and our entities are situated in some of the world's finest academic and medical institutions. The Cochrane Collaboration is named after Archie Cochrane (1909-1988), a British epidemiologist, who advocated the use of randomised controlled trials as a means of reliably informing healthcare practice. The Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit organisation, funded by a variety of sources including governments, universities, hospital trusts, charities and personal donations. The Collaboration is registered as a charity in the United Kingdom. To tie the organisation together, there are a number of overarching structures, led by the Steering Group, which provides policy and strategic leadership for the organisation. Members of this group are democratically elected from, and by, contributors. The Cochrane Operations Unit, is based in Oxford, UK, which manages the financial, legal and administrative work of the organisation, led by the Chief Executive Officer of the Collaboration; and a Cochrane Editorial Unit, based in London, UK, which supports Cochrane Review production, editorial processes, and training and methods development, led by the Editor in Chief of The Cochrane Library. There are annual conferences, known as "Colloquia", which are open to everyone. Colloquia are designed to bring people together in one place to discuss, develop and promote our work, and to shape the organisation's future direction In addition to the core mission of producing Cochrane Reviews, contributors are involved in a number of related activities, including advocacy for evidence-based decision-making, providing training in Cochrane Review preparation, developing the methodology for preparing reviews, and translating them from English into a variety of different languages. This session includes providing an introduction to developing a Cochrane Review and is kindly supported by the Cochrane Lung Cancer Review Group, based in Barcelona Spain (website ) and uses high quality training materials developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (grateful acknowledgement of for allowing the use of the training materials) delivered by volunteer Cochrane Collaborators. The session will address topics including; Introduction to systematic reviews, Writing a Cochrane protocol, Searching for studies, Collecting data, Risk of bias, Meta-analysis, Types of data, Heterogeneity, Analysing data and Interpreting results Other training resources include Online Learning Modules as part of a self-directed learning initiative of The Cochrane Collaboration. They provide an introduction to the core skills and methods required for new authors of Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. The modules are intended to complement other learning opportunities such as face-to-face workshops and webinars, and the guidance provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. -
+
C.06 - Analysing Dichotomous Data (ID 808)
10:00 - 10:15 | Author(s): C.K. Lee
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
C.07 - Analysing Continuous Data (ID 810)
10:15 - 10:30 | Author(s): C.K. Lee
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
C.08 - Analysing Non-Standard Data and Designs (ID 812)
10:30 - 10:45 | Author(s): C.K. Lee
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P1.11 - Poster Session 1 - NSCLC Novel Therapies (ID 208)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Poster Session
- Track: Medical Oncology
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level
-
+
P1.11-002 - Toxicity of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Meta-analysis (ID 292)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): C.K. Lee
- Abstract
Background
We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of toxic death, treatment discontinuation and grade 3 or 4 (G3/4) adverse events (AEs) of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods
Randomized trials comparing EGFR-TKI monotherapy or combination EGFR-TKI-chemotherapy with chemotherapy or placebo were included. We extracted data on toxicity events, and computed pooled relative risks (RR) adjusted for median treatment duration as the ratio of the risks in the EGFR-TKI arm versus the control group. Three treatment comparisons were analysed: EGFR-TKI versus placebo, EGFR-TKI versus chemotherapy, EGFR-TKI-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results
Thirty-five trials (16,507 patients) were included. EGFR-TKI was associated with 1.7% risk of toxic death (95% CI 1.4-2.0). Compared with EGFR-TKI, we demonstrated no difference in risk of toxic death for placebo (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.08-1.86, p=0.86) or chemotherapy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50–1.16, p=0.22), but higher risk for EGFR-TKI-chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.12-14.41, p=0.03). The risks of treatment-related discontinuation and G3/4 AEs were lower for EGFR-TKI than chemotherapy (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.50, p<0.001; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.32-0.38, p<0.001 respectively) but higher for EGFR-TKI than placebo (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.73-3.40, p<0.001; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.33, p=0.008) and for EGFR-TKI-chemotherapy than chemotherapy (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.66-2.39, p<0.001; RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.32-1.70, p<0.001).Conclusion
EGFR-TKI therapy in advanced NSCLC has a low incidence of toxic death and similar safety to chemotherapy with fewer serious AEs. Likelihood of benefit and careful consideration of toxicity profiles should inform treatment selection. Improved toxicity reporting in future trials would allow better quantification of EGFR-TKI-associated toxicity. -
+
P1.11-003 - Exon 19 deletions, smoking history and gender as additional predictive factors for treatment benefit with EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in patients harbouring activating EGFR mutations: A Meta-analysis of 1432 patients in six randomised trials. (ID 1789)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): C.K. Lee
- Abstract
Background
Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are now recognised as the standard first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring activating EGFR mutations. Many studies consistently demonstrated superior tumour response and progression-free survival (PFS) over chemotherapy. However, there are still ongoing questions whether there are any significant differences in treatment outcomes between patients of different ethnicity, gender, age, performance status, smoking history, tumour histology and different subtypes of EGFR mutation. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the impact of these factors on the PFS benefit of EGFR-TKIs in advanced NSCLC patients harbouring activating EGFR mutations.Methods
An electronic search of all randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy of first-line therapy of EGFR-TKI vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients harbouring EGFR mutation was performed. We extracted the published hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for PFS, if available, or obtained unpublished data, for subgroups defined by each factor. For each subgroup, pooled estimates of treatment efficacy of EGFR-TKI vs chemotherapy were calculated with the fixed-effects inverse variance weighted method. The predictive effect of each factor was analysed by a test for interaction between the factor and treatment effect; P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results
We included 6 eligible studies, with two trials for each of these different EGFR-TKIs - Gefitinib, Erlotinib, and Afatinib – with a total of 1432 patients. As expected, overall the use of EGFR-TKIs in this mutated population significantly prolonged PFS as compared with chemotherapy (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.43, P<0.001). While mutations at both Exon 19 (deletions) and at Exon 21 (L858R point mutations) were associated with significantly prolonged PFS, the benefit with Exon 19 mutations was greater: HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.31, P<0.001; as contrasted to Exon 21: HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52, P<0.001 (treatment-EGFR mutation interaction P=0.001). Smoking status also showed differential benefit in this mutated population: never smokers: HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.36, P<0.001; contrasted to current or ex-smokers: HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61, P<0.001; treatment-smoking history interaction P=0.003). There was also a trend for greater benefit for females with EGFR-TKI therapy as contrasted to males (HR [females] 0.32, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.38, P<0.001; HR [males] 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.53, P<0.001; treatment-gender interaction P=0.06). Interestingly, several parameters were not significant predictors of PFS benefit with EGFR-TKI treatment in this mutated population: performance status (ECOG 0 and 1 vs 2; interaction P=0.86); age (<65 vs ≥65 years; interaction P=0.58); ethnicity (Asian vs others; interaction P=0.18); and tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs others; interaction P=0.52).Conclusion
While EGFR-TKIs significantly prolong PFS in all advanced NSCLC patients harbouring classic activating EGFR mutations when compared with chemotherapy, other molecular and demographic factors have a further influence on benefit. Exon 19 deletions, never-smoking history, and possibly female gender were all associated with longer PFS in these patients when treated with EGFR-TKIs as compared with chemotherapy. These findings should enhance better trial design in future clinical trials.
