PURPOSE: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21 established erlotinib as a standard of care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of first- or second-line chemotherapy. The current study analyzes the influence of age on outcomes in BR.21. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BR.21 was a double-blind phase III trial that randomly assigned 731 patients toerlotinib 150 mg daily or placebo. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), response, quality of life (QOL), drug exposure, and toxicity, which are analyzed in this retrospective study by the following two age groups: >or= 70 years (elderly) or less than 70 years (young). RESULTS: There were 163 elderly patients (112 on erlotinib, 51 onplacebo) and 568 young patients (376 on erlotinib, 192 on placebo). There was no significant difference between age groups randomly assigned to erlotinib or placebo in progression-free survival (elderly: 3.0 v 2.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.90; P = .009; young: 2.1 v 1.8 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.76; P < .0001; interaction, P = .77) or OS (elderly: 7.6 v 5.0 months; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.34; P = .67; young: 6.4 v 4.7 months; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = .0014; interaction, P = .31). Response rates were similar between age groups. Elderly patients, compared with young patients, had significantly more overall and severe (grade 3 and 4) toxicity (35% v 18%; P < .001), were more likely to discontinue treatment as a result of treatment-related toxicity (12% v 3%; P < .0001), and had lower relative dose-intensity (64% v 82% received > 90% planned dose; P < .001). CONCLUSION:Elderly patients treated witherlotinib gain similar survival and QOL benefits as younger patients but experience greater toxicity.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21 established erlotinib as a standard of care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of first- or second-line chemotherapy. The current study analyzes the influence of age on outcomes in BR.21. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BR.21 was a double-blind phase III trial that randomly assigned 731 patients to erlotinib 150 mg daily or placebo. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), response, quality of life (QOL), drug exposure, and toxicity, which are analyzed in this retrospective study by the following two age groups: >or= 70 years (elderly) or less than 70 years (young). RESULTS: There were 163 elderly patients (112 on erlotinib, 51 on placebo) and 568 young patients (376 on erlotinib, 192 on placebo). There was no significant difference between age groups randomly assigned to erlotinib or placebo in progression-free survival (elderly: 3.0 v 2.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.90; P = .009; young: 2.1 v 1.8 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.76; P < .0001; interaction, P = .77) or OS (elderly: 7.6 v 5.0 months; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.34; P = .67; young: 6.4 v 4.7 months; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = .0014; interaction, P = .31). Response rates were similar between age groups. Elderly patients, compared with young patients, had significantly more overall and severe (grade 3 and 4) toxicity (35% v 18%; P < .001), were more likely to discontinue treatment as a result of treatment-related toxicity (12% v 3%; P < .0001), and had lower relative dose-intensity (64% v 82% received > 90% planned dose; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients treated with erlotinib gain similar survival and QOL benefits as younger patients but experience greater toxicity.
Authors: Arti Hurria; Ilene S Browner; Harvey Jay Cohen; Crystal S Denlinger; Mollie deShazo; Martine Extermann; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Jimmie C Holland; Holly M Holmes; Mohana B Karlekar; Nancy L Keating; June McKoy; Bruno C Medeiros; Ewa Mrozek; Tracey O'Connor; Stephen H Petersdorf; Hope S Rugo; Rebecca A Silliman; William P Tew; Louise C Walter; Alva B Weir; Tanya Wildes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: David Rossi; Donatella Dennetta; Marcello Ugolini; Vincenzo Catalano; Paolo Alessandroni; Paolo Giordani; Anna Maria Baldelli; Virginia Casadei; Francesco Graziano; S Luzi Fedeli Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2010-10-02 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: W Y Cheung; E A Kornelsen; N Mittmann; N B Leighl; M Cheung; K K Chan; P A Bradbury; R C H Ng; B E Chen; K Ding; J L Pater; D Tu; A E Hay Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Marie-Rose B S Crombag; Jacobine G C van Doremalen; Julie M Janssen; Hilde Rosing; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen; Neeltje Steeghs; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Sung Yong Lee; Eun Joo Kang; Suk Young Lee; Hong Jun Kim; Kyung Hoon Min; Gyu Young Hur; Jae Jeong Shim; Kyung Ho Kang; Sang Cheul Oh; Jae Hong Seo; Jun Suk Kim Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 2.967