4.7 Article

Phase II study of erlotinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of gefitinib

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 18, 页码 2528-2533

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4166

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who experienced disease progression after treatment with gefitinib. Patients and Methods The study included stage IIIB/IV recurrent or metastatic NSCLC patients who received two or three prior chemotherapy regimens and showed progressive disease within 4 months of gefitinib therapy discontinuation. Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and other genetic abnormalities were analyzed from available tumor samples. Results Patient and disease characteristics (N = 21) included median age 56 years; number of prior chemotherapy regimens (three; n = 11); female sex (n = 11); adenocarcinoma (n = 15); and never-smoker status (n = 11). Among the 17 patients with tumor samples available, EGFR mutations were detected in five. The disease control rate (DCR) and response rate (RR) for all patients were 28.6% and 9.5%, respectively. The median duration of disease control was 125 days. The median time to progression and overall survival were 60 days and 158 days, respectively. Patients who had stable disease (SD) while receiving gefitinib showed significantly higher DCR (75% v 17.6% in non-SD patients; P = .050) and RR (50.0% v 0% in non-SD patients; P = .029). Among 17 patients with biomarker results available, those lacking EGFR mutations who had SD while receiving gefitinib showed significantly higher DCR and RR. Conclusion Erlotinib seems to be a potential therapeutic option for the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR who had SD while receiving gefitinib.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据