Efficacy of erlotinib as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer who have not experienced disease progression or unacceptable toxicity during chemotherapy

Background: First-line maintenance with erlotinib in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without progression after four cycles of chemotherapy was well tolerated and significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo. Aim and Design: This open-label, single arm, Phase IV, interventional study was designed to evaluate erlotinib as first-line maintenance after chemotherapy in Indian NSCLC patients. Primary efficacy objective was to evaluate PFS rate (PFSR) at week 52 and secondary objectives were determination of PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, and safety. Subjects and Methods: Patients were treated with erlotinib until disease progression/death/unacceptable toxicity or end of study. Patients with disease progression underwent scheduled clinical assessments every 12 weeks thereafter. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to evaluate PFSR, PFS, and OS. The ORR was summarized using number and percentage along with two-sided 95% Clopper–Pearson confidence interval. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) was tabulated according to severity, outcome, and relationship to erlotinib. Results: Of the 51 enrolled patients, 47 patients completed the study (2: Continuing treatment, 41: Disease progression, and 4: Death) and four patients discontinued treatment (3: Lost to follow-up; 1: Withdrew consent). PFSR was 22.5% at 12 months, median PFS 99 days (14.14 weeks), and median OS was 671 days (22 months). The probability of OS was 74.5% at 14 months. The ORR was 25.5%, and disease control rate was 55.3%. AEs were reported in 62.7% and SAE in 7.8% of patients. Common AEs were diarrhea and rash. Conclusions: Erlotinib was well tolerated by Indian patients in first-line maintenance setting and resulted in median PFS of 14 weeks and median OS of 22 months better than previously reported and with no new safety concerns in this population

Patterns of epidermal growth factor receptor testing across 111 tertiary care centers in India: Result of a questionnaire-based survey

Background: We conducted a survey of 111 medical oncologists across India to understand the current pattern of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing at their respective centers. Methods: Medical oncologists from 111 institutes across India were interviewed face to face using a structured questionnaire. They were divided into two groups – Group 1 with in-house EGFR testing and Group 2 who send samples to central/commercial laboratories outside their institutions. Answers of the two groups were analyzed to see the prevailing patterns of EGFR testing and differences between the two groups if any. Results: Ninety-five percent (105/111) of medical oncologists recommended testing for EGFR mutations in patients with adenocarcinoma histology and 40% (44/111) recommended EGFR testing in squamous cell histology. The average time duration to get EGFR test results was 10 days in Group 1 centers versus 18 days in Group 2 centers. Ninety-six percent (106/111) of the medical oncologists from Group 1 centers requested for factoring additional sample for biomarker testing compared to 69% (77/111) of the oncologists from Group 2 centers. Sixty-nine percent (77/111) of medical oncologists in Group 1 centers would prefer to wait for the test results before initiating treatment compared to 46% (51/111) in Group 2. EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors were used in only approximately 60% of patients with diagnosed EGFR mutation in the first line. For patients in whom chemotherapy was initiated while waiting for test results, 50% (56/111) of medical oncologists would prefer to complete 4–6 cycles before switching to targeted therapy. At the time of progression, rebiopsy was possible in approximately 25% of the patients. Conclusions: Turnaround time for molecular testing should improve so that eligible patients can benefit from targeted therapies in the first line. There is a need to increase the awareness among pulmonologists, oncologists, and interventional radiologists regarding the importance of adequate samples required for molecular tests