Five-Year Survival in EGFR-Mutant Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma Treated with EGFR-TKIs

INTRODUCTION

Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) predict for prolonged progression-free survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) versus chemotherapy. Long-term survival outcomes, however, remain undefined. The objective of this study was to determine the 5-year survival in these patients and identify clinical factors associated with overall survival (OS).

METHODS

Patients with EGFR-mutant metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who had been treated with erlotinib or gefitinib at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between 2002 and 2009 were included. OS was analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 137 patients, median progression-free survival and OS were 12.1 months (95% CI: 10.2-13.5) and 30.9 months (95% CI: 28.2-35.7), respectively. Twenty patients (14.6%) were 5-year survivors. In multivariate analysis, exon 19 deletions (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.91, p = 0.01), absence of extrathoracic (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41-0.93, p = 0.02) or brain metastasis (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.77, p = 0.002), and not a current smoker (HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.09-0.59, p = 0.002) were associated with prolonged OS. Age; sex; stage at diagnosis; liver, bone, or adrenal metastasis; specific TKI; and line of TKI therapy were not associated with OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the rate of 5-year survival among patients with EGFR-mutant metastatic lung adenocarcinoma treated with erlotinib or gefitinib is 14.6%. Exon 19 deletions and absence of extrathoracic or brain metastasis are associated with prolonged survival. On the basis of our findings, clinicians can gain an enhanced estimation of long-term outcomes in this population.

Predictive value of a proteomic signature in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with second-line erlotinib or chemotherapy (PROSE): a biomarker-stratified, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

An established multivariate serum protein test can be used to classify patients according to whether they are likely to have a good or poor outcome after treatment with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We assessed the predictive power of this test in the comparison of erlotinib and chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

From Feb 26, 2008, to April 11, 2012, patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed, second-line, stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in 14 centres in Italy. Patients were stratified according to a minimisation algorithm by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, smoking history, centre, and masked pretreatment serum protein test classification, and randomly assigned centrally in a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib (150 mg/day, orally) or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2), intravenously, every 21 days, or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), intravenously, every 21 days). The proteomic test classification was masked for patients and investigators who gave treatments, and treatment allocation was masked for investigators who generated the proteomic classification. The primary endpoint was overall survival and the primary hypothesis was the existence of a significant interaction between the serum protein test classification and treatment. Analyses were done on the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00989690.

FINDINGS

142 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy and 143 to erlotinib, and 129 (91%) and 134 (94%), respectively, were included in the per-protocol analysis. 88 (68%) patients in the chemotherapy group and 96 (72%) in the erlotinib group had a proteomic test classification of good. Median overall survival was 9·0 months (95% CI 6·8-10·9) in the chemotherapy group and 7·7 months (5·9-10·4) in the erlotinib group. We noted a significant interaction between treatment and proteomic classification (pinteraction=0·017 when adjusted for stratification factors; pinteraction=0·031 when unadjusted for stratification factors). Patients with a proteomic test classification of poor had worse survival on erlotinib than on chemotherapy (hazard ratio 1·72 [95% CI 1·08-2·74], p=0·022). There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatments for patients with a proteomic test classification of good (adjusted HR 1·06 [0·77-1·46], p=0·714). In the group of patients who received chemotherapy, the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effect was neutropenia (19 [15%] vs one [<1%] in the erlotinib group), whereas skin toxicity (one [<1%] vs 22 [16%]) was the most frequent in the erlotinib group.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that serum protein test status is predictive of differential benefit in overall survival for erlotinib versus chemotherapy in the second-line setting. Patients classified as likely to have a poor outcome have better outcomes on chemotherapy than on erlotinib.

FUNDING

Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association of Cancer Research, and Biodesix.