The median PFS in this study was 13 months, aligning with prior findings 11 to 12.8 months (
4-
8). The median OS result in this study was 17 months, which differs significantly from other studies. Some studies have reported varying median OS results, ranging between 23.1 and 36.7 months (
7-
10). The lower median OS observed in this study may be attributed to the unavailability of subsequent EGFR-TKI treatments under the UHC program. Currently, the only available treatment for subsequent EGFR-mutated NSCLC under UHC is doublet chemotherapy, excluding bevacizumab and immunotherapy. Third-generation EGFR-TKIs, such as osimertinib, are not covered by UHC.
However, despite these limitations, the median OS reported in this study remains comparable to the PFS data from the AURA3 trial and the chemotherapy arm in other studies (
11), suggesting that first-line afatinib still provides meaningful survival benefits in this patient population.
Real-world evidence suggests that modifying the afatinib dose can help reduce the occurrence and severity of adverse drug reactions while preserving its effectiveness. This emphasizes the importance of individualized dosing to improve treatment outcomes and guide clinical decisions (
12). A study from Malaysia also showed significantly longer median PFS in exon 19 mutation group (16 months) compared to exon 21 L858R (8.7 months) or other mutations (9 months) (
13). A meta-analysis study by Zhang et al. found that patients with exon 19 deletion significantly reduce the risk of progression compared to patients with exon 21 L858R mutation, although statistical significance was not observed. The hypothesis is that exon 19 deletion cause structural changes in EGFR, making TKIs or afatinib bind more tightly than in exon 21 L858R mutation. Additionally, the T790M mutation, which is associated to acquired EGFR-TKIs resistance, occurs more frequently in exon 21 L858R mutation. Exon 21 L858R mutation is also often found together with other uncommon mutations that may reduce their sensitivity to EGFR-TKIs (
14). Our study identified a statistically significant difference in median OS among EGFR mutation types; 19 months for exon 19, 15 months for exon 21 L858R, and 14 months for other mutations (P = 0.01). The GIDEON study reported longer median OS for exon 19 mutation (33.9 months) compared to exon 21 mutations and other mutations (23.8 and 23.6 months). Other studies also demonstrated the superiority of afatinib in OS for exon 19 compared to exon 21 mutations (
12,
15).
This study found a shorter median PFS in participants with brain metastasis, although statistically not significant, with 11 months compared to 14 months (P = 0.6). The GIDEON study found that the presence of brain metastasis does not affect response rates and disease control rates. The median PFS results from the GIDEON study are similar with our study; 10.5 months in patients with brain metastasis and 14.9 months in those without. The shorter PFS in brain metastasis group supports the negative prognostic impact (
12,
16). The median OS value also did not show a significant difference, with each being 17 months (P = 0.52). This result aligns with a meta-analysis by Jin et al., which concluded that afatinib prolongs PFS in NSCLC patients with brain metastasis but does not affect OS. Another retrospective study found that only the EGFR-TKI group showed a superior benefit in intracranial PFS (
17,
18). Patients with brain metastasis received benefit from afatinib similarly to those without brain metastasis, likely due to afatinib’s high concentration in cerebrospinal fluid and relatively-high penetration rate from plasma to cerebrospinal fluid (
19,
20).
In this study, there was no statistically significant difference in survival between participants who underwent dose reduction (30 mg or 20 mg) and those who continued with the initial 40 mg dose, although the median PFS was longer in patients who underwent dose reduction (P = 0.85). Studies LUX-Lung 3, LUX-Lung 6, and LUX-Lung 7 also found that patients with afatinib dose reduction experienced longer PFS compared to those without dose reduction, although the difference was not statistically significant (
20,
21). Longer median PFS values in participants who underwent dose reduction were also found in a retrospective study in Japan by Tanaka et al. (18.5 months compared to 7.9 months, P = 0.018) (
22). A study by Chen et al. observed that patients using afatinib at a dose of 30 mg from the beginning of treatment had similar survival rate to patients using a dose of 40 mg (
23). Additionally, plasma afatinib concentrations in patients who underwent a dose reduction to 30 mg were similar to patients who continued with the 40 mg dose (
20). Dose adjustment according to tolerability does not affect the efficacy of afatinib. When the dose is optimal for each patient, clinical benefits are still achieved. Moreover, dose adjustments help to reduce the incidence and severity of afatinib-related toxicity, thereby decreasing the rate of therapy discontinuation due to side effects (
21).
This retrospective study relied on secondary data sources (medical records), leading to the exclusion of certain subjects whose records were incomplete or already archived. Additionally, some evaluations such as response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) could not be conducted timely every three months due to technical constraints, and hematological evaluations were not routinely performed. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 - 2021, the diagnostic, therapeutic and patient evaluation processes were suboptimal, consequently affecting the number of subjects seeking treatment or undergoing RECIST evaluation.
5.1. Conclusions
Afatinib demonstrated efficacy for lung adenocarcinoma patients with EGFR mutations. Meanwhile, no statistically significant difference was found in PFS or OS survival rates between subjects receiving reduced doses of afatinib and those who did not. This is the first study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of afatinib under universal health coverage program in Indonesia.