Sumitra Thongprasert

Gefitinib or Carboplatin–Paclitaxel in Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND Previous, uncontrolled studies have suggested that first-line treatment with gefitinib would be efficacious in selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin-paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin-paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin-paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)

Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer)

BACKGROUND This placebo-controlled phase III study investigated the effect on survival of gefitinib as second-line or third-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned in a ratio of two to one either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival in the overall population of patients and those with adenocarcinoma. The primary analysis of the population for survival was by intention to treat. This study has been submitted for registration with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 1839IL/709. FINDINGS 1129 patients were assigned gefitinib and 563 placebo. At median follow-up of 7.2 months, median survival did not differ significantly between the groups in the overall population (5.6 months for gefitinib and 5.1 months for placebo; hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.02], p=0.087) or among the 812 patients with adenocarcinoma (6.3 months vs 5.4 months; 0.84 [0.68-1.03], p=0.089). Preplanned subgroup analyses showed significantly longer survival in the gefitinib group than the placebo group for never-smokers (n=375; 0.67 [0.49-0.92], p=0.012; median survival 8.9 vs 6.1 months) and patients of Asian origin (n=342; 0.66 [0.48-0.91], p=0.01; median survival 9.5 vs 5.5 months). Gefitinib was well tolerated, as in previous studies. INTERPRETATION Treatment with gefitinib was not associated with significant improvement in survival in either coprimary population. There was pronounced heterogeneity in survival outcomes between groups of patients, with some evidence of benefit among never-smokers and patients of Asian origin.

Biomarker Analyses and Final Overall Survival Results From a Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, First-Line Study of Gefitinib Versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Clinically Selected Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Asia (IPASS)

PURPOSE The results of the Iressa Pan-Asia Study (IPASS), which compared gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel in previously untreated never-smokers and light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma were published previously. This report presents overall survival (OS) and efficacy according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) biomarker status. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 1,217 patients were randomly assigned. Biomarkers analyzed were EGFR mutation (amplification mutation refractory system; 437 patients evaluable), EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization; 406 patients evaluable), and EGFR protein expression (immunohistochemistry; 365 patients evaluable). OS analysis was performed at 78% maturity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess biomarker status by randomly assigned treatment interactions for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS OS (954 deaths) was similar for gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel with no significant difference between treatments overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02; P = .109) or in EGFR mutation-positive (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33; P = .990) or EGFR mutation-negative (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.63; P = .309; treatment by EGFR mutation interaction P = .480) subgroups. A high proportion (64.3%) of EGFR mutation-positive patients randomly assigned to carboplatin/paclitaxel received subsequent EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. PFS was significantly longer with gefitinib for patients whose tumors had both high EGFR gene copy number and EGFR mutation (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.67) but significantly shorter when high EGFR gene copy number was not accompanied by EGFR mutation (HR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.09 to 7.09). CONCLUSION EGFR mutations are the strongest predictive biomarker for PFS and tumor response to first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. The predictive value of EGFR gene copy number was driven by coexisting EGFR mutation (post hoc analysis). Treatment-related differences observed for PFS in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup were not apparent for OS. OS results were likely confounded by the high proportion of patients crossing over to the alternative treatment.

A Prospective, Molecular Epidemiology Study of EGFR Mutations in Asian Patients with Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer of Adenocarcinoma Histology (PIONEER)

Introduction: PIONEER (NCT01185314) was a prospective, multinational, epidemiological study of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in patients from Asia with newly diagnosed advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: Eligible patients (aged ≥20 years) had untreated stage IIIB/IV adenocarcinoma. The EGFR mutation status (primary end point: positive, negative, or undetermined) of tumor samples (biopsy, surgical specimen, or cytology) was determined (Scorpion amplification refractory mutation system). EGFR mutation frequency was calculated and compared between demographic and clinical subgroups. Results: Of 1482 patients from seven Asian regions, 43.4% of patients were female, median age was 60 years (range, 17–94), and 52.6% of patients were never-smokers. EGFR mutation status was evaluable in tumors from 1450 patients (97.8%) (746 [51.4%] positive; 704 [48.6%] negative). Country, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, pack-years (all p < 0.001), disease stage (p = 0.009), and histology type (p = 0.016) correlated significantly with EGFR mutation frequency. Mutation frequency was 61.1% in females, 44.0% in males; lower in patients from India (22.2%) compared with other areas (47.2%–64.2%); highest among never-smokers (60.7%); and decreased as pack-year number increased (>0–10 pack-years, 57.9%; >50 pack-years, 31.4%) (similar trend by sex). Ethnic group (p < 0.001) and pack-years (p < 0.001) had statistically significant associations with mutation frequency (multivariate analysis); sex was not significant when adjusted for smoking status. Conclusion: PIONEER is the first prospective study to confirm high EGFR mutation frequency (51.4% overall) in tumors from Asian patients with adenocarcinoma. The observed high mutation frequency in demographic/clinical subgroups compared with white populations suggests that mutation testing should be considered for all patients with stage IIIB/IV adenocarcinoma, even males and regular smokers, among Asian populations.

Impact of EGFR Inhibitor in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer on Progression-Free and Overall Survival: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway is crucial for regulating tumorigenesis and cell survival and may be important in the development and progression of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined the impact of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced NSCLC patients with and without EGFR mutations. METHODS Randomized trials that compared EGFR-TKIs monotherapy or combination EGFR-TKIs-chemotherapy with chemotherapy or placebo were included. We used published hazard ratios (HRs), if available, or derived treatment estimates from other survival data. Pooled estimates of treatment efficacy of EGFR-TKIs for the EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRmut(+)) and EGFR mutation-negative (EGFRmut(-)) subgroups were calculated with the fixed-effects inverse variance weighted method. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS We included 23 eligible trials (13 front-line, 7 second-line, 3 maintenance; n = 14570). EGFR mutation status was known in 31% of patients. EGFR-TKIs treatment prolonged PFS in EGFRmut(+) patients, and EGFR mutation was predictive of PFS in all settings: The front-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.49; P < .001), and the front-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 1.06 (95% CI = 0.94 to 1.19; P = .35; P interaction < .001). The second-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.34 (95% CI = 0.20 to 0.60; P < .001), and the second-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.46; P = .01; P interaction < .001). The maintenance hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.15 (95% CI = 0.08 to 0.27; P < .001), and the maintenance hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.97; P = .02; P interaction < .001). EGFR-TKIs treatment had no impact on OS for EGFRmut(+) and EGFRmut(-) patients. CONCLUSIONS EGFR-TKIs therapy statistically significantly delays disease progression in EGFRmut(+) patients but has no demonstrable impact on OS. EGFR mutation is a predictive biomarker of PFS benefit with EGFR-TKIs treatment in all settings. These findings support EGFR mutation assessment before initiation of treatment. EGFR-TKIs should be considered as front-line therapy in EGFRmut(+) advanced NSCLC patients.

Phase III Trial of Vandetanib Compared With Erlotinib in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. RESULTS There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). CONCLUSION In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following failure of 1st line or 2nd line chemotherapy. A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) trial

7022 Background: In phase II studies, erlotinib has shown single agent activity in a number of tumor types, including NSCLC. NCIC CTG BR.21 is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial undertaken to determine if the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) inhibitor erlotinib (Tarceva) prolongs survival in NSCLC patients after 1st or 2nd line chemotherapy. METHODS Eligibility criteria included stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0-3, 1-2 chemotherapy regimens (at least 1 combination regimen if < 70 yrs). Patients were stratified by center, PS (0,1 v 2,3), response to chemo (CR, PR v SD v PD), number of prior regimens (1 v 2), platinum (yes v no), and were randomized 2:1 to receive erlotinib 150 mg po/day or placebo. The 10 endpoint was survival with 20 endpoints of progression free survival (PFS), response, toxicity and QOL. RESULTS From Nov/01-Feb/03, 731 pts entered the study (median age 61y; 64% male; 67% PS 0,1). 50% had received 2 prior regimens, 93% had received platinum and 37% prior taxanes. Patient characteristics were well balanced. Overall response to erlotinib was 8.9% (95% CI: 6.6-12.0%, p < 0.001), median duration 34.2 wks. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences were observed for overall survival and PFS. The planned primary QOL analysis, time to deterioration of patient reported symptoms (TTDS), showed statistically and clinically meaningful benefit for patients randomized to erlotinib. Rash and diarrhea were the most frequent symptoms; 5% of patients discontinued erlotinib for toxicity compared to 2% of patients on placebo. CONCLUSION This is the first randomized trial to confirm that a Her1/EGFR inhibitor prolongs survival after 1st or 2nd line chemotherapy for NSCLC. [Figure: see text] [Table: see text].

Intercalated combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib for patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer (FASTACT-2): a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND The results of FASTACT, a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, showed that intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook FASTACT-2, a phase 3 study in a similar patient population. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive internet response system with minimisation algorithm (stratified by disease stage, tumour histology, smoking status, and chemotherapy regimen) to receive six cycles of gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously) plus platinum (carboplatin 5 × area under the curve or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1, intravenously) with intercalated erlotinib (150 mg/day on days 15-28, orally; chemotherapy plus erlotinib) or placebo orally (chemotherapy plus placebo) every 4 weeks. With the exception of an independent group responsible for monitoring data and safety monitoring board, everyone outside the interactive internet response system company was masked to treatment allocation. Patients continued to receive erlotinib or placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity or death, and all patients in the placebo group were offered second-line erlotinib at the time of progression. The primary endpoint was PFS in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00883779. FINDINGS From April 29, 2009, to Sept 9, 2010, 451 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus erlotinib (n=226) or chemotherapy plus placebo (n=225). PFS was significantly prolonged with chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy plus placebo (median PFS 7·6 months [95% CI 7·2-8·3], vs 6·0 months [5·6-7·1], hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·47-0·69]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival for patients in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib and chemotherapy plus placebo groups was 18·3 months (16·3-20·8) and 15·2 months (12·7-17·5), respectively (HR 0·79 [0·64-0·99]; p=0·0420). Treatment benefit was noted only in patients with an activating EGFR gene mutation (median PFS 16·8 months [12·9-20·4] vs 6·9 months [5·3-7·6], HR 0·25 [0·16-0·39]; p<0·0001; median overall survival 31·4 months [22·2-undefined], vs 20·6 months [14·2-26·9], HR 0·48 [0·27-0·84]; p=0·0092). Serious adverse events were reported by 76 (34%) of 222 patients in the chemotherapy plus placebo group and 69 (31%) of 226 in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events were neutropenia (65 [29%] patients and 55 [25%], respectively), thrombocytopenia (32 [14%] and 31 [14%], respectively), and anaemia (26 [12%] and 21 [9%], respectively). INTERPRETATION Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable first-line option for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation-positive disease or selected patients with unknown EGFR mutation status. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Gefitinib (IRESSA) in Patients of Asian Origin with Refractory Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Subset Analysis from the ISEL Study

Introduction: The IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) phase III study compared the efficacy of gefitinib (IRESSA) versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although a statistically significant difference in survival was not seen between gefitinib and placebo in the overall ISEL population, preplanned subset analyses demonstrated a significant survival benefit in patients who had never smoked and in patients of Asian origin. Methods: In ISEL, 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy were randomized to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Preplanned subgroup analyses included an assessment of patients who were of Asian origin (n = 342). Results: Two hundred thirty-five patients of Asian origin received gefitinib, and 107 received placebo. In these patients, treatment with gefitinib significantly improved survival compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48, 0.91; p = 0.010; median survival, 9.5 versus 5.5 months). Patients of Asian origin also experienced statistically significant improvements in time to treatment failure with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0084; 4.4 versus 2.2 months), and objective response rates were higher with gefitinib than with placebo (12 versus 2%). Gefitinib was generally well tolerated in patients of Asian origin, with rash and diarrhea being the most common adverse events. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Treatment with gefitinib was associated with a significant improvement in survival in a subgroup of patients of Asian origin with previously treated refractory advanced NSCLC.

Sunitinib Plus Erlotinib Versus Placebo Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Sunitinib plus erlotinib may enhance antitumor activity compared with either agent alone in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on the importance of the signaling pathways involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. This phase III trial investigated overall survival (OS) for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with refractory NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients previously treated with one to two chemotherapy regimens (including one platinum-based regimen) for recurrent NSCLC, and for whom erlotinib was indicated, were randomly assigned (1:1) to sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus erlotinib 150 mg/d or to placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg/d, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, smoking history, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. The primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS In all, 960 patients were randomly assigned, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Median OS was 9.0 months for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus 8.5 months for erlotinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.067; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .1388). Median PFS was 3.6 months versus 2.0 months (HR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.937; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .0023), and ORR was 10.6% versus 6.9% (two-sided stratified log-rank P = .0471), respectively. Treatment-related toxicities of grade 3 or higher, including rash/dermatitis, diarrhea, and asthenia/fatigue were more frequent in the sunitinib plus erlotinib arm. CONCLUSION In patients with refractory NSCLC, sunitinib plus erlotinib did not improve OS compared with erlotinib alone, but the combination was associated with a statistically significantly longer PFS and greater ORR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities was greater with combination therapy.