Skip to content

A Study of Tarceva (Erlotinib) in Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

A Phase II Randomized Trial of Erlotinib or Vinorelbine in Chemo-naive, Advanced, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Aged 70 Years or Older in Taiwan

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01196078
Enrollment
114
Registered
2010-09-08
Start date
2007-02-28
Completion date
2010-12-31
Last updated
2015-07-27

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 study will compare the efficacy and safety of Tarceva (erlotinib) and vinorelbine in chemo-naive elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Patients will be randomized to receive either Tarceva (150 mg po daily) or vinorelbine (60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and 80 mg/m2 for the other 21 days cycles). The anticipated time on study treatment is until disease progression.

Interventions

DRUGerlotinib [Tarceva]

150 mg, orally once a day for up to 6 cycles of 21 days each

DRUGvinorelbine

60 mg/m2, orally on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1, 80 mg/m2 for the other cycles

Sponsors

Hoffmann-La Roche
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Adult patients, \>=70 years of age * Non-small cell lung cancer * Naive to prior chemotherapy or specific immunotherapy * Presence of at least 1 measurable lesion

Exclusion criteria

* Active non-controlled infection or disease * CNS metastases * Any other malignancies (other than adequately treated basal cell cancer of skin, or in situ cancer of the cervix)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR)Screening, Day 1 of Cycles 3 and 5 and at End of treatment up to 1 yearCR was defined as disappearance of all target lesions. PR was defined as at least a 30 percent (%) decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (LD) of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD. Participants experiencing either a CR or PR according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were classified as responders. Participants with tumour assessment unevaluable were viewed as non-responders.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Duration of Response Among Participants Who Achieved Either a CR or PRScreening, Day 1 of Cycles 3 and 5, every 4th cycle during post-study treatment, and every 3 cycles during follow-upDuration of response was defined similarly for complete and partial responders. Complete response lasted from the date the complete response was first recorded to the date on which progressive disease was first noted or date of death. Partial response lasted from the date of partial response to the date of the first observation of progressive disease or date of death.
Percentage of Participants With Disease ProgressionDay 1 of Cycles 1, 3, and 5 or first documentation of progressive disease or deathProgressive disease was defined using RECIST as at least a 20% increase in the sum of the 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 to Disease ProgressionDay 1 of Cycles 1, 3, and 5 or first documentation of progressive disease or deathTime to disease progression was defined as the interval between the day of randomization and the first documentation of progressive disease or death.
Overall Survival: Percentage of Participants With an Progressive Disease or DeathDay 1 of Cycles 1 through 6 to date of death or date of last follow-up assessmentOverall survival was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death. Participants who were alive at the time of the analysis were censored at the date of the last follow-up assessment. Participants without follow-up assessment were censored at the day of last dose and participants with no postbaseline information were censored at the time of randomization. Progressive disease was defined per RECIST as at least a 20% increase in the sum of the 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.
Overall Survival: Time to EventDay 1 of Cycles 1 through 6 to date of death or date of last follow-up assessmentOverall survival was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death. Participants who were alive at the time of the analysis were censored at the date of the last follow-up assessment. Participants without follow-up assessment were censored at the day of last dose and participants with no post baseline information were censored at the time of randomization. Overall median time to event was assessed for the population that experienced an event.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Disease ControlScreening, Day 1 of Cycles 3 and 5 and at End of treatment up to 1 yearDisease control was defined as achieving a best overall response of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) according to RECIST criteria. Participants with tumor assessment unevaluable were viewed as uncontrolled.
Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireBaseline and Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and End of studyThe FACT Questionnaire contains 4 general and 1 lung cancer symptom-specific subscale, including PWB, SWB, EWB, FWB, and the 8-item LCS that assess symptoms commonly reported by participants with lung cancer. Each subscale was assessed by a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) to determine the quality of life. PWB, SWB and FWB scores ranged from 0-28 and EWB scores ranged from 0-24. LCS scores ranged from 0-36. For subscales of FWB and SWB, questionnaires of EWB, and additional concerns questions, the higher score represented 'Improved'. For other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. Missing data were replaced by the valid post-baseline assessment before. For PWB, FWB, SWB, and EWB scores and disease-specific subscale score, response of down, up or no change were defined as score changes of less than or equal to (≤)2, greater than or equal to (≥)+2, or between these values.
Percentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeBaseline and End of studyThe FACT and the FACT-L contain 4 general and 1 lung cancer symptom-specific subscale, including PWB, SWB, EWB, FWB, and the 8-item LCS that assess symptoms commonly reported by participants with lung cancer. For subscales of FWB and SWB, questionnaires of EWB, and additional concerns questions, the higher score represented 'Improved'. For other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented Worsened'. For PWB, FWB, SWB, and EWB scores and disease-specific subscale score, higher scores indicated a better outcome; a response of down, up, or no change was defined as a score change of ≤ -2 (score down), ≥ +2 (score up), or between these values.
Changes in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireBaseline and Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and End of studyThe LCS consists of 7 items of the FACT-L (3 items relating to breathing/dyspnea, and 1 item each relating to cough, weight loss, appetite, and cognition) rated on a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The LCS total score is the sum of the scores from the 7 items. For clear thinking and good appetite, the higher score represented 'Improved'; for other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. Missing data were replaced by the valid post-baseline assessment before. The change of FACT-L subscore was the change from baseline to endpoint. The LCS of FACT-L is an independently validated tool that measures the disease-related symptoms of lung cancer on an overall scale of 0 (most symptomatic) to 28 (asymptomatic).
Percentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeBaseline and End of studyThe LCS consists of 7 items of the FACT-L (3 items relating to breathing/dyspnea, and 1 item each relating to cough, weight loss, appetite, and cognition). The LCS total score is the sum of the scores from the 7 items, each rated on a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). For clear thinking and good appetite, the higher score represented 'Improved'; for other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. For each FACT-L question, the response status was defined as down, up, or no change if the score at endpoint was smaller (score down), larger than (score up), or the same as (no change) that at baseline.
Quality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireBaseline and Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and End of studyThe FACT Questionnaire contains 4 general and 1 lung cancer symptom-specific subscale, including Physical Well-Being (PWB), Social/family Well-Being (SWB), Emotional Well-Being (EWB), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and the 8-item Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) that assess symptoms commonly reported by participants with lung cancer. Each subscale was assessed by a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) to determine the quality of life. PWB, SWB and FWB scores ranged from 0-28 and EWB scores ranged from 0-24. LCS scores ranged from 0-36. For subscales of FWB and SWB, questionnaires of EWB, and additional concerns questions, the higher score represented 'Improved'. For other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. Missing data were replaced by the valid post-baseline assessment before. The FACT-L score ranges from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life.

Countries

Taiwan

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Erlotinib
Participants received erlotinib 150 mg, tablets, orally, once a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or participant withdrawal.
57
Vinorelbine
Cycle 1 (21-day cycle): Participants received vinorelbine 60 mg/m\^2 orally on Days 1 and 8, followed by 1 week off. Cycles 2 and beyond (21-day-cycles): Participants received vinorelbine 80 mg/m\^2 (in the absence of Grade 2 AEs) orally, on Days 1 and 8, followed by 1 week off. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or participant withdrawal.
56
Total113

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event44
Overall StudyDeath64
Overall StudyLack of Efficacy1723
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up10
Overall StudyProtocol Violation21
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject35

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicErlotinibVinorelbineTotal
Age, Continuous78 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.98
78 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.32
78 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.6
Sex: Female, Male
Female
10 Participants11 Participants21 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
47 Participants45 Participants92 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
54 / 5553 / 54
serious
Total, serious adverse events
19 / 5714 / 57

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR)

CR was defined as disappearance of all target lesions. PR was defined as at least a 30 percent (%) decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (LD) of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD. Participants experiencing either a CR or PR according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were classified as responders. Participants with tumour assessment unevaluable were viewed as non-responders.

Time frame: Screening, Day 1 of Cycles 3 and 5 and at End of treatment up to 1 year

Population: ITT population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR)22.81 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR)8.93 percentage of participants
p-value: 0.038895% CI: [-0.22, 26.19]Regression, Logistic
Secondary

Changes in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) Questionnaire

The LCS consists of 7 items of the FACT-L (3 items relating to breathing/dyspnea, and 1 item each relating to cough, weight loss, appetite, and cognition) rated on a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The LCS total score is the sum of the scores from the 7 items. For clear thinking and good appetite, the higher score represented 'Improved'; for other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. Missing data were replaced by the valid post-baseline assessment before. The change of FACT-L subscore was the change from baseline to endpoint. The LCS of FACT-L is an independently validated tool that measures the disease-related symptoms of lung cancer on an overall scale of 0 (most symptomatic) to 28 (asymptomatic).

Time frame: Baseline and Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and End of study

Population: Safety Population; n=number of participants assessed for the specified parameter at a given visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireClear thinking, Endpoint (n=52,48)2.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireClear thinking, Change (n=52,48)-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireCoughing, Baseline (n=52,48)1.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireCoughing, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireCoughing, Change (n=52,48)0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireHair loss, Baseline (n=52,48)0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireHair loss, Endpoint (n=52,48)0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireHair loss, Change (n=52,48)0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireGood appetite, Baseline (n=52,48)1.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireGood appetite, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireGood appetite, Change (n=52,48)-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireTightness in chest, Baseline (n=52,48)1.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireTightness in chest, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireTightness in chest, Change (n=52,48)0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireEasy breathing, Baseline (n=52,48)1.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireEasy breathing, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireEasy breathing, Change (n=52,48)-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireShortness of breath, Baseline (n=52,48)1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireShortness of breath, Change (n=52,48)0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireWeight loss, Baseline (n=51,47)0.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireWeight loss, Endpoint (n=51,47)0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireWeight loss, Change (n=51,47)0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireClear thinking, Baseline (n=52,48)2.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireShortness of breath, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireShortness of breath, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireClear thinking, Endpoint (n=52,48)2.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireTightness in chest, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireClear thinking, Change (n=52,48)0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.5
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireWeight loss, Endpoint (n=51,47)0.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireCoughing, Baseline (n=52,48)1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireTightness in chest, Change (n=52,48)0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireCoughing, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireShortness of breath, Change (n=52,48)-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireCoughing, Change (n=52,48)-0.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireEasy breathing, Baseline (n=52,48)1.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireHair loss, Baseline (n=52,48)0.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireClear thinking, Baseline (n=52,48)2.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireHair loss, Endpoint (n=52,48)0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireEasy breathing, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireHair loss, Change (n=52,48)-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireWeight loss, Baseline (n=51,47)0.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireGood appetite, Baseline (n=52,48)2.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireEasy breathing, Change (n=52,48)-0.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireGood appetite, Endpoint (n=52,48)1.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireWeight loss, Change (n=51,47)-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireGood appetite, Change (n=52,48)-0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireShortness of breath, Baseline (n=52,48)1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Assessed by FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) QuestionnaireTightness in chest, Baseline (n=52,48)1.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Secondary

Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT Questionnaire

The FACT Questionnaire contains 4 general and 1 lung cancer symptom-specific subscale, including PWB, SWB, EWB, FWB, and the 8-item LCS that assess symptoms commonly reported by participants with lung cancer. Each subscale was assessed by a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) to determine the quality of life. PWB, SWB and FWB scores ranged from 0-28 and EWB scores ranged from 0-24. LCS scores ranged from 0-36. For subscales of FWB and SWB, questionnaires of EWB, and additional concerns questions, the higher score represented 'Improved'. For other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. Missing data were replaced by the valid post-baseline assessment before. For PWB, FWB, SWB, and EWB scores and disease-specific subscale score, response of down, up or no change were defined as score changes of less than or equal to (≤)2, greater than or equal to (≥)+2, or between these values.

Time frame: Baseline and Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and End of study

Population: Safety Population; n=number of participants assessed for the specified parameter at a given visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in PWB (n=51,45)4.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.5
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireEWB, Endpoint (n=52,48)7.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.1
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireFWB, Baseline (n=51,48)12.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.2
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireFWB, Endpoint (n=51,48)11.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.2
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireLCS, Baseline (n=51,47)10.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.3
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnairePWB, Baseline (n=51,45)6.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnairePWB, Endpoint (n=51,45)10.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.2
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireSWB, Baseline (n=50,45)15.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.5
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireSWB, Endpoint (n=50,45)14.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.2
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in SWB (n=50,45)-1.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.8
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireEWB, Baseline (n=52,48)7.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.7
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in EWB (n=52,48)-0.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.4
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in FWB (n=51,48)-1.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.1
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireLCS, Endpoint (n=51,47)11.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
ErlotinibChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in LCS (n=51,47)0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.3
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in LCS (n=51,47)-0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.5
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in PWB (n=51,45)1.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.7
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireSWB, Baseline (n=50,45)15.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.7
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireFWB, Endpoint (n=51,48)11.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireEWB, Endpoint (n=52,48)6.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.4
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in EWB (n=52,48)-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireSWB, Endpoint (n=50,45)14.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.7
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireFWB, Baseline (n=51,48)13.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.4
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireLCS, Endpoint (n=51,47)10.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in FWB (n=51,48)-1.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireChange in SWB (n=50,45)-1.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireLCS, Baseline (n=51,47)11.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnairePWB, Baseline (n=51,45)6.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.4
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnaireEWB, Baseline (n=52,48)6.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
VinorelbineChanges in Quality of Life as Measured by the FACT QuestionnairePWB, Endpoint (n=51,45)7.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.6
Comparison: PWB, Baseline versus Endpointp-value: 0.006ANOVA
Comparison: SWB, Baseline versus Endpointp-value: 0.6871ANOVA
Comparison: EWB Baseline versus Endpointp-value: 0.5104ANOVA
Comparison: FWB, Baseline versus Endpointp-value: 0.9927ANOVA
Comparison: LCS, Baseline versus Endpointp-value: 0.3581ANOVA
Secondary

Duration of Response Among Participants Who Achieved Either a CR or PR

Duration of response was defined similarly for complete and partial responders. Complete response lasted from the date the complete response was first recorded to the date on which progressive disease was first noted or date of death. Partial response lasted from the date of partial response to the date of the first observation of progressive disease or date of death.

Time frame: Screening, Day 1 of Cycles 3 and 5, every 4th cycle during post-study treatment, and every 3 cycles during follow-up

Population: ITT population; only participants with a response (CR or PR) were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ErlotinibDuration of Response Among Participants Who Achieved Either a CR or PR10.89 months
VinorelbineDuration of Response Among Participants Who Achieved Either a CR or PR8.75 months
p-value: 0.9505Log Rank
Secondary

Overall Survival: Percentage of Participants With an Progressive Disease or Death

Overall survival was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death. Participants who were alive at the time of the analysis were censored at the date of the last follow-up assessment. Participants without follow-up assessment were censored at the day of last dose and participants with no postbaseline information were censored at the time of randomization. Progressive disease was defined per RECIST as at least a 20% increase in the sum of the 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: Day 1 of Cycles 1 through 6 to date of death or date of last follow-up assessment

Population: ITT population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ErlotinibOverall Survival: Percentage of Participants With an Progressive Disease or Death56.14 percentage of participants
VinorelbineOverall Survival: Percentage of Participants With an Progressive Disease or Death48.21 percentage of participants
Secondary

Overall Survival: Time to Event

Overall survival was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death. Participants who were alive at the time of the analysis were censored at the date of the last follow-up assessment. Participants without follow-up assessment were censored at the day of last dose and participants with no post baseline information were censored at the time of randomization. Overall median time to event was assessed for the population that experienced an event.

Time frame: Day 1 of Cycles 1 through 6 to date of death or date of last follow-up assessment

Population: ITT population

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ErlotinibOverall Survival: Time to Event11.21 months
VinorelbineOverall Survival: Time to Event10.36 months
p-value: 0.9894Log Rank
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Disease Control

Disease control was defined as achieving a best overall response of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) according to RECIST criteria. Participants with tumor assessment unevaluable were viewed as uncontrolled.

Time frame: Screening, Day 1 of Cycles 3 and 5 and at End of treatment up to 1 year

Population: ITT Population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants Achieving Disease Control71.93 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants Achieving Disease Control57.14 percentage of participants
p-value: 0.106195% CI: [-3.54, 31.33]Regression, Logistic
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of Change

The LCS consists of 7 items of the FACT-L (3 items relating to breathing/dyspnea, and 1 item each relating to cough, weight loss, appetite, and cognition). The LCS total score is the sum of the scores from the 7 items, each rated on a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). For clear thinking and good appetite, the higher score represented 'Improved'; for other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. For each FACT-L question, the response status was defined as down, up, or no change if the score at endpoint was smaller (score down), larger than (score up), or the same as (no change) that at baseline.

Time frame: Baseline and End of study

Population: Safety Population; n=number of participants assessed for the specified parameter at a given visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeClear thinking, Score Down (n=52,48)26.9 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeShortness of breath, No Change (n=52,48)51.9 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeShortness of breath, Score Up (n=52,48)30.8 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeWeight loss, Score Down (n=51,47)19.6 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeWeight loss, No Change (n=51,47)51.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeWeight loss, Score Up (n=51,47)29.4 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeShortness of breath, Score Down (n=52,48)17.3 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeClear thinking No Change (n=52,48)53.8 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeClear thinking, Score Up (n=52,48)19.2 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeCoughing, Score Down (n=52,48)21.2 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeCoughing, No Change (n=52,48)53.8 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeCoughing, Score Up (n=52,48)25.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeHair loss, Score Down (n=52,48)13.5 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeHair loss, No Change (n=52,48)65.4 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeHair loss, Score Up (n=52,48)21.2 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeGood appetite, Score Down (n=52,48)26.9 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeGood appetite, No Change (n=52,48)61.5 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeGood appetite, Score Up (n=52,48)11.5 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeTightness in chest, Score Down (n=52,48)17.3 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeTightness in chest, No Change (n=52,48)55.8 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeTightness in chest, Score Up (n=52,48)26.9 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeEasy breathing, Score Down (n=52,48)28.8 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeEasy breathing, No Change (n=52,48)48.1 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeEasy breathing, Score Up (n=52,48)23.1 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeEasy breathing, No Change (n=52,48)58.3 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeShortness of breath, Score Down (n=52,48)18.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeHair loss, Score Down (n=52,48)18.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeShortness of breath, No Change (n=52,48)58.3 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeTightness in chest, Score Down (n=52,48)22.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeShortness of breath, Score Up (n=52,48)22.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeHair loss, No Change (n=52,48)60.4 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeWeight loss, Score Down (n=51,47)31.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeEasy breathing, Score Down (n=52,48)22.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeWeight loss, No Change (n=51,47)44.7 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeHair loss, Score Up (n=52,48)20.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeWeight loss, Score Up (n=51,47)23.4 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeTightness in chest, No Change (n=52,48)54.2 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeClear thinking, Score Down (n=52,48)27.1 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeGood appetite, Score Down (n=52,48)35.4 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeClear thinking No Change (n=52,48)43.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeEasy breathing, Score Up (n=52,48)18.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeClear thinking, Score Up (n=52,48)29.2 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeGood appetite, No Change (n=52,48)45.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeCoughing, Score Down (n=52,48)22.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeTightness in chest, Score Up (n=52,48)22.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeCoughing, No Change (n=52,48)50.0 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeGood appetite, Score Up (n=52,48)18.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in FACT-L (Lung Symptoms) by Category of ChangeCoughing, Score Up (n=52,48)27.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of Change

The FACT and the FACT-L contain 4 general and 1 lung cancer symptom-specific subscale, including PWB, SWB, EWB, FWB, and the 8-item LCS that assess symptoms commonly reported by participants with lung cancer. For subscales of FWB and SWB, questionnaires of EWB, and additional concerns questions, the higher score represented 'Improved'. For other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented Worsened'. For PWB, FWB, SWB, and EWB scores and disease-specific subscale score, higher scores indicated a better outcome; a response of down, up, or no change was defined as a score change of ≤ -2 (score down), ≥ +2 (score up), or between these values.

Time frame: Baseline and End of study

Population: Safety Population; n=number of participants assessed for the specified parameter at a given visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeSWB, No Change (n=50,45)40.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeEWB, Score Up (n=52,48)23.1 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeSWB, Score Down (n=50,45)40.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeFWB, Score Down (n=51,48)41.2 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangePWB, Score Down (n=51,45)7.8 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeFWB, No Change (n=51,48)33.3 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangePWB, No Change (n=51,45)33.3 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeFWB, Score Up (n=51,48)25.5 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeSWB, Score Up (n=50,45)20.0 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeLCS, Score Down (n=51,47)17.6 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeEWB, Score Down (n=52,48)38.5 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeLCS, No Change (n=51,47)47.1 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangePWB, Score Up (n=51,45)58.8 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeLCS, Score Up (n=51,47)35.3 percentage of participants
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeEWB, No Change (n=52,48)38.5 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeLCS, Score Up (n=51,47)27.7 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeSWB, Score Up (n=50,45)22.2 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangePWB, No Change (n=51,45)31.1 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangePWB, Score Up (n=51,45)46.7 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeSWB, Score Down (n=50,45)37.8 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeSWB, No Change (n=50,45)40.0 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeEWB, Score Down (n=52,48)33.3 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeEWB, No Change (n=52,48)41.7 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeEWB, Score Up (n=52,48)25.0 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeFWB, Score Down (n=51,48)41.7 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeFWB, No Change (n=51,48)35.4 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeFWB, Score Up (n=51,48)22.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeLCS, Score Down (n=51,47)31.9 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangeLCS, No Change (n=51,47)40.4 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Changes in Quality of Life as Measured by FACT Questionnaire Scores by Category of ChangePWB, Score Down (n=51,45)22.2 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression

Progressive disease was defined using RECIST as at least a 20% increase in the sum of the 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: Day 1 of Cycles 1, 3, and 5 or first documentation of progressive disease or death

Population: ITT population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
ErlotinibPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression63.16 percentage of participants
VinorelbinePercentage of Participants With Disease Progression58.93 percentage of participants
Secondary

Quality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Questionnaire

The FACT Questionnaire contains 4 general and 1 lung cancer symptom-specific subscale, including Physical Well-Being (PWB), Social/family Well-Being (SWB), Emotional Well-Being (EWB), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and the 8-item Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) that assess symptoms commonly reported by participants with lung cancer. Each subscale was assessed by a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) to determine the quality of life. PWB, SWB and FWB scores ranged from 0-28 and EWB scores ranged from 0-24. LCS scores ranged from 0-36. For subscales of FWB and SWB, questionnaires of EWB, and additional concerns questions, the higher score represented 'Improved'. For other subscales and questionnaires, the higher score represented 'Worsened'. Missing data were replaced by the valid post-baseline assessment before. The FACT-L score ranges from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life.

Time frame: Baseline and Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and End of study

Population: Safety Population; n=number of participants assessed for the specified parameter at a given visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 2 (n=52,43)6.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.8
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, End of Study (n=52,47)14.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 3 (n=42,29)6.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,28)9.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,27)7.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.6
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 3 (n=42,30)16.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.9
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 5 (n=29,21)6.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.6
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 5 (n=30,22)8.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.3
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 6 (n=25,20)6.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Baseline (n=57,55)7.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.7
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, End of Study (n=52,50)7.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.1
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 6 (n=25,20)9.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 2 (n=51,41)12.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Baseline (n=56,55)12.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.2
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 3 (n=41,27)13.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.4
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, End of Study (n=52,48)10.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.2
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,26)12.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.2
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 5 (n=29,22)12.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.2
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Baseline (n=55,53)15.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.3
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 6 (n=25,20)11.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.4
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, End of Study (n=51,50)11.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.2
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 2 (n=52,40)15.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.7
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Baseline (n=56,54)11.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 2 (n=50,45)10.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.1
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Baseline (n=56,53)6.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 3 (n=42,30)11.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.1
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,27)15.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 4 (n=37,27)11.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.1
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 5 (n=28,21)15.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 5 (n=28,21)10.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 2 (n=52,42)8.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.7
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 6 (n=26,20)10.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.9
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 6 (n=26,18)15.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.8
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, End of Study (n=52,50)11.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
ErlotinibQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 3 (n=41,28)8.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.3
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, End of Study (n=52,50)10.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 3 (n=41,28)5.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.2
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, End of Study (n=52,47)14.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.6
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Baseline (n=57,55)6.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.4
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 2 (n=52,43)5.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, End of Study (n=52,50)6.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.4
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Baseline (n=56,53)6.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.7
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 2 (n=52,42)7.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.4
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,28)7.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.1
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 5 (n=30,22)7.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.5
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, Cycle 6 (n=25,20)6.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.5
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnairePWB, End of Study (n=52,48)7.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.5
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Baseline (n=55,53)15.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.8
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 2 (n=52,40)14.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.2
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 3 (n=42,30)16.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.8
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,27)16.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 5 (n=28,21)15.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.7
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireSWB, Cycle 6 (n=26,18)17.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 3 (n=42,29)5.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,27)6.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.6
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 5 (n=29,21)5.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.7
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireEWB, Cycle 6 (n=25,20)4.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.1
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Baseline (n=56,55)13.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.4
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 2 (n=51,41)12.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 3 (n=41,27)12.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.9
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 4 (n=37,26)11.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.8
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 5 (n=29,22)12.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.6
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, Cycle 6 (n=25,20)11.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.3
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireFWB, End of Study (n=51,50)11.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.2
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Baseline (n=56,54)11.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.8
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 2 (n=50,45)11.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 3 (n=42,30)10.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 4 (n=37,27)10.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.2
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 5 (n=28,21)10.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.9
VinorelbineQuality of Life as Measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) QuestionnaireLCS, Cycle 6 (n=26,20)9.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4
Secondary

Time to Disease Progression

Time to disease progression was defined as the interval between the day of randomization and the first documentation of progressive disease or death.

Time frame: Day 1 of Cycles 1, 3, and 5 or first documentation of progressive disease or death

Population: ITT population

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ErlotinibTime to Disease Progression6.66 months
VinorelbineTime to Disease Progression3.87 months
p-value: 0.2314Log Rank

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026