Abstract

7591 Background: Asian, n/smkr NSCLC pts show more favorable clinical course and improved outcomes when treated with EGFR-TKIs or chemo, particularly in presence of EGFR mutations (mut). In unknown EGFR mut status pts, optimal selection/integration of both modalities is unclear. This trial compared first-line sequential (seq) txt with PC followed by either G or P. Methods: Asian, n/smkr, chemonaive, stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and ECOG PS ≤1 pts, of unknown EGFR mut status, were randomized to Arm A (4 cycles: P[500 mg/m2] + C[75 mg/m2] q3 wks followed by G [250 mg/d]) or Arm B (induction chemo per Arm A followed by P [500 mg/m2] q3 wks [+C, max 2 additional cycles]). While progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from randomization, the primary objective was a comparison during the seq phase only (ie, from cycle 5) by a time-dependent Cox model. Tissue collection for EGFR mut analysis was optional. Results: Primary endpoint analysis results are presented. Between (btwn) Feb-Nov 2007, 70 pts from China, Korea and Taiwan received induction PC. Baseline characteristics were balanced btwn arms. 49 pts (70.0%) received seq txt (n=25 G; n=24 P), while 21 pts (30.0%) discontinued during induction. The primary endpoint indicates pts on seq G have significantly lower risk of progression and PFS overall indicates a trend favoring Arm A. Response was not statistically different btwn txt arms, yet duration of response was improved in Arm A. Survival was consistently higher for Arm B pts. No significant difference was observed btwn txt arms for grade 3/4/5 toxicities. Conclusions: Pts receiving first-line PC followed by seq G showed prolonged PFS, in excess of 9 mths. OS, although immature, is encouraging regardless of seq txt choice. Evaluation of txt sequence according to EGFR mut status in NSCLC pts is warranted. Arm A Arm B Induction PC (N=39)Seq G (N=25) Induction PC (N=31)Seq P (N=24) HR (95% CI); p value PFS HR seq phase only 0.194 (0.075, 0.502); <0.001 PFS HR overall 0.533 (0.272, 1.044); 0.067 PFS median mths (95% CI) 9.95 (5.85, 16.49) 6.83 (5.78, 7.98) Overall survival (OS), % 12 mths 74.8 93.3 24 mths 59.6 71.1 Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Position Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Lilly Lilly Lilly

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.