Author of

• 10801

  +

  P1.11 - Poster Session 1 - NSCLC Novel Therapies (ID 208)

  • Event: WCLC 2013
  • Type: Poster Session
  • Track: Medical Oncology
  • Presentations: 1
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level

  • 10822

    +

    P1.11-021 - First-line erlotinib versus cisplatin/gemcitabine (GP) in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): interim analyses from the phase 3, open-label, ENSURE study (ID 1849)

    09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): Y. Cheng
    • Abstract

    Background
    Erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has proven efficacy in second-/third-line advanced NSCLC, and provides superior first-line efficacy to chemotherapy for patients whose tumors harbor activating EGFR mutations. The phase 3, randomized, open-label ENSURE study evaluated erlotinib vs GP in patients from China, Malaysia and the Philippines with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

    Methods
    Patients ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and an ECOG PS of 0–2 were randomized 1:1 to receive either erlotinib (oral; 150mg qd until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP (G 1250mg/m[2] iv d1 & 8 q3w; P 75mg/m[2] iv d1 q3w for up to 4 cycles). Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type, PS, gender, and country). Primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator, with Independent Review Committee (IRC) assessment for sensitivity analysis; other endpoints include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. A pre-planned interim analysis was conducted after 73% of PFS events (cut-off 20 July 2012). An additional exploratory updated analysis (cut-off of 19 November 2012), included all planned PFS events.

    Results
    In total, 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Efficacy data by treatment arm for the interim and updated analyses are presented (Table 1). PFS by investigator in EGFR exon 19 deletion and exon 21 L858R mutation subgroups is also presented (Table 1). Erlotinib was better tolerated than GP, with treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) occurring in 2.7% vs 10.6% of patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs of any cause were neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%) and anemia (12.5%) in the GP arm, and rash in the erlotinib arm (6.4%). At the updated analysis (19 November 2012), erlotinib remained better tolerated than GP, with treatment-related SAEs occurring in 3.6% vs 11.5% of patients, respectively. Median duration of follow-up was 10.3 months and 11.7 months for the GP and erlotinib arms, respectively, at latest cut-off. OS data are not yet mature.

    Efficacy Outcome		Interim analysis (cut-off 20 July 2012)		Updated analysis (cut-off 19 November 2012)
    		E	GP	E	GP
    Investigator-assessed PFS	Events, n	35	66	61	87
    	Median, months	11.0	5.5	11.0	5.5
    	HR (95% CI)	0.34 (0.22–0.51)		0.33 (0.23–0.47)
    	log-rank p-value	<0.0001		<0.0001
    IRC-assessed PFS	Events, n	33	47	51	55
    	Median, months	11.0	5.6	11.1	5.7
    	HR (95% CI)	0.42 (0.27–0.66)		0.43 (0.29–0.64)
    	log-rank p-value	0.0001		<0.0001
    ORR	%	62.7	33.6	68.2	39.3
    	p-value	0.0001		<0.0001
    Disease control rate (DCR)	%	89.1	76.6	91.8	82.2
    	p-value	0.015		0.0354
    EGFR exon 19 deletion subgroup PFS	Median, months	11.1	4.2	11.1	4.3
    	HR (95% CI)	0.20 (0.11–0.37)		0.20 (0.12–0.33)
    EGFR exon 21 L858R subgroup PFS	Median, months	8.3	7.1	8.3	5.8
    	HR (95% CI)	0.57 (0.31–1.05)		0.54 (0.32–0.90)

    p-value significance level: alpha=0.05

    Conclusion
    These analyses demonstrate that erlotinib provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both investigator-assessed and IRC-assessed PFS compared with GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Primary efficacy results were also supported by secondary endpoints including ORR and DCR.

• 12592

  +

  P3.10 - Poster Session 3 - Chemotherapy (ID 210)

  • Event: WCLC 2013
  • Type: Poster Session
  • Track: Medical Oncology
  • Presentations: 1
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 10/30/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level

  • 12636

    +

    P3.10-044 - Overall Survival analysis results of TFINE Study (CTONG 0904): Different Dose Docetaxel plus Cisplatin as First-line Chemotherapy and Then Maintenance Therapy with Single Agent Docetaxel for Advanced non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (ID 2524)

    09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): Y. Cheng
    • Abstract

    Background
    Docetaxel (75mg/m[2]) has been reported as first-line and maintenance treatment for Western population with advanced NSCLC. Different doses of docetaxel (60mg/m[2]) are currently delivered in Asian population. Pharmacogenomics alterations in taxanes disposition in different ethnic groups may explain this difference. TFINE study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Docetaxel in the maintenance setting, and to identify the preferable dose of docetaxel in Asian population. TFINE study demonstrated significant superiority in tolerability and similar efficacy for dose of 60mg/m2 of Docetaxel versus that of 75mg/m2 in first-line Chinese advanced NSCLC patients. And maintenance treatment with docetaxel significantly prolonged PFS compared with BSC. Here we report Overall Survival (OS) data from TFINE (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01038661).

    Methods
    Previously untreated patients, aged between 18 and 75 years, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced NSCLC with PS of 0-1 were included. Patients were initially randomized (R1, 1:1) to receive cisplatin (75mg/m2) plus docetaxel of 75 mg/m2 or 60mg/m2 for 4 cycles. Patients with disease control after the initial treatment were subsequently randomized (R2, 1:2) to best supportive care (BSC) or maintenance docetaxel of 60mg/m2 for up to 6 cycles. Genomic DNA was prospectively collected from all enrolled patients. The primary endpoint was PFS since R2, and the secondary endpoints included ORR, overall survival (OS), and toxicity. OS was defined as the time lasting from R2 to death of any cause. The subgroup analysis about OS included gender, historical category, smoking, ECOG PS. The maintenance treatments of every patient were recorded.

    Results
    This randomized study was undertaken in 15 centers in China. Between Dec 2009 and Aug 2011, a total of 382 patients were enrolled to R1 and 179 patients (46.8%) were enrolled to R2 (61 vs. 118). The median follow-up time for OS was 23.5 months (range 20.5, 28.1 months) for patients receiving BSC and 24.4 months (range 22.6, 25.3 months) for patients receiving maintenance docetaxel of 60mg/m2 for up to 6 cycles. Median OS of BSC group (13.7months, [95%CI:12.0, 15.7]) was not significantly different from that of docetaxel group(12.3months,[95%CI:11.2,14.1]) (p=0.77). No difference was found in the subgroup analysis. Post-discontinuation therapy was given at the discretion of the investigator. Numerically more patients in BSC group (n=35, 57.4%) received second-line treatments, including docetaxel, EGFR-TKI or pemetrexed, than those in maintenance group (n=56, 45.5%), although the difference is statistically insignificant (p=0.13). The failure observation of PFS gains translating into OS gains is partially related to post-progression therapy. Preliminary pharmacogenomics analysis demonstrated the CYP3A5*3C(6986 AG/GG) genotype associated with poor PFS and ABCB1:2677 GG genotype demonstrated less neutropenia in Chinese NSCLC patient treated with Docetaxel/DDP regiment, which did not correlated with OS.

    Conclusion
    Although there is no significant benefit in terms of OS with Docetaxel maintenance treatment, our finding for better tolerability suggest that Decetaxel maintenance treatment could be of some benefit to patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.