INTRODUCTION: The phase III SATURN study demonstrated that first-line maintenance erlotinib extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) found no significant interaction between EGFR IHC status and PFS (p = 0.63) or OS (p = 0.52). The FLEX study of first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy demonstrated that EGFR IHC expression was predictive of improved OS with cetuximab when assessed by H-score with a magnification rule. This novel method was used to reassess samples from SATURN. METHODS: The H-score method assigned a score of 0-300 to each patient, based on the percentage of cells stained at different intensities viewed at various magnifications. The discriminatory threshold was set at 200, per the FLEX study, and existing samples were re-read and classed as low (H-score < 200) or high (≥200) EGFR expression. PFS and OS were re-analyzed based on these new classifications. RESULTS: In the overall and EGFR wild-type populations, erlotinib provided a consistent survival benefit versus placebo. Hazard ratios (HRs) in the overall population were similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative patients for median PFS (HR 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.86] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.62-0.93], respectively) and OS (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.62-1.05] and 0.80 [95% CI 0.64-1.01] for IHC-positive and IHC-negative, respectively). In the EGFR wild-type population, HRs were again similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative subpopulations for PFS (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.51-0.95] and 0.84 [95% CI 0.63-1.12], respectively) and OS (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.55-1.10] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.55-1.05], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that EGFR IHC does not have value as a marker to predict erlotinib benefit in the first-line maintenance setting for advanced NSCLC.
INTRODUCTION: The phase III SATURN study demonstrated that first-line maintenance erlotinib extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) found no significant interaction between EGFR IHC status and PFS (p = 0.63) or OS (p = 0.52). The FLEX study of first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy demonstrated that EGFR IHC expression was predictive of improved OS with cetuximab when assessed by H-score with a magnification rule. This novel method was used to reassess samples from SATURN. METHODS: The H-score method assigned a score of 0-300 to each patient, based on the percentage of cells stained at different intensities viewed at various magnifications. The discriminatory threshold was set at 200, per the FLEX study, and existing samples were re-read and classed as low (H-score < 200) or high (≥200) EGFR expression. PFS and OS were re-analyzed based on these new classifications. RESULTS: In the overall and EGFR wild-type populations, erlotinib provided a consistent survival benefit versus placebo. Hazard ratios (HRs) in the overall population were similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative patients for median PFS (HR 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.86] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.62-0.93], respectively) and OS (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.62-1.05] and 0.80 [95% CI 0.64-1.01] for IHC-positive and IHC-negative, respectively). In the EGFR wild-type population, HRs were again similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative subpopulations for PFS (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.51-0.95] and 0.84 [95% CI 0.63-1.12], respectively) and OS (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.55-1.10] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.55-1.05], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that EGFR IHC does not have value as a marker to predict erlotinib benefit in the first-line maintenance setting for advanced NSCLC.
Authors: Matthew A Smith; Richard Hall; Kate Fisher; Scott M Haake; Farah Khalil; Matthew B Schabath; Vincent Vuaroqueaux; Heinz-Herbert Fiebig; Soner Altiok; Yian Ann Chen; Eric B Haura Journal: Sci Signal Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 8.192
Authors: Emma Camacho-Urkaray; Jorge Santos-Juanes; Francisco Borja Gutiérrez-Corres; Beatriz García; Luis M Quirós; Isabel Guerra-Merino; José Javier Aguirre; Iván Fernández-Vega Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Hielke M de Vries; Elise Bekers; Matthias N van Oosterom; M Baris Karakullukcu; Henk G van; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Tessa Buckle; Oscar R Brouwer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Surabhi Parashar; David Cheishvili; Ani Arakelian; Zahid Hussain; Imrana Tanvir; Haseeb Ahmed Khan; Moshe Szyf; Shafaat A Rabbani Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: G R Stodden; M E Lindberg; M L King; M Paquet; J A MacLean; J L Mann; F J DeMayo; J P Lydon; K Hayashi Journal: Oncogene Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 9.867