Dataset Information

A phase III randomised controlled trial of erlotinib vs gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations.

ABSTRACT: A phase III trial was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of erlotinib with that of gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in exon 19 or 21.Eligible patients were randomised to receive erlotinib (150?mg per day) or gefitinib (250?mg per day) orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We aimed to determine whether erlotinib is superior to gefitinib in efficacy. The primary end point was progression-free survival.A total of 256 patients were randomised to receive erlotinib (N=128) or gefitinib (N=128). Median progression-free survival was not better with erlotinib than with gefitinib (13.0 vs 10.4 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.05, P=0.108). The corresponding response rates and median overall survival were 56.3% vs 52.3% (P=0.530) and 22.9 vs 20.1 months (95% CI 0.63-1.13, P=0.250), respectively. There were no significant differences in grade 3/4 toxicities between the two arms (P=0.172).The primary end point was not met. Erlotinib was not significantly superior to gefitinib in terms of efficacy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in exon 19 or 21, and the two treatments had similar toxicities.

SUBMITTER: Yang JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5344291 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A phase III randomised controlled trial of erlotinib vs gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations.

Yang J J JJ Zhou Q Q Yan H H HH Zhang X C XC Chen H J HJ Tu H Y HY Wang Z Z Xu C R CR Su J J Wang B C BC Jiang B Y BY Bai X Y XY Zhong W Z WZ Yang X N XN Wu Y L YL

British journal of cancer 20170119 5

<h4>Background</h4>A phase III trial was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of erlotinib with that of gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in exon 19 or 21.<h4>Methods</h4>Eligible patients were randomised to receive erlotinib (150 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We aimed to determine whether erlotinib is superior to gefitinib in efficacy. The primary e ...[more]

PMID: 28103612

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are currently available as treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor EGFR mutations. However, no head to head trials between these TKIs in mutated populations have been reported, which provides room for indirect and integrated comparisons.MethodsWe searched electronic databases for eligible literatures. Pooled data on objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) were calculated. Appropriate networks for different outcomes were established to incorporate all evidences. Multiple-treatments comparisons (MTCs) based on Bayesian network integrated the efficacy and specific toxicities of all included treatments.ResultsTwelve phase III RCTs that investigated EGFR-TKIs involving 1821 participants with EGFR mutation were included. For mutant patients, the weighted pooled ORR and 1-year PFS of EGFR-TKIs were significant superior to that of standard chemotherapy (ORR: 66.6% vs. 30.9%, OR 5.46, 95%CI 3.59 to 8.30, P<0.00001; 1-year PFS: 42.9% vs. 9.7%, OR 7.83, 95%CI 4.50 to 13.61; P<0.00001) through direct meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between these four TKIs with respect to all outcome measures. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed that the cumulative probabilities of being the most efficacious treatments were (ORR, 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, 2-year OS): erlotinib (51%, 38%, 14%, 19%), gefitinib (1%, 6%, 5%, 16%), afatinib (29%, 27%, 30%, 27%) and icotinib (19%, 29%, NA, NA), respectively. However, afatinib and erlotinib showed significant severer rash and diarrhea compared with gefitinib and icotinib.ConclusionsThe current study indicated that erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib shared equivalent efficacy but presented different efficacy-toxicity pattern for EGFR-mutated patients. Erlotinib and afatinib revealed potentially better efficacy but significant higher toxicities compared with gefitinib and icotinib.

Project description:BackgroundASP8273, a novel, small molecule, irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in patients with activating mutations or EGFR T790M resistance mutations. The current study examines the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ASP8273 versus erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations not previously treated with an EGFR inhibitor.Patients and methodsThis global, phase III, open-label, randomized study evaluated ASP8273 versus erlotinib/gefitinib in patients with locally advanced, metastatic, or unresectable stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations. They were ineligible if they received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary end points included overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, best overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response (DoR), and the safety/tolerability profile.ResultsPatients (n = 530) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive ASP8273 (n = 267) or erlotinib/gefitinib (n = 263). Patient demographics between both treatment groups were generally balanced. Median PFS was 9.3 months (95% CI 5.6-11.1 months) for patients receiving ASP8273 and 9.6 months (95% CI 8.8-NE) for the erlotinib/gefitinib group, with a hazard ratio of 1.611 (P = 0.992). The ORR in the ASP8273 group was 33% (95% CI 27.4-39.0) versus 47.9% (95% CI 41.7-54.1) in the erlotinib/gefitinib group. Median DoR was similar for both groups (9.2 months for ASP8273 versus 9.0 months for erlotinib/gefitinib). More grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in patients receiving ASP8273 than in those receiving erlotinib/gefitinib (54.7% versus 43.5%). An independent data monitoring committee carried out an interim safety analysis and recommended discontinuing the study due to toxicity and limited predicted efficacy of ASP8273 relative to erlotinib/gefitinib.ConclusionsFirst-line ASP8273 did not show improved PFS or equivalent toxicities versus erlotinib/gefitinib.Clinicaltrial.gov numberNCT02588261.

Project description:ImportanceErlotinib is a standard first-line therapy for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with erlotinib is approximately 10 months.ObjectiveTo determine whether adding bevacizumab to erlotinib treatment results in superior progression-free survival compared with erlotinib alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial compared erlotinib plus bevacizumab with erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. The trial was conducted in 17 US academic and community medical centers among 88 patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation based on local testing and stage 4 NSCLC who were eligible for bevacizumab. Patients were enrolled between November 2, 2012, and August 22, 2016, and followed up for a median (range) of 33 (0.7-62.5) months. Data were analyzed on August 28, 2018, and included data from November 2, 2012, to August 20, 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomized with equal allocation to 150 mg of oral erlotinib daily alone or with 15 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab every 3 weeks. Study therapy continued until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or withdrawal of consent.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was PFS as assessed by the investigator; secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and overall survival (OS). Analysis was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.667 for PFS (an improvement from a median PFS of 10 to 15 months).ResultsAmong 88 patients enrolled, the median (range) age was 63 (31-84) years; 62 patients (70%) were female; 75 (85%) were white, 8 (9%) were African American, 3 (3%) were Asian, and for 2 (2%), data on race were not available. Forty-eight patients (55%) were never smokers, 45 patients (51%) were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, and 59 patients (67%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion. Compared with erlotinib, the combination did not result in a significant difference in PFS (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.50-1.31; P = .39; median PFS 17.9 [combination] and 13.5 months [erlotinib]), ORR (81% vs 83%; P = .81), and OS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.71-2.81; P = .33; median OS, 32.4 months [combination] and 50.6 months [erlotinib]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher observed in 5 or more patients in the combination and erlotinib arms were skin eruption in 11 (26%) vs 7 (16%) patients, diarrhea in 4 (9%) vs 6 (13%) patients, hypertension in 17 (40%) vs 9 (20%) patients, and proteinuria in 5 (12%) vs 0 (0%) patients.Conclusions and relevanceErlotinib plus bevacizumab compared with erlotinib did not result in a significant improvement in PFS in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01532089.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral randomized controlled trials have suggested that adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were associated with prolonged disease-free survival (DFS) in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients after radical resection, comparing with chemotherapy or placebo. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of different first-generation EGFR-TKIs as adjuvant treatment in real-world setting.MethodsEarly-stage EGFR mutated NSCLC patients who underwent radical resection and treated with first-generation EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib) as adjuvant therapy between Feb 2010 and Jan 2019 were retrieved from a prospectively-maintained database in our center. The primary endpoint was DFS in stage II/III (TNM 8th) patients with exploratory endpoint regarding DFS in stage I patients. Sensitivity analyses were based on propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts. Treatment failure patterns among different TKIs were also compared.ResultsOf 588 eligible patients, 198 patients (33.7%) received gefitinib, 106 patients (17.9%) received erlotinib, and 284 patients (48.2%) received icotinib. The median DFS of stage II/III patients in the gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib group were 36.1 months (95% CI, 23.9-49.4), 42.8 months (95% CI, 29.6-97.8), and 32.5 months (95% CI, 23.9-49.4), respectively, with no significant difference (log-rank test P=0.22). There was also no significant difference in DFS among stage I patients receiving different TKIs (P=0.12). PSM adjustments and multivariate analyses adjusting for other confounders revealed similar results. In addition, there were no significant differences in treatment failure pattens in different EGFR-TKI arms, especially in terms of brain metastases (6.1% in gefitinb, 7.5% in erlotinib, 3.9% in icotinib) and bone metastases (8.6% in gefitinb, 9.4% in erlotinib, 7.0% in icotinib).ConclusionsThis first and largest real-world study showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, and icotinib demonstrated comparable clinical effectiveness as adjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage EGFR mutated NSCLC.

Dataset Information

A phase III randomised controlled trial of erlotinib vs gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations.

Publications

A phase III randomised controlled trial of erlotinib vs gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets