PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.
CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).
Patients and methods: For this individual patient data meta-analysis, sociodemographic and smoking behavior information of 12 414 incident CRC patients (median age at diagnosis: 64.3 years), recruited within 14 prospective cohort studies among previously cancer-free adults, was collected at baseline and harmonized across studies. Vital status and causes of death were collected for a mean follow-up time of 5.1 years following cancer diagnosis. Associations of smoking behavior with overall and CRC-specific survival were evaluated using Cox regression and standard meta-analysis methodology.
Results: A total of 5229 participants died, 3194 from CRC. Cox regression revealed significant associations between former [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12; 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.20] and current smoking (HR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.04-1.60) and poorer overall survival compared with never smoking. Compared with current smoking, smoking cessation was associated with improved overall (HR<10 years = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.69-0.88; HR≥10 years = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.97) and CRC-specific survival (HR≥10 years = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.67-0.85).
Conclusion: In this large meta-analysis including primary data of incident CRC patients from 14 prospective cohort studies on the association between smoking and CRC prognosis, former and current smoking were associated with poorer CRC prognosis compared with never smoking. Smoking cessation was associated with improved survival when compared with current smokers. Future studies should further quantify the benefits of nonsmoking, both for cancer prevention and for improving survival among CRC patients, in particular also in terms of treatment response.