Gefitinib In First-line Treatment Research Articles

Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Dacomitinib is a second-generation, irreversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We compared its efficacy and safety with that of the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (ARCHER 1050), we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years or ≥20 years in Japan and South Korea) with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC and one EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) at 71 academic medical centres and university hospitals in seven countries or special administrative regions. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive oral dacomitinib 45 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) or oral gefitinib 250 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. Randomisation, stratified by race and EGFR mutation type, was done with a computer-generated random code assigned by a central interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by masked independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774721, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. Between May 9, 2013, and March 20, 2015, 452 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive dacomitinib (n=227) or gefitinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 22·1 months (95% CI 20·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival according to masked independent review was 14·7 months (95% CI 11·1-16·6) in the dacomitinib group and 9·2 months (9·1-11·0) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·47-0·74; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dermatitis acneiform (31 [14%] of 227 patients given dacomitinib vs none of 224 patients given gefitinib), diarrhoea (19 [8%] vs two [1%]), and raised alanine aminotransferase levels (two [1%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 21 (9%) patients given dacomitinib and in ten (4%) patients given gefitinib. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the dacomitinib group (one related to untreated diarrhoea and one to untreated cholelithases/liver disease) and one in the gefitinib group (related to sigmoid colon diverticulitis/rupture complicated by pneumonia). Dacomitinib significantly improved progression-free survival over gefitinib in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC and should be considered as a new treatment option for this population. SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group and Pfizer.

P3.02b-082 Gefitinib in First-Line Treatment of Caucasian Patients with NSCLC and EGFR Mutations in Exons 19 or 21: Topic: EGFR Clinical

P3.02b-082 Gefitinib in First-Line Treatment of Caucasian Patients with NSCLC and EGFR Mutations in Exons 19 or 21: Topic: EGFR Clinical

Analysis of progression-free survival of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring leu858Arg or exon 19 deletions.

BackgroundGefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib provide remarkable response rates and progression-free survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutations, and are therefore standard first-line treatment in these patients. However, no study has compared these drugs regarding progression-free survival.Materials and MethodsWe conducted this retrospective study at a single medical center in Taiwan from February 16, 2011 to October 30, 2015. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate survival, and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.FindingsOf the 1006 patients diagnosed with stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer in the study period, 448 (44.5%) had EGFR-activating mutations and received first-line therapy with gefitinib (n = 304, 67.6%), erlotinib (n = 63, 14.3%), or afatinib (n = 81, 18.1%). The median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 12.1 months in the gefitinib arm (Interquartile range [IQR]: 5.5–16.5), 11.2 months in the erlotinib arm (IQR: 4.9–16.7), and 10.3 months in the afatinib arm (IQR: 7.0–14.2). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the patients who received afatinib or erlotinib compared to those who received gefitinib (log-rank test, p < 0.001), and the median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the gefitinib group.InterpretationAfatinib and erlotinib provide significant benefits in progression-free survival compared to gefitinib in first-line treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancers harboring EGFR-activating mutations. Further clinical trials are warranted to validate these findings.

Gefitinib and erlotinib in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of toxicity and efficacy of randomized clinical trials.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been evaluated in patients with metastatic and advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration initially granted accelerated approval to gefitinib but subsequently rescinded the authorization. Erlotinib and afatinib are similar compounds approved for the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib in NSCLC. We tabulated efficacy variables including overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) and quantitated toxicities and rates of dose reductions and discontinuation. Summary odds ratios were calculated using random and fixed-effects models. An odds ratio was the summary measure used for pooling of studies. We examined 28 studies including three randomized trials with afatinib. Clinical toxicities, including pruritus, rash, anorexia, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, mucositis, paronychia, and anemia, were similar between erlotinib and gefitinib, although some statistical differences were observed. Afatinib treatment resulted in more diarrhea, rash, and paronychia compared with erlotinib and gefitinib. Regarding efficacy, similar outcomes were recorded for ORR, PFS, or OS in the total population and in specific subgroups of patients between erlotinib and gefitinib. All three TKIs demonstrated higher ORRs in first line in tumors harboring EGFR mutations. Gefitinib has similar activity and toxicity compared with erlotinib and offers a valuable alternative to patients with NSCLC. Afatinib has similar efficacy compared with erlotinib and gefitinib in first-line treatment of tumors harboring EGFR mutations but may be associated with more toxicity, although further studies are needed. Gefitinib deserves consideration for U.S. marketing as a primary treatment for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib in first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor–activating mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer patients in Hong Kong

To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients. DESIGN. Indirect treatment comparison and a cost-effectiveness assessment. Hong Kong. Those having epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Erlotinib versus gefitinib use was compared on the basis of four relevant Asian phase-III randomised controlled trials: one for erlotinib (OPTIMAL) and three for gefitinib (IPASS; NEJGSG; WJTOG). The cost-effectiveness assessment model simulates the transition between the health states: progression-free survival, progression, and death over a lifetime horizon. The World Health Organization criterion (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <3 times of gross domestic product/capita: <US$102 582; approximately <HK$798 078) was used to rate cost-effectiveness. The best fit of study characteristics and prognostic patient characteristics were found between the OPTIMAL and IPASS trials. Comparing progression-free survival hazard ratios of erlotinib versus gefitinib using only these randomised controlled trials in an indirect treatment comparison resulted in a statistically significant progression-free survival difference in favour of erlotinib (indirect treatment comparison hazard ratio=0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.58; P=0.0001). The cost-effectiveness assessment model showed that the cost per progression-free life year gained and per quality-adjusted life year gained was at acceptable values of US$39 431 (approximately HK$306 773) and US$62 419 (approximately HK$485 619) for erlotinib versus gefitinib, respectively. The indirect treatment comparison of OPTIMAL versus IPASS shows that erlotinib is significantly more efficacious than gefitinib. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness assessment indicates that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are well within an acceptable range in relation to the survival benefits obtained. In conclusion, erlotinib is cost-effective compared to gefitinib for first-line epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

PCN21 Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Erlotinib Versus Gefitinib in First-Line Treatment of EGFR Activating Mutation Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer for Hong Kong

PCN21 Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Erlotinib Versus Gefitinib in First-Line Treatment of EGFR Activating Mutation Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer for Hong Kong