Skip to content

A Study of Tarceva (Erlotinib) and Standard of Care Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

An Open-label, Randomized Study to Evaluate the Effect of Tarceva, Compared With Alimta (Pemetrexed) or Taxotere (Docetaxel),on Survival in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Experienced Disease Progression During Platinum-based Chemotherapy

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00556322
Enrollment
424
Registered
2007-11-12
Start date
2006-03-31
Completion date
2012-06-30
Last updated
2015-02-23

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Brief summary

This 2 arm study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of Tarceva and that of standard of care chemotherapy in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC experiencing disease progression after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy.Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either Tarceva 150mg po daily, or comparator (either Alimta 500mg/m2 every 3 weeks, or Taxotere 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks). The anticipated time on study treatment is until disease progression ,and the target sample size is 500+ individuals.

Interventions

DRUGAlimta or Taxotere

500mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Alimta) or 75mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Taxotere)

DRUGerlotinib [Tarceva]

150mg po daily

Sponsors

Hoffmann-La Roche
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* adult patients \>=18 years of age; * histologically documented, locally advanced or recurrent or metastatic NSCLC; * measurable disease; * disease progression during 1-4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.

Exclusion criteria

* any other malignancies within the last 5 years; * unstable systemic disease.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 or Death and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 monthsOverall survival (OS) was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death.
Duration of Overall Survival in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 monthsOS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year1 YearOS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death (All Participants; Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 monthsTumor response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20 percent (%) increase in the sum of the Longest Diameter (LD) of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. The primary analysis of PFS used objective progression (RECIST) plus clinical progression (based on relevant clinical findings - if any). A further assessment of PFS was made on objective (radiological) progression. If clinical progression was diagnosed first, the participant was censored at the date of the last tumor assessment, where non-progression was documented.
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 monthsTumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy.
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months6 MonthsTumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. Event free estimates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates.
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 monthsEGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC.Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as At least a 20 % increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions.
PFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 monthsEGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first in EGFR positive and negative populations. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative Population6 MonthsEGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first in EGFR positive and negative populations. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy. Event free estimates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates.
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Confirmed Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Assessed by the Investigator Using RECISTBaseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Death or up to 52 monthsBest overall response was defined as the best response according to RECIST recorded from the date of randomization until disease progression or recurrence. CR: disappearance of all target lesions; PR: reduction by at least 30% of the sum of the longest diameters of each target lesion, taking the initial sum of the longest diameters as a reference; Stable disease (SD): insufficient tumor reduction to define partial response and/or tumor increase less than that necessary to define tumor progression, taking as a reference the smallest sum of the longest diameter since the start of treatment; Progressive Disease (PD): increase by at least 20% in the sum of LD of each target lesion, taking as a reference the smallest sum of the longest diameters, reported since the start of treatment, or appearance of one or more new lesions. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for one sample binomial using Pearson-Clopper method. Participants with a missing response were considered non-responders.
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in Quality of Life Determined Using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 monthsThe FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General scale (FACT-G) and the lung cancer subscale (LCS). The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL.
Percentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative PopulationBaseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 monthsEGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Without Deterioration in Quality of Life at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L6 MonthsThe FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the FACT-G and the LCS. The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL. Kaplan Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-LBaseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 monthsParticipants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline.
Time to Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-LBaseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 monthsParticipants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to FACIT measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline. Kaplan Meier estimated were used for analysis.
Probable Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L6 MonthsParticipants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to FACIT measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline. Kaplan Meier estimated were used for analysis.
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI)Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 monthsTOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the Physical Well- Being (PWB), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6-point decline from baseline.
Time to Deterioration in the TOIBaseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 monthsTOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the PW, FWB, and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6- point decline from baseline. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Probable Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the TOI at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L6 MonthsTOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the PW, FWB, and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6-point decline from baseline. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life Using FACT-LBaseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 monthsThe FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the FACT-G and the LCS. The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL. Time to deterioration of QoL or symptom progression is defined as time from randomization until either a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in Total FACT-L or, death on study, whichever occurs first. The clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine deterioration in QoL was ≥6-point decline from baseline. Participants without deterioration in QoL at the time of analysis were censored at the time of the last FACT-L assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to determine time to event.
Duration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationBaseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 monthsEGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative Population1 YearEGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Countries

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Venezuela

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Comparator
Participants received either pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 every 21 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or death or docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2 every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or death. Choice of comparator was left to the discretion of the investigator in countries where both treatments are registered to use and are commercially available for second line use (otherwise, docetaxel was administered), assigning the participant to either comparator depending upon the medical needs of the participant. Participants were required to receive concomitant treatment therapy as indicated in the product label.
221
Erlotinib
Participants received erlotinib, 150 mg, administered orally as a tablet, once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.
203
Total424

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event74
Overall StudyDeath2014
Overall StudyInsufficient therapeutic response158168
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up53
Overall StudyOngoing at data cutoff35
Overall StudyOther41
Overall StudyProtocol Violation51
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject197

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicComparatorErlotinibTotal
Age, Continuous58.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.9
58.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.64
58.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.76
Sex: Female, Male
Female
61 Participants42 Participants103 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
160 Participants161 Participants321 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
106 / 213125 / 196
serious
Total, serious adverse events
31 / 21320 / 196

Outcome results

Primary

Duration of Overall Survival in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)

OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ComparatorDuration of Overall Survival in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)5.5 months
ErlotinibDuration of Overall Survival in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)5.3 months
p-value: 0.729995% CI: [0.78, 1.19]Log Rank
Primary

Percentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010)

Overall survival (OS) was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 or Death and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010)81.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010)77.8 percentage of participants
Primary

Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year

OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: 1 Year

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year24.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year26.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Duration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population

EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with confirmed presence or absence of EGFR were included in the analysis. n=number of participants who were EGFR positive or negative

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
ComparatorDuration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=149,143)5.5 months
ComparatorDuration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=39,32)6.7 months
ErlotinibDuration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=149,143)5.6 months
ErlotinibDuration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=39,32)5.4 months
Comparison: Comparison of EGFR negative populationsp-value: 0.839895% CI: [0.55, 1.62]Log Rank
Comparison: Comparison of EGFR positive populationsp-value: 0.619895% CI: [0.72, 1.21]Log Rank
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Confirmed Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Assessed by the Investigator Using RECIST

Best overall response was defined as the best response according to RECIST recorded from the date of randomization until disease progression or recurrence. CR: disappearance of all target lesions; PR: reduction by at least 30% of the sum of the longest diameters of each target lesion, taking the initial sum of the longest diameters as a reference; Stable disease (SD): insufficient tumor reduction to define partial response and/or tumor increase less than that necessary to define tumor progression, taking as a reference the smallest sum of the longest diameter since the start of treatment; Progressive Disease (PD): increase by at least 20% in the sum of LD of each target lesion, taking as a reference the smallest sum of the longest diameters, reported since the start of treatment, or appearance of one or more new lesions. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for one sample binomial using Pearson-Clopper method. Participants with a missing response were considered non-responders.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Death or up to 52 months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Confirmed Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Assessed by the Investigator Using RECIST6.3 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Confirmed Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Assessed by the Investigator Using RECIST7.9 percentage of participants
p-value: 0.534995% CI: [-3.6, 6.7]Chi-squared
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative Population

EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with confirmed presence or absence of EGFR were included in the analysis. number (n) equals (=) number of participants who were EGFR positive or negative

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=149,143)79.9 percentage of participants
ComparatorPercentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=39,32)79.5 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=149,143)76.9 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=39,32)75.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in Quality of Life Determined Using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L)

The FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General scale (FACT-G) and the lung cancer subscale (LCS). The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants With Deterioration in Quality of Life Determined Using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L)66.1 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Deterioration in Quality of Life Determined Using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L)66.9 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI)

TOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the Physical Well- Being (PWB), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6-point decline from baseline.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants With Deterioration in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI)60.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Deterioration in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI)63.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death (All Participants; Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)

Tumor response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20 percent (%) increase in the sum of the Longest Diameter (LD) of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. The primary analysis of PFS used objective progression (RECIST) plus clinical progression (based on relevant clinical findings - if any). A further assessment of PFS was made on objective (radiological) progression. If clinical progression was diagnosed first, the participant was censored at the date of the last tumor assessment, where non-progression was documented.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death (All Participants; Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)83.3 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death (All Participants; Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)92.6 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)

EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC.Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as At least a 20 % increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with confirmed presence or absence of EGFR were included in the analysis. n=number of participants who were EGFR positive or negative

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)EGFR Positive (n=149,143)79.9 percentage of participants
ComparatorPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)EGFR Negative (n=39,32)89.7 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)EGFR Positive (n=149,143)93.7 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)EGFR Negative (n=39,32)90.6 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L

Participants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorPercentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L60.6 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L62.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

PFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)

EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first in EGFR positive and negative populations. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only Participants with confirmed status of EGFR were included in the analysis; number of participants who were EGFR positive or negative

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
ComparatorPFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)EGFR Positive (n=149,143)8.9 weeks
ComparatorPFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)EGFR Negative (n=39,32)11.5 weeks
ErlotinibPFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)EGFR Positive (n=149,143)6.3 weeks
ErlotinibPFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)EGFR Negative (n=39,32)6.7 weeks
Comparison: Comparison of EGFR positive populationsp-value: 0.066295% CI: [0.98, 1.61]Log Rank
Comparison: Comparison of EGFR negative populationsp-value: 0.940395% CI: [0.61, 1.69]Log Rank
Secondary

Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months

Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. Event free estimates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

Time frame: 6 Months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months17.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months13.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative Population

EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first in EGFR positive and negative populations. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy. Event free estimates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

Time frame: 6 Months

Population: FAS population; n=number of EGFR positive or negative participants who remained at risk

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=23,18)20.0 percentage of participants
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=4,5)11.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=23,18)13.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=4,5)16.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative Population

EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: 1 Year

Population: FAS population; n=number of EGFR positive or negative participants remaining at risk

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=8,4)28.0 percentage of participants
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=30,32)27.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Positive (n=30,32)30.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative PopulationEGFR Negative (n=8,4)20.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Without Deterioration in Quality of Life at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L

The FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the FACT-G and the LCS. The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL. Kaplan Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: 6 Months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Without Deterioration in Quality of Life at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L25.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants Remaining Without Deterioration in Quality of Life at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L19.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Probable Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the TOI at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L

TOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the PW, FWB, and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6-point decline from baseline. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: 6 Months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the TOI at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L28 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the TOI at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L21 percentage of participants
Secondary

Probable Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L

Participants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to FACIT measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline. Kaplan Meier estimated were used for analysis.

Time frame: 6 Months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ComparatorProbable Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L27 percentage of participants
ErlotinibProbable Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L27 percentage of participants
Secondary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)

Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ComparatorProgression-Free Survival (PFS) in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)8.6 weeks
ErlotinibProgression-Free Survival (PFS) in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)6.3 weeks
p-value: 0.088595% CI: [0.97, 1.46]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life Using FACT-L

The FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the FACT-G and the LCS. The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL. Time to deterioration of QoL or symptom progression is defined as time from randomization until either a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in Total FACT-L or, death on study, whichever occurs first. The clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine deterioration in QoL was ≥6-point decline from baseline. Participants without deterioration in QoL at the time of analysis were censored at the time of the last FACT-L assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to determine time to event.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ComparatorTime to Deterioration in Quality of Life Using FACT-L9.0 weeks
ErlotinibTime to Deterioration in Quality of Life Using FACT-L6.3 weeks
p-value: 0.149895% CI: [0.93, 1.59]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Deterioration in the TOI

TOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the PW, FWB, and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6- point decline from baseline. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ComparatorTime to Deterioration in the TOI9.3 weeks
ErlotinibTime to Deterioration in the TOI6.7 weeks
p-value: 0.106395% CI: [0.95, 1.66]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L

Participants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to FACIT measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline. Kaplan Meier estimated were used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months

Population: FAS population; Only participants with both a baseline FACT-L assessment and a subsequent FACT-L assessment were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ComparatorTime to Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L9.0 weeks
ErlotinibTime to Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L7.1 weeks
p-value: 0.220295% CI: [0.9, 1.57]Log Rank

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 27, 2026