Cited by 5,489Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentLung Cancer Research Studies

Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

Open access
Rosell, Rafael, Carcereny, Enric, Gervais, Radj, Vergnenegre, Alain, Massuti, Bartomeu, Felip, Enriqueta, Palmero, Ramon, Garcia-Gomez, Ramon +49 more·2012·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC.Methods We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225.Findings Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes.Interpretation Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors.Funding Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70393-x

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • First-generation EGFR TKIs gefitinib and erlotinib have shown improved efficacy and tolerability compared with chemotherapy in phase III trials.

    “have shown improved efficacy and tolerability compared with chemotherapy in numerous phase III trials”
  • Reduced sensitivity to gefitinib or erlotinib in NSCLC was linked to EGFR-specific activating mutations.

    “Afterwards, studies revealed that the reduced sensitivity to gefitinib or erlotinib in NSCLC was linked to EGFR-specific activating mutations.112–116”
  • Third-generation EGFR-TKIs (WZ4002, CO-1686, AZD9291 and HM61713) irreversibly block T790M mutant EGFR and have demonstrated tumour responses in >50% of patients with the EGFR T790M mutation.

    “The third-generation EGFR-TKIs include the WZ4002, CO-1686, AZD9291 and HM61713 inhibitors, which have demonstrated tumour responses in >50% of patients with the EGFR T790M mutation.8–12”
  • Eight randomised controlled phase III trials have demonstrated that first-generation or second-generation EGFR-TKIs represent the best first-line treatment option in patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumours harbour EGFR mutations, when compared with chemotherapy, because they significantly improved the RR and PFS.

    “Eight randomised controlled phase III trials (table 1) have demonstrated that first-generation or second-generation EGFR-TKIs represent the best first-line treatment option in patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumours harbour EGFR mutations, when compared with chemotherapy, because they significantly improved the RR and progression-free survival (PFS).4–11”
  • Patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC usually respond to first-generation TKIs but most progress after about 9-14 months.

    “Unfortunately, whilst patients with EGFRm+ tumors typically show good initial responses to first generation TKIs, most patients who respond to therapy ultimately develop disease progression after about 9-14 months of treatment (7-11).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosell, R., Carcereny, E., Gervais, R., Vergnenegre, A., Massuti, B., Felip, E., Palmero, R., Garcia-Gomez, R., Pallares, C., Sanchez, J. M., Porta, R., Cobo, M., Garrido, P., Longo, F., Moran, T., Insa, A., De Marinis, F., Corre, R., Bover, I., Illiano, A., Dansin, E., de Castro, J., Milella, M., Reguart, N., Altavilla, G., Jimenez, U., Provencio, M., Moreno, M. A., Terrasa, J., Muñoz-Langa, J., Valdivia, J., Isla, D., Domine, M., Molinier, O., Mazieres, J., Baize, N., Garcia-Campelo, R., Robinet, G., Rodriguez-Abreu, D., Lopez-Vivanco, G., Gebbia, V., Ferrera-Delgado, L., Bombaron, P., Bernabe, R., Bearz, A., Artal, A., Cortesi, E., Rolfo, C., Sanchez-Ronco, M., Drozdowskyj, A., Queralt, C., de Aguirre, I., Ramirez, J. L., Sanchez, J. J., Molina, M. A., Taron, M., & Paz-Ares, L.
Affiliations
  • Institut Català d'Oncologia (ES)
  • Centre François Baclesse (FR)
  • Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (ES)
  • Policlinico Umberto I (IT)
  • Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia (ES)
  • Hôpital Pontchaillou (FR)
  • Hospital Son Llatzer (ES)
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico "G. Martino" (IT)
  • Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario Son Dureta (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves (ES)
  • Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa (ES)
  • Centre Hospitalier du Mans (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers (FR)
  • La Maddalena (IT)
  • Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria (ES)
  • Centre Hospitalier de Mulhouse (FR)
  • Centro di Riferimento Oncologico (IT)
  • Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet (ES)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Clinica Rotger (ES)
  • Pivotal (Spain) (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío (ES)
Corresponding author
Rosell, Rafael
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
239-246
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111662961
Cited by
5,489
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 92 · 2025: 169 · 2024: 216 · 2023: 269 · 2022: 367 · 2021: 422 · 2020: 441 · 2019: 440 · 2018: 498 · 2017: 534 · 2016: 509 · 2015: 537 · 2014: 448 · 2013: 401 · 2012: 138
FWCI
392.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • RUNA. Repositorio Institucional del Sergas (Servicio Gallego de Salud (SERGAS)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lung Cancer Research Studies
Keywords
erlotinib, EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, first-line therapy, exon 19 deletion, L858R mutation, cisplatin, docetaxel, gemcitabine, carboplatin, progression-free survival, targeted therapy, European patients, drug safety, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors
MeSH terms
Erlotinib Hydrochloride, Docetaxel, Gemcitabine, Administration, Oral, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Cisplatin, Deoxycytidine, Drug Administration Schedule, Europe, Exons, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Prospective Studies, Quinazolines, Time Factors, Chi-Square Distribution, Proportional Hazards Models, Carboplatin, Treatment Outcome, Disease-Free Survival, Patient Selection, Taxoids, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Precision Medicine, Molecular Targeted Therapy, ErbB Receptors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review