Efficacy according to blind independent central review: Post-hoc analyses from the phase III, randomized, multicenter, IPASS study of first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC.

OBJECTIVE: The Phase III, randomized, open-label IPASS study (NCT00322452) of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) showed that investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were significantly prolonged in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC who received gefitinib versus patients with EGFR mutation-negative NSCLC. We report post-hoc analyses of IPASS data by blind independent central review (BICR), performed at the request of the US FDA, in a subset of patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years; histologically/cytologically confirmed Stage IIB/IV adenocarcinoma NSCLC; non- or former light-smokers; treatment-naïve) were randomly assigned 1:1 to gefitinib (250mg/day) or carboplatin (dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg/mL/minute)/paclitaxel (200mg/m2). Primary endpoint: PFS. BICR analyses included PFS, ORR, and duration of response (DoR). RESULTS: Scans from 186 IPASS patients (gefitinib n=88, carboplatin/paclitaxel n=98) with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC were available for BICR. Consistent with investigator-assessed results, in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC: PFS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38, 0.79; p=0.0012) and ORR (odds ratio 3.00; 95% CI 1.63, 5.54; p=0.0004) were significantly longer with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. The median DoR by BICR was 9.6 months with gefitinib and 5.5 months with carboplatin/paclitaxel. CONCLUSION: BICR analysis of IPASS data support the original, investigator-assessed results. EGFR mutation-positive status remains a significant predictor of response to first-line TKI therapy.

Detection and Dynamic Changes of EGFR Mutations from Circulating Tumor DNA as a Predictor of Survival Outcomes in NSCLC Patients Treated with First-line Intercalated Erlotinib and Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Blood-based circulating-free (cf) tumor DNA may be an alternative to tissue-based EGFR mutation testing in NSCLC. This exploratory analysis compares matched tumor and blood samples from the FASTACT-2 study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to receive six cycles of gemcitabine/platinum plus sequential erlotinib or placebo. EGFR mutation testing was performed using the cobas tissue test and the cobas blood test (in development). Blood samples at baseline, cycle 3, and progression were assessed for blood test detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity; concordance with matched tumor analysis (n = 238), and correlation with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Concordance between tissue and blood tests was 88%, with blood test sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 96%. Median PFS was 13.1 versus 6.0 months for erlotinib and placebo, respectively, for those with baseline EGFR mut(+) cfDNA [HR, 0.22; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.14-0.33, P < 0.0001] and 6.2 versus 6.1 months, respectively, for the EGFR mut(-) cfDNA subgroup (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04, P = 0.1076). For patients with EGFR mut(+) cfDNA at baseline, median PFS was 7.2 versus 12.0 months for cycle 3 EGFR mut(+) cfDNA versus cycle 3 EGFR mut(-) patients, respectively (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.48, P < 0.0001); median OS by cycle 3 status was 18.2 and 31.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.84, P = 0.0066). CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation analysis is relatively sensitive and highly specific. Dynamic changes in cfDNA EGFR mutation status relative to baseline may predict clinical outcomes.

Intercalated combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib for patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer (FASTACT-2): a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The results of FASTACT, a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, showed that intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook FASTACT-2, a phase 3 study in a similar patient population. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive internet response system with minimisation algorithm (stratified by disease stage, tumour histology, smoking status, and chemotherapy regimen) to receive six cycles of gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously) plus platinum (carboplatin 5 × area under the curve or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1, intravenously) with intercalated erlotinib (150 mg/day on days 15-28, orally; chemotherapy plus erlotinib) or placebo orally (chemotherapy plus placebo) every 4 weeks. With the exception of an independent group responsible for monitoring data and safety monitoring board, everyone outside the interactive internet response system company was masked to treatment allocation. Patients continued to receive erlotinib or placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity or death, and all patients in the placebo group were offered second-line erlotinib at the time of progression. The primary endpoint was PFS in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00883779. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2009, to Sept 9, 2010, 451 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus erlotinib (n=226) or chemotherapy plus placebo (n=225). PFS was significantly prolonged with chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy plus placebo (median PFS 7·6 months [95% CI 7·2-8·3], vs 6·0 months [5·6-7·1], hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·47-0·69]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival for patients in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib and chemotherapy plus placebo groups was 18·3 months (16·3-20·8) and 15·2 months (12·7-17·5), respectively (HR 0·79 [0·64-0·99]; p=0·0420). Treatment benefit was noted only in patients with an activating EGFR gene mutation (median PFS 16·8 months [12·9-20·4] vs 6·9 months [5·3-7·6], HR 0·25 [0·16-0·39]; p<0·0001; median overall survival 31·4 months [22·2-undefined], vs 20·6 months [14·2-26·9], HR 0·48 [0·27-0·84]; p=0·0092). Serious adverse events were reported by 76 (34%) of 222 patients in the chemotherapy plus placebo group and 69 (31%) of 226 in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events were neutropenia (65 [29%] patients and 55 [25%], respectively), thrombocytopenia (32 [14%] and 31 [14%], respectively), and anaemia (26 [12%] and 21 [9%], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable first-line option for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation-positive disease or selected patients with unknown EGFR mutation status. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Comparative study of patients in correct usage of and preference for the Swinghaler and Turbuhaler multidose inhalers.

OBJECTIVE: Current dry powder inhalers (DPIs), introduced to overcome problems associated with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), possess not only difficulties originating from their designs but also other barriers that prevent their correct usage. The authors of this study investigated the ease and correctness of use of Swinghaler, a new device in the form of multidose DPI, as well as the preference of the study participants for either a Swinghaler or a Turbuhaler. METHODS: A total of 260 patients from Korea, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand were prospectively recruited. Patients who had stable asthma, were more than 12 years old, had no experience with DPIs, and provided informed consents were included, whereas those with limited physical or intellectual ability and prior experience with any DPIs were excluded. RESULTS: There were no group or time effects between the patients who were assigned to use a Swinghaler or a Turbuhaler first. Forty-one (16.1%) participants correctly performed the inhalation maneuver with a Swinghaler, whereas 28 (10.9%) did so with a Turbuhaler; the difference was not statistically significant. The overall assessment on the precise use of the devices indicated that there were no differences between Swinghaler and Turbuhaler usage. Comparing the preference scales between the two devices, the participants gave higher scores to the Swinghaler for all assessment items and were more satisfied with the Swinghaler compared with the Turbuhaler (78.5% vs. 55.0%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The participants showed no difference in their ability to correctly use a Swinghaler when compared with a Turbuhaler and preferred the Swinghaler. These results suggest that the Swinghaler may be an effective and valuable tool for the management of airway diseases.

Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Previous, uncontrolled studies have suggested that first-line treatment with gefitinib would be efficacious in selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin-paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin-paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin-paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)