Immediate Versus Delayed Treatment with EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors after First-line Therapy in Advanced Non-small-cell Lung CANCER

Department of Thoracic Medical Oncology, Peking University School of Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China
Chinese Journal of Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 1.94). 06/2011; 23(2):112-117. DOI: 10.1007/s11670-011-0112-5
Source: PubMed


To analyze the outcomes of patients who received TKI immediately after the first-line without progression as maintenance treatment (immediate group) vs. those received delayed treatment upon disease progression as second-line therapy (delayed group).
The study included 159 no-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received gefitinib or erlotinib as maintenance treatment in the immediate group (85 patients) or as second-line therapy in the delayed group (74 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). EGFR mutation status was detected using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC).
PFS was 17.3 and 16.4 months in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.69-1.42; P=0.947). In a subgroup analysis that included only patients with EGFR mutation, however, PFS was significantly longer in the immediate group than in the delayed group (HR, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.85; P=0.012). In patients with wild type EGFR, the risk for disease progression was comparable between the two groups (HR, 1.23; 95% CI: 0.61-2.51; P=0.564). No significant difference was demonstrated between the immediate and delayed group in terms of the overall survival (OS) (26.1 months vs. 21.6 months, respectively; HR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.06; P=0.072). There was also no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups.
EGFR TKI maintenance improves PFS in patients with EGFR mutation. Prospectively designed clinical studies that compare TKI immediate vs. delayed treatment after first-line chemotherapy upon disease progression are needed.

Download full-text


Available from: Tony S K Mok, Apr 29, 2014
18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) denotes the presence of metastatic disease and is largely incurable using present-day therapies. Chemotherapy remains a therapeutic option in this patient population, and there are many pertinent issues surrounding its use in patients with stage IV NSCLC. Eleven questions were framed by the American College of Chest Physicians Lung Cancer Guidelines Committee, and these were addressed by a systematic search of the available literature. The issues addressed included the identification of prognostic factors in selecting patients for chemotherapy and a critical analysis of the survival benefit provided by chemotherapy. Given the development of several new chemotherapy agents over the past decade, the impact that these agents have made was addressed as well as the definition of a standard of care regarding chemotherapeutic regimens. Given the fact that chemotherapy does not represent a curative option, other issues addressed were the optimal duration of treatment as well as its impact on symptom relief and quality of life, the role of second-line therapy, and the outcomes expectations from both first-line and second-line chemotherapy. The question of what specialty delivered the chemotherapy also was addressed. Once the data were identified, a critical analysis was undertaken attempting to objectively portray the data in support of answers for each of the questions posed. We believe the data support the fact that properly selected patients benefit from chemotherapy with regard to survival and palliation in both first-line and second-line settings. It appears that in trials addressing the duration of first-line therapy, this survival and palliative benefit occurs early, and prolonged therapy is not indicated. Therapy in this setting is cost-effective, and there are several regimens that can be considered to be "standard-of-care" options. Physicians involved in the diagnosis of these patients should be aware of the potential benefits of chemotherapy, allowing them to give recommendations to patients that are based on data derived from clinical trials. In addition, this awareness will allow them to make referrals, when appropriate, to physicians who are trained in the administration of chemotherapy and the management of patients undergoing such therapy.
    Chest 02/2003; 123(1 Suppl):226S-243S. DOI:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.226S · 7.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.
    JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 03/2000; 92(3):205-16. · 12.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Systemic chemotherapy with platinum-based regimens provides modest improvements in survival and quality of life for patients with advanced-stage nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Extended first-line chemotherapy with combination regimens for more than 4 to 6 cycles is not recommended because of cumulative toxicities and lack of proven advantage in survival with the increased duration of therapy. The early use of an anticancer agent as maintenance therapy after disease stabilization or maximal response with platinum-based regimens is, therefore, being recognized as a new treatment paradigm in NSCLC. Maintenance therapy can extend first-line treatment and provide an acceptable balance between efficacy and toxicity. The essential prerequisites for maintenance therapy include good tolerability, ability to administer extended cycles of therapy without cumulative toxicity, and an increase in the duration of progression-free survival. Pemetrexed has recently been shown to improve the median PFS in the maintenance setting. Molecularly targeted therapies with cytostatic properties and documented tolerability also have the potential to be effective as maintenance therapy to maintain tumor regression after an initial response to chemotherapy. Consequently, the role of erlotinib and other molecular targeted agents in this treatment setting is under active investigation in ongoing phase 3 trials. This could potentially establish a new standard on the clinical utility of molecular targeted agents as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced-stage NSCLC.
    Cancer 11/2009; 115(22):5143-54. DOI:10.1002/cncr.24563 · 4.89 Impact Factor
Show more