1653256
Tyrosine kinase inhibitor combination therapy in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Introduction The introduction of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) has improved the outlook for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR+ mutations. However, most patients develop resistance, with the result that median progression-free survival (PFS) iŝ12 months. Combining EGFR-TKIs with other agents, such as bevacizumab, is a promising approach to prolonging remission. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to assess available evidence regarding the benefits of first-line combination therapy involving EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods Literature searches were performed using relevant search terms. Study-level pseudo-individual patient-level data (IPD) were recreated from digitized Kaplan–Meier curve data, using a published algorithm. Study IPD were analyzed using both the proportional hazards and the acceleration failure time (AFT) survival models, and it was concluded that the AFT model was most appropriate. An NMA was performed based on acceleration factors (AFs) using a Bayesian framework to compare EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy. Results Nine randomized controlled trials were identified that provided data for EGFR-TKI therapy in patients with EGFR+ tumors. These included studies of afatinib (n=3), erlotinib (n=3), erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n=1) and gefitinib (n=2). Erlotinib plus bevacizumab produced the greatest increase in PFS compared with chemotherapy, with 1/AF being 0.24 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17, 0.34). This combination also produced greater increases in PFS compared with EGFR-TKI monotherapy: 1/AF versus afatinib, 0.51 (95% CrI 0.35, 0.73); versus erlotinib, 0.53 (95% CrI 0.39, 0.72) and versus gefitinib, 0.46 (95% CrI 0.32, 0.66). All three EGFR-TKI monotherapies prolonged PFS compared with chemotherapy; estimates of treatment effect ranged from 1/AF 0.53 (95% CrI 0.48, 0.60) for gefitinib to 1/AF 0.46 (95% CrI 0.40, 0.53) for erlotinib. There was no evidence for differences between EGFR-TKI monotherapies, as all 95% CrIs included the null value. Conclusion Although data for erlotinib plus bevacizumab came from a single Phase 2 study, the results of the NMA suggest that adding bevacizumab to erlotinib may be a promising approach to improving the outcomes achieved with EGFR-TKI monotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR+ NSCLC.
16047856
Clinical outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations: pooled analysis
•  Introduction •  Literature review ‐  Molecular biology of EGFR mutations ‐  Clinical characteristics of NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations ‐  Genetic characteristics of EGFR‐mutated tumours ‐  Prognostic significance of NSCLC with EGFR mutations ‐  How do structural changes in EGFR lead to greater sensitivity to EGFR TKIs? •  Methods ‐  Selection criteria ‐  Search strategy ‐  Data extraction and synthesis ‐  Statistical analysis ‐  Sensitivity analysis •  Results ‐  Study characteristics ‐  PFS analysis ‐  Sensitivity analysis ‐  Publication bias •  Discussion •  Conclusions
207711479
Use of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and icotinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review.
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review addresses the use of epidermal growth factor receptor (egfr) inhibitors in three populations of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) patients-unselected, selected, and molecularly selected-in three treatment settings: first line, second line, and maintenance.


METHODS
Ninety-six randomized controlled trials found using the medline and embase databases form the basis of this review.


RESULTS
In the first-line setting, data about the efficacy of egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy are inconsistent. Results from studies that selected patients based on clinical characteristics are also mixed. There is high-quality evidence that an egfrtki is preferred over a platinum doublet as initial therapy for patients with an activating mutation of the EGFR gene. The egfrtkis are associated with a higher likelihood of response, longer progression-free survival, and improved quality of life. Multiple trials of second-line therapy have compared an egfrtki with chemotherapy. Meta-analysis of those data demonstrates similar progression-free and overall survival. There is consequently no preferred sequence for second-line egfrtki or second-line chemotherapy. The egfrtkis have also been evaluated as switch-maintenance therapy. No molecular marker could identify patients in whom a survival benefit was not observed; however, the magnitude of the benefit was modest.


CONCLUSIONS
Determination of EGFR mutation status is essential to making appropriate treatment decisions in patients with nsclc. Patients who are EGFR mutation-positive should be treated with an egfrtki as first-line therapy. An egfrtki is still appropriate therapy in patients who are EGFR wild-type, but the selected agent should be administered as second- or third-line therapy.
21710214
Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC.


METHODS
We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225.


FINDINGS
Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes.


INTERPRETATION
Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors.


FUNDING
Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.
26257413
Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene respond well to the EGFR-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. However, whether gefitinib is better than standard platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients selected by EGFR mutation is uncertain.


METHODS
We did an open label, phase 3 study (WJTOG3405) with recruitment between March 31, 2006, and June 22, 2009, at 36 centres in Japan. 177 chemotherapy-naive patients aged 75 years or younger and diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer or postoperative recurrence harbouring EGFR mutations (either the exon 19 deletion or L858R point mutation) were randomly assigned, using a minimisation technique, to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day orally; n=88) or cisplatin (80 mg/m(2), intravenously) plus docetaxel (60 mg/m(2), intravenously; n=89), administered every 21 days for three to six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Survival analysis was done with the modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with UMIN (University Hospital Medical Information Network in Japan), number 000000539.


FINDINGS
Five patients were excluded (two patients were found to have thyroid and colon cancer after randomisation, one patient had an exon 18 mutation, one patient had insufficient consent, and one patient showed acute allergic reaction to docetaxel). Thus, 172 patients (86 in each group) were included in the survival analyses. The gefitinib group had significantly longer progression-free survival compared with the cisplatin plus docetaxel goup, with a median progression-free survival time of 9.2 months (95% CI 8.0-13.9) versus 6.3 months (5.8-7.8; HR 0.489, 95% CI 0.336-0.710, log-rank p<0.0001). Myelosuppression, alopecia, and fatigue were more frequent in the cisplatin plus docetaxel group, but skin toxicity, liver dysfunction, and diarrhoea were more frequent in the gefitinib group. Two patients in the gefitinib group developed interstitial lung disease (incidence 2.3%), one of whom died.


INTERPRETATION
Patients with lung cancer who are selected by EGFR mutations have longer progression-free survival if they are treated with gefitinib than if they are treated with cisplatin plus docetaxel.


FUNDING
West Japan Oncology Group (WJOG): a non-profit organisation supported by unrestricted donations from several pharmaceutical companies.
1887906
First-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses from the phase III, randomized, open-label, ENSURE study.
BACKGROUND
The phase III, randomized, open-label ENSURE study (NCT01342965) evaluated first-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) in patients from China, Malaysia and the Philippines with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).


PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.


RESULTS
A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.


CONCLUSION
These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).
19225766
Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR.
BACKGROUND
Non-small-cell lung cancer with sensitive mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is highly responsive to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as gefitinib, but little is known about how its efficacy and safety profile compares with that of standard chemotherapy.


METHODS
We randomly assigned 230 patients with metastatic, non-small-cell lung cancer and EGFR mutations who had not previously received chemotherapy to receive gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, and toxic effects.


RESULTS
In the planned interim analysis of data for the first 200 patients, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gefitinib group than in the standard-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression with gefitinib, 0.36; P<0.001), resulting in early termination of the study. The gefitinib group had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (10.8 months, vs. 5.4 months in the chemotherapy group; hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.41; P<0.001), as well as a higher response rate (73.7% vs. 30.7%, P<0.001). The median overall survival was 30.5 months in the gefitinib group and 23.6 months in the chemotherapy group (P=0.31). The most common adverse events in the gefitinib group were rash (71.1%) and elevated aminotransferase levels (55.3%), and in the chemotherapy group, neutropenia (77.0%), anemia (64.6%), appetite loss (56.6%), and sensory neuropathy (54.9%). One patient receiving gefitinib died from interstitial lung disease.


CONCLUSIONS
First-line gefitinib for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were selected on the basis of EGFR mutations improved progression-free survival, with acceptable toxicity, as compared with standard chemotherapy. (UMIN-CTR number, C000000376.)
11704864
Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.
BACKGROUND
Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.


METHODS
We undertook an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 22 centres in China. Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received either oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, or up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation procedure and were stratified according to EGFR mutation type, histological subtype (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), and smoking status. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed in patients with confirmed disease who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00874419, and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up.


FINDINGS
83 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 82 to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 82 in the erlotinib group and 72 in the chemotherapy group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in erlotinib-treated patients than in those on chemotherapy (13.1 [95% CI 10.58-16.53] vs 4.6 [4.21-5.42] months; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.26; p<0.0001). Chemotherapy was associated with more grade 3 or 4 toxic effects than was erlotinib (including neutropenia in 30 [42%] of 72 patients and thrombocytopenia in 29 [40%] patients on chemotherapy vs no patients with either event on erlotinib); the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects with erlotinib were increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [4%] of 83 patients) and skin rash (two [2%] patients). Chemotherapy was also associated with increased treatment-related serious adverse events (ten [14%] of 72 patients [decreased platelet count, n=8; decreased neutrophil count, n=1; hepatic dysfunction, n=1] vs two [2%] of 83 patients [both hepatic dysfunction]).


INTERPRETATION
Compared with standard chemotherapy, erlotinib conferred a significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and was associated with more favourable tolerability. These findings suggest that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.


FUNDING
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (China); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality.
2329762
Quality of life (QoL) analyses from OPTIMAL (CTONG-0802), a phase III, randomised, open-label study of first-line erlotinib versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
BACKGROUND
The OPTIMAL study found that erlotinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus standard chemotherapy in Chinese patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This report describes the quality of life (QoL) and updated PFS analyses from this study.


PATIENTS AND METHODS
Chinese patients ≥ 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received erlotinib (150 mg/day; n = 82) or gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 72). The primary efficacy end point was PFS; QoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire, Trial Outcome Index (TOI) and Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS).


RESULTS
Patients receiving erlotinib experienced clinically relevant improvements in QoL compared with the chemotherapy group in total FACT-L, TOI and LCS (P < 0.0001 for all scales). Erlotinib scored better than chemotherapy for all FACT-L subscales from baseline to cycles 2 and 4 (non-significant). In the updated analysis, PFS was significantly longer for erlotinib than chemotherapy (median PFS 13.7 versus 4.6 months; HR = 0.164, 95% CI = 0.105-0.256; P < 0.0001), which was similar to the previously reported primary analysis.


CONCLUSION
Erlotinib improves QoL compared with standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC.
36220198
Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 6): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Afatinib-an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker-improves progression-free survival compared with pemetrexed and cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We compared afatinib with gemcitabine and cisplatin-a chemotherapy regimen widely used in Asia-for first-line treatment of Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC.


METHODS
This open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was done at 36 centres in China, Thailand, and South Korea. After central testing for EGFR mutations, treatment-naive patients (stage IIIB or IV cancer [American Joint Committee on Cancer version 6], performance status 0-1) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral afatinib (40 mg per day) or intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 and day 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week schedule for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done centrally with a random number-generating system and an interactive internet and voice-response system. Randomisation was stratified by EGFR mutation (Leu858Arg, exon 19 deletions, or other; block size three). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment assignment, but the independent central imaging review group were. Treatment continued until disease progression, intolerable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01121393.


FINDINGS
910 patients were screened and 364 were randomly assigned (242 to afatinib, 122 to gemcitabine and cisplatin). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the afatinib group (11·0 months, 95% CI 9·7-13·7) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (5·6 months, 5·1-6·7; hazard ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·20-0·39; p<0·0001). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the afatinib group were rash or acne (35 [14·6%] of 239 patients), diarrhoea (13 [5·4%]), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5·4%]), compared with neutropenia (30 [26·5%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19·5%]), and leucopenia (17 [15·0%]) in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 15 (6·3%) patients in the afatinib group and nine (8·0%) patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group.


INTERPRETATION
First-line afatinib significantly improves progression-free survival with a tolerable and manageable safety profile in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung NSCLC. Afatinib should be considered as a first-line treatment option for this patient population.


FUNDING
Boehringer Ingelheim.
21218602
Symptom and Quality of Life Improvement in LUX-Lung 6: An Open-Label Phase III Study of Afatinib Versus Cisplatin/Gemcitabine in Asian Patients With EGFR Mutation-Positive Advanced Non–small-cell Lung Cancer
Introduction: In the phase III, LUX-Lung 6 trial, afatinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in Asian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This article provides detailed assessments of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), a LUX-Lung 6 secondary end point, and explores the relationship between PFS and health-related quality of life (QoL) in these patients. Methods: Patients (n = 364) were randomized (2:1) to oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or up to six cycles of cisplatin/gemcitabine (21-day cycle; cisplatin 75 mg/m2 [d1]; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 [d1,8]). QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and its lung cancer-specific module. The relationship between PFS (investigator assessment and independent review) and QoL was evaluated using analysis of covariance and a longitudinal model. Results: More patients treated with afatinib versus cisplatin/gemcitabine showed improvements in global health status/QoL (p < 0.0001) and physical (p < 0.0001), role (p = 0.013), and social (p < 0.001) functioning scales. Delayed symptom deterioration and better QoL over time was also observed with afatinib. QoL measured before tumor assessment was considerably poorer for patients with progression than those without progression, with significant differences in mean scores at multiple assessment time points. Results from the longitudinal analysis consistently demonstrated a significant negative impact of progression on QoL (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Afatinib improved PFS and PROs versus chemotherapy in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients. Progression was associated with statistically significant worsening in QoL measured before tumor assessment, underscoring the value of PFS as a clinically relevant end point.
207033299
Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations.
PURPOSE
The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS).


PATIENTS AND METHODS
In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).


RESULTS
A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain.


CONCLUSION
Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.
41716030
Symptom control and quality of life in LUX-Lung 3: a phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations.
PURPOSE
Patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) benefits were investigated in a randomized, phase III trial of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed.


PATIENTS AND METHODS
Three hundred forty-five patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2:1 to afatinib 40 mg per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed. Lung cancer symptoms and health-related QoL were assessed every 21 days until progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were preplanned, including percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change in symptoms over time.


RESULTS
Questionnaire compliance was high. Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.87; P = .007) and dyspnea (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .015), but not pain (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.10; P = .19). More patients on afatinib (64%) versus chemotherapy (50%) experienced improvements in dyspnea scores (P = .010). Differences in mean scores over time significantly favored afatinib over chemotherapy for cough (P < .001) and dyspnea (P < .001). Afatinib showed significantly better mean scores over time in global health status/QoL (P = .015) and physical (P < .001), role (P = .004), and cognitive (P = .007) functioning compared with chemotherapy. Fatigue and nausea were worse with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse with afatinib (all P < .01).


CONCLUSION
In patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, first-line afatinib was associated with better control of cough and dyspnea compared with chemotherapy, although diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse. Global health status/QoL was also improved over time with afatinib compared with chemotherapy.
3552424
Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting.


METHODS
This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660.


FINDINGS
Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3-33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6-12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1-11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57-0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9-15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1-13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure.


INTERPRETATION
Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.


FUNDING
Boehringer Ingelheim.
44579540
1273POVERALL SURVIVAL ANALYSES OF FIRST-LINE ERLOTINIB VERSUS CHEMOTHERAPY IN THE EURTAC STUDY POPULATION CONTROLLING FOR THE USE OF POST-STUDY THERAPY.
ABSTRACT Aim: Overall survival (OS) as an endpoint in trials of first-line therapy is challenging due to the effect of post-study therapy (PST). OS benefit may not be observed despite a clear benefit in progression-free survival. This exploratory analysis of the first-line EURTAC study assesses the effect of erlotinib on OS, using two statistical models to control for second-line (2L) PST use. Methods: Patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer were randomised to receive once-daily erlotinib (E) or 4–6 cycles of chemotherapy (C). OS, calculated from date of randomisation to death, was assessed by Kaplan–Meier methodology. In this analysis, two statistical methods controlled for 2L PST use; method 1: the original Cox proportional hazard model was used, with OS censored at the time of 2L PST initiation, to evaluate OS only when patients were not receiving 2L PST; method 2: a Cox model adjusting for 2L PST exposure in the OS analyses where ‘2L PST exposure’ was incorporated as a time-dependent covariate (allowing for differential effects for E and C). Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced between the arms (E, n = 86; C, n = 88). In the protocol-specified analysis (data cut-off 11 April 2012), the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.92 (95% CI 0.63–1.35, p = 0.68; median OS 22.9 vs 19.6 months for E vs C). When adjusted for baseline factors (age, gender, ECOG PS, smoking history and EGFR mutation type), the HR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.58–1.27). A total of 58% of patients received 2L PST (tyrosine-kinase inhibitors: 31% E, 58% C; platinum compounds: 44% E, 5% C; antimetabolites: 48% E, 19% C). Median time to initiation of 2L PST from time of disease progression (n = 102) was 0.85 months for E and 0.36 months for C. Using method 1, the HR was 0.68 (95% CI 0.37–1.25, p = 0.21; median OS was not reached with E vs 20.8 months with C). The adjusted HR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.34–1.19). Using method 2, the HR was 0.69 (95% CI 0.38–1.26), with an adjusted HR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.35–1.20). Conclusions: These exploratory results suggest a trend towards a survival benefit for first-line E vs C, which was previously unobserved due to the confounding factor of non-randomised 2L PST use. Disclosure: L.F. Leon: Stock ownership: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee Stock Options Advisory board: No Board of directors: No Corporate sponsored research: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee Other substantive relationships: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee; A. Golsorkhi: Stock ownership: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee Stock Options Advisory board: No Board of directors: No Corporate sponsored research: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee Other substantive relationships: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee; S. Liu: Stock ownership: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee Stock Options Advisory board: No Board of directors: No Corporate sponsored research: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee Other substantive relationships: Yes, Genentech/Roche, Employee; A. Drozdowskyj: Stock ownership: No Advisory board: No Board of directors: No Corporate sponsored research: No Other substantive relationships: Yes, Statistical Consultant for Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
36038442
AZD9291 in EGFR inhibitor-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer.
BACKGROUND
The EGFR T790M mutation is the most common mechanism of drug resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients who have lung cancer with an EGFR mutation (EGFR-mutated lung cancer). In preclinical models, the EGFR inhibitor AZD9291 has been shown to be effective against both EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor-sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations.


METHODS
We administered AZD9291 at doses of 20 to 240 mg once daily in patients with advanced lung cancer who had radiologically documented disease progression after previous treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The study included dose-escalation cohorts and dose-expansion cohorts. In the expansion cohorts, prestudy tumor biopsies were required for central determination of EGFR T790M status. Patients were assessed for safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy.


RESULTS
A total of 253 patients were treated. Among 31 patients enrolled in the dose-escalation cohorts, no dose-limiting toxic effects occurred at the doses evaluated. An additional 222 patients were treated in five expansion cohorts. The most common all-cause adverse events were diarrhea, rash, nausea, and decreased appetite. The overall objective tumor response rate was 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45 to 58). Among 127 patients with centrally confirmed EGFR T790M who could be evaluated for response, the response rate was 61% (95% CI, 52 to 70). In contrast, among 61 patients without centrally detectable EGFR T790M who could be evaluated for response, the response rate was 21% (95% CI, 12 to 34). The median progression-free survival was 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to not reached) in EGFR T790M-positive patients and 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.3) in EGFR T790M-negative patients.


CONCLUSIONS
AZD9291 was highly active in patients with lung cancer with the EGFR T790M mutation who had had disease progression during prior therapy with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01802632.).
9379000
Erlotinib alone or with bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (JO25567): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study.
BACKGROUND
With use of EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor monotherapy for patients with activating EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), median progression-free survival has been extended to about 12 months. Nevertheless, new strategies are needed to further extend progression-free survival and overall survival with acceptable toxicity and tolerability for this population. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab compared with erlotinib alone in patients with non-squamous NSCLC with activating EGFR mutation-positive disease.


METHODS
In this open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients from 30 centres across Japan with stage IIIB/IV or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and no previous chemotherapy for advanced disease received erlotinib 150 mg/day plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or erlotinib 150 mg/day monotherapy as a first-line therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as determined by an independent review committee. Randomisation was done with a dynamic allocation method, and the analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach, including all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had tumour assessment at least once after randomisation. This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center, number JapicCTI-111390.


FINDINGS
Between Feb 21, 2011, and March 5, 2012, 154 patients were enrolled. 77 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and bevacizumab and 77 to erlotinib alone, of whom 75 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and 77 in the erlotinib alone group were included in the efficacy analyses. Median progression-free survival was 16·0 months (95% CI 13·9-18·1) with erlotinib plus bevacizumab and 9·7 months (5·7-11·1) with erlotinib alone (hazard ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·36-0·79; log-rank test p=0·0015). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were rash (19 [25%] patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group vs 15 [19%] patients in the erlotinib alone group), hypertension (45 [60%] vs eight [10%]), and proteinuria (six [8%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred at a similar frequency in both groups (18 [24%] patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and 19 [25%] patients in the erlotinib alone group).


INTERPRETATION
Erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination could be a new first-line regimen in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Further investigation of the regimen is warranted.


FUNDING
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd.
9059552
Combined Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Blockade Inhibits Tumor Growth in Xenograft Models of EGFR Inhibitor Resistance
Purpose: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) gefitinib and erlotinib benefit some non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but most do not respond (primary resistance) and those who initially respond eventually progress (acquired resistance). EGFR TKI resistance is not completely understood and has been associated with certain EGFR and K-RAS mutations and MET amplification. Experimental Design: We hypothesized that dual inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and EGFR pathways may overcome primary and acquired resistance. We investigated the VEGF receptor/EGFR TKI vandetanib, and the combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib in vivo using xenograft models of EGFR TKI sensitivity, primary resistance, and three models of acquired resistance, including models with mutated K-RAS and secondary EGFR T790M mutation. Results: Vandetanib, gefitinib, and erlotinib had similar profiles of in vitro activity and caused sustained tumor regressions in vivo in the sensitive HCC827 model. In all four resistant models, vandetanib and bevacizumab/erlotinib were significantly more effective than erlotinib or gefitinib alone. Erlotinib resistance was associated with a rise in both host and tumor-derived VEGF but not EGFR secondary mutations in the KRAS mutant-bearing A549 xenografts. Dual inhibition reduced tumor endothelial proliferation compared with VEGF or EGFR blockade alone, suggesting that the enhanced activity of dual inhibition is due at least in part to antiendothelial effects. Conclusion: These studies suggest that erlotinib resistance may be associated with a rise in both tumor cell and host stromal VEGF and that combined blockade of the VEGFR and EGFR pathways can abrogate primary or acquired resistance to EGFR TKIs. This approach merits further evaluation in NSCLC patients.
17624316
Network Meta-Analysis of Erlotinib, Gefitinib, Afatinib and Icotinib in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR Mutations
Background Several 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. Methods We 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. Results Twelve 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. Conclusions The 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.
20283837
Afatinib in the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC--a network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a specific lung cancer subtype characterized by sensitivity to treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Two reversible EGFR TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib) and the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib are currently approved for treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, but no head-to-head trials have been reported to date. We aimed to assess the relative efficacy of the three drugs by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA).


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all the available evidence. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. For PFS, results by investigator review were considered as not all trials assessed PFS independently. Results were analyzed using Bayesian methods.


RESULTS
The literature search identified 246 articles that were assessed for eligibility, of which 21 studies were included in the NMA, including eight trials performed in an EGFR mutation-positive population. The estimated PFS HR (95% credible interval, CrI) for afatinib compared with gefitinib was 0.70 (0.40-1.16) and compared with erlotinib was 0.86 (0.50-1.50) in the total population. The estimated probability of being best for afatinib over all other treatments for PFS was 70% versus 27% for erlotinib and 3% for gefitinib; the estimated probability of chemotherapy being the best treatment was 0%. Estimated HR (95% CrI) in patients with common mutations was 0.73 (0.42-1.24) for afatinib compared with erlotinib and 0.60 (0.34-0.99) for afatinib compared with gefitinib. OS findings were not significantly different between treatments.


CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of direct head-to-head trial data comparing efficacy between the three EGFR TKIs, our analysis suggests that afatinib is a viable treatment alternative to erlotinib or gefitinib in terms of PFS. A direct trial-based comparison of the efficacy of these agents is warranted to clarify their relative benefits.
13420943
Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves
BackgroundThe results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on time-to-event outcomes that are usually reported are median time to events and Cox Hazard Ratio. These do not constitute the sufficient statistics required for meta-analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, and their use in secondary analyses requires strong assumptions that may not have been adequately tested. In order to enhance the quality of secondary data analyses, we propose a method which derives from the published Kaplan Meier survival curves a close approximation to the original individual patient time-to-event data from which they were generated.MethodsWe develop an algorithm that maps from digitised curves back to KM data by finding numerical solutions to the inverted KM equations, using where available information on number of events and numbers at risk. The reproducibility and accuracy of survival probabilities, median survival times and hazard ratios based on reconstructed KM data was assessed by comparing published statistics (survival probabilities, medians and hazard ratios) with statistics based on repeated reconstructions by multiple observers.ResultsThe validation exercise established there was no material systematic error and that there was a high degree of reproducibility for all statistics. Accuracy was excellent for survival probabilities and medians, for hazard ratios reasonable accuracy can only be obtained if at least numbers at risk or total number of events are reported.ConclusionThe algorithm is a reliable tool for meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses of RCTs reporting time-to-event data. It is recommended that all RCTs should report information on numbers at risk and total number of events alongside KM curves.
5825162
The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis
Introduction: Probability and Parameters Probability Probability distributions Calculating properties of probability distributions Monte Carlo integration Monte Carlo Simulations Using BUGS Introduction to BUGS DoodleBUGS Using BUGS to simulate from distributions Transformations of random variables Complex calculations using Monte Carlo Multivariate Monte Carlo analysis Predictions with unknown parameters Introduction to Bayesian Inference Bayesian learning Posterior predictive distributions Conjugate Bayesian inference Inference about a discrete parameter Combinations of conjugate analyses Bayesian and classical methods Introduction to Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Bayesian computation Initial values Convergence Efficiency and accuracy Beyond MCMC Prior Distributions Different purposes of priors Vague, 'objective' and 'reference' priors Representation of informative priors Mixture of prior distributions Sensitivity analysis Regression Models Linear regression with normal errors Linear regression with non-normal errors Nonlinear regression with normal errors Multivariate responses Generalised linear regression models Inference on functions of parameters Further reading Categorical Data 2 x 2 tables Multinomial models Ordinal regression Further reading Model Checking and Comparison Introduction Deviance Residuals Predictive checks and Bayesian p-values Model assessment by embedding in larger models Model comparison using deviances Bayes factors Model uncertainty Discussion on model comparison Prior-data conflict Issues in Modelling Missing data Prediction Measurement error Cutting feedback New distributions Censored, truncated and grouped observations Constrained parameters Bootstrapping Ranking Hierarchical Models Exchangeability Priors Hierarchical regression models Hierarchical models for variances Redundant parameterisations More general formulations Checking of hierarchical models Comparison of hierarchical models Further resources Specialised Models Time-to-event data Time series models Spatial models Evidence synthesis Differential equation and pharmacokinetic models Finite mixture and latent class models Piecewise parametric models Bayesian nonparametric models Different Implementations of BUGS Introduction BUGS engines and interfaces Expert systems and MCMC methods Classic BUGS WinBUGS OpenBUGS JAGS A Appendix: BUGS Language Syntax Introduction Distributions Deterministic functions Repetition Multivariate quantities Indexing Data transformations Commenting B Appendix: Functions in BUGS Standard functions Trigonometric functions Matrix algebra Distribution utilities and model checking Functionals and differential equations Miscellaneous C Appendix: Distributions in BUGS Continuous univariate, unrestricted range Continuous univariate, restricted to be positive Continuous univariate, restricted to a finite interval Continuous multivariate distributions Discrete univariate distributions Discrete multivariate distributions Bibliography Index
45364014
Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial.
OBJECTIVE
To present some simple graphical and quantitative ways to assist interpretation and improve presentation of results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis (MTM).


STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
We reanalyze a published network of trials comparing various antiplatelet interventions regarding the incidence of serious vascular events using Bayesian approaches for random effects MTM, and we explore the advantages and drawbacks of various traditional and new forms of quantitative displays and graphical presentations of results.


RESULTS
We present the results under various forms, conventionally based on the mean of the distribution of the effect sizes; based on predictions; based on ranking probabilities; and finally, based on probabilities to be within an acceptable range from a reference. We show how to obtain and present results on ranking of all treatments and how to appraise the overall ranks.


CONCLUSIONS
Bayesian methodology offers a multitude of ways to present results from MTM models, as it enables a natural and easy estimation of all measures based on probabilities, ranks, or predictions.
6723939
Gefitinib and erlotinib in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of toxicity and efficacy of randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been evaluated in patients with metastatic and advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration initially granted accelerated approval to gefitinib but subsequently rescinded the authorization. Erlotinib and afatinib are similar compounds approved for the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib in NSCLC.


METHODS
We tabulated efficacy variables including overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) and quantitated toxicities and rates of dose reductions and discontinuation. Summary odds ratios were calculated using random and fixed-effects models. An odds ratio was the summary measure used for pooling of studies.


RESULTS
We examined 28 studies including three randomized trials with afatinib. Clinical toxicities, including pruritus, rash, anorexia, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, mucositis, paronychia, and anemia, were similar between erlotinib and gefitinib, although some statistical differences were observed. Afatinib treatment resulted in more diarrhea, rash, and paronychia compared with erlotinib and gefitinib. Regarding efficacy, similar outcomes were recorded for ORR, PFS, or OS in the total population and in specific subgroups of patients between erlotinib and gefitinib. All three TKIs demonstrated higher ORRs in first line in tumors harboring EGFR mutations.


CONCLUSION
Gefitinib has similar activity and toxicity compared with erlotinib and offers a valuable alternative to patients with NSCLC. Afatinib has similar efficacy compared with erlotinib and gefitinib in first-line treatment of tumors harboring EGFR mutations but may be associated with more toxicity, although further studies are needed. Gefitinib deserves consideration for U.S. marketing as a primary treatment for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.
24811452
Meta-Analysis of First-Line Therapies in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR-Activating Mutations
Introduction: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib have been compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapies for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor–activating mutations. This meta-analysis compares gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and chemotherapy. Methods: Literature search was performed using relevant keywords. Direct and indirect meta-estimates were generated using log-linear mixed-effects models, with random effects for study. Study-to-study heterogeneity was summarized using I2 statistics and predictive intervals (PIs). Results: Literature search yielded eight randomized phase 3 clinical trials comparing gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer during the last 5 years. Hazard ratio meta-estimates for progression-free survival were for gefitinib versus chemotherapy 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31–0.63; 95% PI, 0.22–0.88), erlotinib versus chemotherapy 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15–0.42; 95% PI, 0.11–0.55), afatinib versus chemotherapy 0.44 (95% CI, 0.26–0.75; 95% PI, 0.20–0.98), erlotinib versus gefitinib 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30–1.08; 95% PI, 0.24–1.36), afatinib versus gefitinib 1.01 (95% CI, 0.53–1.92; 95% PI, 0.41–2.42), and erlotinib versus afatinib 0.56 (95% CI, 0.27–1.18; 95% PI, 0.22–1.46). Results for overall response rate and disease control rate were similar. There was no evidence that gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy. Conclusion: Gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib out-performed chemotherapy in terms of progression-free survival, overall response rate, and disease control rate. Differences among gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib were not statistically significant.
25755834
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.
10551970
Updated overall survival results from a randomized phase III trial comparing gefitinib with carboplatin-paclitaxel for chemo-naïve non-small cell lung cancer with sensitive EGFR gene mutations (NEJ002).
BACKGROUND
NEJ002 study, comparing gefitinib with carboplatin (CBDCA) and paclitaxel (PTX; Taxol) as the first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, previously reported superiority of gefitinib over CBDCA/PTX on progression-free survival (PFS). Subsequent analysis was carried out mainly regarding overall survival (OS).


MATERIALS AND METHODS
For all 228 patients in NEJ002, survival data were updated in December, 2010. Detailed information regarding subsequent chemotherapy after the protocol treatment was also assessed retrospectively and the impact of some key drugs on OS was evaluated.


RESULTS
The median survival time (MST) was 27.7 months for the gefitinib group, and was 26.6 months for the CBDCA/PTX group (HR, 0.887; P=0.483). The OS of patients who received platinum throughout their treatment (n=186) was not statistically different from that of patients who never received platinum (n=40). The MST of patients treated with gefitinib, platinum, and pemetrexed (PEM) or docetaxel (DOC, Taxotere; n=76) was around 3 years.


CONCLUSIONS
No significant difference in OS was observed between gefitinib and CBDCA/PTX in the NEJ002 study, probably due to a high crossover use of gefitinib in the CBDCA/PTX group. Considering the many benefits and the risk of missing an opportunity to use the most effective agent for EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the first-line gefitinib is strongly recommended.
9253202
Final overall survival results from a randomised, phase III study of erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802).
BACKGROUND
The OPTIMAL study was the first study to compare efficacy and tolerability of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) erlotinib, versus standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Findings from final overall survival (OS) analysis and assessment of post-study treatment impact are presented.


PATIENTS AND METHODS
Of 165 randomised patients, 82 received erlotinib and 72 gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Final OS analyses were conducted when 70% of deaths had occurred in the intent-to-treat population. Subgroup OS was analysed by Cox proportional hazards model and included randomisation stratification factors and post-study treatments.


RESULTS
Median OS was similar between the erlotinib (22.8 months) and chemotherapy (27.2 months) arms with no significant between-group differences in the overall population [hazard ratio (HR), 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.71; P = 0.2663], the exon 19 deletion subpopulation (HR, 1.52; 95% CI 0.91-2.52; P = 0.1037) or the exon 21 L858 mutation subpopulation (HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.55-1.54; P = 0.7392). More patients in the erlotinib arm versus the chemotherapy arm did not receive any post-study treatment (36.6% versus 22.2%). Patients who received sequential combination of EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy had significantly improved OS compared with those who received EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy only (29.7 versus 20.7 or 11.2 months, respectively; P < 0.0001). OS was significantly shorter in patients who did not receive post-study treatments compared with those who received subsequent treatments in both arms.


CONCLUSION
The significant OS benefit observed in patients treated with EGFR-TKI emphasises its contribution to improving survival of EGFR mutant NSCLC patients, suggesting that erlotinib should be considered standard first-line treatment of EGFR mutant patients and EGFR-TKI treatment following first-line therapy also brings significant benefits to those patients.


CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER
NCT00874419.
1248997
Efficacy of Erlotinib Plus Dendritic Cells and Cytokine-induced Killer Cells in Maintenance Therapy of Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer
The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of erlotinib plus DC/CIK in maintenance therapy of advanced non–small cell lung cancer. After 4 cycles of the 2-drug regimen treatment with platinum, the 54 patients with non–small cell lung cancer in phase IIIb or IV reached stable or beyond stable stages. The patients were then randomly divided into 2 groups. One group was treated with erlotinib therapy (erlotinib group), and the other was treated with DC/CIK plus erlotinib (DC/CIK plus erlotinib group). The progression-free survival of the erlotinib group and the DC/CIK plus erlotinib group was 3.98 months (95% CI, 3.56–4.40) and 5.02 months (95% CI, 4.32–5.72) (P=0.002), respectively. The median overall survival of the erlotinib group and the DC/CIK plus erlotinib group was 9.9 months (95% CI, 9.1–10.6) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 9.6–11.4) (P=0.29), respectively. The levels of CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ were significantly different before and after the treatment in the DC/CIK plus erlotinib group, but not in the erlotinib group. There was no significant difference in toxicity between the 2 groups. In conclusion, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between DC/CIK plus erlotinib and erlotinib as maintenance therapy. DC/CIK plus erlotinib was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile.
25322661
Randomized phase II study of concurrent versus sequential alternating gefitinib and chemotherapy in previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer with sensitive EGFR mutations: NEJ005/TCOG0902.
BACKGROUND
The first-line combination of an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy has not been sufficiently evaluated for patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This randomized phase II study was designed to select a combination regimen for phase III evaluation.


PATIENTS AND METHODS
Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced non-squamous, EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either a concurrent or a sequential alternating regimen with gefitinib (250 mg) and carboplatin/pemetrexed [area under the curve (AUC) = 6 and 500 mg/m(2); 3-weekly]. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), response, and safety.


RESULTS
All 80 patients enrolled were eligible and assessable for efficacy (41 and 39 patients in the concurrent and sequential alternating regimen groups, respectively). Median PFS was 18.3 months for the concurrent regimen and 15.3 months for the sequential alternating regimen [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71 (0.42-1.20), P = 0.20]. Although OS data are immature (16 and 24 death events), median survival times were 41.9 and 30.7 months in the concurrent and sequential alternating regimen groups, respectively [HR 0.51 (0.26-0.99); P = 0.042]. Response rates were similar in both groups (87.8% and 84.6%). Hematological and non-hematological adverse events were common and reversible; interstitial lung disease was neither frequent nor fatal (two cases in each group; 5% of all patients).


CONCLUSION
This is the first randomized study to investigate the efficacy of combinational EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy in the EGFR-mutated setting. Both regimens had promising efficacy with predictable toxicities, although concurrent regimens might provide better OS. The concurrent regimen was chosen to compare with gefitinib monotherapy in our ongoing phase III study.


CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION
University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN C000002789).
2533119
Erlotinib-associated rash in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer treated in the EURTAC trial.
AIM
This analysis investigates incidence and time course of rash in the EURTAC study.


MATERIALS & METHODS
Patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive once daily erlotinib or 3-weekly cycles of chemotherapy.


RESULTS
Of the 86 erlotinib-treated patients, 71 reported rash. Median time to first rash appearance was 0.7 months. Most patients (n = 65) had the same or lower grade rash at final assessment compared with initial assessment. Of the 21 patients with decreased rash grade between initial and final assessments, 61.9% received no erlotinib dose modification, 42.8% had no concomitant rash treatment.


CONCLUSION
Most rash cases were mild, occurred within 1 month of erlotinib treatment, and rapidly improved without the need for erlotinib dose alterations.
11223330
Differences in outcome and toxicity between Asian and caucasian patients with lung cancer treated with systemic therapy.
It is increasingly recognized that differences in overall survival and toxicity exist between Asian and caucasian patients with small-cell and non-small-cell lung cancer, with a longer survival, higher response rates and greater toxicity to chemotherapy and targeted therapy reported in Asian patients. Two global studies are used to illustrate how the proportions of Asian patients can influence survival outcome. Ethnicity is an important and complex characteristic that should considered in the design and conduct of a global clinical study, as the safety, tolerability and response may vary between Asian and caucasian patients. Whether ethnic differences in lung cancer survival are attributed to genetic differences among races or are simply a surrogate marker of differences in access to healthcare because of socioeconomic differences is unclear. Carefully designed prospective studies investigating ethnic-specific determinants of sensitivity and toxicity to systemic therapy are warranted.
7924657
Efficacy of bevacizumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy (BeTa): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial
BACKGROUND
Bevacizumab 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.


METHODS
In 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.


FINDINGS
Overall 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.


INTERPRETATION
Addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib does not improve survival in patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC.


FUNDING
Genentech.
33018335
Randomized phase II study of first-line carboplatin-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in Japanese patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.
PURPOSE
This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II study (JO19907) compared the efficacy and safety of first-line carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) alone with bevacizumab-CP in Japanese patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).


METHODS
Chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB, IV or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive bevacizumab-CP or CP alone. Chemotherapy was repeated for up to 6 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Bevacizumab recipients who completed ≥3 cycles of chemotherapy could continue bevacizumab as monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).


RESULTS
After confirming the tolerability of bevacizumab-CP in a small number of patients, 180 patients were recruited, of whom 121 were assigned to bevacizumab-CP and 59 to CP alone. Hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.61 with bevacizumab-CP versus CP alone (p=0.0090; median 6.9 versus 5.9 months). Objective response rate was significantly higher with bevacizumab-CP than with CP alone (60.7% versus 31.0%; p=0.0013). Median overall survival was >22 months in both treatment groups (HR 0.99; p=0.9526). No new safety signals were detected.


CONCLUSION
Study JO19907 met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that the addition of bevacizumab to first-line CP significantly improves PFS in Japanese patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. This prolonged PFS by bevacizumab did not translate into OS benefit with the extremely longer underlying survival compared to historical data. No new safety signals were identified in this population. (Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center [JAPIC] registration number: CTI-060338).
38894805
Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Overall Survival for Fulvestrant 500 mg Versus Alternative Therapies for Treatment of Postmenopausal, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer Following Failure on Prior Endocrine Therapy.
BACKGROUND
We conducted a review of randomized trials to compare the overall survival (OS) with fulvestrant 500 mg versus alternative treatment for estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following endocrine therapy failure.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained by modeling OS data with the Weibull distribution. A fixed-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. The evidence network included anastrozole 1 mg, letrozole 2.5 mg, fulvestrant 250 mg, exemestane 25 mg, megestrol acetate 40 mg, and everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg as comparators. Post-antiestrogen and post-aromatase inhibitor subgroup networks were analyzed.


RESULTS
In the overall analysis, the HRs suggested improved OS for fulvestrant 500 mg versus fulvestrant 250 mg and megestrol acetate 40 mg, and numerically favorable differences with fulvestrant 500 mg versus other comparators. In the antiestrogen subgroup, the HRs suggested improved OS for fulvestrant 500 mg versus fulvestrant 250 mg and megestrol acetate 40 mg; numerical differences in the HRs were seen versus anastrozole 1 mg and letrozole 2.5 mg. In the aromatase inhibitor subgroup, the HRs for OS numerically favored fulvestrant 500 mg versus fulvestrant 250 mg and exemestane 25 mg.


CONCLUSION
Acknowledging the limitations of the present network meta-analysis, these findings suggest that fulvestrant 500 mg might provide improved OS versus fulvestrant 250 mg and megestrol acetate 40 mg for treatment of estrogen receptor-positive ABC following endocrine therapy failure. Although OS efficacy versus everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg (for overall evidence network), anastrozole 1 mg, exemestane 25 mg, and letrozole 2.5 mg is numerically favorable, additional studies are required to draw formal conclusions.