4.7 Article

Randomized Phase III Trial of Erlotinib Versus Docetaxel As Second- or Third-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA)

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 18, Pages 1902-1908

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.4694

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23501314, 25460896] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To investigate the efficacy of erlotinib versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -unselected patient population. Patients and Methods The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), response rate, safety, and analyses on EGFR wild-type tumors. Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, previous treatment with one or two chemotherapy regimens, evaluable or measurable disease, and performance status of 0 to 2 were eligible. Results From August 2009 to July 2012, 150 and 151 patients were randomly assigned to erlotinib (150 mg daily) and docetaxel (60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks), respectively. EGFR wild-type NSCLC was present in 109 and 90 patients in the erlotinib and docetaxel groups, respectively. Median PFS for erlotinib versus docetaxel was 2.0 v 3.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.55; P = .09), and median OS was 14.8 v 12.2 months (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.22; P = .53), respectively. In a subset analysis of EGFR wild-type tumors, PFS for erlotinib versus docetaxel was 1.3 v 2.9 months (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.94; P = .01), and OS was 9.0 v 10.1 months (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.39; P = .91), respectively. Conclusion Erlotinib failed to show an improvement in PFS or OS compared with docetaxel in an EGFR-unselected patient population. (C) 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available