Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Symptom and Quality of Life Improvement in LUX-Lung 8, an Open-Label Phase III Study of Second-Line Afatinib Versus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung After First-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.
Authors: Felip, Enriqueta
Hirsh, Vera
Popat, Sanjay
Cobo, Manuel
Fülöp, Andrea
Dayen, Charles
Trigo, José M
Gregg, Richard
Waller, Cornelius F
Soria, Jean-Charles
Goss, Glenwood D
Gordon, James
Wang, Bushi
Palmer, Michael
Ehrnrooth, Eva
Gadgeel, Shirish M
Keywords: Cough;Diarrhea;Dyspnea;EGFR;Pain
metadata.dc.subject.mesh: Afatinib
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell
Erlotinib Hydrochloride
Lung Neoplasms
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Platinum Compounds
Quality of Life
Survival Analysis
Issue Date: 23-Jun-2017
Abstract: In the phase III LUX-Lung 8 trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus erlotinib in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung progressing during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (QoL) in these patients are presented. Patients (n = 795) were randomized 1:1 to oral afatinib (40 mg/d) or erlotinib (150 mg/d). PROs were collected (baseline, every 28 days until progression, 28 days after discontinuation) using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire and lung cancer-specific module. The percentage of patients improved during therapy, time to deterioration (TTD), and changes over time were analyzed for prespecified lung cancer-related symptoms and global health status (GHS)/QoL. Questionnaire compliance was 77.3% to 99.0% and 68.7% to 99.0% with afatinib and erlotinib, respectively. Significantly more patients who received afatinib versus erlotinib experienced improved scores for GHS/QoL (36% vs. 28%; P = .041) and cough (43% vs. 35%; P = .029). Afatinib significantly delayed TTD in dyspnea (P = .008) versus erlotinib, but not cough (P = .256) or pain (P = .869). Changes in mean scores favored afatinib for cough (P = .0022), dyspnea (P = .0007), pain (P = .0224), GHS/QoL (P = .0320), and all functional scales. Differences in adverse events between afatinib and erlotinib, specifically diarrhea, did not affect GHS/QoL. In patients with SCC of the lung, second-line afatinib was associated with improved prespecified disease-related symptoms and GHS/QoL versus erlotinib, complementing PFS and OS benefits with afatinib.
metadata.dc.identifier.doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.06.002
Appears in Collections:Producción 2020

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

This item is protected by original copyright

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons