Dataset Information

Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 TORCH trial for first line erlotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

ABSTRACT: The TORCH phase III trial compared the efficacy of first-line erlotinib followed by chemotherapy at progression (experimental arm) with the reverse sequence (standard arm) in unselected advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Here we report biomarker analyses.EGFR and KRAS mutation, expression of EGFR family members and of cMET and PTEN and EGFR and ABCG2 germline polymorphisms were tested on tumor tissue or blood samples to either confirm previously proposed predictive role or describe it in an explorative setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point, overall survival, response rate and side effects (diarrhoea and skin toxicity) were secondary end-points. Interactions between biomarkers and treatment were studied with multivariable models (either Cox model or logistic regression). Statistical analyses accounted for multiple comparisons.At least one biomarker was assessed in 324 out of 760 patients in the TORCH study. EGFR mutation was more common in female (P = 0.0001), East Asians (P < 0.0001) and never smoker (P < 0.0001) patients; low MET protein expression by IHC (H-score <200) was more frequent in squamous (P < 0.00009) and ABCG2 C/A or A/A polymorphism was more frequent among East-Asian patients (P = 0.0003). A significant interaction was found for EGFR mutation in PFS and response rate analyses while no predictive effect on OS was found for any biomarker. No biomarker tested was prognostic for PFS and OS. No polymorphism was significantly associated with skin toxicity or diarrhea.In the present study, beyond the known role of EGFR mutation, no other biomarker has predictive or prognostic role.

SUBMITTER: Kim L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5593664 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 TORCH trial for first line erlotinib <i>versus</i> chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Kim Lucia L Saieg Mauro M Di Maio Massimo M Gallo Ciro C Butts Charles C Ciardiello Fortunato F Feld Ronald R Cheng Dengxiao D Gebbia Vittorio V Burgio Marco Angelo MA Alam Yasmin Y Signoriello Simona S Rossi Antonio A Leighl Natasha N Maione Paolo P Morabito Alessandro A Liu Geoffrey G Tsao Ming-Sound MS Perrone Francesco F Gridelli Cesare C

Oncotarget 20170225 34

<h4>Background</h4>The TORCH phase III trial compared the efficacy of first-line erlotinib followed by chemotherapy at progression (experimental arm) with the reverse sequence (standard arm) in unselected advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Here we report biomarker analyses.<h4>Methods</h4><i>EGFR</i> and <i>KRAS</i> mutation, expression of EGFR family members and of cMET and PTEN and <i>EGFR</i> and <i>ABCG2</i> germline polymorphisms were tested on tumor tissue or blood sampl ...[more]

PMID: 28915692

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBevacizumab and erlotinib target different tumour growth pathways with little overlap in their toxic-effect profiles. On the basis of promising results from a phase 1/2 trial assessing safety and activity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab for recurrent or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 3 trial.MethodsIn our double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial (BeTa), we enrolled patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC who presented to 177 study sites in 12 countries after failure of first-line treatment. Patients were randomly allocated in a one-to-one ratio to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (bevacizumab group) or erlotinib plus placebo (control group) according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence by use of an interactive voice response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all enrolled patients. Patients, study staff, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed safety by calculation of incidence of adverse events and tissue was collected for biomarker analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00130728.FindingsOverall survival did not differ between 317 controls and 319 patients in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·18, p=0·7583). Median overall survival was 9·3 months (IQR 4·1-21·6) for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with 9·2 months (3·8-20·2) for controls. Progression-free survival seemed to be longer in the bevacizumab group (3·4 months [1·4-8·4]) than in the control group (1·7 months [1·3-4·1]; HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·52-0·75) and objective response rate suggested some clinical activity of bevacizumab and erlotinib. However, these secondary endpoint differences could not be defined as significant because the study prespecified that the primary endpoint had to be significant before testing of secondary endpoints could be done, to control type I error rate. In the bevacizumab group, 130 (42%) of 313 patients with safety data had a serious adverse event, compared with 114 (36%) controls. There were 20 (6%) grade 5 adverse events, including two arterial thromboembolic events, in the bevacizumab group, and 14 (4%) in the control group.InterpretationAddition of bevacizumab to erlotinib does not improve survival in patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC.FundingGenentech.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive only active supportive care because of poor performance status or presence of several comorbidities. We investigated whether erlotinib improves clinical outcome in these patients.MethodsTOPICAL was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done at 78 centres in the UK. Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed NSCLC; stage IIIb or IV; chemotherapy naive; no symptomatic brain metastases; deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy because of poor (≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status or presence of several comorbidities, or both; and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (by phone call, in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by disease stage, performance status, smoking history, and centre, block size 10) to receive oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, clinicians, and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat, and prespecified subgroup analyses included development of a rash due to erlotinib within 28 days of starting treatment. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 77383050.FindingsBetween April 14, 2005, and April 1, 2009, we randomly assigned 350 patients to receive erlotinib and 320 to receive placebo. We followed up patients until March 31, 2011. 657 patients died; median overall survival did not differ between groups (erlotinib, 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·2-4·2, vs placebo, 3·6 months, 3·2-3·9; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·10, p=0·46). 59% (178 of 302) of patients assigned erlotinib and who were assessable at 1 month developed first-cycle rash, which was the only independent factor associated with overall survival. Patients with first-cycle rash had better overall survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·63-0·92, p=0·0058), compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, overall survival seemed to be worse in the group that did not develop first-cycle rash (1·30, 1·05-1·61, p=0·017). Grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea was more common with erlotinib than placebo (8% [28 of 334] vs 1% [four of 313], p=0·0001), as was high-grade rash (23% [79 of 334] vs 2% [five of 313], p<0·0001); other adverse events were much the same between groups.InterpretationPatients with NSCLC who are deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy could be given erlotinib. Patients who develop a first-cycle rash should continue to receive erlotinib, whereas those who do not have a rash after 28 days should discontinue erlotinib, because of the possibility of decreased survival.FundingCancer Research UK, Roche.

Project description:BackgroundWhether a combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is beneficial for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. This study aimed to summarize the currently available evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for treating advanced NSCLC.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015015).ResultsNine randomized controlled trials with a total of 3599 patients were included. Compared to chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus erlotinib was superior in PFS (HR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], P = 0.006), and no statistically significant difference was observed in OS (HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.86, 1.03], P = 0.16). Intercalated erlotinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated improvements in PFS (HR = 0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.91], P = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98], P = 0.03). Continuous erlotinib plus chemotherapy treatment failed to demonstrate improvements in PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.80, 1.04], P = 0.16) and OS (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.89, 1.09], P = 0.75). The association of chemotherapy plus erlotinib with improvement in PFS was significant in never smoking patients (HR = 0.46 [95% CI 0.37, 0.56], P<0.00001) but not in smoking patients (HR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.49, 1.00], P = 0.05). Among patients with EGFR mutant tumors, chemotherapy plus erlotinib demonstrated significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.31 [95% CI 0.17, 0.58], P = 0.0002) and OS (HR = 0.52 [95% CI 0.30, 0.88], P = 0.01). Among patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, no statistically significant difference was observed with respect to PFS (HR = 0.87 [95% CI 0.70, 1.08], P = 0.21) and OS (HR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.59, 1.01], P = 0.06).ConclusionCombination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable treatment option for patients with NSCLC, especially for patients who never smoked and patients with EGFR mutation-positive disease. In addition, intercalated administration is an effective combinatorial strategy.

Project description:ObjectivesFood and Drug Administration (FDA) approved crizotinib for advanced ROS1-rearranged (ROS1+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients due to a single-arm study PROFILE 1001. However, there is no direct comparison between crizotinib and platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy.Materials and methodsClinical data of advanced ROS1+NSCLC patients treated with first-line crizotinib or platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy between August 2010 and December 2017 were analyzed.ResultsSeventy-seven patients were eligible, including 30 (39.0%) in the crizotinib group and 47 (61.0%) in the platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 28.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.2-39.0). The objective response rate (ORR) of crizotinib (86.7%, 95% CI: 73.3-96.7) was higher than that of platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy (44.7%, 95% CI: 29.8-57.4, P < .001). The disease control rate (DCR) was 96.7% (95% CI: 90.0-100) in the crizotinib group and 85.1% (95% CI: 74.5-95.7) in the chemotherapy group (P = .140). Significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in the patients treated with crizotinib (18.4 months, 95% CI: 6.4-30.3) versus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy (8.6 months, 95% CI: 6.9-10.3, P < .001). Overall survival (OS) was also compared between the two groups and no significant difference was seen (Not reach vs 28.4 months [95% CI: 20.7-36.0], P = .176). Notably, a total of 37 patients have treatment crossover after the failure of first-line treatment. Among those patients, difference in OS was not statistically significant between seven patients who have given first-line crizotinib (38.6 months, 95% CI: 0-81.0) and 30 patients who have given platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy initially (32.8 months, 95% CI: 11.9-53.8, P = .805).ConclusionsOur results suggested that first-line crizotinib had higher ORR and longer PFS than platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy in patients with advanced ROS1+NSCLC, but the differences were not observed for OS.

Project description:Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) has been used for the first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and has shown good clinical effects. However, some patients fail to benefit from this treatment. The aim of this study is to analyze whether or not clinical-selected patients (Asian, adenocarcinoma histology, non-smoking) and EGFR mutation-selected patients benefit from EGFR-TKIs or chemotherapy. Our results could be used as basis to guide clinical therapy.Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs versus chemotherapy as first-line treatments of NSCLC were obtained from electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology, and China Biology Medicine disc. Assessment, data collection, and statistical analysis were performed according to Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0.A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 5,000 patients were included in this study. Compared with the chemotherapy group, EGFR-TKI therapy group in EGFR mutation-selected NSCLC patients showed a higher response rate (RR=2.31; 95%CI: 1.88-2.84) and more significant improvement in progression free survival (PFS; HR=0.39; 95%CI: 0.30-0.49); by contrast, no significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS; HR=0.99; 95%CI: 0.84-1.16). The response rate of clinical-selected patients treated with EGFR-TKI significantly increased (RR=1.30; 95%CI: 1.15-1.47) compared with that of the patients treated with chemotherapy; PFS (HR=0.93; 95%CI: 0.58-1.49) and OS (HR=0.91; 95%CI: 0.81-1.02) of the two groups did not significantly differ. Likewise, the PFS and the OS of the unselected patients in the EGFR-TKI treatment group and the chemotherapy group did not significantly differ, although the OS of the former was shorter than that of the latter.EGFR mutation-selected patients received more benefits from EGFR-TKI first-line treatment than other treatments. First-line EGFR-TKI treatment was recommended for clinically selected patients who were unsuitable for themotherapy. By comparison, first-line EGFR-TKI treatment was not a suitable choice for unselected patients.

Dataset Information

Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 TORCH trial for first line erlotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Publications

Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 TORCH trial for first line erlotinib <i>versus</i> chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets