Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remains fatal despite recent advances. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is highly expressed in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-PSMA-617 is a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the surrounding microenvironment. METHODS: We conducted an international, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluating 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients who had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with at least one androgen-receptor-pathway inhibitor and one or two taxane regimens and who had PSMA-positive gallium-68 (68Ga)-labeled PSMA-11 positron-emission tomographic-computed tomographic scans. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq every 6 weeks for four to six cycles) plus protocol-permitted standard care or standard care alone. Protocol-permitted standard care excluded chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radium-223 (223Ra), and investigational drugs. The alternate primary end points were imaging-based progression-free survival and overall survival, which were powered for hazard ratios of 0.67 and 0.73, respectively. Key secondary end points were objective response, disease control, and time to symptomatic skeletal events. Adverse events during treatment were those occurring no more than 30 days after the last dose and before subsequent anticancer treatment. RESULTS: From June 2018 to mid-October 2019, a total of 831 of 1179 screened patients underwent randomization. The baseline characteristics of the patients were balanced between the groups. The median follow-up was 20.9 months. 177Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard care significantly prolonged, as compared with standard care, both imaging-based progression-free survival (median, 8.7 vs. 3.4 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.40; 99.2% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.57; P<0.001) and overall survival (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.74; P<0.001). All the key secondary end points significantly favored 177Lu-PSMA-617. The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or above was higher with 177Lu-PSMA-617 than without (52.7% vs. 38.0%), but quality of life was not adversely affected. CONCLUSIONS: Radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged imaging-based progression-free survival and overall survival when added to standard care in patients with advanced PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Endocyte, a Novartis company; VISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03511664.).

Adjuvant Lapatinib and Trastuzumab for Early Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) improves outcomes for metastatic human epidermal growth factor 2-positive breast cancer and increases the pathologic complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, but their role as adjuvant therapy remains uncertain. METHODS: In the Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization trial, patients with centrally confirmed human epidermal growth factor 2-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with T, L, their sequence (T→L), or their combination (L+T). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), with 850 events required for 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 for L+T versus T. RESULTS: Between June 2007 and July 2011, 8,381 patients were enrolled. In 2011, due to futility to demonstrate noninferiority of L versus T, the L arm was closed, and patients free of disease were offered adjuvant T. A protocol modification required P ≤ .025 for the two remaining pairwise comparisons. At a protocol-specified analysis with a median follow-up of 4.5 years, a 16% reduction in the DFS hazard rate was observed with L+T compared with T (555 DFS events; HR, 0.84; 97.5% CI, 0.70 to 1.02; P = .048), and a 4% reduction was observed with T→L compared with T (HR, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.80 to 1.15; P = .61). L-treated patients experienced more diarrhea, cutaneous rash, and hepatic toxicity compared with T-treated patients. The incidence of cardiac toxicity was low in all treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant treatment that includes L did not significantly improve DFS compared with T alone and added toxicity. One year of adjuvant T remains standard of care.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy findings in an open-label, single-arm study of weekly paclitaxel plus lapatinib as first-line therapy for Japanese women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib is the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting agent approved globally for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of lapatinib combined with paclitaxel (L+P) were investigated in this study, to establish clear evidence regarding the combination in Japanese patients. METHODS: In this two-part, single-arm, open-label study, the tolerability of L+P as first-line treatment in Japanese patients with HER2-positive MBC was evaluated in six patients in the first part, and the safety, efficacy and PK were evaluated in a further six patients (making a total of twelve patients) in the second part. Eligible women were enrolled and received lapatinib 1500 mg once daily and paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) weekly for at least 6 cycles. RESULTS: The only dose-limiting toxicity reported was Grade 3 diarrhea in one patient. The systemic exposure to maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) for lapatinib, as well as the AUC of paclitaxel, were increased when combined. The most common adverse events (AEs) related to the study treatment were alopecia, diarrhea and decreased hemoglobin. The majority of drug-related AEs were Grade 1 or 2. The median overall survival was 35.6 months (95 % confidence interval 23.9, not reached). The response rate and clinical benefit rate were both 83 % (95 % confidence interval 51.6, 97.9). CONCLUSIONS: The L+P treatment was well tolerated in Japanese patients with HER2-positive MBC. Although the PK profiles of lapatinib and paclitaxel influenced each other, the magnitudes were not greatly different from those in non-Japanese patients.

Health-related quality-of-life in a randomized phase III first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients from Asia with advanced NSCLC (IPASS).

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and symptom improvement were preplanned secondary objectives for the overall population and posthoc analyses for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive/negative subgroups in IPASS. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI); symptom improvement by the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS). Improvements defined as: 6 or more (FACT-L; TOI), 2 or more (LCS) points increase maintained for 21 or more days. RESULTS: Overall (n = 1151/1217 evaluable), HRQoL improvement rates were significantly greater with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel; symptom improvement rates were similar for both treatments. Significantly more patients recorded improvements in HRQoL and symptoms with gefitinib in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n = 259; FACT-L 70.2% versus 44.5%; odds ratio, 3.01 [95% confidence interval, 1.79-5.07]; p < 0.001; TOI 70.2% versus 38.3%; 3.96 [2.33-6.71]; p < 0.001; LCS 75.6% versus 53.9%; 2.70 [1.58-4.62]; p < 0.001), and with carboplatin/paclitaxel in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (n = 169; FACT-L 14.6% versus 36.3%; odds ratio, 0.31 [0.15-0.65]; p = 0.002; TOI 12.4% versus 28.8%; 0.35 [0.16-0.79]; p = 0.011; LCS 20.2% versus 47.5%; 0.28 [0.14-0.55]; p < 0.001). Median time-to-worsening (months) FACT-L score was longer with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for the overall population (8.3 versus 2.5) and EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (15.6 versus 3.0), and similar for both treatments in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (1.4 versus 1.4). Median time-to-improvement with gefitinib was 8 days in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors who improved. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL and symptom endpoints were consistent with efficacy outcomes in IPASS and favored gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors and carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with EGFR mutation-negative tumors.

Biomarker analyses and final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Asia (IPASS).

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.

Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial.

PURPOSE In the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations. Results For all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation-positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel. CONCLUSION These biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation-positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.

Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

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.)

Randomized phase II study of gefitinib compared with placebo in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and poor performance status.

PURPOSE: To compare gefitinib with placebo in chemotherapy naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NSCLC patients (chemotherapy naïve, WHO performance status 2 or 3; unfit for chemotherapy; stage IIIB/IV) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d) plus best supportive care (BSC; n = 100) or placebo plus BSC (n = 101). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and safety. Correlation of gefitinib efficacy with EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization [FISH]) was explored. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (HRs; gefitinib:placebo) were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.12; P = .217) for PFS and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.62 to 1.15; P = .272) for OS. As expected for this patient population, OS for both arms was poor, at about 3 months. ORRs were 6.0% (gefitinib) and 1.0% (placebo). QOL and PSI rates were 21.1% and 28.3% (gefitinib) and 20.0% and 28.3% (placebo), respectively. In EGFR FISH-positive patients (n = 32), HRs were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.73) for PFS and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.12) for OS. No unexpected adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, and ORRs after treatment with gefitinib or placebo, in the overall population; improvements in QOL and symptoms were similar in both groups. Tolerability profile of gefitinib was consistent with previous studies. PFS was statistically significantly improved for gefitinib-treated patients with EGFR FISH-positive tumors.

Phase III study of gefitinib compared with intravenous methotrexate for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [corrected].

PURPOSE: To compare survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) treated with gefitinib 250 or 500 mg/day or standard methotrexate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred eighty-six patients with recurrent SCCHN were randomly assigned to oral gefitinib 250 mg/day, gefitinib 500 mg/day, or methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly. Primary end point was overall survival, secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), safety, symptom improvement, and quality of life (QOL). Exploratory end points included association of efficacy with epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number and other biomarkers. RESULTS: Neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.57; P = .12; and HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.43; P = .39, respectively). In the gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate groups, respectively, median overall survival was 5.6, 6.0, and 6.7 months; ORRs (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were 2.7%, 7.6% and 3.9%, with no statistically significant difference between either gefitinib arm and methotrexate. No unexpected adverse events were observed, except for tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib (8.9%, gefitinib 250 mg/day; 11.4%, gefitinib 500 mg/day; 1.9%, methotrexate). QOL improvement rates (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head & Neck total score) were 13.4%, 18.0%, and 6.0% for gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, while responses with gefitinib were seen, neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate. With the exception of tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib, the adverse event profiles were generally consistent with those previously observed.

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Two phase II trials in patients with previously-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer suggested that gefitinib was efficacious and less toxic than was chemotherapy. We compared gefitinib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who had been pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: We undertook an open-label phase III study with recruitment between March 1, 2004, and Feb 17, 2006, at 149 centres in 24 countries. 1466 patients with pretreated (>/=one platinum-based regimen) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned with dynamic balancing to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day orally; n=733) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously in 1-h infusion every 3 weeks; n=733). The primary objective was to compare overall survival between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00076388. FINDINGS: 1433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in gefitinib group and 710 in docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for overall survival (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1.020, 96% CI 0.905-1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFR-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78-1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months). In the gefitinib group, the most common adverse events were rash or acne (360 [49%] vs 73 [10%]) and diarrhoea (255 [35%] vs 177 [25%]); whereas in the docetaxel group, neutropenia (35 [5%] vs 514 [74%]), asthenic disorders (182 [25%] vs 334 [47%]), and alopecia (23 [3%] vs 254 [36%]) were most common. INTERPRETATION: INTEREST established non-inferior survival of gefitinib compared with docetaxel, suggesting that gefitinib is a valid treatment for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Gefitinib versus vinorelbine in chemotherapy-naive elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (INVITE): a randomized, phase II study.

PURPOSE: This phase II, open-label, parallel-group study compared gefitinib with vinorelbine in chemotherapy-naïve elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients (age >or= 70 years) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d orally) or vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) infusion on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and tolerability. Exploratory end points included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to gefitinib (n = 97) or to vinorelbine (n = 99). Hazard ratios (HR; gefitinib v vinorelbine) were 1.19 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.65) for PFS and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.47) for OS. ORR and disease control rates were 3.1% (95% CI, 0.6 to 8.8) and 43.3% (for gefitinib) and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7 to 11.4) and 53.5% (for vinorelbine), respectively. Overall QOL improvement and PSI rates were 24.3% and 36.6% (for gefitinib) and 10.9% and 31.0% (for vinorelbine), respectively. In the 54 patients who were EGFR FISH-positive, HRs were 3.13 (95% CI, 1.45 to 6.76) for PFS and 2.88 (95% CI, 1.21 to 6.83) for OS. There were fewer treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events with gefitinib (12.8%) than with vinorelbine (41.7%). CONCLUSION: There was no statistical difference between gefitinib and vinorelbine in efficacy in chemotherapy-naïve, unselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, but there was better tolerability with gefitinib. Individuals who were EGFR FISH-positive benefited more from vinorelbine than from gefitinib; this unexpected finding requires further study.

Interstitial lung disease in Japanese patients with lung cancer: a cohort and nested case-control study.

RATIONALE: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) occurs in Japanese patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving gefitinib. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate risk factors for ILD in Japanese patients with NSCLC during treatment with gefitinib or chemotherapy. METHODS: In a prospective epidemiologic cohort, 3,166 Japanese patients with advanced/recurrent NSCLC were followed for 12 weeks on 250 mg gefitinib (n = 1,872 treatment periods) or chemotherapy (n = 2,551). Patients who developed acute ILD (n = 122) and randomly selected control subjects (n = 574) entered a case-control study. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were estimated from case-control data by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using logistic regression. Crude (observed) incidence rates and risks were calculated from cohort data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The observed (unadjusted) incidence rate over 12 weeks was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.3) per 1,000 person-weeks, 4.5 (3.5-5.4) for gefitinib versus 1.7 (1.2-2.2) for chemotherapy; the corresponding observed naive cumulative incidence rates at the end of 12-week follow-up were 4.0% (3.0-5.1%) and 2.1% (1.5-2.9%), respectively. Adjusted for imbalances in risk factors between treatments, the overall OR for gefitinib versus chemotherapy was 3.2 (1.9-5.4), elevated chiefly during the first 4 weeks (3.8 [1.9-7.7]). Other ILD risk factors in both groups included the following: older age, poor World Health Organization performance status, smoking, recent NSCLC diagnosis, reduced normal lung on computed tomography scan, preexisting chronic ILD, concurrent cardiac disease. ILD-related deaths in patients with ILD were 31.6% (gefitinib) versus 27.9% (chemotherapy); adjusted OR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.3-3.2). CONCLUSIONS: ILD was relatively common in these Japanese patients with NSCLC during therapy with gefitinib or chemotherapy, being higher in the older, smoking patient with preexisting ILD or poor performance status. The risk of developing ILD was higher with gefitinib than chemotherapy, mainly in the first 4 weeks.