Start Your Search
OA 05 - Next Generation TKI (ID 657)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:James Chih-Hsin Yang, Fiona Blackhall
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 301 + 302
OA 05.01 - First-Line Dacomitinib versus Gefitinib in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Mutation Subgroups (ID 8555)
15:45 - 17:30 | Author(s): J. Corral
The ARCHER 1050 study (NCT01774721) demonstrated benefits of dacomitinib compared with gefitinib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and EGFR-activating mutation. Here, we present the results of a prospective subgroup analysis by EGFR mutation subtype.
In this ongoing phase 3, open-label study, eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage IIIb/IV or recurrent NSCLC and EGFR-activating mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation ± T790M mutation) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 were randomized (1:1) to receive dacomitinib or gefitinib, stratified by race and EGFR mutation subtype. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent radiologic central (IRC) review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival and objective response rate (ORR), as determined by IRC and investigators’ assessments.
A total of 452 patients were randomized (dacomitinib, n=227; gefitinib, n=225). Among the dacomitinib and gefitinib arms, respectively, 134 (59%) and 133 (59%) had exon 19 deletions and 93 (41%) and 92 (41%) had L858R mutations. The Table shows PFS, ORR, and duration of response by EGFR mutation per IRC. Results based on investigators’ assessments were consistent with those based on IRC review. Overall survival data are immature.
Exon 19 Deletion L858R Mutation Dacomitinib (n=134) Gefitinib (n=133) Dacomitinib (n=93) Gefitinib(n=92) PFS per IRC Median, months (95% CI) 16.5 (11.3–18.4) 9.2 (9.1–11.0) 12.3 (9.2–16.0) 9.8 (7.6–11.1) Hazard ratio (95% CI) 1-sided P value 0.551 (0.408–0.745) <0.0001 0.626 (0.444–0.883) 0.0034 ORR per IRC CR, n (%) 7 (5.2) 3 (2.3) 5 (5.4) 1 (1.1) PR, n (%) 95 (70.9) 90 (67.7) 63 (67.7) 67 (72.8) ORR (CR + PR), n (%) (95% CI) 102 (76.1) (68.0–83.1) 93 (69.9) (61.4–77.6) 68 (73.1) (62.9–81.8) 68 (73.9) (63.7–82.5) 1-sided P value 0.1143 0.5395 DoR in responders per IRC Median, months (95% CI) 15.6 (13.1–19.6) 8.3 (7.9–10.1) 13.7 (9.2–17.4) 7.5 (6.5–10.2) Hazard ratio (95% CI) 1-sided P value 0.454 (0.319–0.645) <0.0001 0.403 (0.267–0.607) <0.0001 CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; DoR, duration of response; PR, partial response.
By IRC and investigators’ assessments, PFS with dacomitinib was superior to that with gefitinib in patients with either EGFR mutation. Despite a similar ORR among the treatment and EGFR mutation subgroups, duration of response was longer with dacomitinib for both mutations.
Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.
P3.01 - Advanced NSCLC (ID 621)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
P3.01-012 - Symptom Impact of First-Line Dacomitinib versus Gefitinib in EGFR-Positive NSCLC: Results from a Randomized Phase 3 Study (ID 8569)
09:30 - 16:00 | Author(s): J. Corral
Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience high disease burden due to many cancer-related symptoms (eg, cough, dyspnea, pain, and fatigue). Decreasing tumor burden may reduce/delay symptoms and favorably impact global health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Dacomitinib is an irreversible, small-molecule inhibitor of EGFR/HER-1, HER-2, and HER-4 tyrosine kinases. In a global, multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT01774721) for first-line treatment of NSCLC, dacomitinib improved the primary objective of progression-free survival per independent radiologic review (median, 14.7 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.74; P<0.0001) over gefitinib. Median duration of treatment was longer with dacomitinib than with gefitinib (67 vs 52 weeks, respectively). A secondary objective was to explore HRQoL. Here, we report the impact of dacomitinib and gefitinib treatment on core lung cancer symptoms.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral dacomitinib (45 mg) or gefitinib (250 mg) once daily. Disease-related symptoms were measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13). Scores were summarized by the mean and 95% CI for each group and plotted over 30 cycles and at the end of treatment; the number of cycles (n=30) chosen for this analysis was not prespecified. Mean changes from baseline (cycle 1, day 1 [C1D1]) were reported for each group.
Between 9-May-2013 and 20-March-2015, 452 patients were randomly assigned to dacomitinib (n=227) or gefitinib (n=225). Baseline scores were similar between treatment arms. On-study completion rates were high, with >90% of patients answering all questions for most treatment cycles. Statistically significant improvements from baseline (95% CI excludes 0; no adjustment for multiplicity) for most cycles were seen in fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and cough in both arms. Improvements were reported as early as C1D8. Clinically meaningful improvements (≥10 points score change) were recorded for pain in chest (23/30 cycles) and cough (28/30 cycles) with dacomitinib and for cough (22/30 cycles) with gefitinib; hence, improvements appear to be more frequent with dacomitinib. Symptom burden at end of treatment was generally higher than during treatment. As treatment duration was longer with dacomitinib, key lung cancer symptom improvements were seen for a longer time in patients treated with dacomitinib.
Dacomitinib, along with gefitinib, demonstrated favorable clinical benefit and improvements in key NSCLC symptoms. These findings are important when considering choice of therapy. Reference 1. Mok T, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(Suppl):abstract LBA9007.