BACKGROUND:Gefitinib was compared with pemetrexed as second-line therapy in a clinically selected population previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: A phase 3 trial of gefitinib (250 mg/day) versus pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 3 weeks) was conducted in patients who had never smoked and who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma treated with 1 previous platinum-based regimen. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS:A total of 135 patients were analyzed. The gefitinib group had significantly longer PFS compared with the pemetrexed group, with a median PFS time of 9.0 versus 3.0 months (P = .0006). The objective response rates were 58.8% and 22.4% for gefitinib and pemetrexed, respectively (P < .001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the 2 groups (22.2 vs 18.9 months; P = .37). The difference of PFS was increased in a subgroup analysis of 33 patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (15.7 vs 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.72; P = .005), with numerical superiority of gefitinib in the 38 patients testing negative for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (5.9 vs 2.7 months; P = .099). Both regimens were well tolerated. There were no significantly different changes in quality of life between the 2 groups, except that symptom scores for dyspnea and diarrhea favored the gefitinib and pemetrexed arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Gefitinib showed superior efficacy to pemetrexed as second-line therapy in Korean never-smokers with pulmonary adenocarcinoma.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Gefitinib was compared with pemetrexed as second-line therapy in a clinically selected population previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: A phase 3 trial of gefitinib (250 mg/day) versus pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 3 weeks) was conducted in patients who had never smoked and who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma treated with 1 previous platinum-based regimen. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were analyzed. The gefitinib group had significantly longer PFS compared with the pemetrexed group, with a median PFS time of 9.0 versus 3.0 months (P = .0006). The objective response rates were 58.8% and 22.4% for gefitinib and pemetrexed, respectively (P < .001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the 2 groups (22.2 vs 18.9 months; P = .37). The difference of PFS was increased in a subgroup analysis of 33 patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (15.7 vs 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.72; P = .005), with numerical superiority of gefitinib in the 38 patients testing negative for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (5.9 vs 2.7 months; P = .099). Both regimens were well tolerated. There were no significantly different changes in quality of life between the 2 groups, except that symptom scores for dyspnea and diarrhea favored the gefitinib and pemetrexed arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Gefitinib showed superior efficacy to pemetrexed as second-line therapy in Korean never-smokers with pulmonary adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Bruno Kovic; Xuejing Jin; Sean Alexander Kennedy; Mathieu Hylands; Michal Pedziwiatr; Akira Kuriyama; Huda Gomaa; Yung Lee; Morihiro Katsura; Masafumi Tada; Brian Y Hong; Sung Min Cho; Patrick Jiho Hong; Ashley M Yu; Yasmin Sivji; Augustin Toma; Li Xie; Ludwig Tsoi; Marcin Waligora; Manya Prasad; Neera Bhatnagar; Lehana Thabane; Michael Brundage; Gordon Guyatt; Feng Xie Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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
Authors: Gregory A Masters; Sarah Temin; Christopher G Azzoli; Giuseppe Giaccone; Sherman Baker; Julie R Brahmer; Peter M Ellis; Ajeet Gajra; Nancy Rackear; Joan H Schiller; Thomas J Smith; John R Strawn; David Trent; David H Johnson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544