Updated efficacy and quality-of-life (QoL) analyses in OPTIMAL, a phase III, randomized, open-label study of first-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/carboplatin in patients with EGFR-activating mutation-positive (EGFR Act Mut+) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Authors

null

C. Zhou

Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

C. Zhou , Y. L. Wu , G. Chen , J. F. Feng , X. Liu , C. Wang , S. Zhang , J. Wang , S. Zhou , S. Ren , S. Lu , L. Zhang

Organizations

Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangdong General Hospital & Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, The Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Nanjing, China, 307 Hospital of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Cancer Center, Beijing, China, Tianjin Cancer Hospital, Tianjin, China, Bejiing Chest Hospital, Beijing, China, Peking University Cancer Hospital, Peking University School of Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China

Research Funding

Other

Background: OPTIMAL demonstrated the superiority of erlotinib (E) vs gemcitabine/carboplatin (G/C) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and tolerability in first-line advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR Act Mut+ disease. We provide updated PFS data and the first report of the pre-planned QoL analyses. Methods: Chemonaïve patients with EGFR Act Mut+ advanced NSCLC, ECOG PS 0–2 and measurable disease (n=165) were randomized to E (150mg/d, until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease [PD]), or G/C (G [1000mg/m2, d1, 8] + C [AUC5, d1], q3w for up to 4 cycles), and stratified by histology, smoking status and mutation type. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included ORR, overall survival, QoL (FACT-L, TOI, LCSS) and safety. The QoL questionnaire was administered at randomization and every 6 weeks until PD. Clinical improvement in QoL was predefined as an improvement of ≥6 total points on the FACT-L and TOI, or an improvement of ≥2 total points on the LCSS. P-values for QoL were calculated with logistic regression, with PS, smoking history and gender as covariates. Results: Of 165 patients randomized, 154 were included in the study population (82 E; 72 G/C). In the primary analysis, PFS was significantly prolonged with E vs G/C: median PFS of 13.1 vs 4.6 mos; HR 0.16; p<0.0001 (Zhou et al, ESMO 2010). By the cut-off date of Jan 7, 2011, an updated analysis showed median PFS of 13.7 vs 4.6 mos; HR 0.164; p<0.0001). Patients with a baseline and ≥1 post-baseline QoL assessment (n=128; 83.2% of study patients) were included in the QoL analysis (74 E; 54 G/C). Compared with the G/C group, the E group had a clinically relevant improvement in QoL, as assessed by scores on the FACT-L (73% vs 29.6%; odds ratio [OR] 6.9; 95% CI 3.07–15.48; p<0.0001), the LCSS (75.7% vs 31.5%; OR 6.77; 95% CI 3.04–15.05; p<0.0001) and the TOI ( 71.6% vs 24.1%; OR 7.79; 95% CI 3.44–17.66; p<0.0001). Conclusions: E improved PFS compared with G/C as first-line treatment for EGFR Act Mut+ NSCLC. Patients’ QoL was also significantly improved with E vs G/C.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2011 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Discussion Session

Session Title

Lung Cancer - Metastatic/Non-small Cell

Track

Lung Cancer

Sub Track

Metastatic

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT00874419

Citation

J Clin Oncol 29: 2011 (suppl; abstr 7520)

Abstract #

7520

Poster Bd #

9

Abstract Disclosures