South Asian Journal of Cancer

REVIEW ARTICLE
Year
: 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 73--79

First-line management of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: An Indian perspective


Nikhil Suresh Ghadyalpatil1, Avinash Pandey2, Iyer Krishnamani3, Chilukuri Srinivas4, Shabnam J Rafiq1, Sachin S Hingmire5, Nagarjuna Maturu6, Ragotham Reddy6, Kiran K Kumar7, K Sreekanth8, Bharath Chandra Gurram7, PM Parikh9,  
1 Department of Medical Oncology, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Medical Oncology, IGIMS, Patna, Bihar, India
3 Department of Medical Oncology, Care Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
5 Department of Medical Oncology, Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
6 Department of Pulmonology, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
7 Department of Radiation Oncology, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
8 Department of Surgical Oncology, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
9 Department of Medical Oncology, Asian Institute of Oncology, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Nikhil Suresh Ghadyalpatil
Department of Medical Oncology, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana
India

Abstract

Lung cancer has been the most common cancer in the world for several decades. The non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) constitutes approximately about 80% of the total cases of lung cancer. Therapeutic interventions in NSCLC have shifted to the target-based approach from histology-based approach, and this has completely changed the face of the management of NSCLC. Developing countries, such as India, have very limited data compiled about the prevalence and treatment practices of lung cancer, despite a large burden of the disease. However, in recent times, there has been a lot of data generated in this regard. This article is an attempt to collate and shine light on the available data for the first-line treatment of NSCLC in India keeping in mind the current standards of care in this area.



How to cite this article:
Ghadyalpatil NS, Pandey A, Krishnamani I, Srinivas C, Rafiq SJ, Hingmire SS, Maturu N, Reddy R, Kumar KK, Sreekanth K, Gurram BC, Parikh P M. First-line management of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: An Indian perspective.South Asian J Cancer 2019;8:73-79


How to cite this URL:
Ghadyalpatil NS, Pandey A, Krishnamani I, Srinivas C, Rafiq SJ, Hingmire SS, Maturu N, Reddy R, Kumar KK, Sreekanth K, Gurram BC, Parikh P M. First-line management of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: An Indian perspective. South Asian J Cancer [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Jul 22 ];8:73-79
Available from: http://journal.sajc.org/text.asp?2019/8/2/73/256076


Full Text

 Introduction



Lung cancer has been the most common cancer in the world for several decades of which histologically non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) constitutes approximately about 80% of the total cases.[1],[2],[3] Therapeutic interventions in NSCLC have changed drastically from chemotherapy to target-based approach following the detection of driver mutations and now including immunotherapy, rendering the treatments more complex, yet personalized than ever before.[4],[5] Data available in India are very limited; here, we tried to compile the data available for the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in Indian patients.

 First-Line Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced and Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer



Over the past three decades, a significant improvement in outcomes with advanced metastatic NSCLC has been demonstrated starting with doubling in survival with chemotherapy compared to only best supportive care.[6] This was followed by improvement in response rates with third-generation agents including paclitaxel, docetaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine compared to the second-generation ifosfamide, mitomycin, and vindesine along with standard platinum chemotherapy given in doublet.[7],[8] With Indian patients, Shajeem et al. first demonstrated survival benefit with doubling of overall survival (OS) with combination platinum doublet compared to the best supportive care in metastatic NSCLC.[9] Data using the second-generation combination chemotherapy, ifosfamide, mitomycin, and cisplatin, Behera et al. demonstrated response rates of 45% but with median survival of 7 months.[10] A subsequent retrospective study comparing the second-generation cisplatin-etoposide with third-generation taxane, gemcitabine combination with platinum led to 3 months improvement in survival in paclitaxel-carboplatin cohort.[11] Similar to the above, another series using the second-generation chemotherapy in the majority of patients yielded median survival of 7 months.[12]

Compared to above older series, modern series of studies with third-generation combination platinum doublet yield superior response rates in the range of 30%–50% with average improvement in median survival by 3 months, i.e., from 7 to 10 months.[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] This improvement apart from the better selection of chemotherapeutic agents could also be because of stage migration due to the improved sensitivity of diagnosing metastatic disease using computerized tomography and positron-emission tomography compared to older generation chest X-ray and ultrasonographic techniques as part of adoption in routine clinical practice.

In landmark Phase III randomized multicentric international trial testing noninferiority of pemetrexed platinum compared to gemcitabine platinum, in which three major tertiary cancer centers of India were participants, demonstrated better survival benefit of pemetrexed-based combination in adenocarcinoma and large cell histology, while gemcitabine combination favored squamous histology in preplanned subset analysis.[18] This conclusion was adopted fairly across the majority of oncology centers worldwide with Indian studies using pemetrexed-platinum combination showing progression-free survival (PFS) ranging 4–7 months and OS extending to 10 months in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) unmutated cohort of patients in retrospective studies.[19],[20]

In Phase III randomized trial of East Asians, light/never smokers, unselected for EGFR mutation, and pemetrexed platinum followed by gefitinib maintenance was compared against upfront gefitinib use. This trial failed to show any difference in OS in any of the above groups. However, unplanned post hoc subset analysis favored upfront gefitinib in EGFR mutation NSCLC, while pemetrexed combination showed better survival in unmutated NSCLC [Table 1].[21],[22],[23]{Table 1}

 Maintenance Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced and Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer



The concept of continued treatment after the best response to achieve durable disease control was demonstrated in the PARAMOUNT trial. In this phase III placebo-controlled randomized, multicentric trial, having Indian patients as well from one major tertiary center showed not only progression-free but also OS benefit with 22% reduction in mortality with maintenance pemetrexed.[24],[25] This benefit was seen across all subgroups with performance status (PS) 0 and 1, deriving maximum survival benefit.[26] Even, among the elderly population, the maintenance pemetrexed retained its survival benefit with acceptable toxicities.[27]

One of the major Indian studies exploring maintenance pemetrexed in patients achieving partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) with induction pemetrexed-platinum doublet, Pandey et al. showed progression-free and OS of 8 and 20 months, respectively. Moreover, the patients with baseline pleural effusion had better PFS (9 vs. 7 months, P = 0.02) and OS (26 vs. 18 months, P = 0.05). The patients receiving more than six cycles of maintenance had improved PFS (12 vs. 7 months, P = 0.002) and OS (26 vs. 16 months, P = 0.05).[28] This benefit in OS with maintenance pemetrexed was similar compared to switch maintenance with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) among patients having response to induction pemetrexed platin doublet and EGFR mutation positive.[29]

Another study by Pankaj et al., the maintenance pemetrexed was used in 60 patients who achieved PR/SD on induction pemetrexed doublet. The mean number of maintenance cycles was 8.3 (range 2–28). About 13 (21.6%) patients took >10 maintenance cycles. Pemetrexed maintenance therapy resulted in PFS of 5.4 months.[30] One of the two other smaller retrospective studies with 36 patients incorporating maintenance chemotherapy showed survival benefit over 6 months compared to no maintenance therapy.[20],[31] The benefit may have been overestimated due to case selection bias of maintenance therapy in better PS and fewer number of patients in the above retrospective case audits [Table 2].{Table 2}

In summary, pemetrexed-based platinum treatment remained the first-line treatment in majority of the studies in the recent times with acceptable outcomes both in the frontline as well as maintenance treatment.

 First-Line Treatment With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors



EGFR mutation is often seen in patients diagnosed with NSCLC.[33] The discovery of EGFR mutation and other receptor tyrosine kinases and the directed therapies have completely changed the treatment landscape of NSCLC management. Molecular genotyping routinely involves testing for EGFR mutation studies, and other translocation studies since the outcomes are better with targeted therapies than the conventional therapies.[34],[35] In the study presented by Mehta, EGFR mutation frequency was found to be higher in the Indian population (32%) as compared to Caucasian population; however, it was lower than that reported in the East-Asian population.[36]

The data available with regard to EGFR mutation NSCLC patients and the management is very limited in the Indian context especially in the first-line management.

Parikh et al.[37] analyzed 77 Indian patients enrolled in the ISEL study. Specifically, in Indian patients, the median survival and objective response rates were better with TKI gefitinib as compared to placebo (6.4 vs. 5.1 months; 14 vs. 0%).

A study presented by Louis et al. without EGFR mutation testing showed modest benefit with first-generation TKI gefitinib with PFS and OS of 5 and 7.5 months, respectively. The PFS was better in females, nonsmokers, and those who received upfront gefitinib than those who did not receive the same.[38]

A study presented by Bhatt et al. was a retrospective analysis of 106 patients. In those patients where EGFR mutation was positive, the patients were treated with either upfront TKI n = 15 (14.15%) or if on chemotherapy arm finished six cycles and then given switch maintenance TKIs, n = 26 (24.52%). The median PFS for the patients with and without mutations was found to be 11 and 9 months, respectively. A median PFS of 14 months was demonstrated in patients with the mutation-positive group that received both chemotherapy followed by switch maintenance with TKIs versus 8 months in the group that received only TKI.[39]

Another retrospective analysis by Noronha et al. looked into the patients who were treated with EGFR TKI. The overall response rate was 30% in the entire study population, and in the patients with EGFR-activating mutations, the response rate was 74% whereas it was only 5% in EGFR wild-type cases. The PFS was 10 months in EGFR mutation-positive cases and 2 months without EGFR mutation. The OS was 19 versus 13 months in patients with or without EGFR mutations, respectively.[40]

More recent publication in a nontrial scenario, 225 patients with EGFR-activating mutation were treated with TKI. In the patients with good PS (0–2), the median OS was 18.17 months. In poor PS population (3–4), the OS was documented at 12.1 months. This study confirmed inferior outcomes in the patients with poor PS. Furthermore, in those patients who were ineligible for the trial, the outcomes were similar to many clinical trials reported earlier in this space.[41]

In the unpublished data presented in a review article by Malik et al., 50 patients who received upfront TKIs were analyzed. Median PFS and OS were 7.5 and 12.7 months, respectively. Interestingly, only seven patients underwent EGFR studies, and three cases were positive for EGFR-activating mutation.[42]

Joshi et al. looked into the outcomes of EGFR-mutant patients treated with gefitinib with respect to exon 19 and exon 21 analyses. The median PFS for exon 19 versus exon 21 status was 9.3 and 7.8 months. The median OS was 19.8 and 16.5 months, respectively, for exon 19 and 21 patients, respectively. Although numerically better outcomes were seen in exon 19 patients, there was no real difference between the two groups.[43]

Recently, Patil et al. presented the open-label randomized Phase III trial in the space of EGFR mutation patients in Indian patients. With 145 patients in each arm, the patients with activating EGFR mutation status were randomized to receive pemetrexed and carboplatin doublet followed by pemetrexed maintenance versus gefitinib. The median PFS was 5.6 months in chemotherapy arm and 8.4 months in gefitinib arm. There was no OS difference in the two arms. Grades 3–4 hematological toxicity was higher in chemotherapy arm whereas Grades 3–4 rash and diarrhea was reported higher in gefitinib arm.[23] This trial has pemetrexed platinum induction with maintenance pemetrexed in control arm which is the accepted gold standard, which none of the previous trial had explored in comparison to TKIs. Notably, OS in control chemotherapy arm was longer compared to gefitinib arm (26 vs. 18 months), though not significant.

Impact of exon 19 and exon 21 EGFR-activating mutations with first-line pemetrexed carboplatin was assessed by Noronha et al., and interestingly, found no differential impact. The patients with exon 19 population had better response outcome with gefitinib.[44]

Exon 20-mutated NSCLC is an uncommon variant.[45] Even though the numbers were limited, the study by Noronha et al. had exon 20 positive patients treated with pemetrexed platinum, paclitaxel platinum, or TKI. One patient did not receive any treatment. The OS for the exon 20-mutated patients was 5 months as compared to 16.1 months in other EGFR-activating mutations confirming the dismal outcome in this population.[46]

Indian consensus statement for advanced NSCLC treatment has recommend for (Del 19 and L858R mutation) patients in the first-line setting as that patients with EGFR mutations should be treated with an EGFR TKI (afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib) in the upfront setting.

In case the chemotherapy is started before the mutation test results are available, chemotherapy may be continued for 4–6 cycles in responding patients. Switching to an EGFR TKI before completion of 4–6 cycles can also be a valid option.[47]

 Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Treatment in The first-Line Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer



Standard practice in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC, is treatment based on anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) TKI considered standard of care for ALK-positive patients proven by standard FISH (Fluorescence in situ hybridization) technique or ROS1 positive patients in advanced NSCLC.[35],[48],[49]

The preferred first-line agent now is alectinib as it has demonstrated superior PFS in head-to-head comparison with crizotinib.[50] In places where access to alectinib is limited options include crizotinib and ceritinib. An overview of the pivotal trials leading to the approval of these three drugs is given in [Table 3].[35],[50],[51]{Table 3}

Indian Studies

A retrospective study by Dubey et al. done between September 2014 and 2016 to evaluate the epidemiological, clinicopathological profile, disease characteristics, and response to crizotinib in advanced echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-ALK-positive NSCLC patients.[52] The patients were started on either palliative chemotherapy or crizotinib. In this study, 20 patients were ALK positive. The median age was 43.9 years with an equal male-to-female ratio. About 80% of patients were nonsmokers. Adenocarcinoma and poorly differentiated carcinoma constituted 70% and 30% of cases, respectively. Crizotinib was used in 18 of 20 patients. In ten patients, it was used as the first line, while in the rest it was used after cytotoxic chemotherapy. Eight out of ten patients receiving chemotherapy subsequently received crizotinib. PR in those on crizotinib was 89%. The median PFS for upfront and later line crizotinib was 9.2 and 8 months, respectively. Those, who were young and with good PS, had a better outcome with a superior PFS. Those with brain metastases also had a superior PFS than those without (10.5 vs. 6.5 months). The drug was reasonably well tolerated with Grades 3/4 gastrointestinal toxicity seen in one patient and symptomatic bradycardia in one patient.

In another study by Noronha et al., clinical profile and practice of treatment in ALK-positive NSCLC were analyzed in a retrospective analysis carried out at the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.[53] This study also looked at the limitations in using crizotinib in a real-world setting.

The median age in this study was 51 years, with a higher preponderance of males (56.4%). Close to 75% of patients had two or metastatic sites with three or more sites seen in 38% of cases which indicate the heavy tumor burden among this patient cohort. Brain metastases were observed in 22.3% of patients in this study.

Only 22.3% of ALK-positive patients received crizotinib upfront in this study. Reasons for not using crizotinib upfront included symptomatic patients needing chemotherapy (23.3%), ALK not being tested upfront (23.3%), and financial constraints (21.9%). However, 73.9% of patients received crizotinib at some point of their treatment course. In this study, 55% of patients received the drug through nongovernmental organization support, while 44.8% paid for the drug through credit or self-payment.

PR was seen in 37 patients (53.6%), while SD was observed in 13 patients (18.8%). The overall disease control rate (DCR = complete response [CR] + PR + SD) was 72.4%. The patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0–2 had a significantly better PFS than ECOG PS >2 (10 vs. 1.5 months, P < 0.001). Furthermore, exposure to crizotinib versus no exposure to crizotinib predicted for significantly longer PFS (10 vs. 2 months, P = 0.028). The median OS was not reached for the entire cohort, with estimated 1-year survival being 81.2% in this study. An ECOG PS 0–2 versus ECOG PS >2 (median OS not reached vs. 2.967 months, P < 0.001) and exposure to crizotinib versus nonexposure to crizotinib (median OS 39.86 vs. 11.2, P < 0.001) predicted for significantly longer OS.

Ceritinib use in Indian patients has been reported by Joshi et al.[54] This study included 13 patients for analysis. All had prior crizotinib exposure. The median age was 47 years (range 28–62 years), with a male:female ratio of 5 (39.2%):8 (60.8%). Almost half of the patients had an ECOG PS of ≥2. Furthermore, 50% of the patients had brain metastases. The patients were heavily pretreated with ceritinib given as the second-line therapy in 6 (46%) patients, third line in 5 (38%) patients, and as the fourth line in 2 (16%) patients.

Postceritinib two patients received pemetrexed platinum and two received taxanes. Both the patients who received pemetrexed-based regimen had SD as their best response. Among those who received taxanes, one had progressive disease, and the other had SD as their best response.

Median PFS and OS were not reached in this study. However, the mean PFS and OS of the entire population were 10.9 and 14.9 months, respectively. One-year PFS and OS were 56% and 78%, respectively. None of the patients, in this study, had disease progression in the brain even though approximately 50% of them had brain metastases. This highlights that the drug is active in the central nervous system. About 30% of the patients required dose interruptions with the median duration of cessation being 1 week. Twenty-two percent of them were started at reduced doses which they tolerated well.

Another study by Noronha et al. reported crizotinib use in advanced ROS-1 patients.[48] Eleven patients were evaluable in this study. Out of the 11 patients, five were exposed to crizotinib. The response rates for crizotinib-treated patients were 80%. With a median follow-up of 9 months, the median PFS and OS were 5.4 months and 8.5 months, respectively, for the entire population. Analyzing the outcomes separately, the median PFS and OS were not reached for those who received crizotinib compared to median PFS of 2.5 months and median OS of 4.2 months in those who were not exposed to crizotinib. The difference was statistically significant. Estimated 1-year OS was 80% for those who received crizotinib compared to 18% for who did not receive crizotinib.

Murthy et al. conducted a retrospective observational study on 341 Indian patients with lung adenocarcinoma to determine the clinical features and outcomes of ALK-positive patients.[55] Thirty-seven patients were ALK-positive by fluorescence in situ hybridization, of which 27 received crizotinib therapy. Of the 31 ALK-positive patients treated with crizotinib, ceritinib (n = 1), or chemotherapy (n = 3), the best response was one CR, 23 (74.2%) PR, and 5 (16.1%) SD. At the median follow-up of 12.5 months, the median PFS was not reached. In addition, a patient with ALK positivity detected by immunohistochemistry and presenting brain metastases received crizotinib after whole brain radiotherapy, reaching a PR.

Batra et al. conducted a study on the use of crizotinib in 25 Indian ALK-positive Stage IV lung adenocarcinoma patients.[56] The best response to crizotinib included one CR and 20 PR. The median PFS and OS were 11.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3–17.3) and 20.6 months (95% CI 12.8–34.1), respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events included vomiting (28%), anemia (28%), and cough (20%).

Bamania et al. described the use of crizotinib in a case series of 21 Indian ALK-positive NSCLC patients.[57] Most (87.5%) patients had a Stage IV disease and presented brain or bone metastases (44%, each). First-line crizotinib was given to three patients, and 12 patients received it in a second-line setting. The mean PFS was 6.96 and 8.9 months in patients treated with crizotinib in a first and second line, respectively. The respective mean OS was 13.6 and 8.3 months.

Bal et al. retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 240 lung adenocarcinoma patients from the North of India to determine the prevalence of ALK-rearrangement in this population.[58] Of the 17 ALK-positive patients, five were started on crizotinib, four of which were after one line of chemotherapy, and for one patient as the third-line therapy. PR and SD were reached by 60% and 40% of the patients under crizotinib therapy, respectively.

The Indian consensus statement for the treatment of advanced NSCLC: first line, maintenance, and second line published in January–March 2017 recommend the use of crizotinib as the first line in ALK/ROS-1-positive patients. Results of J-ALEX and ASCEND-4 were not available at the time of publication.[50],[51]

 Discussion



Lung cancer continues to pose challenges regarding the outcomes. It remains common cancer for urban India and remains the leading cause of mortality.[1],[59] The treatment of advanced NSCLC indeed is a complex one especially in the era of newer chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. It is prudent to individualize treatment for the patients considering the fact that NSCLC is no more a single disease entity. It is also useful to know the NSCLC treatment patterns in the country, such as India, which has vastly different patient population than the Western world.

In this review, we have compiled the relevant recent studies on the first-line NSCLC. In patients without an identifiable target, platinum-doublet chemotherapy is preferred treatment with third-generation agents and remains the first choice among locally advanced metastatic nonmutated NSCLC. Pemetrexed-platinum combination scores over other agents in adenocarcinoma histology. Maintenance pemetrexed in patients responding to induction doublet chemotherapy extends survival, and hence, recommended in suitable cohort. Second-line chemotherapy docetaxel produces modest but meaningful improvement in progression-free and OS. In treatment refractory, platinum ineligible patients, weekly metronomic paclitaxel may be attempted.

In EGFR-mutated patients, most of the studies published until date had first-generation EGFR TKI as the first-line therapy. In majority of the retrospective analyses as well as the randomized trial in these patients in the Indian context, the PFS was in the range of 8 months, which is similar to the published literature for first-generation EGFR TKIs.

The data on ALK inhibitors in the first line advanced NSCLC were found to be even more limited considering this to be newer treatment modality and the recent availability of ALK TKIs. With limited data, the PFS outcomes stood similar at approximate 10–11 months' duration, which was similar to the pivotal first-line study for crizotinib. The tolerance to crizotinib was excellent in Indian patients.

We could not identify or substantiate any relevant data with regard to immunotherapy in the first-line advanced NSCLC setting.

 Conclusion



Advanced NSCLC management has evolved at breathtaking speed in the last decade and half. As of now, in India, majority of treatments are available and are administered as per the standard guidelines, and the outcomes are more or less comparable to the global studies published in the first-line space. The information on immunotherapy in the first line is still at a nascent stage but is expected to evolve in the near future. With higher burden of EGFR-activated tumors and substantial number of ALK patients, all patients should undergo baseline molecular studies to identify the targets as to streamline the treatment for the patients to maximize the outcomes in advanced NSCLC.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Ferlay JS, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2008. Available from: http://www.globocan.iarc.fr. [Last accessed on 2013 Jul 02].
2Indian Council of Medical Research. National Cancer Registry Programme. Three Year Report of Population Based Cancer Registries: 2009-2011; 2013. Available from: http://www.ncrpindia.org. [Last accessed on 2014 Jan 21].
3Chandra S, Mohan A, Guleria R, Singh V, Yadav P. Delays during the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2009;10:453-6.
4Parikh PM, Ranade AA, Govind B, Ghadyalpatil N, Singh R, Bharath R, et al. Lung cancer in India: Current status and promising strategies. South Asian J Cancer 2016;5:93-5.
5Lynch TJ, Bondarenko I, Luft A, Serwatowski P, Barlesi F, Chacko R, et al. Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2046-54.
6Marino P, Pampallona S, Preatoni A, Cantoni A, Invernizzi F. Chemotherapy vs. supportive care in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Results of a meta-analysis of the literature. Chest 1994;106:861-5.
7Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, Krook J, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;346:92-8.
8Baggstrom MQ, Stinchcombe TE, Fried DB, Poole C, Hensing TA, Socinski MA, et al. Third-generation chemotherapy agents in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:845-53.
9Shajeem O, Behera D, Aggarwal AN. Chemotherapy versus best supportive care in the management of lung cancer. J Assoc Physicians India 2003;51:261-4.
10Behera D, Aggarwal AN, Sharma SC, Gupta D, Jindal SK. Ifosfamide containing regimen for non-small cell lung cancer. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci 2004;46:9-15.
11Natukula K, Jamil K, Pingali UR, Suresh Attili VS, Naidu Madireddy UR. Survival analysis in advanced non small cell lung cancer treated with platinum based chemotherapy in combination with paclitaxel, gemcitabine and etoposide. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14:4661-6.
12Rajappa S, Gundeti S, Talluri MR, Digumarti R. Chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer: A 5-year experience. Indian J Cancer 2008;45:20-6.
13Pathak AK, Bhutani M, Guleria R, Bal S, Mohan A, Mohanti BK, et al. Chemotherapy alone vs. chemotherapy plus high dose multiple antioxidants in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer. J Am Coll Nutr 2005;24:16-21.
14Bala S, Gundeti S, Linga VG, Maddali LS, Digumarti RR, Uppin SG, et al. Clinicopathological features and outcomes in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer with tailored therapy. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2016;37:242-50.
15Hingmire SS, Sambhus MB, Kelkar DS, Joshi SW, Narsinghpura KS. First-line therapy outcomes in patients with advanced stage nonsmall cell lung cancer treated at nongovernment tertiary care centrer in India: Experience from a real world practice. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:182-6.
16Doval DC, Sinha R, Batra U, Choudhury KD, Azam S, Mehta A, et al. Clinical profile of nonsmall cell lung carcinoma patients treated in a single unit at a tertiary cancer care center. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:193-6.
17Babu KG, Prabhash K, Vaid AK, Sirohi B, Diwakar RB, Rao R, et al. Nimotuzumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study. Onco Targets Ther 2014;7:1051-60.
18Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, Biesma B, Vansteenkiste J, Manegold C, et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3543-51.
19Louis RA, Rajendranath R, Ganesan P, Sagar TG, Krishnamurthy A. First report of upfront treatment with gefitinib in comparison with chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients from South India: Analysis of 120 patients. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2012;33:146-54.
20Paliwal P, Rajappa S, Santa A, Mohan M, Murthy S, Lavanya N, et al. Clinical profile and outcomes of patients with stage IV adenocarcinoma of lung: A tertiary cancer center experience. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:197-202.
21Yang JC, Kang JH, Mok T, Ahn MJ, Srimuninnimit V, Lin CC, et al. First-line pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by gefitinib maintenance therapy versus gefitinib monotherapy in East Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomised, phase 3 trial. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:2219-30.
22Yang JC, Srimuninnimit V, Ahn MJ, Lin CC, Kim SW, Tsai CM, et al. First-line pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by gefitinib maintenance therapy versus gefitinib monotherapy in East Asian never-smoker patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer: Final overall survival results from a randomized phase 3 study. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:370-9.
23Patil VM, Noronha V, Joshi A, Choughule AB, Bhattacharjee A, Kumar R, et al. Phase III study of gefitinib or pemetrexed with carboplatin in EGFR-mutated advanced lung adenocarcinoma. ESMO Open 2017;2:e000168.
24Paz-Ares L, de Marinis F, Dediu M, Thomas M, Pujol JL, Bidoli P, et al. Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (PARAMOUNT): A double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:247-55.
25Paz-Ares LG, de Marinis F, Dediu M, Thomas M, Pujol JL, Bidoli P, et al. PARAMOUNT: Final overall survival results of the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo immediately after induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2895-902.
26Reck M, Paz-Ares LG, de Marinis F, Molinier O, Sahoo TP, Laack E, et al. PARAMOUNT: Descriptive subgroup analyses of final overall survival for the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo following induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:205-13.
27Gridelli C, de Marinis F, Thomas M, Prabhash K, El Kouri C, Blackhall F, et al. Final efficacy and safety results of pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in the elderly from the PARAMOUNT phase III study. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:991-7.
28Pandey AV, Phillip DS, Noronha V, Joshi A, Janu A, Jambekar N, et al. Maintenance pemetrexed in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: Outcome analysis from a tertiary care center. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2015;36:238-42.
29Pandey A, Noronha V, Joshi A, Prabhash K. Switch maintenance tyrosine kinase inhibitors in EGFR mutation positive metastatic non-squamous NSCLC: Experience from the real world. Gulf J Oncolog 2016;1:6-10.
30Pankaj G, Ullas B, Doval DC, Parveen J, Amitabh UK, Dash PK, et al. Efficacy and toxicity profile of maintenance pemetrexed in patients with stage IV adenocarcinoma lung in Indian population. South Asian J Cancer 2016;5:196-203.
31Murali AN, Radhakrishnan V, Ganesan TS, Rajendranath R, Ganesan P, Selvaluxmy G, et al. Outcomes in lung cancer: 9-year experience from a tertiary cancer center in India. J Glob Oncol 2017;3:459-68.
32Mohan A, Poulose R, Gupta T, Luthra K, Pandey RM, Madan K, et al. Impact of chemotherapy on symptom profile, oxidant-antioxidant balance and nutritional status in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung India 2017;34:336-40.
33Veldore VH, Rao RM, Kakara S, Pattanayak S, Tejaswi R, Sahoo R, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in non-small-cell lung carcinomas: A retrospective analysis of 1036 lung cancer specimens from a network of tertiary cancer care centers in India. Indian J Cancer 2013;50:87-93.
34Sebastian M, Schmittel A, Reck M. First-line treatment of EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer: Critical review on study methodology. Eur Respir Rev 2014;23:92-105.
35Solomon BJ, Mok T, Kim DW, Wu YL, Nakagawa K, Mekhail T, et al. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;371:2167-77.
36Mehta J. Molecular epidemiology of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancers in Indian population. Indian J Cancer 2013;50:102-6.
37Parikh P, Chang AY, Nag S, Digumarti R, Bhattacharyya GS, Doval DC, et al. Clinical experience with gefitinib in Indian patients. J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:380-5.
38Louis RA, Rajendranath R, Ganesan P, Sagar TG, Krishnamurthy A. First report of upfront treatment with gefitinib in comparison with chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients from South India: Analysis of 120 patients. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2012;33:146-54.
39Bhatt AD, Pai R, Rebekah G, Nehru GA, Dhananjayan S, Samuel A, et al. Clinicopathologic features of non-small cell lung cancer in India and correlation with epidermal growth factor receptor mutational status. Indian J Cancer 2013;50:94-101.
40Noronha V, Prabhash K, Thavamani A, Chougule A, Purandare N, Joshi A, et al. EGFR mutations in Indian lung cancer patients: Clinical correlation and outcome to EGFR targeted therapy. PLoS One 2013;8:e61561.
41Noronha V, Patil VM, Joshi A, Tandon N, Sharma V, Ramaswamy A, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor positive lung cancer: The nontrial scenario. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:132-5.
42Malik PS, Jain D, Kumar L. Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Oncology 2016;91 Suppl 1:26-34.
43Joshi A, Patil V, Noronha V, Chougule A, Bhattacharjee A, Kumar R, et al. Efficacy of gefitinib in epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer: Does exon 19 deletion differ from exon 21 mutation? Lung India 2018;35:27-30.
44Noronha V, Patil V, Joshi A, Chougule A, Bhattacharjee A, Kumar R, et al. Impact of exon 19 versus exon 21 EGFR-activating mutation on outcomes with upfront pemetrexed-carboplatin chemotherapy. Ecancermedicalscience 2017;11:776.
45Yasuda H, Kobayashi S, Costa DB. EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: Preclinical data and clinical implications. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e23-31.
46Noronha V, Choughule A, Patil VM, Joshi A, Kumar R, Susan Joy Philip D, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 mutation in lung cancer: Types, incidence, clinical features and impact on treatment. Onco Targets Ther 2017;10:2903-8.
47Under the aegis of Lung Cancer Consortium Asia (LCCA), Indian Cooperative Oncology Network (ICON), Indian Society of Medical & Pediatric Oncology (ISMPO), Molecular Oncology Society (MOS) and Association of Physicians of India API). Indian consensus statement for treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer:First line, maintenance, and second line. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:89-103.
48Noronha V, Chandrakanth MV, Joshi AP, Patil V, Chougule A, Mahajan A, et al. ROS1 rearranged nonsmall cell lung cancer and crizotinib: An Indian experience. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:436-8.
49Weickhardt AJ, Aisner DL, Franklin WA, Varella-Garcia M, Doebele RC, Camidge DR, et al. Diagnostic assays for identification of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer 2013;119:1467-77.
50Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, Gadgeel S, Ahn JS, Kim DW, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;377:829-38.
51Soria JC, Tan DSW, Chiari R, Wu YL, Paz-Ares L, Wolf J, et al. First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet 2017;389:917-29.
52Dubey AP, Pathi N, Viswanath S, Rathore A, Pathak A, Sud R, et al. New insights into anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:203-8.
53Noronha V, Ramaswamy A, Patil VM, Joshi A, Chougule A, Kane S, et al. ALK positive lung cancer: Clinical profile, practice and outcomes in a developing country. PLoS One 2016;11:e0160752.
54Joshi AP, Chandrakanth MV, Noronha V, Patil V, Chougule A, Mahajan A, et al. Ceritinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer among patients who were previously exposed to crizotinib: Experience from the Indian subcontinent. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:144-7.
55Murthy SS, Rajappa SJ, Gundimeda SD, Mallavarapu KM, Ayyagari S, Yalavarthi P, et al. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase status in lung cancers: An immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization study from a tertiary cancer center in India. Indian J Cancer 2017;54:231-5.
56Batra U, Aggarwal M, Jain P, Goyal P, Yadav A, Maheshwari U, et al. Clinical outcome study of crizotinib in immunohistochemistry-proven echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusion gene among Indian patients with adenocarcinoma lung. South Asian J Cancer 2018;7:61-4.
57Bamania A, Sahni D, Mohan A, Malik P, Madan K, Hadda V. Clinical Response to Crizotinib as a 1st and 2nd Line Therapy in ALK Positive Lung Cancer in an Indian Population. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2017;195(A4589).
58Bal A, Singh N, Agarwal P, Das A, Behera D. ALK gene rearranged lung adenocarcinomas: Molecular genetics and morphology in cohort of patients from North India. APMIS 2016;124:832-8.
59Dikshit R, Gupta PC, Ramasundarahettige C, Gajalakshmi V, Aleksandrowicz L, Badwe R, et al. Cancer mortality in India: A nationally representative survey. Lancet 2012;379:1807-16.