Author of

• 10743

  +

  P1.10 - Poster Session 1 - Chemotherapy (ID 204)

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

  • 10780

    +

    P1.10-037 - A retrospective comparison of adjuvant chemotherapeutic regimen for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Paclitaxel plus platinum versus Vinorelbine plus Cisplatin (ID 2176)

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

    Background
    Adjuvant vinorelbine/cisplatin (VC) has been demonstrated to increase overall survival in patients with AJCC 6th stage II/IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although adjuvant paclitaxel/carboplatin failed to demonstrate its efficacy in a study which enrolled only patients with AJCC 6th stage IB NSCLC, the exploratory analysis showed that patients with large tumor (≥ 4cm) got survival benefits from this regimen. We need to compare the clinical outcomes of these two regimens as adjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC, since the previous prospective trials used different eligible stage criteria and AJCC stage system was recently updated.

    Methods
    We retrospectively analyzed patients with surgically completely resected NSCLC between December 2004 and December 2011. They received adjuvant chemotherapy using either paclitaxel/platinum (PP) or VC. Clinicopathological parameters, survivals including disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) and toxicity between two groups were compared. All tumor stages were updated based on the AJCC 7th edition.

    Results
    Of the 467 patients with surgically resected NSCLC, 236 received PP (paclitaxel/cisplatin, n=29; paclitaxel/carboplatin, n=206) and 231 patients got VC (n= 231). Two groups were well balanced with regard to demographics, histology, stage and type of surgery. Efficacy was comparable between two regimens: DFS (PP vs. VC: 65 vs. 55 months; p=0.42) and OS (73 vs 58 months; P=0.37). Regarding the adverse events, sensory neuropathy (41% vs. 11%), alopecia (19% vs. 4%), and myalgia (32% vs. 5%) are more frequent in the PP group, while anemia (71% vs. 87%), neutropenia (22% vs. 71%), fatigue (11% vs. 18%), anorexia (19% vs. 41%), and vomiting (9% vs. 19%) are more frequent in the VC group.

    Conclusion
    Although the adverse event profiles were different, the efficacy data in terms of DFS and OS were comparable between the two adjuvant regimens. Therefore, both regimens are appropriate as the adjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC, and the selection can be done personally according to the expected profiles of adverse events.

• 12648

  +

  P3.11 - Poster Session 3 - NSCLC Novel Therapies (ID 211)

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

  • 12684

    +

    P3.11-036 - Comparison of Clinical Outcome between Gefitinib and Erlotinib treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 or exon 21 mutations (ID 2599)

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

    Background
    Gefitinib and Erlotinib are oral small-molecule kinase inhibitors that inhibit signaling via EGFR and both agents showed dramatic response rate and prolonged PFS in patients harboring activating EGFR mutation. We investigated the clinical outcomes between gefitinib- and erlotinib-treated patients with recurrent or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

    Methods
    A total 375 patients with recurrent or metastatic stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who had either an exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation on exon 21 and received gefitinib(n=228) or erlotinib(n=147) therapy between August 2007 and December 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. By using a matched-pair case-control study design, 121 pairs of gefitinib-treated and erlotinib-treated patients were matched according to sex, smoking history, ECOG performance status, and types of EGFR mutation.

    Results
    The median age of all patients was 58 years(range, 30-84) and more than half of patients were never smokers(63.6%). Most patients had adenocarcinoma (98.3%) and good ECOG performance status (0, 1) (90.9%). The median number of cycles in TKI treatment was 12.7 in gefitinib group and 10.8 in erlotinib group. Of 242 patients, 64(26.4%) received an EGFR TKI as first line therapy. The overall response rates and disease control rates in the gefitinib-treated and erlotinib-treated groups were 85.5% versus 79.8 % (p=.375) and 94.0% versus 89.1%, respectively (p=.242). There was no statistically significant difference noted with regard to OS (median, 22.1 vs 25.2; p=.546) and PFS (median, 12.5 vs 9.9; p=.114) between the gefitinib-treated and erlotinib-treated groups. For a subgroup which patients were treated with TKI as first line therapy, the overall response rates were higher than those of patients who had progressed on prior chemotherapy (90.3% vs 79.9%; p=.063). However, there was no significant differences in PFS (median, 13.1 vs 10.1; p=.082) between subjects with first line TKI therapy and more than second line treatment. Regarding safety and dose adjustment of EGFR TKIs, patients with erlotinib more frequently had G3/4 toxicity than ones with gefitinib and required dose reduction(18.1% vs 1.65%).

    Conclusion
    Both gefitinib and erlotinib showed similar effective activity in selected population of NSCLC that harbored an EGFR mutation and further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of EGFR TKI as first line treatment.