4.5 Article

Erlotinib after Gefitinib failure in female never-smoker Asian patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 204-207

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.11.006

Keywords

Erlotinib; Gefitinib; Chemotherapy; Adenocarcinoma

Funding

  1. Korea Health 21 RD Project
  2. Ministry of Health Welfare [0412-CR01-0704-0001]
  3. Innovative Research Institute for Cell Therapy [A062260]
  4. Korea Health Promotion Institute [A062260] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The activity of erlotinib after gefitinib failure in non-small cell lung cancer patients with all four favorable clinical factors including female, never smoker, Asian, and adenocarcinoma histology for tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is not well known. Treatment efficacy of erlotinib (150 mg daily) after progression on gefitinib (250 mg daily) was analyzed in patients exhibiting the four clinically favorable factors. Sixteen consecutive female, never smoker, Korean (Asian), adenocarcinoma patients who received erlotinib after gefitinib failure were analyzed. The disease control rate for gefitinib was 68.8% (95% Cl, 0.44-0.86) while the disease control rate for erlotinib following gefitinib failure was 25.0% (95% Cl, 0.10-0.50) comprised of one partial response and three stable disease patients. The median progression free survival was 6.3 months for gefitinib treatment and 1.7 months for erlotinib treatment following gefitinib failure. The efficacy of erlotinib after progression on gefitinib is unsatisfactory in patients with four favorable clinical factors for TKIs. Novel treatment approaches such as the use of irreversible TKIs or anti-cMET agents for those patients are warranted. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available