Erlotinib plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for older Chinese patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung (C-TONG0807): an open-label, single arm, multicenter phase II study.

Preclinical studies have shown synergism between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antifolates in solid tumors. This study is to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of erlotinib plus capecitabine as first-line treatment in older Chinese patients (≥ 65 years) with lung adenocarcinoma. This is an open-label, single arm, multicenter phase II clinical trial. Sixty- two patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV adenocarcinoma and age 65 years or above were enrolled at four tertiary teaching hospitals and 2 provincial hospitals in China; 58 patients fulfilled the study requirements. Erlotinib (150 mg/day) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14) were administered during every 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the non-progression rate at 12 weeks. EGFR and K-ras mutation rates were determined using PCR. Tumor expression of different biomarkers was assessed using immunohistochemistry. In a cohort of 58 patients, 34 patients had no disease progression at 12 weeks following treatment. The objective response rate was 29.3%, and the disease control rate was 75.9%. The objective response rate was significantly higher in patients with EGFR mutations than in those with wild-type EGFR. Patients with thymidine phosphorylase-negative tumors had significantly longer overall survival after one year than patients with thymidine phosphorylase-positive tumors. Forty-four patients had at least one primary adverse events (AEs), including skin rash (n = 30), grade 3 AEs (n = 17), and grade 4 AEs (n = 7). This is the first phase II clinical trial to assess erlotinib plus capecitabine combination therapy as first-line treatment in older patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Erlotinib/capecitabine chemotherapy was significantly better in patients with EGFR mutations and in those with thymidine phosphorylase-negative tumors. The use of fluorouracil derivatives for the treatment of lung adenocarcinoma warrants further study.

Three-arm randomised controlled phase 2 study comparing pemetrexed and erlotinib to either pemetrexed or erlotinib alone as second-line treatment for never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomised controlled phase 2 study compared pemetrexed and erlotinib in combination with either agent alone in terms of efficacy and safety as second-line treatment in a clinically selected population of never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients who had failed only one prior chemotherapy regimen and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) ≤2 were randomised to either: pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg daily on days 2-14; erlotinib 150 mg daily; or pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was analysed using a multivariate Cox model. Firstly, a global comparison across the three arms was performed. If the global null hypothesis was rejected at a two-sided 0.2 significance level, pairwise comparisons of pemetrexed-erlotinib versus erlotinib or pemetrexed were then conducted using the same model. Statistical significance was claimed only if both global and pairwise null hypotheses were rejected at a two-sided 0.05 significance level. FINDINGS: A total of 240 patients (male, 35%; East Asian, 55%; ECOG PS 0-1, 93%) were included. A statistically significant difference in PFS was found across the three arms (global p=0.003), with pemetrexed-erlotinib significantly better than either single agent: HR=0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40-0.81, p=0.002 versus erlotinib; HR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.85, p=0.005 versus pemetrexed. Median PFS (95% CI) was 7.4 (4.4, 12.9) months in pemetrexed-erlotinib, 3.8 (2.7, 6.3) months in erlotinib and 4.4 (3.0, 6.0) months in pemetrexed. Safety analyses showed a higher incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity in pemetrexed-erlotinib (60.0%) than in pemetrexed (28.9%) or erlotinib (12.0%); the majority being neutropenia, anaemia, rash and diarrhoea. INTERPRETATION: Pemetrexed-erlotinib significantly improved PFS compared to either drug alone in this clinically selected population. The combination had more toxicity, but was clinically manageable.