Afatinib Vs Erlotinib As Second-Line Therapy of Patients with Advanced Scc of the Lung Following Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: Os Analysis from the Global Phase Iii Trial Lux-Lung 8 (Ll8)
A. Morabito,A. A. Brandes,A. Sibau,L. Ciuffreda,A. Favaretto,F. Cappuzzo,A. Santoro,E. Vasile,M. Brighenti,F. Ferrau,P. Giordano,M. Tiseo,J. Soria,E. Felip,S. Lu,G. D. Goss,S. Gadgeel,V. Georgoulias,V. K. Chand,A. Ardizzoni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv343.02
IF: 51.769
2015-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Background: Treatment options for patients (pts) with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. Overexpression of EGFR, ErbB receptors and the dysregulation of their downstream pathways are implicated in SCC pathobiology. Primary analysis of LL8 (second-line afatinib [A], an irreversible ErbB family blocker vs erlotinib [E], a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] and the only TKI approved in this setting, in pts with SCC of the lung) showed significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) with A. Overall survival (OS) and updated PFS for LL8 are reported here.Material (patients) and methods: Pts with stage IIIB/IV disease were randomised 1:1 to receive A (40 mg/day) or E (150 mg/day) until disease progression. Primary endpoint: PFS; key secondary endpoint: OS. Other endpoints: objective response (ORR), disease control (DCR), patient reported outcomes and safety. 632 events and a sample size of 800 pts were needed to detect a HR of 0.8 with 80% power for OS.Results: OS was significantly better with A (n = 398) vs E (n = 397), with a 19% reduced risk of death (median 7.9 vs 6.8 mos; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69–0.95]; p = 0.008). Significant differences in OS were seen at 6 (63.6 vs 54.6%; p = 0.010), 12 (36.4 vs 28.2%; p = 0.016) and 18 (22.0 vs 14.4%; p = 0.013) mos. PFS (median 2.6 vs 1.9 mos; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69–0.96]; p = 0.010), ORR (5.5 vs 2.8%; p = 0.055) and DCR (50.5 vs 39.5%; p = 0.002) were all better for A vs E. More pts had improved global health status/quality of life (35.7 vs 28.3%; p = 0.041), cough (43.4 vs 35.2%; p = 0.029) and dyspnea (51.3 vs 44.1%; p = 0.061) with A vs E. Adverse event (AE) profiles were comparable (G = 3 AEs: 57.1 and 57.5% for A vs E) with a higher incidence of drug-related G3/4 diarrhoea (9.9/0.5 vs 2.3/0.3%), G3 stomatitis (4.1 vs 0%) with A and a higher incidence of G3 rash/acne with E (5.9 vs 10.4%). Preliminary data from FoundationOne™ analysis of tumour blocks will be shown.Conclusion: A significantly improved OS vs E in pts with SCC of the lung in a second-line setting. PFS and DCR were also significantly better. With a manageable AE profile, added QoL benefit, and symptom control seen in LL8, A should be preferred over E for these pts. Background: Treatment options for patients (pts) with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. Overexpression of EGFR, ErbB receptors and the dysregulation of their downstream pathways are implicated in SCC pathobiology. Primary analysis of LL8 (second-line afatinib [A], an irreversible ErbB family blocker vs erlotinib [E], a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] and the only TKI approved in this setting, in pts with SCC of the lung) showed significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) with A. Overall survival (OS) and updated PFS for LL8 are reported here. Material (patients) and methods: Pts with stage IIIB/IV disease were randomised 1:1 to receive A (40 mg/day) or E (150 mg/day) until disease progression. Primary endpoint: PFS; key secondary endpoint: OS. Other endpoints: objective response (ORR), disease control (DCR), patient reported outcomes and safety. 632 events and a sample size of 800 pts were needed to detect a HR of 0.8 with 80% power for OS. Results: OS was significantly better with A (n = 398) vs E (n = 397), with a 19% reduced risk of death (median 7.9 vs 6.8 mos; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69–0.95]; p = 0.008). Significant differences in OS were seen at 6 (63.6 vs 54.6%; p = 0.010), 12 (36.4 vs 28.2%; p = 0.016) and 18 (22.0 vs 14.4%; p = 0.013) mos. PFS (median 2.6 vs 1.9 mos; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69–0.96]; p = 0.010), ORR (5.5 vs 2.8%; p = 0.055) and DCR (50.5 vs 39.5%; p = 0.002) were all better for A vs E. More pts had improved global health status/quality of life (35.7 vs 28.3%; p = 0.041), cough (43.4 vs 35.2%; p = 0.029) and dyspnea (51.3 vs 44.1%; p = 0.061) with A vs E. Adverse event (AE) profiles were comparable (G = 3 AEs: 57.1 and 57.5% for A vs E) with a higher incidence of drug-related G3/4 diarrhoea (9.9/0.5 vs 2.3/0.3%), G3 stomatitis (4.1 vs 0%) with A and a higher incidence of G3 rash/acne with E (5.9 vs 10.4%). Preliminary data from FoundationOne™ analysis of tumour blocks will be shown. Conclusion: A significantly improved OS vs E in pts with SCC of the lung in a second-line setting. PFS and DCR were also significantly better. With a manageable AE profile, added QoL benefit, and symptom control seen in LL8, A should be preferred over E for these pts.