Publications (50) View all
-
Article: Impact of EGFR Inhibitor in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer on Progression-Free and Overall Survival: A Meta-Analysis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway is crucial for regulating tumorigenesis and cell survival and may be important in the development and progression of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined the impact of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced NSCLC patients with and without EGFR mutations.Methods Randomized trials that compared EGFR-TKIs monotherapy or combination EGFR-TKIs-chemotherapy with chemotherapy or placebo were included. We used published hazard ratios (HRs), if available, or derived treatment estimates from other survival data. Pooled estimates of treatment efficacy of EGFR-TKIs for the EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRmut(+)) and EGFR mutation-negative (EGFRmut(-)) subgroups were calculated with the fixed-effects inverse variance weighted method. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsWe included 23 eligible trials (13 front-line, 7 second-line, 3 maintenance; n = 14570). EGFR mutation status was known in 31% of patients. EGFR-TKIs treatment prolonged PFS in EGFRmut(+) patients, and EGFR mutation was predictive of PFS in all settings: The front-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.49; P < .001), and the front-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 1.06 (95% CI = 0.94 to 1.19; P = .35; P interaction < .001). The second-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.34 (95% CI = 0.20 to 0.60; P < .001), and the second-line hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.46; P = .01; P interaction < .001). The maintenance hazard ratio for EGFRmut(+) was 0.15 (95% CI = 0.08 to 0.27; P < .001), and the maintenance hazard ratio for EGFRmut(-) was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.97; P = .02; P interaction < .001). EGFR-TKIs treatment had no impact on OS for EGFRmut(+) and EGFRmut(-) patients.ConclusionsEGFR-TKIs therapy statistically significantly delays disease progression in EGFRmut(+) patients but has no demonstrable impact on OS. EGFR mutation is a predictive biomarker of PFS benefit with EGFR-TKIs treatment in all settings. These findings support EGFR mutation assessment before initiation of treatment. EGFR-TKIs should be considered as front-line therapy in EGFRmut(+) advanced NSCLC patients.CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment 04/2013; · 14.07 Impact Factor -
Article: Tumor response and health-related quality of life in clinically selected patients from Asia with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with first-line gefitinib: Post hoc analyses from the IPASS study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In IPASS (NCT00322452), progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint) was significantly longer with first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in never/light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma in Asia, both in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup. To further characterize the clinical relevance of these data, we investigated objective response rate (ORR) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients treated with gefitinib. METHODS: Objective response was assessed (RECIST) 6-weekly (previously reported). Post hoc assessments included median time to response, median duration of response and change in tumor size. The analysis of response population included those patients treated with gefitinib who responded (n=262 from ITT; n=94 from EGFR mutation-positive subgroup). The percentage of patients with deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L], Trial Outcome Index [TOI]) and symptoms (Lung Cancer Subscale [LCS]) at 4 months post-randomization was analyzed according to progression status (EFQ population grouped by progressors/non-progressors in both treatment arms). The ORR (ITT) and incidence of skin rash/acne (evaluable-for-safety) were summarized. RESULTS: In patients whose tumors responded to gefitinib, median time to response was 6.1 weeks in the ITT population (n=262) and 6.0 weeks in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n=94); median duration of response was 9.7 and 8.7 months in these groups, respectively. There was significant tumor shrinkage with gefitinib. A greater percentage of patients in the EFQ population whose tumors progressed experienced deterioration in HRQoL and symptoms at 4 months versus patients whose tumors did not progress (FACT-L 33.7% vs 16.3%; TOI 33.7% vs 13.2%; LCS 31.7% vs 15.5%). In the gefitinib arm of the EFS population, incidence of rash was 75.8% and 68.1% in EGFR mutation-positive and -negative subgroups, respectively (with ORR for the gefitinib arm of the ITT 71.2% vs 1.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose tumors responded to first-line gefitinib experienced significant tumor shrinkage and a rapid, durable response. Deterioration in HRQoL and lung cancer symptoms at 4 months post-randomization was found to be associated with tumor progression, highlighting the role of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of advanced NSCLC disease. Rash was not supported as a predictive marker of response to gefitinib.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 03/2013; · 3.14 Impact Factor -
Article: Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of gefitinib in second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer from Thai payer perspective.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the cost utility and budget impact of second-line gefitinib for non-small cell lung cancer from a Thai payer perspective. A Markov model with three health states (pre-progression, post-progression and death) was constructed to estimate direct medical costs and outcomes comparing four treatment options, i.e., gefitinib, erlotinib, pemetrexed and docetaxel. The model followed patients for 2 years with discount rate of 3% annually. Clinical inputs and patients' characteristics were based on a randomized phase III trial (INTEREST). Costs were based on reference prices published by the Ministry of Public Health, Thailand, and other information related to treatment from expert opinion and presented in 2010. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of model parameters on results. In the base case model, gefitinib and erlotinib yielded equal quality-adjusted life years (QALY) but 0.0140 and 0.0110 more QALY compared with docetaxel and pemetrexed, respectively. Total costs were 188 848 Baht (US$6237) for gefitinib, 196 313 Baht (US$6483) for docetaxel, 249 177 Baht (US$8229) for erlotinib and 275 303 Baht (US$9092) for pemetrexed. Drug acquisition contributed the greatest component. A series of sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness to various parameter variations except for docetaxel cost and duration of treatment. The budget impact analyses demonstrate the greater the percentage of substitution of gefitinib for docetaxel (ranging from 10-60%) the greater the cost saving. Gefitinib is a dominant cost saving strategy compared with docetaxel for the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC from the Thai payer perspective.Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 03/2012; 8(1):53-61. · 0.58 Impact Factor -
Article: Cost-effectiveness analysis of cisplatin plus etoposide and carboplatin plus paclitaxel in a phase III randomized trial for non-small cell lung cancer.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Carboplatin plus paclitaxel is a more costly chemotherapy regimen than cisplatin plus etoposide; however there have been reports of higher efficacy and less toxicity of this regimen. Thus, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these two chemotherapy regimens in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Using the perspective of Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Thailand, direct medical costs, including chemotherapy, drugs, medical service charges, costs of adverse events, concomitant medication and survival time were directly gathered from 65 patients enrolled from August 2005 to November 2008. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was also calculated. Of these 65 patients, 30 received cisplatin plus etoposide (Arm I) and 35 received carboplatin plus paclitaxel (Arm II). The median survival time was not statistically significant (8.23 months vs 8.80 months in Arm I and II, respectively; P = 0.99). The total cost per patient in Arm II was about three times that in Arm I (95,548 Baht vs 29,692 Baht) while quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in Arm II were slightly above those in Arm I (0.587 vs 0.412). The ICER was equal to 375,958 Baht per QALY. With a cost-effectiveness threshold of 100,000 Baht in Thailand, carboplatin plus paclitaxel was still not cost-effective. While the selection of a suitable regimen for individual patients should not rely on drug and hospital costs alone, the overall cost, including the burden on patients, should be taken into consideration.Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 12/2011; 7(4):369-75. · 0.58 Impact Factor -
Article: Health-related quality-of-life in a randomized phase III first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients from Asia with advanced NSCLC (IPASS).
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Evaluation of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and symptom improvement were preplanned secondary objectives for the overall population and posthoc analyses for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive/negative subgroups in IPASS. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI); symptom improvement by the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS). Improvements defined as: 6 or more (FACT-L; TOI), 2 or more (LCS) points increase maintained for 21 or more days. Overall (n = 1151/1217 evaluable), HRQoL improvement rates were significantly greater with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel; symptom improvement rates were similar for both treatments. Significantly more patients recorded improvements in HRQoL and symptoms with gefitinib in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n = 259; FACT-L 70.2% versus 44.5%; odds ratio, 3.01 [95% confidence interval, 1.79-5.07]; p < 0.001; TOI 70.2% versus 38.3%; 3.96 [2.33-6.71]; p < 0.001; LCS 75.6% versus 53.9%; 2.70 [1.58-4.62]; p < 0.001), and with carboplatin/paclitaxel in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (n = 169; FACT-L 14.6% versus 36.3%; odds ratio, 0.31 [0.15-0.65]; p = 0.002; TOI 12.4% versus 28.8%; 0.35 [0.16-0.79]; p = 0.011; LCS 20.2% versus 47.5%; 0.28 [0.14-0.55]; p < 0.001). Median time-to-worsening (months) FACT-L score was longer with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for the overall population (8.3 versus 2.5) and EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (15.6 versus 3.0), and similar for both treatments in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (1.4 versus 1.4). Median time-to-improvement with gefitinib was 8 days in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors who improved. HRQoL and symptom endpoints were consistent with efficacy outcomes in IPASS and favored gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors and carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with EGFR mutation-negative tumors.Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 11/2011; 6(11):1872-80. · 4.55 Impact Factor
