Erlotinib Versus Etoposide/Cisplatin With Radiation Therapy in Unresectable Stage III Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial

Purpose This study aimed to compare erlotinib (E) and etoposide/cisplatin (EP) with concurrent radiation therapy (RT) for patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable advanced non-small cell lung cancer with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm+). Methods and Patients This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted across 19 institutions in China (December 2012 to January 2016). Enrolled patients were randomized (1:1) to E + RT (oral erlotinib 150 mg/d for 2 years or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity and RT 200 cGy/d, 5 d/wk for 6 weeks from the first day of erlotinib) or EP + RT (etoposide 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5 and 29-33; cisplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, 29 and 36; and RT as for E + RT). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate and safety. Results Two hundred fifty-two patients were screened, and 20 patients with EGFRm+ in each group received the allocated E + RT or EP + RT treatment. Patient characteristics were well balanced between groups. Compared with EP + RT, median PFS with E + RT was significantly longer (24.5 vs 9.0 months [hazard ratio, 0.104; 95% confidence interval, 0.028-0.389; P < .001]). Objective response rate in the E + RT and EP + RT groups was 70% and 61.9%, respectively (P = .744). The incidence of adverse events (any grade) was similar between E + RT and EP + RT groups (88.9% and 84.2%). Conclusions The primary endpoint of PFS was met, and the data showed that E + RT might provide PFS improvement compared with EP + RT, with similar tolerability. However, definitive statements regarding the efficacy of concurrent E + RT in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer with activating EGFRm+ cannot be made, and slow patient accrual will likely make it infeasible to conduct a phase 3 study. This study aimed to compare erlotinib (E) and etoposide/cisplatin (EP) with concurrent radiation therapy (RT) for patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable advanced non-small cell lung cancer with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm+). This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted across 19 institutions in China (December 2012 to January 2016). Enrolled patients were randomized (1:1) to E + RT (oral erlotinib 150 mg/d for 2 years or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity and RT 200 cGy/d, 5 d/wk for 6 weeks from the first day of erlotinib) or EP + RT (etoposide 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5 and 29-33; cisplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, 29 and 36; and RT as for E + RT). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate and safety. Two hundred fifty-two patients were screened, and 20 patients with EGFRm+ in each group received the allocated E + RT or EP + RT treatment. Patient characteristics were well balanced between groups. Compared with EP + RT, median PFS with E + RT was significantly longer (24.5 vs 9.0 months [hazard ratio, 0.104; 95% confidence interval, 0.028-0.389; P < .001]). Objective response rate in the E + RT and EP + RT groups was 70% and 61.9%, respectively (P = .744). The incidence of adverse events (any grade) was similar between E + RT and EP + RT groups (88.9% and 84.2%). The primary endpoint of PFS was met, and the data showed that E + RT might provide PFS improvement compared with EP + RT, with similar tolerability. However, definitive statements regarding the efficacy of concurrent E + RT in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer with activating EGFRm+ cannot be made, and slow patient accrual will likely make it infeasible to conduct a phase 3 study.