Molecular Predictors of Outcome With Gefitinib and Docetaxel in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Data From the Randomized Phase III INTEREST Trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 744-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Douillard ◽  
Frances A. Shepherd ◽  
Vera Hirsh ◽  
Tony Mok ◽  
Mark A. Socinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Copy Number ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Previously Treated

PurposeIn the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes.MethodsBiomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations.ResultsFor all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation–positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel.ConclusionThese biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation–positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.

Adjuvant gefitinib versus cisplatin/vinorelbine in Japanese patients with completely resected, EGFR-mutated, stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer (IMPACT, WJOG6410L): A randomized phase 3 trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8501-8501
Author(s):  
Hirohito Tada ◽  
Tetsuya Mitsudomi ◽  
Takeharu Yamanaka ◽  
Kenji Sugio ◽  
Masahiro Tsuboi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Egfr Mutated

8501 Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor is a standard of care for EGFR mutation-positive, untreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the efficacy and safety of adjuvant gefitinib for patients with completely resected lung cancer harboring EGFR mutation over cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy were not known in 2011 when this study was initiated. Methods: From September 2011 to December 2015, we randomly assigned 234 patients with completely resected, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R), stage II–III NSCLC to receive either gefitinib (250 mg, once daily) for 24 months or cisplatin (80 mg/m2 on day 1) plus vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) (cis/vin) every 3 weeks for four cycles. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) according to a central review in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: Two patients in the gefitinib arm withdrew consent and were excluded from the ITT population. No treatment-related deaths were seen in the gefitinib arm, but three treatment-related deaths were reported in the cis/vin arm. Median duration of follow-up was 71 months. Median DFS was numerically longer in the gefitinib arm (36 months) than in the cis/vin arm (25.2 months). However, Kaplan-Meier curves began to overlap around 5 years after surgery, and no significant difference in DFS was seen, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67–1.28; P = 0.63). Overall survival was also not significantly different (median not reached in either arm). Five-year survival rates for gefitinib and cis/vin arms were 78.0% and 74.6%, respectively, with an HR for death of 1.03; 95%CI, 0.65–1.65; P = 0.89. Exploratory subset analysis revealed that patients ³70 years old in the gefitinib arm (n = 19/27 with G to cis/vin) survived longer than those in the cis/vin arm (HR 0.31; 95%CI, 0.10–0.98; P = 0.046). Conclusions: Adjuvant gefitinib appeared to prevent early relapse, but did not significantly prolong DFS or OS in patients with completely resected stage II–III, EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The apparent non-inferiority of DFS/OS may justify the use of adjuvant gefitinib in selected subset of patients, especially those deemed unsuitable for cis/vin adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006252.

scholarly journals Randomized phase III study of docetaxel plus bavituximab in previously treated advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 1548-1553 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.E. Gerber ◽  
L. Horn ◽  
M. Boyer ◽  
R. Sanborn ◽  
R. Natale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Previously Treated

Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 1589-1597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasser Hanna ◽  
Frances A. Shepherd ◽  
Frank V. Fossella ◽  
Jose R. Pereira ◽  
Filippo De Marinis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Previously Treated

Purpose To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non—small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. Results Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. Conclusion Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial

The Lancet ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 372 (9652) ◽  
pp. 1809-1818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward S Kim ◽  
Vera Hirsh ◽  
Tony Mok ◽  
Mark A Socinski ◽  
Radj Gervais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Previously Treated

scholarly journals Phase III Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Tivantinib (ARQ 197) Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib Alone in Previously Treated Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (24) ◽  
pp. 2667-2674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Scagliotti ◽  
Joachim von Pawel ◽  
Silvia Novello ◽  
Rodryg Ramlau ◽  
Adolfo Favaretto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Previously Treated Patients ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Nonsquamous Nsclc

Purpose Tivantinib, a MET receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated increased anticancer activity in preclinical and early clinical studies when combined with erlotinib. Our study aimed to confirm efficacy and safety of the combination in previously treated patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with one to two systemic regimens, including a platinum doublet, were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib 150 mg daily plus oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily (E + T) or erlotinib plus placebo (E + P) until disease progression. Tumor specimens were evaluated for EGFR and KRAS mutations, MET expression, and MET gene amplification. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), OS in molecular subgroups, and safety. Results The study enrolled 1,048 patients and was discontinued for futility at the interim analysis. OS did not improve with E + T versus E + P (median OS, 8.5 v 7.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .81), even though PFS increased (median PFS, 3.6 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested OS improvement in patients with high MET expression (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.01). Most common adverse events occurring with E + T versus E + P were rash (33.1% v 37.3%, respectively), diarrhea (34.6% v 41.0%), asthenia or fatigue (43.5% v 38.1%), and neutropenia (grade 3 to 4; 8.5% v 0.8%). Conclusion E + T was well tolerated and increased PFS but did not improve OS in the overall nonsquamous NSCLC population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document