Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Shi Y.,Peking Union Medical College | Shi Y.,Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs | Zhang L.,Sun Yat Sen University | Liu X.,307 Hospital of the Academy of Military Medical science | And 29 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2013

Background: Icotinib, an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, had shown antitumour activity and favourable toxicity in early-phase clinical trials. We aimed to investigate whether icotinib is non-inferior to gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial we enrolled patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 27 sites in China. Eligible patients were those aged 18-75 years who had not responded to one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using minimisation methods, to receive icotinib (125 mg, three times per day) or gefitinib (250 mg, once per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the full analysis set. We analysed EGFR status if tissue samples were available. All investigators, clinicians, and participants were masked to patient distribution. The non-inferiority margin was 1·14; non-inferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of gefitinib versus icotinib was less than this margin. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01040780, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-09000506. Findings: 400 eligible patients were enrolled between Feb 26, 2009, and Nov 13, 2009; one patient was enrolled by mistake and removed from the study, 200 were assigned to icotinib and 199 to gefitinib. 395 patients were included in the full analysis set (icotinib, n=199; gefitinib, n=196). Icotinib was non-inferior to gefitinib in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·67-1·05; median progression-free survival 4·6 months [95% CI 3·5-6·3] vs 3·4 months [2·3-3·8]; p=0·13). The most common adverse events were rash (81 [41%] of 200 patients in the icotinib group vs 98 [49%] of 199 patients in the gefitinib group) and diarrhoea (43 [22%] vs 58 [29%]). Patients given icotinib had less drug-related adverse events than did those given gefitinib (121 [61%] vs 140 [70%]; p=0·046), especially drug-related diarrhoea (37 [19%] vs 55 [28%]; p=0·033). Interpretation: Icotinib could be a new treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding: Zhejiang Beta Pharma (China), the Chinese National Key Special Program for Innovative Drugs, the 863 Project, and Zhejiang Provincial Key Special Program. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.


Zhou C.,Tongji University | Wu Y.-L.,Guangdong Academy of Medical science | Chen G.,Harbin Medical University | Feng J.,Jiangsu Province Cancer Hospital | And 19 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2011

Background: Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods: We undertook an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 22 centres in China. Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received either oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, or up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation procedure and were stratified according to EGFR mutation type, histological subtype (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), and smoking status. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed in patients with confirmed disease who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00874419, and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up. Findings: 83 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 82 to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 82 in the erlotinib group and 72 in the chemotherapy group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in erlotinib-treated patients than in those on chemotherapy (13.1 [95% CI 10.58-16.53] vs 4.6 [4.21-5.42] months; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.26; p<0.0001). Chemotherapy was associated with more grade 3 or 4 toxic effects than was erlotinib (including neutropenia in 30 [42%] of 72 patients and thrombocytopenia in 29 [40%] patients on chemotherapy vs no patients with either event on erlotinib); the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects with erlotinib were increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [4%] of 83 patients) and skin rash (two [2%] patients). Chemotherapy was also associated with increased treatment-related serious adverse events (ten [14%] of 72 patients [decreased platelet count, n=8; decreased neutrophil count, n=1; hepatic dysfunction, n=1] vs two [2%] of 83 patients [both hepatic dysfunction]). Interpretation: Compared with standard chemotherapy, erlotinib conferred a significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and was associated with more favourable tolerability. These findings suggest that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (China); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.


Xu B.,Peking Union Medical College | Jiang Z.,307 Hospital | Kim S.-B.,University of Ulsan | Yu S.,Huazhong University of Science and Technology | And 6 more authors.
Breast Cancer | Year: 2011

Background: The primary objective of this multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel, phase II selection trial was to compare the objective tumor response to biweekly (every 2 weeks) gemcitabine/paclitaxel, gemcitabine/carboplatin, and gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Patients and methods: Eligible patients with stage IV disease who relapsed after anthracycline failure were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to gemcitabine (2,500 mg/m2) plus paclitaxel 150 mg/m 2 (n = 49); plus carboplatin, area under the curve = 2.5 mg/mL × min (n = 47); or plus cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 (n = 51). Study therapy continued up until a maximum of 8 cycles and follow-up continued for 24 months. Results: All patients were analyzed for efficacy and one patient was excluded from the safety analyses. The objective response was 26.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.9-41.1] for gemcitabine/paclitaxel, 17.0% (95% CI 7.6-30.8) for gemcitabine/carboplatin, and 15.7% (95% CI 7.0-28.6) for gemcitabine/cisplatin. The adjusted odds ratio for tumor response was 0.33 (95% CI 0.10-1.06), P = 0.063 for gemcitabine/carboplatin versus gemcitabine/paclitaxel; 0.26 (95% CI 0.08-0.86), P = 0.027 for gemcitabine/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/paclitaxel; and 0.77 (95% CI 0.24-2.52), P = 0.671 for gemcitabine/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/carboplatin. There were no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival (P > 0.05). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events varied between groups and the majority of deaths (94.9%; 74/78) were related to disease progression. Conclusions: The gemcitabine-based treatments had comparable activity and tolerability. Similar survival characteristics and different toxicity profiles suggested that gemcitabine-platinum may be evaluated further in patients after anthracycline failure. © The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2011.


Schuler M.,University of Duisburg - Essen | Schuler M.,German Cancer Research Center | Yang J.C.-H.,National Taiwan University Hospital | Park K.,Sungkyunkwan University | And 18 more authors.
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2016

Background: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥ 1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥ 12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m2/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n ≥ 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n ≥ 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P ≥ 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P ≥ 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. Conclusion: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. Trial registration number: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov). © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.


Yang J.C.H.,National Taiwan University Hospital | Wu Y.-L.,Guangdong Academy of Medical science | Schuler M.,University of Duisburg - Essen | Sebastian M.,Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz | And 24 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015

Background: We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods: Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings: Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35-44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31-37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28.2 months (95% CI 24.6-33.6) in the afatinib group and 28.2 months (20.7-33.2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17, p=0.39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23.1 months (95% CI 20.4-27.3) in the afatinib group and 23.5 months (18.0-25.6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.22, p=0.61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33.3 months (95% CI 26.8-41.5) in the afatinib group versus 21.1 months (16.3-30.7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.79, p=0.0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31.4 months (95% CI 24.2-35.3) versus 18.4 months (14.6-25.6), respectively (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p=0.023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27.6 months (19.8-41.7) in the afatinib group versus 40.3 months (24.3-not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80-2.11, p=0.29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19.6 months (95% CI 17.0-22.1) versus 24.3 months (19.0-27.0), respectively (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81-1.83, p=0.34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3-4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation: Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.

Discover hidden collaborations