Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy

被引:88
|
作者
Kim, Seung Tae [1 ,5 ]
Uhm, Ji Eun [1 ]
Lee, Jeeyun [1 ]
Sun, Jong-mu [1 ]
Sohn, Insuk [2 ]
Kim, Seon Woo [2 ]
Jung, Sin-Ho [3 ,4 ]
Park, Yeon Hee [1 ]
Ahn, Jin Seok [1 ]
Park, Keunchil [1 ]
Ahn, Myung-Ju [1 ]
机构
[1] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Sch Med, Samsung Med Ctr, Div Hematol Oncol,Dept Med, Seoul 135710, South Korea
[2] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Sch Med, Samsung Med Ctr, Dept Biostat & Bioinformat Ctr,Samsung Canc Res I, Seoul 135710, South Korea
[3] Duke Univ, Dept Biostat, Durham, NC 27706 USA
[4] Duke Univ, Bioinformat Ctr, Durham, NC 27706 USA
[5] Korea Univ, Coll Med, Div Hematol Oncol, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Gefitinib; Erlotinib; Non-small cell lung cancer; PLATINUM-BASED CHEMOTHERAPY; PREVIOUSLY TREATED PATIENTS; RECEPTOR TYROSINE KINASE; SUPPORTIVE CARE; TRIAL; DOCETAXEL; MUTATIONS; RECURRENT; MULTICENTER; SENSITIVITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.05.022
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Gefitinib and erlotinib are potent EGFR TKIs, with antitumor activity. In this randomized, single-center, non-comparative phase II trial, the efficacy and safety of gefitinib and erlotinib was evaluated as the second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients with locally advanced, metastatic stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who failed first-line chemotherapy and had either EGFR mutation or at least two out of three clinical factors associated with higher incidence of EGFR mutations (female, adenocarcinoma histology, and never-smoker) were eligible. Results: A total of 96 (48 per arm) patients were randomly assigned to gefitinib- or erlotinib-arm, respectively. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two arms. The response rates (RR) were 47.9% in the gefitinib arm and 39.6% in the erlotinib arm. Median PFS was 4.9 months (95% CI, 1.3-8.5) in the gefitinib arm and 3.1 months (95% Cl, 0.0-6.4) in the erlotinib arm. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was skin rash. Exploratory analyses showed that there was no significant difference in RR and PFS in the gefitinib arm compared to the erlotinib arm (RR (%) 47.9 vs. 39.6, p = 0.269; median survival (months) 4.9 vs. 3.1, p = 0.336). There was no significant difference in QOL between the two arms. Conclusion: Both gefitinib and erlotinib showed effective activity and tolerable toxicity profiles as second-line treatment for the selected population of NSCLC. We may consider conducting a phase III trial to directly compare the efficacy and toxicity between gefitinib and erlotinib in an enriched patient population. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:82 / 88
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy
    Ahn, J.
    Kim, S.
    Ahn, M.
    Lee, J.
    Uhm, J.
    Sun, J.
    Park, K.
    Park, Y.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (15)
  • [2] A PHASE II STUDY OF ERLOTINIB FOR PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED/METASTATIC NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER WHO HAD FAILED GEFITINIB
    Lee, D. H.
    Kim, H. T.
    Kim, S.
    Suh, C.
    Lee, J.
    [J]. ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2008, 19 : 102 - 102
  • [3] Comparison of Gefitinib Versus Erlotinib in Patients With Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Who Failed Previous Chemotherapy
    Kim, Seung Tae
    Lee, Jeeyun
    Kim, Jeong-hoon
    Won, Young-Woong
    Sun, Jong-mu
    Yun, Jina
    Park, Yeon Hee
    Ahn, Jin Seok
    Park, Keunchil
    Ahn, Myung-Ju
    [J]. CANCER, 2010, 116 (12) : 3025 - 3033
  • [4] PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL (PFS) IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC) TREATED ERLOTINIB/GEFITINIB WHO FAILED PREVIOUS CHEMOTHERAPY
    Madolangan, Jamaluddin
    Andarini, Sita Laksmi
    Hudoyo, Achmad
    [J]. RESPIROLOGY, 2014, 19 : 165 - 165
  • [5] A chinese, multicenter, phase II trial of gefitinib (IRESSA) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who had failed previous chemotherapy
    Guan, Z
    Zhang, L
    Li, L
    Jiang, G
    Liu, X
    Chu, D
    Li, W
    [J]. LUNG CANCER, 2005, 49 : S246 - S246
  • [6] Phase II Study of Gefitinib Readministration in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Previous Response to Gefitinib
    Asahina, Hajime
    Oizumi, Satoshi
    Inoue, Akira
    Kinoshita, Ichiro
    Ishida, Takashi
    Fujita, Yuka
    Sukoh, Noriaki
    Harada, Masao
    Maemondo, Makoto
    Saijo, Yasuo
    Dosaka-Akita, Hirotoshi
    Isobe, Hiroshi
    Nukiwa, Toshihiro
    Nishimura, Masaharu
    [J]. ONCOLOGY, 2010, 79 (5-6) : 423 - 429
  • [7] Phase II Study of Erlotinib for Acquired Resistance to Gefitinib in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
    Horiike, Atsushi
    Yamamoto, Nobuyuki
    Tanaka, Hisashi
    Yanagitani, Noriko
    Kudo, Keita
    Ohyanagi, Fumiyoshi
    Ono, Akira
    Naito, Tateaki
    Murakami, Haruyasu
    Horai, Takeshi
    Nishio, Makoto
    [J]. ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2014, 34 (04) : 1975 - 1981
  • [8] Phase II study of erlotinib for acquired resistance to gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer
    Horiike, A.
    Yamamoto, N.
    Tanaka, H.
    Yanagitani, N.
    Kudo, K.
    Ohyanagi, F.
    Naito, T.
    Murakami, H.
    Horai, T.
    Nishio, M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (15)
  • [9] PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL (PFS) IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC) TREATED WITH SECOND LINE ERLOTINIB/GEFITINIB WHO FAILED TO PREVIOUS CHEMOTHERAPY
    Madolangan, Jamaluddin
    Hudoyo, Ahmad
    Andarini, Sita
    [J]. RESPIROLOGY, 2015, 20 : 101 - 101
  • [10] Randomized Phase II Study of Pemetrexed Versus Gefitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
    Kim, Young Saing
    Cho, Eun Kyung
    Woo, Hyun Sun
    Hong, Junshik
    Ahn, Hee Kyung
    Park, Inkeun
    Sym, Sun Jin
    Kyung, Sun Young
    Kang, Shin Myung
    Park, Jeong-Woong
    Jeong, Sung Hwan
    Park, Jinny
    Lee, Jae Hoon
    Shin, Dong Bok
    [J]. CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2016, 48 (01): : 80 - 87