TY - JOUR
T1 - Erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant treatment of stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (EMERGING-CTONG 1103)
T2 - A randomized phase II study
AU - Zhong, Wen Zhao
AU - Chen, Ke Neng
AU - Chen, Chun
AU - Gu, Chun Dong
AU - Wang, Jun
AU - Yang, Xue Ning
AU - Mao, Wei Min
AU - Wang, Qun
AU - Qiao, Gui Bin
AU - Cheng, Ying
AU - Xu, Lin
AU - Wang, Chang Li
AU - Chen, Ming Wei
AU - Kang, Xiaozheng
AU - Yan, Wanpu
AU - Yan, Hong Hong
AU - Liao, Ri Qiang
AU - Yang, Jin Ji
AU - Zhang, Xu Chao
AU - Zhou, Qing
AU - Wu, Yi Long
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - PURPOSE To assess the benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies in locally advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a multicenter (17 centers in China), open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial of erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC chemotherapy) as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations in exon 19 or 21 (EMERGING). Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d (neoadjuvant therapy, 42 days; adjuvant therapy, up to 12 months) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (neoadjuvant therapy, two cycles; adjuvant therapy, up to two cycles). Assessments were performed at 6 weeks and every 3 months postsurgery. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1; secondary end points were pathologic complete response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS Of 386 patients screened, 72 were randomly assigned to treatment (intention-to-treat population), and 71 were included in the safety analysis (one patient withdrew before treatment). The ORR for neoadjuvant erlotinib versus GC chemotherapy was 54.1% versus 34.3% (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 5.84; P = .092). No pathologic complete response was identified in either arm. Three (9.7%) of 31 patients and zero of 23 patients in the erlotinib and GC chemotherapy arms, respectively, had a major pathologic response. Median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib (21.5 months) versus GC chemotherapy (11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.67; P < .001). Observed adverse events reflected those most commonly seen with the two treatments. CONCLUSION The primary end point of ORR with 42 days of neoadjuvant erlotinib was not met, but the secondary end point PFS was significantly improved.
AB - PURPOSE To assess the benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies in locally advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a multicenter (17 centers in China), open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial of erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC chemotherapy) as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations in exon 19 or 21 (EMERGING). Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d (neoadjuvant therapy, 42 days; adjuvant therapy, up to 12 months) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (neoadjuvant therapy, two cycles; adjuvant therapy, up to two cycles). Assessments were performed at 6 weeks and every 3 months postsurgery. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1; secondary end points were pathologic complete response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS Of 386 patients screened, 72 were randomly assigned to treatment (intention-to-treat population), and 71 were included in the safety analysis (one patient withdrew before treatment). The ORR for neoadjuvant erlotinib versus GC chemotherapy was 54.1% versus 34.3% (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 5.84; P = .092). No pathologic complete response was identified in either arm. Three (9.7%) of 31 patients and zero of 23 patients in the erlotinib and GC chemotherapy arms, respectively, had a major pathologic response. Median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib (21.5 months) versus GC chemotherapy (11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.67; P < .001). Observed adverse events reflected those most commonly seen with the two treatments. CONCLUSION The primary end point of ORR with 42 days of neoadjuvant erlotinib was not met, but the secondary end point PFS was significantly improved.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85071681896
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.19.00075
DO - 10.1200/JCO.19.00075
M3 - 文章
C2 - 31194613
AN - SCOPUS:85071681896
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 37
SP - 2235
EP - 2245
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 25
ER -