4.5 Article

Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 82-88

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.05.022

关键词

Gefitinib; Erlotinib; Non-small cell lung cancer

资金

  1. IN-SUMG Foundation for Medical Research [CA98711]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Gefitinib and erlotinib are potent EGFR TKIs, with antitumor activity. In this randomized, single-center, non-comparative phase II trial, the efficacy and safety of gefitinib and erlotinib was evaluated as the second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients with locally advanced, metastatic stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who failed first-line chemotherapy and had either EGFR mutation or at least two out of three clinical factors associated with higher incidence of EGFR mutations (female, adenocarcinoma histology, and never-smoker) were eligible. Results: A total of 96 (48 per arm) patients were randomly assigned to gefitinib- or erlotinib-arm, respectively. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two arms. The response rates (RR) were 47.9% in the gefitinib arm and 39.6% in the erlotinib arm. Median PFS was 4.9 months (95% CI, 1.3-8.5) in the gefitinib arm and 3.1 months (95% Cl, 0.0-6.4) in the erlotinib arm. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was skin rash. Exploratory analyses showed that there was no significant difference in RR and PFS in the gefitinib arm compared to the erlotinib arm (RR (%) 47.9 vs. 39.6, p = 0.269; median survival (months) 4.9 vs. 3.1, p = 0.336). There was no significant difference in QOL between the two arms. Conclusion: Both gefitinib and erlotinib showed effective activity and tolerable toxicity profiles as second-line treatment for the selected population of NSCLC. We may consider conducting a phase III trial to directly compare the efficacy and toxicity between gefitinib and erlotinib in an enriched patient population. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据