Wen-Zhao Zhong1, Ke-Neng Chen2, Chun Chen3, Chun-Dong Gu4, Jun Wang5, Xue-Ning Yang1, Wei-Min Mao6, Qun Wang7, Gui-Bin Qiao1,8, Ying Cheng9, Lin Xu10, Chang-Li Wang11, Ming-Wei Chen12, Xiaozheng Kang2, Wanpu Yan2, Hong-Hong Yan1, Ri-Qiang Liao1, Jin-Ji Yang1, Xu-Chao Zhang1, Qing Zhou1, Yi-Long Wu1. 1. Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 2. Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 3. Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China. 4. First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, People's Republic of China. 5. Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 6. Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China. 7. Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 8. Guangzhou Liuhuaqiao Hospital, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 9. Jilin Provincial Tumor Hospital, Changchun, People's Republic of China. 10. Jiangsu Cancer Institute and Hospital, Nanjing, People's Republic of China. 11. Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, People's Republic of China. 12. First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies in locally advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter (17 centers in China), open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial of erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC chemotherapy) as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations in exon 19 or 21 (EMERGING). Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d (neoadjuvant therapy, 42 days; adjuvant therapy, up to 12 months) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (neoadjuvant therapy, two cycles; adjuvant therapy, up to two cycles). Assessments were performed at 6 weeks and every 3 months postsurgery. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1; secondary end points were pathologic complete response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Of 386 patients screened, 72 were randomly assigned to treatment (intention-to-treat population), and 71 were included in the safety analysis (one patient withdrew before treatment). The ORR for neoadjuvant erlotinib versus GC chemotherapy was 54.1% versus 34.3% (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 5.84; P = .092). No pathologic complete response was identified in either arm. Three (9.7%) of 31 patients and zero of 23 patients in the erlotinib and GC chemotherapy arms, respectively, had a major pathologic response. Median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib (21.5 months) versus GC chemotherapy (11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.67; P < .001). Observed adverse events reflected those most commonly seen with the two treatments. CONCLUSION: The primary end point of ORR with 42 days of neoadjuvant erlotinib was not met, but the secondary end point PFS was significantly improved.
PURPOSE: To assess the benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies in locally advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter (17 centers in China), open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial of erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC chemotherapy) as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations in exon 19 or 21 (EMERGING). Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d (neoadjuvant therapy, 42 days; adjuvant therapy, up to 12 months) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (neoadjuvant therapy, two cycles; adjuvant therapy, up to two cycles). Assessments were performed at 6 weeks and every 3 months postsurgery. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1; secondary end points were pathologic complete response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Of 386 patients screened, 72 were randomly assigned to treatment (intention-to-treat population), and 71 were included in the safety analysis (one patient withdrew before treatment). The ORR for neoadjuvant erlotinib versus GC chemotherapy was 54.1% versus 34.3% (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 5.84; P = .092). No pathologic complete response was identified in either arm. Three (9.7%) of 31 patients and zero of 23 patients in the erlotinib and GC chemotherapy arms, respectively, had a major pathologic response. Median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib (21.5 months) versus GC chemotherapy (11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.67; P < .001). Observed adverse events reflected those most commonly seen with the two treatments. CONCLUSION: The primary end point of ORR with 42 days of neoadjuvant erlotinib was not met, but the secondary end point PFS was significantly improved.
Authors: Elizabeth Ahern; Ben J Solomon; Rina Hui; Nick Pavlakis; Ken O'Byrne; Brett G M Hughes Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 13.751