Erlotinib Versus Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin as Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (EMERGING-CTONG 1103): A Randomized Phase II Study
Mené en Chine sur 143 patients atteints d'un cancer du poumon non à petites cellules de stade IIIA présentant une mutation EGFR, cet essai de phase II compare l'efficacité, du point de vue du taux de réponse objective, et la toxicité de l'erlotinib et d'une chimiothérapie adjuvante ou néoadjuvante combinant gemcitabine et cisplatine
PURPOSE : To assess the benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies in locally advanced EGFR mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS : This was a multicenter (17 centers in China), open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial of erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC chemotherapy) as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non–small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations in exon 19 or 21 (EMERGING). Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d (neoadjuvant therapy, 42 days; adjuvant therapy, up to 12 months) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (neoadjuvant therapy, two cycles; adjuvant therapy, up to two cycles). Assessments were performed at 6 weeks and every 3 months postsurgery. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1; secondary end points were pathologic complete response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS : Of 386 patients screened, 72 were randomly assigned to treatment (intention-to-treat population), and 71 were included in the safety analysis (one patient withdrew before treatment). The ORR for neoadjuvant erlotinib versus GC chemotherapy was 54.1% versus 34.3% (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 5.84; P = .092). No pathologic complete response was identified in either arm. Three (9.7%) of 31 patients and zero of 23 patients in the erlotinib and GC chemotherapy arms, respectively, had a major pathologic response. Median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib (21.5 months) versus GC chemotherapy (11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.67; P < .001). Observed adverse events reflected those most commonly seen with the two treatments. CONCLUSION : The primary end point of ORR with 42 days of neoadjuvant erlotinib was not met, but the secondary end point PFS was significantly improved.