OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes of patients who received TKI immediately after the first-line without progression as maintenance treatment (immediate group) vs. those received delayed treatment upon disease progression as second-line therapy (delayed group). METHODS: The study included 159 no-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received gefitinib or erlotinib as maintenance treatment in the immediate group (85 patients) or as second-line therapy in the delayed group (74 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). EGFR mutation status was detected using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC). RESULTS: PFS was 17.3 and 16.4 months in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.69-1.42; P=0.947). In a subgroup analysis that included only patients with EGFR mutation, however, PFS was significantly longer in the immediate group than in the delayed group (HR, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.85; P=0.012). In patients with wild type EGFR, the risk for disease progression was comparable between the two groups (HR, 1.23; 95% CI: 0.61-2.51; P=0.564). No significant difference was demonstrated between the immediate and delayed group in terms of the overall survival (OS) (26.1 months vs. 21.6 months, respectively; HR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.06; P=0.072). There was also no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR TKI maintenance improves PFS in patients with EGFR mutation. Prospectively designed clinical studies that compare TKI immediate vs. delayed treatment after first-line chemotherapy upon disease progression are needed.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes of patients who received TKI immediately after the first-line without progression as maintenance treatment (immediate group) vs. those received delayed treatment upon disease progression as second-line therapy (delayed group). METHODS: The study included 159 no-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received gefitinib or erlotinib as maintenance treatment in the immediate group (85 patients) or as second-line therapy in the delayed group (74 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). EGFR mutation status was detected using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC). RESULTS: PFS was 17.3 and 16.4 months in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.69-1.42; P=0.947). In a subgroup analysis that included only patients with EGFR mutation, however, PFS was significantly longer in the immediate group than in the delayed group (HR, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.85; P=0.012). In patients with wild type EGFR, the risk for disease progression was comparable between the two groups (HR, 1.23; 95% CI: 0.61-2.51; P=0.564). No significant difference was demonstrated between the immediate and delayed group in terms of the overall survival (OS) (26.1 months vs. 21.6 months, respectively; HR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.06; P=0.072). There was also no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:EGFR TKI maintenance improves PFS in patients with EGFR mutation. Prospectively designed clinical studies that compare TKI immediate vs. delayed treatment after first-line chemotherapy upon disease progression are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor; Maintenance therapy; Non-small-cell lung cancer
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: Thomas Brodowicz; Maciej Krzakowski; Matjaz Zwitter; Valentina Tzekova; Rodryg Ramlau; Nicolae Ghilezan; Tudor Ciuleanu; Branka Cucevic; Kalman Gyurkovits; Ernst Ulsperger; Jacek Jassem; Mislav Grgic; Pinar Saip; Maria Szilasi; Christoph Wiltschke; Maria Wagnerova; Natalya Oskina; Victoria Soldatenkova; Christoph Zielinski; Miklos Wenczl Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Rafael Rosell; Teresa Moran; Cristina Queralt; Rut Porta; Felipe Cardenal; Carlos Camps; Margarita Majem; Guillermo Lopez-Vivanco; Dolores Isla; Mariano Provencio; Amelia Insa; Bartomeu Massuti; Jose Luis Gonzalez-Larriba; Luis Paz-Ares; Isabel Bover; Rosario Garcia-Campelo; Miguel Angel Moreno; Silvia Catot; Christian Rolfo; Noemi Reguart; Ramon Palmero; José Miguel Sánchez; Roman Bastus; Clara Mayo; Jordi Bertran-Alamillo; Miguel Angel Molina; Jose Javier Sanchez; Miquel Taron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hua Bai; Li Mao; Hang Shu Wang; Jun Zhao; Lu Yang; Tong Tong An; Xin Wang; Chun Jian Duan; Na Mei Wu; Zhi Qing Guo; Yi Xu Liu; Hong Ning Liu; Ye Yu Wang; Jie Wang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edward S Kim; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Mark A Socinski; Radj Gervais; Yi-Long Wu; Long-Yun Li; Claire L Watkins; Mark V Sellers; Elizabeth S Lowe; Yan Sun; Mei-Lin Liao; Kell Osterlind; Martin Reck; Alison A Armour; Frances A Shepherd; Scott M Lippman; Jean-Yves Douillard Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-11-22 Impact factor: 79.321