Patrapim Sunpaweravong

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.)

PURPOSE: The results of the Iressa Pan-Asia Study (IPASS), which compared gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel in previously untreated never-smokers and light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma were published previously. This report presents overall survival (OS) and efficacy according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) biomarker status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 1,217 patients were randomly assigned. Biomarkers analyzed were EGFR mutation (amplification mutation refractory system; 437 patients evaluable), EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization; 406 patients evaluable), and EGFR protein expression (immunohistochemistry; 365 patients evaluable). OS analysis was performed at 78% maturity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess biomarker status by randomly assigned treatment interactions for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS: OS (954 deaths) was similar for gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel with no significant difference between treatments overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02; P = .109) or in EGFR mutation-positive (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33; P = .990) or EGFR mutation-negative (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.63; P = .309; treatment by EGFR mutation interaction P = .480) subgroups. A high proportion (64.3%) of EGFR mutation-positive patients randomly assigned to carboplatin/paclitaxel received subsequent EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. PFS was significantly longer with gefitinib for patients whose tumors had both high EGFR gene copy number and EGFR mutation (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.67) but significantly shorter when high EGFR gene copy number was not accompanied by EGFR mutation (HR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.09 to 7.09). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutations are the strongest predictive biomarker for PFS and tumor response to first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. The predictive value of EGFR gene copy number was driven by coexisting EGFR mutation (post hoc analysis). Treatment-related differences observed for PFS in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup were not apparent for OS. OS results were likely confounded by the high proportion of patients crossing over to the alternative treatment.

There is an urgent need for first-line treatment options for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) is expressed in normal gastric cells and maintained in malignant G/GEJ adenocarcinoma cells. GLOW (closed enrollment), a global, double-blind, phase 3 study, examined zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CLDN18.2, plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients (n = 507) were randomized 1:1 (block sizes of two) to zolbetuximab plus CAPOX or placebo plus CAPOX. GLOW met the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (median, 8.21 months versus 6.80 months with zolbetuximab versus placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.687; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.544-0.866; P = 0.0007) and key secondary endpoint of overall survival (median, 14.39 months versus 12.16 months; HR = 0.771; 95% CI, 0.615-0.965; P = 0.0118). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with zolbetuximab (72.8%) and placebo (69.9%). Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX represents a potential new first-line therapy for patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03653507 .

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.