Advertisement

BMC Cancer

, 18:333 | Cite as

Erlotinib treatment after platinum-based therapy in elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in routine clinical practice – results from the ElderTac study

  • Wolfgang M. Brueckl
  • H. Jost Achenbach
  • Joachim H. Ficker
  • Wolfgang Schuette
Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Medical and radiation oncology

Abstract

Background

In this prospective non-interventional study, the effectiveness and tolerability of erlotinib in elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after ≥1 platinum-based chemotherapy were assessed.

Methods

A total of 385 patients ≥65 years of age with advanced NSCLC receiving erlotinib were observed over 12 months. The primary endpoint was the 1-year overall survival (OS) rate.

Results

Patients were predominantly Caucasian (99.2%), a mean of 73 years old; 24.7% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2. Most common tumor histologies were adenocarcinoma (64.9%) and squamous cell carcinoma (22.3%). Of 119 patients tested, 15.1% had an activating epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation. The 1-year OS rate was 31% (95% CI 25–36) with a median OS of 7.1 months (95% CI 6.0–7.9). OS was significantly better in females than males (p = 0.0258) and in patients with an EGFR mutation compared to EGFR wild-type patients (p = 0.0004). OS was not affected by age (p = 0.3436) and ECOG PS (p = 0.5364). Patients with squamous NSCLC tended to live longer than patients with non-squamous EGFR wild-type tumors (median OS: 8.6 vs 5.5 months). Cough and dyspnea improved during the observation period. The erlotinib safety profile was comparable to that in previous studies with rash (45.2%) and diarrhea (22.6%) being the most frequently reported adverse events.

Conclusions

Erlotinib represents a suitable palliative treatment option in further therapy lines for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. The results obtained under real-life conditions add to our understanding of the benefits and risks of erlotinib in routine clinical practice.

Trial registration

BfArM (https://www.bfarm.de; ML23023); ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01535729; 20 Feb 2012).

Keywords

Aged Epidermal growth factor receptor Non-small-cell lung carcinoma Second line Tyrosine kinase inhibitor 

Abbreviations

AE

Adverse event

CI

Confidence interval

DCR

Disease control rate

ECOG PS

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status

EGFR

Epidermal growth factor receptor

EGFR

Epidermal growth factor receptor gene

ElderTac

Erlotinib in routine clinical practice in elderly patients with NSCLC

HR

Hazard ratio

NSCLC

Non-small-cell lung cancer

ORR

Objective response rate

OS

Overall survival

PFS

Progression-free survival

PS

Performance state

QoL

Quality of life

TKI

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide [1]; about 85% of cases are diagnosed as non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [2]. The median age of NSCLC patients is 70 years and the disease is usually diagnosed in advanced stages, when curative surgery is no longer feasible [3]. In metastasized disease, first-line chemotherapy is often not successful and the 5-year survival rate is only 4.2% [3]. NSCLC is histologically classified into the major subtypes adenocarcinoma (~ 40%) [4, 5], squamous cell carcinoma (~ 30–40%) [6, 7, 8, 9] and large cell carcinoma (~ 5–10%) [9]. Survival has improved for all subtypes in recent years, but the extent of improvement has been higher for adenocarcinoma than squamous tumors [10]. Recurring mutations have been reported in genes coding for epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR) in 10–40% of adenocarcinomas [11, 12, 13], but these mutations are rare in squamous tumors [14]. EGFR mutations can lead to constitutive activation of anti-apoptotic and proliferation signaling pathways, which promote cancer progression [15].

EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are the preferred first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutations [16, 17], and the EGFR-TKI erlotinib (Roche Pharma, Tarceva®, Basel, Switzerland) is also approved in Europe for treatment of patients with EGFR wild-type tumors after failure of at least one prior chemotherapy regimen [18].

Treating NSCLC is challenging because of the advanced age of patients. As EGFR-TKI avoid the systemic side effects of traditional chemotherapy they might be more suitable for treating elderly patients [19]. A large phase-3 trial with erlotinib including 586 younger and 163 elderly patients demonstrated a similar survival and quality of life (QoL) in both age groups, although a somewhat higher toxicity in the elderly was observed [20]. Clinical studies examining the elderly population are limited and often firm conclusions cannot be drawn [21, 22]. In this study (ElderTac: erlotinib in routine clinical practice in elderly patients with NSCLC), we examined the effectiveness and tolerability of erlotinib in elderly NSCLC patients with progressive disease on ≥1 platinum-based chemotherapy in Germany.

Methods

Study design

ElderTac was a multicenter, non-comparative, non-interventional, single-arm surveillance study documenting erlotinib treatment during routine clinical practice in Germany between April 2011 and August 2014. The observation period was 12 months. Information was gathered during examinations by the physician at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

This study was conducted in accordance with the German Medicines Act (AMG chapter 67, section 6). It was registered with the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01535729). Regular monitoring of study documentation in every center was performed by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.

Patients and treatment

Elderly patients (≥65 years) with advanced or metastatic UICC stage IV NSCLC, confirmed by histological analysis, were recruited. Histological and immunohistochemical analysis was used to distinguish different types of NSCLC. Patients were eligible if they had progressive disease on ≥1 platinum-based chemotherapy treatment. Erlotinib was prescribed to patients in accordance with the terms of the marketing authorization. Specific treatment and diagnostic procedures were at the discretion of the treating physician.

Outcome measurements

The main outcome parameter was the 1-year overall survival (OS) rate. In addition, OS, 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate, PFS, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), symptom control, and adverse events (AE) were assessed. The ORR was defined as the proportion of patients with at least a partial response. The DCR was defined as the complete response + partial response + stable disease. Response to treatment was assessed by the investigator using RECIST criteria (version 1.1). AEs were coded by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) (version 15.1).

EGFR mutation status

As erlotinib is approved in Europe for second−/third-line therapy of metastatic NSCLC irrespective of EGFR mutation status [18], EGFR mutation testing was performed at the discretion of the participating centers. EGFR testing using sequencing strategies was done by certified molecular pathology departments collaborating with the individual study centers. Results were documented as: not tested, not available, EGFR activating mutation or wild-type.

Statistics

To accurately estimate the 1-year OS, 400 patients were considered necessary, assuming a survival rate of 33 ± 4.6%, and using a symmetric 95% confidence interval (CI, calculated using Greenwood’s standard error estimate). The survival rate was estimated to be 33% based on publications of four big international studies [23, 24, 25, 26]. Other data were analyzed descriptively.

The effectiveness and safety for all patients who received ≥1 dose of erlotinib were analyzed. Continuous and categorical data were described as median (minimum, maximum) and frequencies/percentages, respectively.

Survival was analyzed by Kaplan Meier methodology and survival curves were compared using an unstratified log-rank test. Survival and response data were analyzed overall and in the following subgroups: age (65–69, 70–74, 75–79, ≥80 years or < 75 and ≥ 75 years), EGFR mutation (positive or wild type), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) (0, 1, ≥2) and gender. The influence of age, gender and EGFR mutation status on the OS was additionally investigated using Cox regression models (considering single and multiple factors). Post-hoc analysis was performed to compare younger with older patients (< 75 or ≥ 75 years) and non-squamous EGFR wild-type carcinoma with squamous carcinoma.

No correction for missing data was performed.

Results

Patients

In 102 centers, 465 patients were screened for eligibility. Eighty patients were excluded for the following reasons: no previous failed platinum-based chemotherapy (33), NSCLC UICC stage IV histology not confirmed (20), < 65 years old (11), erlotinib not administered (9), patient records unavailable (5), lack of informed consent (1) and screening failure (1). In total, 385 patients were included in the analysis. At 3 months, data were available for 380 patients (98.7%). This decreased to 159 patients (41.3%) at 6 months, 80 (20.8%) at 9 months, and 54 (14.0%) at 12 months. The main reason for discontinuation was disease progression (60% patients).

The patients’ baseline data are presented in Table 1. The median age was 72 years (range: 62–90 years). The most common tumor histology was adenocarcinoma (64.9%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (22.3%), and large cell carcinoma (4.2%). EGFR mutation screening was performed in 31% of patients and 15.1% had a positive EGFR mutation status. Although EGFR mutation testing was mainly performed in patients with adenocarcinoma, other histological tumor types cannot be excluded. Thus, we refer to non-squamous EGFR wild-type carcinoma hereafter.
Table 1

Patient baseline characteristics (N = 385)

Patient characteristics

Patients, n (%)

Age, years

65–69

110 (28.6)

70–74

140 (36.4)

75–79

94 (24.4)

≥ 80

37 (9.6)

NR

4 (1.0)

Gender

Male

258 (67)

Female

127 (33)

Ethnicity

Caucasian

382 (99.2)

Asian

2 (0.5)

Afro-American

0 (0)

Other

1 (0.3)

ECOG PS

0

64 (16.6)

1

210 (54.5)

2

92 (23.9)

3

3 (0.8)

NR

16 (4.2)

Smoking status

Never smoked

91 (23.7)

Former smoker

198 (51.4)

Current smoker

77 (20.0)

NR

19 (4.9)

Tumor histology

Adenocarcinoma

250 (64.9)

Squamous cell carcinoma

86 (22.3)

Large cell carcinoma

16 (4.2)

Bronchoalveolar carcinoma

11 (2.9)

Adenoid squamous cell carcinoma

10 (2.6)

Other

12 (3.1)

EGFR mutation status

Tested

119 (30.9)

Positive

18 (15.1)

Wild-type

98 (82.4)

Indefinite

3 (2.5)

Previous chemotherapy

Carboplatin

279 (72.5)

Cisplatin

124 (32.2)

Docetaxel

54 (14.0)

Gemcitabine

96 (24.9)

Paclitaxel

56 (14.5)

Vinorelbine

92 (23.9)

Other

182 (47.3)

EGFR epidermal growth factor receptor gene, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, NR not recorded

At baseline, 16.6% and 54.5% of patients had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1, respectively, while 24.7% had an ECOG PS ≥2. This did change slightly at the 3-month visit, where 9.1% and 35.6% had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1, respectively. The percentage of patients with an ECOG PS ≥3 was < 3% for the rest of the observation period. The majority of patients had concomitant diseases (86.2%). The main comorbid conditions were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (33.0%), diabetes mellitus (21.6%), heart failure (8.1%), coronary heart disease/angina pectoris (14.0%), peripheral arterial occlusion disease (10.4%), and stroke (6.8%).

All patients had previously received chemotherapy, mainly based on carboplatin (72.5%) and/or cisplatin (32.2%) (Table 1). Six or more cycles of chemotherapy were completed in 43.3% of patients, and only one cycle was completed in 4.5% of patients. Radiotherapy had been previously administered to 35.8% of patients. Additionally, 24.9% of patients had received previous surgical treatment; 43.8% of these with curative intent.

Treatment

At baseline, 91.7% of patients received the recommended daily dose of 150 mg erlotinib. Erlotinib dose was modified during the study course as follows: 3/6 months: increased in 4/3 patients (1.1/1.9%), reduced in 32/11 patients (8.7/7.1%), interrupted in 20/10 patients (5.4/6.5%), and discontinued in 192/64 patients (35/41.6%) out of 368/154 remaining patients. The main reason for dose reduction was intolerance (3/6 months: 27/6 patients [7.3/3.9%]). The main reason for discontinuation was disease progression (3/6 months: 132/49 patients [35.8/31.8%]).

Effectiveness of erlotinib treatment in elderly patients

Treatment response

Six months after treatment onset in the overall population, 2 of the 127 patients evaluated (1.6%) had a complete response, 12 (9.4%) had a partial response and 55 (43.3%) had stable disease. In EGFR wild-type patients, 1 of the 22 evaluated (3.6%) had a complete response, 1 (3.6%) had a partial response and 9 (40.9%) had stable disease after six months. ORR and DCR at the 3-month and the 6-month visit and treatment responses stratified according to tumor histology are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2

Clinical endpoints stratified by patient baseline characteristics for the overall population, in patients with squamous NSCLC, and in patients with non-squamous EGFR wild-type tumors

 

ORR 3/6 months (%)

DCR 3/6 months (%)

Median PFS (months)

Median OS (months)

1-year OS (%)

All patients (N = 385)

Overall

5.7/3.6

30.9/17.9

3.5

7.1

30.6

Age (years)

 65–69

4.5/1.8

25.5/12.7

3.3

7.0

26.6

 70–74

4.3/2.9

27.1/18.6

3.4

6.6

29.8

 75–79

7.4/6.4

42.6/23.4

5.0

7.9

37.2

  ≥ 80

10.8/5.4

32.4/16.2

2.9

6.0

25.6

  < 75a (n = 250)

4.4/2.4

26.4/16.0

3.3

6.8

28.3

  ≥ 75a (n = 131)

8.4/6.1

39.7/21.4

4.0

7.8

34

ECOG PS

 0

6.3/3.1

28.1/17.2

3.3

8.4

37.6

 1

6.2/3.3

31.4/16.7

3.5

6.3

29.9

  ≥ 2

4.2/5.3

33.7/23.2

3.7

7.3

29.1

Gender

 Male

5.8/2.7

31.8/16.7

3.4

6.3

25.4

 Female

5.5/5.5

29.1/20.5

4.1

8.1

41.8

Post-hoc analysis: Squamous cell histology (n = 86)

Overall

8.1/1.2

34.9/18.6

3.5

8.6

32.4

Age (years)

  < 75 (n = 55)

5.5/1.8

29.1/18.2

3.5

9.5

33.1

  ≥ 75 (n = 30)

13.3/0

43.3/16.7

3.6

7.8

29.1

ECOG PS

 0 (n = 12)

8.3/0

50.0/16.7

4.6

8.7

31.4

 1 (n = 44)

11.4/0

34.1/20.5

3.7

11.2

43.3

  ≥ 2 (n = 27)

3.7/3.7

33.3/18.5

3.5

7.3

19.2

Gender

 Male (n = 66)

6.1/1.5

33.3/16.7

3.5

8.6

28.7

 Female (n = 20)

15.0/0

40.0/25.0

4.4

9.5

44.5

Post-hoc analysis: Non-squamous EGFR wild-type (n = 91)

Overall

3.3/2.2

20.9/11.0

3.1

5.5

28.8

Age (years)

  < 75 (n = 60)

1.7/0

20.0/8.3

3.1

5.2

22.3

  ≥ 75 (n = 30)

6.7/6.7

23.3/16.7

3.2

7.9

41.7

ECOG PS

 0 (n = 18)

5.6/0

22.5/5.6

2.2

7.0

30.9

 1 (n = 50)

2.0/2.0

20.0/10.0

2.6

5.5

23.7

  ≥ 2 (n = 18)

0/5.6

22.2/22.2

4.2

6.8

39.2

Gender

 Male (n = 54)

1.9/0

18.5/5.6

2.1

4.7

16.2

 Female (n = 37)

5.4/5.4

24.3/18.9

5.0

9.3

47.9

apost-hoc analysis

EGFR epidermal growth factor receptor gene, NSCLC non-small-cell lung cancer, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, ORR objective response rate, DCR disease control rate, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status

Survival

Overall, the 1-year OS rate was 31% (95% CI 25–36) with a median OS of 7.1 months (95% CI 6.0–7.9) (Table 2, Fig. 1a). The 1-year PFS rate and the median PFS were 19% (95% CI 15–23) and 3.5 months (95% CI 3.2–4.0), respectively.
Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier curves on 1-year overall survival in erlotinib-treated patients. a) Overall survival in the whole study population according to prespecified age group. b) Overall survival in patients with squamous carcinoma, patients with non-squamous EGFR wild-type carcinoma and patients with EGFR activating mutations. c) Overall survival according to age group (< 75 vs ≥75 years) in patients with squamous carcinoma and in patients with non-squamous EGFR wild-type carcinoma. CI, confidence interval; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor gene; HR, hazard ratio; NSCLC, non-small-cell lung cancer; OS, overall survival; WT, wild-type.

The OS curve was significantly affected by gender (p = 0.0258), demonstrating 1-year OS rates of 41.8% and 25.4% for females and males, respectively. The log-rank test additionally revealed a significant difference in the OS curves for the subgroup EGFR status (p = 0.0004, Fig. 1b). In contrast, OS curves were not significantly different between the four age groups (p = 0.3436) and the three ECOG PS groups (p = 0.5364) (Table 2). Cox regression models with adjustment for single factors showed a significant influence of gender (p = 0.027) and EGFR status (p = 0.001) on OS. Accordingly, females had an almost 30% reduced risk of death compared to males (hazard ratio [HR] 0.717, 95% CI 0.535–0.962). Patients with an EGFR mutation had an almost 80% reduced risk of death compared to wild-type patients (HR 0.211, 95% CI 0.083–0.539). In the Cox regression with adjustment for several parameters simultaneously, the association with reduced risk was maintained for positive EGFR mutation status (p = 0.002, HR 0.177, 95% CI 0.060–0.522). Age did not significantly influence the OS in either analysis (reference 65–74 years, p > 0.05).

Patients with squamous NSCLC tended to live longer (median OS: 8.6 months) than patients with documented non-squamous EGFR wild-type disease (median OS: 5.5 months) (Table 2; Fig. 1b, c). In addition, patients ≥75 years with non-squamous EGFR wild-type carcinoma had a tendency to live longer than their younger counterparts (median OS: 7.93 vs 5.16 months; p = 0.2895) (Fig. 1c).

Symptom control

Symptoms were effectively managed during the observation period. At baseline, 41.6% of patients had cough and 44.4% dyspnea of predominantly mild to moderate intensity. Both symptoms improved at follow-up (Fig. 2). Based on the remaining patients under observation at each visit, only ≤2% of the patients had severe cough at each follow-up visit and severe dyspnea was observed in ≤6.45% of the patients during follow-up (Fig. 2). Post-hoc analysis of EGFR wild-type patients showed a similar symptom control compared to the overall population (data not shown).
Fig. 2

Occurrence of symptoms during the study period. Percentage of patients with mild, moderate and severe dyspnea (a) and cough (b) at baseline and 6, 9 and 12 months. Percentages were based on patients remaining in the study at the respective timepoints

Safety and tolerability of erlotinib treatment in elderly patients

During the study, 982 AEs were observed in 296 patients (76.9%) (Table 3). According to the common toxicity criteria for adverse events (CTC), 27.3% of patients had AEs of grade ≥ 3. Serious AEs were reported in 29.1% of patients that led to death in 13.0% of patients. The most commonly reported AEs were rash (45.2%) and diarrhea (22.6%), followed by dyspnea, fatigue, and cough. AEs led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 107 patients (27.8%): Main reasons were rash (26 patients, 6.8%), dyspnea (20 patients, 5.2%), and malignant neoplasm progression (17 patients, 4.4%). The frequency of AEs was not significantly affected by age or EGFR mutation status (data not shown). All AEs reported were consistent with those described in the summary of product characteristics [18].
Table 3

Overall adverse events (N = 385)

 

Patients, n (%)

Patients with ≥1 AE

296 (76.9)

Patients with ≥1 AE CTC grade ≥ 3

105 (27.3)

Patients with ≥1 SAE

112 (29.1)

Treatment discontinuations due to AE

107 (27.8)

Most common AEs (frequency ≥ 5%)

 Rash

174 (45.2)

 Diarrhea

87 (22.6)

 Dyspnea

66 (17.1)

 Fatigue

65 (16.9)

 Cough

44 (11.4)

 Malignant neoplasm progression

31 (8.1)

 Decreased appetite

28 (7.3)

 Nausea

24 (6.2)

 General physical health deterioration

21 (5.5)

Affected system organ class

 Skin

194 (50.4)

 Respiratory system

107 (27.8)

 Gastrointestinal system

105 (27.3)

 General disorders

99 (25.7)

 Infections and infestations

44 (11.4)

 Neoplasms

40 (10.4)

 Metabolic system

35 (9.1)

AE adverse event, CTC common toxicity criteria, SAE serious adverse event

Discussion

Few data regarding targeted cancer therapy in pretreated elderly NSCLC patients exist. Available study results in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC treated with erlotinib are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4

Overview of studies with erlotinib in elderly patients (≥70 years) with advanced NSCLC

Study

Treatment line

Design

Com-parator

Participants

Activating EGFR mutation

Outcomes

Jackman et al. (2007) [28]

First line

Open-label, phase 2

None

N = 80; 95% Caucasian

9/43 patients tested

• Median OS: 10.9 months (95% CI 7.8–14.6)

• 1-year survival rate 46%

• Well tolerated: most common AEs were rash (79%) and diarrhea (69%)

Chen et al. (2012) [27]

First line

Open-label, randomized, phase 2

Vino-relbine (V)

N = 113; 57 (E) vs. 56 (V); 100% Taiwanese

24/60 patients tested

• Median OS: 17.3 months (E) vs. 22.6 months (V)

• Mild toxicities: most frequent treatment-related AEs were rash (64.91%), diarrhea (29.82%), and mouth ulceration (14.04%)

TRUST elderly subgroup [29]

First line

Open-label, phase 4 (subgroup analysis)

None

N = 485; 82% Caucasian; 16% Asian

2/18 patients tested

• Median OS: 7.29 months (95% CI 6.27–8.67), non-Asian population: 7.19 months

• 1-year survival rate: 36.6%

• Disease control rate 79% (compared with 69% for the overall population; p < 0.0001)

• Good tolerability: only 4% had grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs, 7% had treatment-related SAEs (compared with 4% of the overall population)

Stinchcombe et al. (2011) [30]

Any

Open-label, randomized, phase 2

Gem, E + Gem

N = 146; 51 (E) vs. 44 (gem) vs. 51 E/gem; US study (included ethnicities not reported)

Unknown

• Median OS with E: 5.8 months (95% CI 3.0–8.3)

• Acneiform rash with E: 45%

• No significant difference in 6-month PFS, OS and toxicity rates among the groups

POLARSTAR [31]

Any

Open-label,phase 4

None

N = 9907a; Age-stratified: 7848 (< 75 years), 1911 (75–84 years), 148 (≥85 years); 100% Japanese

Unknown

• Efficacy and incidence of non-hematologic and hematologic toxicities were comparable between age groups

BR.21 Study elderly subgroup [20]

≥Second line

Double-blind, randomized, phase 3 (retrospective subgroup analysis)

Placebo

Erlotinib: 112 (elderly) vs. 376 (young); 9.2% Asian, 90.8% other

15/115 patients tested

• Median OS (elderly vs. young): 7.6 months (elderly) vs. 6.4 months (young); HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.81–1.30)

• More overall and severe (grade 3–4) toxicity with erlotinib in elderly vs. younger patients (35% vs 18%; p < 0.001)

Keio Lung Oncology Group Study 001 [33]

≥Second line

Phase 2

None

N = 38; 100% Japanese

13/35 tested

• Median OS: 17.3 months (95% CI 13.3–21.3)

• Main AE was skin rash (76%)

Lung Oncology Group in Kyushu (LOGiK-0802) [32]

≥Second line

Phase 2

None

N = 40b; 100% Japanese

10/29 tested

• Median OS: 12.2 months (95% CI 6,1–24,7)

• Major toxicities: skin disorders, fatigue, anorexia

• 32.5% required dose reduction

ElderTac (present study)

≥Second line

Prospective, non-interventional

None

N = 465c; 99.2% Caucasian

18/119 patients tested

• Median OS: 7.1 months

• 1-year survival rate: 30.6%

• No new safety signals; most frequently reported AEs were rash (45.2%) and diarrhea (22.6%)

AE adverse event, CI confidence interval, E erlotinib, EGFR epidermal growth factor receptor gene, Gem gemcitabine, NSCLC non-small-cell lung cancer, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, SAE serious adverse event

aSafety analysis population

bAge ≥ 75 years

cAge ≥ 65 years

In most studies, patients received erlotinib as first-line treatment [27, 28, 29] or the treatment line was not defined [30, 31]. Four studies included exclusively Asian patients [27, 31, 32, 33], who are known to have a better outcome with EGFR-TKI treatment compared to Caucasian patients [34]. In the phase-3 trial BR.21, involving 731 patients after progression on ≥1 platinum-based chemotherapy, erlotinib demonstrated prolonged survival [26] and improved QoL compared to placebo [35]. A retrospective subgroup analysis revealed that older (≥70 years) and younger patients had the same survival and QoL benefit, with a somewhat greater toxicity in the elderly [20]. However, the elderly population receiving erlotinib in that study (n = 112) [20] was small and a retrospective design involves a greater risk for bias compared with a prospective design.

The ElderTac study was designed to examine the effectiveness and tolerability of erlotinib as a second−/third-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in elderly patients in real life. In accordance with previous findings, females treated with erlotinib lived longer than males [36, 37]. The effectiveness of erlotinib in ElderTac was comparable with that in the BR.21 trial in which median OS/PFS durations of 7.6/3.0 months were observed in elderly patients receiving second- or third-line treatment with erlotinib [20]. Likewise, symptom control – as a surrogate for QoL – was improved in our population, confirming the results of the BR.21 trial [20, 26]. Maintenance of QoL is particularly important in patients with advanced disease receiving second- or third-line treatment. A recent clinical trial demonstrated a similar efficacy for erlotinib and chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in unselected patients and the authors suggested that second-line treatment should be given on patient preference and individual toxicity-risk profiles [24]. However, this recommendation was based on a patient population with a median age of 59 years [24]. In our study, the median age was 72 years and a quarter of patients had an ECOG PS ≥2. Therefore, we have demonstrated that patients with a low performance status, who are not eligible for further chemotherapy, can still benefit from erlotinib. The tolerability of erlotinib in our study was consistent with previous clinical findings in elderly and non-elderly populations, with a tolerable toxicity profile and rash and diarrhea being the most frequently reported AEs [20, 26, 27, 28, 30, 38]. No new safety signals were observed. Erlotinib therefore represents a potential palliative treatment for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

Based on the mode of action, erlotinib is a more effective treatment for EGFR-mutated tumors. As expected, patients with an activating EGFR mutation had the greatest benefit from erlotinib treatment, in agreement with previous findings [28, 39]. Nonetheless, consistent with the results of two phase-3 trials [40], our response rates show that EGFR wild-type patients can also benefit from erlotinib treatment. A systematic review of the literature and metaanalysis revealed a significant improvement in OS with erlotinib versus other management options in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors [41]. In contrast, in the TAILOR and DELTA studies, chemotherapy with docetaxel was more effective than erlotinib for second- or third-line treatment of EGFR wild-type patients [42, 43]. However, the populations in TAILOR and DELTA are hardly comparable to the ElderTac population: Patients in TAILOR and DELTA were about six or five years younger and 92.7% or 96.0% of patients had an ECOG PS ≤1, respectively, compared to only 71.2% in ElderTac [42, 43]. Additionally, clinical parameters between the study cohorts in TAILOR were not balanced, as its original concept was not a comparison between erlotinib and docetaxel [42]. In the DELTA study, the subgroup analysis in the unselected population revealed no PFS benefit for docetaxel over erlotinib in patients ≥70 years of age [43], demonstrating that age is an important factor for the treatment decision.

Interestingly, erlotinib-treated patients with squamous tumors tended to live longer than patients with non-squamous EGFR wild-type carcinoma, which contradicts previous findings that the prognosis of adenocarcinoma patients is generally better than that of patients with squamous tumors [10]. The finding is unexpected considering the very low EGFR mutation rate in squamous tumors but may be explained by EGFR gene amplifications frequently found in these tumors [44, 45]. In a phase-4 trial in 1093 patients with metastastic squamous NSCLC, 95% of patients had tumors expressing detectable EGFR and 38% of tumors had a high EGFR expression as confirmed by immunohistochemistry [46]. The LUX-Lung 8 study revealed that the ErbB family blocker afatinib was superior to erlotinib in the treatment of squamous NSCLC [47]. However, the study exclusively included fit patients with an ECOG PS ≤1, and a statistically significant OS benefit for afatinib over erlotinib was only apparent in the subgroup of patients < 65 years of age (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55–0.85) but not in patients ≥65 years (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76–1.19) [47]. In contrast, our results demonstrate a benefit of erlotinib treatment in older patients (≥65 years) with squamous carcinoma, including unfit patients with an ECOG > 1. A recent case report of a 65-year-old man with EGFR-wildtype squamous lung cancer who had an unexpected prolonged response to third-line erlotinib confirms our results [48]. Because genomic alterations have not been comprehensively characterized in squamous tumors, no molecular-targeted therapies have been developed for this NSCLC type so far [45]. Meanwhile, immune checkpoint inhibitors are established first- and/or second-line treatments for NSCLC including squamous tumors [49, 50, 51, 52], so that EGFR-TKI will likely move to further therapy lines in patients with squamous EGFR wild-type tumors.

A further unexpected result was that older patients with non-squamous EGFR wild-type carcinoma (≥75 years) tended to live longer than their younger counterparts. This finding is confirmed by results from a Japanese study with gefitinib in which an age < 75 years was an independent negative factor affecting PFS after EGFR-TKI therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC [53].

Most limitations of our study relate to the nature of a non-interventional trial, especially the lack of a control group and the open-label design. The low rate of EGFR mutation testing hampered the comparison of erlotinib effectiveness in a larger group of patients with or without EGFR mutations. It, however, reflects the clinical routine in Germany at the time the study was performed, with EGFR mutation analysis being done in less than 50% of NSCLC patients [54]. The high rate of treatment discontinuations due to the severely ill patient population might have had an influence on data analysis and interpretation. Furthermore, the results of post-hoc analyses have to be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, our observational study generated invaluable results for real-life treatment decisions.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that erlotinib is a suitable palliative treatment option in further therapy lines for elderly patients with recurrent/advanced NSCLC, especially in patients with an activating EGFR mutation and squamous histology. Our results were obtained under real-life conditions and therefore demonstrate effectiveness and tolerability of erlotinib in routine clinical practice.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all patients and physicians who contributed to the study, which was sponsored by Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany. Medical writing assistance was provided by Jutta Walstab, Physicians World Europe GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

The study was funded by Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany, who provided funding for data analysis and medical writing support.

Availability of data and materials

Study results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01535729). Datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the study sponsor on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

WMB, HJA, JHF and WS made substantial contributions to data acquisition, data interpretation and manuscript revision. WMB, HJA, JHF and WS gave final approval of the version to be published. The authors had complete access to the data that support this publication. WMB, HJA, JHF and WS agreed to be accountable for all content and editorial decisions.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participating patients provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg (no. 4441).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

WMB received lecture and consultancy fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Lilly, MSD and Roche Pharma. JHF received lecture and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche Pharma. WS declares receiving payments for lectures and consultancy from Roche Pharma. HJA received lecture and consultancy fees, as well as travel support from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Insmed, Lilly, Novartis, PneumRx, and Roche Pharma.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    SEER Cancer Statistics: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2015.
  4. 4.
    Travis WD. Pathology of lung cancer. Clin Chest Med. 2011;32(4):669–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang JS, Chen LT, Shan YS, Lin SF, Hsiao SY, Tsai CR, Yu SJ, Tsai HJ. Comprehensive analysis of the incidence and survival patterns of lung Cancer by Histologies, including rare subtypes, in the era of molecular medicine and targeted therapy: a nation-wide Cancer registry-based study from Taiwan. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(24):e969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jimenez Massa AE, Alonso Sardon M, Gomez Gomez FP. Lung cancer: how does it appear in our hospital? Rev Clin Esp. 2009;209(3):110–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kukulj S, Popovic F, Budimir B, Drpa G, Serdarevic M, Polic-Vizintin M. Smoking behaviors and lung cancer epidemiology: a cohort study. Psychiatr Danub. 2014;26(Suppl 3):485–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Missaoui N, Hmissa S, Landolsi H, Korbi S, Joma W, Anjorin A, Ben Abdelkrim S, Beizig N, Mokni M. Lung cancer in Central Tunisia: epidemiology and clinicopathological features. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(9):2305–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Novaes FT, Cataneo DC, Ruiz Junior RL, Defaveri J, Michelin OC, Cataneo AJ. Lung cancer: histology, staging, treatment and survival. J Bras Pneumol. 2008;34(8):595–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olszewski AJ, Ali S, Witherby SM. Disparate survival trends in histologic subtypes of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based analysis. Am J Cancer Res. 2015;5(7):2229–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marchetti A, Martella C, Felicioni L, Barassi F, Salvatore S, Chella A, Camplese PP, Larussi T, Mucilli F, Mezzetti A, et al. EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of a large series of cases and development of a rapid and sensitive method for diagnostic screening with potential implications on pharmacologic treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(4):857–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sugio K, Uramoto H, Ono K, Oyama T, Hanagiri T, Sugaya M, Ichiki Y, So T, Nakata S, Morita M, et al. Mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain of EGFR gene specifically occur in lung adenocarcinoma patients with a low exposure of tobacco smoking. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(6):896–903.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Varghese AM, Sima CS, Chaft JE, Johnson ML, Riely GJ, Ladanyi M, Kris MG. Lungs don't forget: comparison of the KRAS and EGFR mutation profile and survival of collegiate smokers and never smokers with advanced lung cancers. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(1):123–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lopes GL, Vattimo EF, Castro Junior G. Identifying activating mutations in the EGFR gene: prognostic and therapeutic implications in non-small cell lung cancer. J Bras Pneumol. 2015;41(4):365–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yarden Y, Sliwkowski MX. Untangling the ErbB signalling network. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2001;2(2):127–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Novello S, Barlesi F, Califano R, Cufer T, Ekman S, Levra MG, Kerr K, Popat S, Reck M, Senan S, et al. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v1–v27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brueckl WM. Treatment choice in EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2017;  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30684-8. [Epub ahead of print]
  18. 18.
    Tarceva®. Summary of product characteristics. In: Last updated 12; 2017.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gridelli C, Maione P, Rossi A, Ferrara ML, Castaldo V, Palazzolo G, Mazzeo N. Treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the elderly. Lung Cancer. 2009;66(3):282–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wheatley-Price P, Ding K, Seymour L, Clark GM, Shepherd FA. Erlotinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the elderly: an analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group study BR.21. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(14):2350–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lewis JH, Kilgore ML, Goldman DP, Trimble EL, Kaplan R, Montello MJ, Housman MG, Escarce JJ. Participation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(7):1383–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vora N, Reckamp KL. Non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly: defining treatment options. Semin Oncol. 2008;35(6):590–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karampeazis A, Voutsina A, Souglakos J, Kentepozidis N, Giassas S, Christofillakis C, Kotsakis A, Papakotoulas P, Rapti A, Agelidou M, et al. Pemetrexed versus erlotinib in pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Hellenic oncology research group (HORG) randomized phase 3 study. Cancer. 2013;119(15):2754–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, Cicenas S, Miliauskas S, Grigorescu AC, Hillenbach C, Johannsdottir HK, Klughammer B, Gonzalez EE. Efficacy and safety of erlotinib versus chemotherapy in second-line treatment of patients with advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer with poor prognosis (TITAN): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):300–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reck M, van Zandwijk N, Gridelli C, Baliko Z, Rischin D, Allan S, Krzakowski M, Heigener D. Erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: efficacy and safety findings of the global phase IV Tarceva lung Cancer survival treatment study. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(10):1616–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, Tan EH, Hirsh V, Thongprasert S, Campos D, Maoleekoonpiroj S, Smylie M, Martins R, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(2):123–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen YM, Tsai CM, Fan WC, Shih JF, Liu SH, Wu CH, Chou TY, Lee YC, Perng RP, Whang-Peng J. Phase II randomized trial of erlotinib or vinorelbine in chemonaive, advanced, non-small cell lung cancer patients aged 70 years or older. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7(2):412–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jackman DM, Yeap BY, Lindeman NI, Fidias P, Rabin MS, Temel J, Skarin AT, Meyerson M, Holmes AJ, Borras AM et al: Phase II clinical trial of chemotherapy-naive patients > or = 70 years of age treated with erlotinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25(7):760–766.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Merimsky O, Cheng CK, Au JS, von Pawel J, Reck M. Efficacy and safety of first-line erlotinib in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep. 2012;28(2):721–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stinchcombe TE, Peterman AH, Lee CB, Moore DT, Beaumont JL, Bradford DS, Bakri K, Taylor M, Crane JM, Schwartz G et al.: A randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with gemcitabine, erlotinib, or gemcitabine and erlotinib in elderly patients (age >/=70 years) with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2011, 6(9):1569–1577.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yoshioka H, Komuta K, Imamura F, Kudoh S, Seki A, Fukuoka M. Efficacy and safety of erlotinib in elderly patients in the phase IV POLARSTAR surveillance study of Japanese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2014;86(2):201–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yamada K, Azuma K, Takeshita M, Uchino J, Nishida C, Suetsugu T, Kondo A, Harada T, Eida H, Kishimoto J, et al. Phase II trial of Erlotinib in elderly patients with previously treated non-small cell lung Cancer: results of the lung oncology Group in Kyushu (LOGiK-0802). Anticancer Res. 2016;36(6):2881–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miyawaki M, Naoki K, Yoda S, Nakayama S, Satomi R, Sato T, Ikemura S, Ohgino K, Ishioka K, Arai D, et al. Erlotinib as second- or third-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Keio lung oncology group study 001 (KLOG001). Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;6(3):409–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Soo RA, Kawaguchi T, Loh M, Ou SH, Shieh MP, Cho BC, Mok TS, Soong R. Differences in outcome and toxicity between Asian and caucasian patients with lung cancer treated with systemic therapy. Future Oncol. 2012;8(4):451–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bezjak A, Tu D, Seymour L, Clark G, Trajkovic A, Zukin M, Ayoub J, Lago S, de Albuquerque Ribeiro R, Gerogianni A, et al. Symptom improvement in lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib: quality of life analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group study BR.21. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(24):3831–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cioffi P, Marotta V, Fanizza C, Giglioni A, Natoli C, Petrelli F, Grappasonni I. Effectiveness and response predictive factors of erlotinib in a non-small cell lung cancer unselected European population previously treated: a retrospective, observational, multicentric study. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2013;19(3):246–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Meerbeeck J, Galdermans D, Bustin F, De Vos L, Lechat I, Abraham I. Survival outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: expanded access programme data from Belgium (the TRUST study). Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014;23(3):370–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A, Massuti B, Felip E, Palmero R, Garcia-Gomez R, Pallares C, Sanchez JM, et al. 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. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):239–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vale CL, Burdett S, Fisher DJ, Navani N, Parmar MK, Copas AJ, Tierney JF. Should Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Be Considered for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Wild Type EGFR? Two Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials. Clin Lung Cancer. 2015;16(3):173–182.e174.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Osarogiagbon RU, Cappuzzo F, Ciuleanu T, Leon L, Klughammer B. Erlotinib therapy after initial platinum doublet therapy in patients with EGFR wild type non-small cell lung cancer: results of a combined patient-level analysis of the NCIC CTG BR.21 and SATURN trials. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015;4(4):465–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jazieh AR, Al Sudairy R, Abu-Shraie N, Al Suwairi W, Ferwana M, Murad MH. Erlotinib in wild type epidermal growth factor receptor non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Ann Thorac Med. 2013;8(4):204–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Garassino MC, Martelli O, Broggini M, Farina G, Veronese S, Rulli E, Bianchi F, Bettini A, Longo F, Moscetti L, et al. Erlotinib versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and wild-type EGFR tumours (TAILOR): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):981–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kawaguchi T, Ando M, Asami K, Okano Y, Fukuda M, Nakagawa H, Ibata H, Kozuki T, Endo T, Tamura A, et al. Randomized phase III trial of erlotinib versus docetaxel as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: docetaxel and Erlotinib lung Cancer trial (DELTA). J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(18):1902–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, Bunn PA Jr, Di Maria MV, Veve R, Bremmes RM, Baron AE, Zeng C, Franklin WA. Epidermal growth factor receptor in non-small-cell lung carcinomas: correlation between gene copy number and protein expression and impact on prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(20):3798–807.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature. 2012;489(7417):519–25.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thatcher N, Hirsch FR, Luft AV, Szczesna A, Ciuleanu TE, Dediu M, Ramlau R, Galiulin RK, Balint B, Losonczy G, et al. Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):763–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Soria JC, Felip E, Cobo M, Lu S, Syrigos K, Lee KH, Goker E, Georgoulias V, Li W, Isla D, et al. Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):897–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gambale E, Carella C, Amerio P, Buttitta F, Patea RL, Natoli C, De Tursi M. Extraordinary and prolonged erlotinib-induced clinical response in a patient with EGFR wild-type squamous lung cancer in third-line therapy: a case report. Int Med Case Rep J. 2017;10:173–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, Park K, Ciardiello F, von Pawel J, Gadgeel SM, Hida T, Kowalski DM, Dols MC, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):255–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Hui R, Csoszi T, Fulop A, Gottfried M, Peled N, Tafreshi A, Cuffe S, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, Felip E, Perez-Gracia JL, Han JY, Molina J, Kim JH, Arvis CD, Ahn MJ, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1540–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, Crino L, Eberhardt WE, Poddubskaya E, Antonia S, Pluzanski A, Vokes EE, Holgado E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):123–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Masago K, Fujita S, Togashi Y, Kim YH, Hatachi Y, Fukuhara A, Nagai H, Sakamori Y, Mio T, Mishima M. Clinicopathologic factors affecting the progression-free survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after gefitinib therapy. Clin Lung Cancer. 2011;12(1):56–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bertram M, Petersen V, Heßling J, Tessen HW, Münz M, Jänicke M, Spring L. N M: EGFR mutation testing and treatment with tyrosin-kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated by office based medical oncologists in Germany - data from the clinical registry on lung cancer (TLK). Oncol Res Treat. 2015;38(suppl 5):V886.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang M. Brueckl
    • 1
  • H. Jost Achenbach
    • 2
  • Joachim H. Ficker
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Schuette
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Sleep MedicineParacelsus Medical University Nuernberg, General Hospital NuernbergNurembergGermany
  2. 2.Lung Clinic Lostau, Department of Thoracic OncologyNurembergGermany
  3. 3.Hospital Martha-Maria Halle-Doelau, Klinik für Innere Medizin IIHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations