4.7 Article

First-line erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study including molecular imaging

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 559-566

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq391

Keywords

bevacizumab; chemonaive; erlotinib; imaging; NSCLC; phase II

Categories

Funding

  1. Roche (Woerden, The Netherlands)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Both bevacizumab and erlotinib have clinical activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical data suggest synergistic activity. Patients and methods: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIb or IV non-squamous NSCLC were treated with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks and erlotinib 150 mg daily until progression. Primary end point was non-progression rate (NPR) at 6 weeks. Tumor response was measured with computed tomography, 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG-PET) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). KRAS and EGFR mutations were assessed in tumor samples. Results: Forty-seven patients were included. Median follow-up was 15.2 months. NPR at 6 weeks was 75%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3-5.4] months and median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 (95% CI 5.5-8.4) months. Toxicity was mainly mild. The presence of KRAS (n = 10) or EGFR mutations (n = 5) did not influence outcome. After 3 weeks of treatment, >20% decrease in standard uptake value as measured with positron emission tomography predicted for longer PFS (9.7 versus 2.8 months; P = 0.01) and >40% decrease in K-trans as assessed by DCE-MRI did not predict for longer PFS. Conclusions: First-line treatment with bevacizumab and erlotinib in stage IIIb/IV NSCLC resulted in an NPR of 75%. OS was however disappointing. Early response evaluation with FDG-PET is the best predictive test for PFS.

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