BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized phase II trial was to evaluate the feasibility and activity of weekly gemcitabine (G) followed by erlotinib at disease progression (arm A) versus erlotinib followed by G at progression (arm B) in vulnerable elderly patients with advanced non small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), selected on the basis of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). METHODS:Vulnerable elderly chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were selected after a CGA (socioeconomic, cognitive and emotional status, depression, nutritional status, ADL and IADL assessments). The primary endpoint was the time to second progression (TTP2). Overall survival (OS), time to first progression (TTP1) and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS:Between May 2006 and January 2010, 21 centers enrolled 100 patients, of whom 94 were eligible. TTP2 was 4.3 and 3.5 months in arm A and arm B, respectively; TTP1 was 2.5 and 2.2 months; and the median OS time was 4.4 and 3.9 months. The respective one-year survival rates were 27.3% and 20%. There was no major unexpected toxicity. CONCLUSION: In vulnerable elderly patients with NSCLC not selected for EGFR expression, both strategies were feasible but had modest efficacy. Further studies are needed to identify elderly patients who should receive palliative care only.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized phase II trial was to evaluate the feasibility and activity of weekly gemcitabine (G) followed by erlotinib at disease progression (arm A) versus erlotinib followed by G at progression (arm B) in vulnerable elderly patients with advanced non small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), selected on the basis of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). METHODS: Vulnerable elderly chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were selected after a CGA (socioeconomic, cognitive and emotional status, depression, nutritional status, ADL and IADL assessments). The primary endpoint was the time to second progression (TTP2). Overall survival (OS), time to first progression (TTP1) and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Between May 2006 and January 2010, 21 centers enrolled 100 patients, of whom 94 were eligible. TTP2 was 4.3 and 3.5 months in arm A and arm B, respectively; TTP1 was 2.5 and 2.2 months; and the median OS time was 4.4 and 3.9 months. The respective one-year survival rates were 27.3% and 20%. There was no major unexpected toxicity. CONCLUSION: In vulnerable elderly patients with NSCLC not selected for EGFR expression, both strategies were feasible but had modest efficacy. Further studies are needed to identify elderly patients who should receive palliative care only.