PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status and the effectiveness of gefitinib monotherapy or chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 100 patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC screened for two major EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletions and L858R mutation). RESULTS: Forty-six out of 48 EGFR mutation-positive patients (96%) received gefitinib, whereas only 3 out of 52 EGFR mutation-negative patients (6%) received gefitinib. Favorable objective response rates to gefitinib as first- and second-line treatment (87 and 80%, respectively) were observed in EGFR mutation-positive patients. Overall response rate to chemotherapy as first-line treatment did not differ significantly between patients with EGFR mutations and those without mutation (32 vs. 28%, respectively; P = 0.7198). As to first-line treatment, EGFR mutation-positive patients treated with gefitinib experienced significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than did patients who received chemotherapy (median survival, 7.8 months vs. 5.1 months, respectively; P = 0.0323). Similarly, as to second-line treatment, EGFR mutation-positive patients treated with gefitinib had significantly longer PFS than did patients who received chemotherapy (median survival, 6.5 months vs. 4.0 months, respectively; P = 0.0048). Patients with EGFR mutations survived longer than those without EGFR mutations after first-line treatment (median, 24.3 vs. 12.6 months, respectively; P = 0.0029). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutation-positive patients benefit from either first- or second-line gefitinib monotherapy. Further large-scale prospective studies to confirm this finding are needed.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status and the effectiveness of gefitinib monotherapy or chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 100 patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC screened for two major EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletions and L858R mutation). RESULTS: Forty-six out of 48 EGFR mutation-positive patients (96%) received gefitinib, whereas only 3 out of 52 EGFR mutation-negative patients (6%) received gefitinib. Favorable objective response rates to gefitinib as first- and second-line treatment (87 and 80%, respectively) were observed in EGFR mutation-positive patients. Overall response rate to chemotherapy as first-line treatment did not differ significantly between patients with EGFR mutations and those without mutation (32 vs. 28%, respectively; P = 0.7198). As to first-line treatment, EGFR mutation-positive patients treated with gefitinib experienced significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than did patients who received chemotherapy (median survival, 7.8 months vs. 5.1 months, respectively; P = 0.0323). Similarly, as to second-line treatment, EGFR mutation-positive patients treated with gefitinib had significantly longer PFS than did patients who received chemotherapy (median survival, 6.5 months vs. 4.0 months, respectively; P = 0.0048). Patients with EGFR mutations survived longer than those without EGFR mutations after first-line treatment (median, 24.3 vs. 12.6 months, respectively; P = 0.0029). CONCLUSION:EGFR mutation-positive patients benefit from either first- or second-line gefitinib monotherapy. Further large-scale prospective studies to confirm this finding are needed.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Miguel Taron; Yukito Ichinose; Rafael Rosell; Tony Mok; Bartomeu Massuti; Lurdes Zamora; Jose Luis Mate; Christian Manegold; Mayumi Ono; Cristina Queralt; Thierry Jahan; Jose Javier Sanchez; Maria Sanchez-Ronco; Victor Hsue; David Jablons; Jose Miguel Sanchez; Teresa Moran Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David M Jackman; Beow Y Yeap; Lecia V Sequist; Neal Lindeman; Alison J Holmes; Victoria A Joshi; Daphne W Bell; Mark S Huberman; Balazs Halmos; Michael S Rabin; Daniel A Haber; Thomas J Lynch; Matthew Meyerson; Bruce E Johnson; Pasi A Jänne Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Fred R Hirsch; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Paul A Bunn; Wilbur A Franklin; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Nick Thatcher; Alex Chang; Purvish Parikh; José Rodrigues Pereira; Tudor Ciuleanu; Joachim von Pawel; Claire Watkins; Angela Flannery; Gillian Ellison; Emma Donald; Lucy Knight; Dinah Parums; Nicholas Botwood; Brian Holloway Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Sutani; Y Nagai; K Udagawa; Y Uchida; N Koyama; Y Murayama; T Tanaka; H Miyazawa; M Nagata; M Kanazawa; K Hagiwara; K Kobayashi Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-11-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mark McKeage; Mark Elwood; Sandar Tin Tin; Prashannata Khwaounjoo; Phyu Aye; Angie Li; Karen Sheath; Phillip Shepherd; George Laking; Nicola Kingston; Christopher Lewis; Donald Love Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Luis Paz-Ares; Denis Soulières; Joachim Moecks; Ilze Bara; Tony Mok; Barbara Klughammer Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 5.310