Afatinib beyond progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer following chemotherapy, erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib: phase III randomized LUX-Lung 5 trial.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m(2)/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS:Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. CONCLUSION:Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Project description:Several EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are currently available as treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor EGFR mutations. However, no head to head trials between these TKIs in mutated populations have been reported, which provides room for indirect and integrated comparisons.We searched electronic databases for eligible literatures. Pooled data on objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) were calculated. Appropriate networks for different outcomes were established to incorporate all evidences. Multiple-treatments comparisons (MTCs) based on Bayesian network integrated the efficacy and specific toxicities of all included treatments.Twelve phase III RCTs that investigated EGFR-TKIs involving 1821 participants with EGFR mutation were included. For mutant patients, the weighted pooled ORR and 1-year PFS of EGFR-TKIs were significant superior to that of standard chemotherapy (ORR: 66.6% vs. 30.9%, OR 5.46, 95%CI 3.59 to 8.30, P<0.00001; 1-year PFS: 42.9% vs. 9.7%, OR 7.83, 95%CI 4.50 to 13.61; P<0.00001) through direct meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between these four TKIs with respect to all outcome measures. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed that the cumulative probabilities of being the most efficacious treatments were (ORR, 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, 2-year OS): erlotinib (51%, 38%, 14%, 19%), gefitinib (1%, 6%, 5%, 16%), afatinib (29%, 27%, 30%, 27%) and icotinib (19%, 29%, NA, NA), respectively. However, afatinib and erlotinib showed significant severer rash and diarrhea compared with gefitinib and icotinib.The current study indicated that erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib shared equivalent efficacy but presented different efficacy-toxicity pattern for EGFR-mutated patients. Erlotinib and afatinib revealed potentially better efficacy but significant higher toxicities compared with gefitinib and icotinib.
Project description:First-generation, reversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), erlotinib and gefitinib, represented an important addition to the treatment armamentarium for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating EGFR mutations. However, all patients inevitably develop acquired resistance to these agents, primarily due to secondary EGFR mutations, molecular aberrations affecting other signaling pathways, or transformation to small-cell histology. It was hypothesized that development of second-generation TKIs with broader inhibitory profiles could confer longer-lasting clinical activity and overcome acquired resistance to first-generation inhibitors. Here, we review the development of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker that potently inhibits signaling of all homodimers and heterodimers formed by the EGFR, human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, HER3, and HER4 receptors. In two phase III trials in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, first-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and health-related quality of life versus standard-of-care chemotherapy. Moreover, in preplanned sub-analyses, afatinib significantly improved overall survival in patients harboring EGFR Del19 mutations. Afatinib has also demonstrated clinical activity in NSCLC patients who had progressed on erlotinib/gefitinib, particularly when combined with cetuximab, and offers 'treatment beyond progression' benefit when combined with paclitaxel versus chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, a recent phase III study demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus erlotinib for the second-line treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. The activity of afatinib in both first-line and relapsed/refractory settings may reflect its ability to irreversibly inhibit all ErbB family members. Afatinib has a well-defined safety profile with characteristic gastrointestinal (diarrhea, stomatitis) and cutaneous (rash/acne) adverse events.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from inception to 20 May 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first line setting for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC were included in a bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events of grade 3 or higher. RESULTS:18 eligible trials involved 4628 patients and 12 treatments: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib), pemetrexed based chemotherapy, pemetrexed free chemotherapy, and combination treatments (afatinib plus cetuximab, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed). Consistent with gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.24), osimertinib showed the most favourable progression free survival, with significant differences versus dacomitinib (0.74, 0.55 to 1.00), afatinib (0.52, 0.40 to 0.68), erlotinib (0.48, 0.40 to 0.57), gefitinib (0.44, 0.37 to 0.52), icotinib (0.39, 0.24 to 0.62), pemetrexed based chemotherapy (0.24, 0.17 to 0.33), pemetrexed free chemotherapy (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20), afatinib plus cetuximab (0.44, 0.28 to 0.71), and gefitinib plus pemetrexed (0.65, 0.46 to 0.92). Osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were also consistent (0.94, 0.66 to 1.35) in providing the best overall survival benefit. Combination treatments caused more toxicity in general, especially erlotinib plus bevacizumab, which caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses by the two most common EGFR mutation types indicated that osimertinib was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the exon 19 deletion, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the Leu858Arg mutation. CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate that osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were associated with the best progression free survival and overall survival benefits for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC, compared with other first line treatments. The treatments resulting in the best progression free survival for patients with the exon 19 deletion and Leu858Arg mutations were osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, respectively. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018111954.
Project description:PURPOSE:We tried to evaluate whether there are any specific features in treatment outcomes of firstline afatinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared with gefitinib or erlotinib. Materials and Methods:We analyzed patients treated with first-line afatinib, gefitinib, or erlotinib for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC at Samsung Medical Center between 2014 and 2016. RESULTS:In total, 467 patients received first-line afatinib (n=165), gefitinib (n=230), or erlotinib (n=72). Afatinib was used more often in patients with tumors harboring deletion in exon 19 (Del19), whereas the gefitinib group had more elderly, females, and never smokers. The median progression-free survival (PFS) time for afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib was 19.1 months, 13.7 months, and 14.0 months, respectively (p=0.001). The superior PFS of afatinib was more remarkable in subgroups of Del19 or uncommon EGFR mutations. Overall toxicity profiles of the three drugs were comparable, though more grade 3 or 4 toxicities were detected in afatinib (7.3%) compared with gefitinib (2.6%) or erlotinib (1.8%). The common grade 3 or 4 toxicities of afatinib included diarrhea (3.0%), paronychia (2.4%), and skin rash (1.8%). Dose modification was more frequently required in patients treated with afatinib (112/165, 68%), compared with gefitinib (5/230, 2%) and erlotinib (4/72, 6%). Interestingly, however, dose reduction in the afatinib group did not impair its efficacy in terms of PFS (dose reduction vs. no reduction group, 23.5 months vs. 12.4 months). CONCLUSION:First-line afatinib showed satisfactory efficacy data and manageable toxicity profiles.
Project description:The discovery of epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR)-activating mutations and the introduction of oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) have expanded the treatment options for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The first two reversible EGFR-TKIs, erlotinib and gefitinib, are approved for use in the first-line setting in patients with known EGFR-activating mutations and in the second- and third-line settings for all NSCLC patients. These first-generation EGFR-TKIs improve progression-free survival when compared to chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-activating mutations in the first-line setting. However, nearly all patients develop resistance to EGFR-directed agents. There is a need for further therapy options for patients with disease progression after treatment with reversible EGFR-TKIs. Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB family blocker that inhibits EGFR, HER2, and HER4. In vitro and in vivo, afatinib have shown increased inhibition of the common EGFR-activating mutations as well as the T790M resistance mutation when compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. Clinically, afatinib has been evaluated in the LUX-Lung series of trials, with improvement in progression-free survival reported in patients with EGFR-activating mutations in both first- and second-/third-line settings when compared to chemotherapy. Further investigation is needed to determine the precise role that afatinib will play in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer and EGFR-activating mutations.
Project description:UNLABELLED:EGFR-mutant lung cancers responsive to reversible EGFR inhibitors (gefitinib/erlotinib) develop acquired resistance, mediated by second-site EGFR T790M mutation in >50% of cases. Preclinically, afatinib (irreversible ErbB family blocker) plus cetuximab (anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody) overcomes T790M-mediated resistance. This phase Ib study combining afatinib and cetuximab enrolled heavily pretreated patients with advanced EGFR-mutant lung cancer and acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib. Patients provided post-acquired-resistance tumor samples for profiling EGFR mutations. Among 126 patients, objective response rate (overall 29%) was comparable in T790M-positive and T790M-negative tumors (32% vs. 25%; P = 0.341). Median progression-free survival was 4.7 months (95% confidence interval, 4.3-6.4), and the median duration of confirmed objective response was 5.7 months (range, 1.8-24.4). Therapy-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 44%/2% of patients. Afatinib-cetuximab demonstrated robust clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in EGFR-mutant lung cancers with acquired resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib, both with and without T790M mutations, warranting further investigation. SIGNIFICANCE:This article reports the results of a trial combining afatinib and cetuximab in patients with acquired resistance and details the first clinical proof-of-concept for the preclinical hypothesis that a significant proportion of tumors in patients with acquired resistance to gefitinib/erlotinib remain dependent on EGFR signaling for survival.
Project description:To provide evidence-based recommendations to update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).An Update Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology NSCLC Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from January 2007 to February 2014.This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline.There is no cure for patients with stage IV NSCLC. For patients with performance status (PS) 0 to 1 (and appropriate patient cases with PS 2) and without an EGFR-sensitizing mutation or ALK gene rearrangement, combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended, guided by histology, with early concurrent palliative care. Recommendations for patients in the first-line setting include platinum-doublet therapy for those with PS 0 to 1 (bevacizumab may be added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel if no contraindications); combination or single-agent chemotherapy or palliative care alone for those with PS 2; afatinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with sensitizing EGFR mutations; crizotinib for those with ALK or ROS1 gene rearrangement; and following first-line recommendations or using platinum plus etoposide for those with large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Maintenance therapy includes pemetrexed continuation for patients with stable disease or response to first-line pemetrexed-containing regimens, alternative chemotherapy, or a chemotherapy break. In the second-line setting, recommendations include docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous cell carcinoma; docetaxel, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with squamous cell carcinoma; and chemotherapy or ceritinib for those with ALK rearrangement who experience progression after crizotinib. In the third-line setting, for patients who have not received erlotinib or gefitinib, treatment with erlotinib is recommended. There are insufficient data to recommend routine third-line cytotoxic therapy. Decisions regarding systemic therapy should not be made based on age alone. Additional information can be found at http://www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc and http://www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
Project description:Background:First-line treatments for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations have been evaluated in various clinical trials. However, it remains unclear which is the optimal treatment.Methods:A Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to assess the efficacy and safety profile of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, osimertinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab and pemetrexed/carboplatin, or pemetrexed alone plus gefitinib. Literature was sourced from electronic databases. Data regarding objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related adverse event grades 3–5 (TRAE 3–5), specific TRAEs [diarrhea, rash, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT)] were extracted. The regimens were then ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).Results:A total of 19 studies involving 4607 EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients were analyzed. In regards to efficacy, pemetrexed/carboplatin (PC) plus gefitinib was superior in ORR and OS to chemotherapy and first-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). All the TKI-based regimens had equivalent DCR and PFS. Patients with the L858R mutation treated with PC plus gefitinib achieved a better outcome than most EGFR TKI-related groups (except osimertinib) in the PFS subgroup. In regards to safety, no statistical significance for TRAEs was observed among the eight treatments. In regards to SUCRA, PC plus gefitinib ranked first in terms of PFS, OS, and TRAE grades 3–5.Conclusions:Pemetrexed/carboplatin plus gefitinib is a promising treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients in the first-line setting.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>Large-scale, population-based real-world studies on the treatment outcomes of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and subsequent systemic chemotherapy agents for lung adenocarcinoma (with activating epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] mutations) remain limited.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>From March 2014 to December 2016, patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, identified from the Taiwan Cancer Registry were included in this study if they received any of the three TKIs as first-line treatment. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcome was time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD).<h4>Results</h4>A total of 4,889 patients (median age: 67 years and two-thirds with distant metastasis) were recruited (1,778 gefitinib, 1,599 erlotinib, and 1,512 afatinib users). A 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts of 1,228 afatinib/erlotinib and 1054 afatinib/gefitinib was created. After PS matching, it was found that afatinib was not associated with better OS (afatinib vs. erlotinib, HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86-1.07; afatinib vs. gefitinib, HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81-1.02). In the subgroup analysis, afatinib demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with active smoking (afatinib vs. erlotinib, HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51-0.93; afatinib vs. gefitinib, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.94) and ECOG > 1 (afatinib vs. erlotinib, HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99; afatinib vs. gefitinib, HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.98). A total of 41.1% (n = 1992) of first-line TKI users received subsequent chemotherapy. Among the three TKI groups, pemetrexed usage was associated with better OS compared with other chemotherapy agents, with the exception of gemcitabine in the afatinib and gefitinib groups. Pemetrexed and gemcitabine had the longest TTD of 3-4 months.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Among patients with <i>EGFR</i> mutant lung adenocarcinoma, afatinib use may not provide longer OS compared with first-generation TKIs. Afatinib may be preferably considered among patients with active smoking and should not be withheld among those with worse performance status. With 40% of patients receiving subsequent chemotherapy, pemetrexed may be the preferred agent, while gemcitabine can be a reasonable alternative.
Project description:Tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib have been compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapies for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutations. This meta-analysis compares gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and chemotherapy.Literature search was performed using relevant keywords. Direct and indirect meta-estimates were generated using log-linear mixed-effects models, with random effects for study. Study-to-study heterogeneity was summarized using I statistics and predictive intervals (PIs).Literature search yielded eight randomized phase 3 clinical trials comparing gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer during the last 5 years. Hazard ratio meta-estimates for progression-free survival were for gefitinib versus chemotherapy 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.63; 95% PI, 0.22-0.88), erlotinib versus chemotherapy 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15-0.42; 95% PI, 0.11-0.55), afatinib versus chemotherapy 0.44 (95% CI, 0.26-0.75; 95% PI, 0.20-0.98), erlotinib versus gefitinib 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.08; 95% PI, 0.24-1.36), afatinib versus gefitinib 1.01 (95% CI, 0.53-1.92; 95% PI, 0.41-2.42), and erlotinib versus afatinib 0.56 (95% CI, 0.27-1.18; 95% PI, 0.22-1.46). Results for overall response rate and disease control rate were similar. There was no evidence that gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy.Gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib out-performed chemotherapy in terms of progression-free survival, overall response rate, and disease control rate. Differences among gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib were not statistically significant.