Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10668/11425
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
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
Male
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.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10668/11425
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