Title
Vandetanib versus gefitinib in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer: results from a two-part, double-blind, randomized phase II study Vandetanib versus gefitinib in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer: results from a two-part, double-blind, randomized phase II study
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication type
article
Publication
New York ,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
Journal of clinical oncology. - New York
Volume/pages
27(2009) :15 , p. 2523-2529
ISSN
0732-183X
ISI
000266195400019
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
Purpose Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. In this two-part phase II study, the efficacy and safety of vandetanib was compared with that of gefitinib, an inhibitor of EGFR signaling. Patients and Methods Patients (N = 168) with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), after failure of first-line with or without second-line platinum-based chemotherapy, received once-daily vandetanib 300 mg (n = 83) or gefitinib 250 mg (n = 85) until disease progression or evidence of toxicity (part A). After a 4-week washout period, eligible patients had the option to switch to the alternative treatment (part B). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary efficacy assessment in part A, which was designed to have a higher than 75% power to detect a 33% prolongation of PFS at a one-sided significance level of .2. Results In part A, vandetanib prolonged PFS compared with gefitinib (hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.96; one-sided P = .013). Patients receiving vandetanib experienced adverse events that were manageable and generally consistent with inhibition of EGFR and VEGFR signaling, including diarrhea, rash, and hypertension. There were no unexpected safety findings with gefitinib. Overall survival, a secondary assessment, was not significantly different between patients initially randomly assigned to either vandetanib or gefitinib. Conclusion The primary efficacy objective was achieved, with vandetanib demonstrating a significant prolongation of PFS versus gefitinib. Vandetanib 300 mg/d is currently being evaluated as a monotherapy in two randomized phase III studies in advanced NSCLC.
E-info
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000266195400019&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000266195400019&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000266195400019&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
Handle