Icotinib versus whole-brain irradiation in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer and multiple brain metastases (BRAIN): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial.

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and multiple brain metastases, whole-brain irradiation (WBI) is a standard-of-care treatment, but its effects on neurocognition are complex and concerning. We compared the efficacy of an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), icotinib, versus WBI with or without chemotherapy in a phase 3 trial of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and multiple brain metastases. We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel randomised controlled trial (BRAIN) at 17 hospitals in China. Eligible participants were patients with NSCLC with EGFR mutations, who were naive to treatment with EGFR-TKIs or radiotherapy, and had at least three metastatic brain lesions. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either icotinib 125 mg orally (three times per day) or WBI (30 Gy in ten fractions of 3 Gy) plus concurrent or sequential chemotherapy for 4-6 cycles, until unacceptable adverse events or intracranial disease progression occurred. The randomisation was done by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group with a web-based allocation system applying the Pocock and Simon minimisation method; groups were stratified by EGFR gene mutation status, treatment line (first line or second line), brain metastases only versus both intracranial and extracranial metastases, and presence or absence of symptoms of intracranial hypertension. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment assignment, but individuals involved in the data analysis did not participate in the treatments and were thus masked to allocation. Patients receiving icotinib who had intracranial progression only were switched to WBI plus either icotinib or chemotherapy until further progression; those receiving icotinib who had extracranial progression only were switched to icotinib plus chemotherapy. Patients receiving WBI who progressed were switched to icotinib until further progression. Icotinib could be continued beyond progression if a clinical benefit was observed by the investigators (eg, an improvement in cognition or intracranial pressure). The primary endpoint was intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to either intracranial disease progression or death from any cause. We assessed efficacy and safety in the intention-to-treat population (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment), hypothesising that intracranial PFS would be 40% longer (hazard ratio [HR] 0·60) with icotinib compared with WBI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01724801. Between Dec 10, 2012, and June 30, 2015, we assigned 176 participants to treatment: 85 to icotinib and 91 to WBI. 18 withdrew from the WBI group before treatment, leaving 73 for assessment. Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5-21·5). Median intracranial PFS was 10·0 months (95% CI 5·6-14·4) with icotinib versus 4·8 months (2·4-7·2) with WBI (equating to a 44% risk reduction with icotinib for an event of intracranial disease progression or death; HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·36-0·90; p=0·014). Adverse events of grade 3 or worse were reported in seven (8%) of 85 patients in the icotinib group and 28 (38%) of 73 patients in the WBI group. Raised concentrations of alanine aminotransferase and rash were the most common adverse events of any grade in both groups, occurring in around 20-30% of each group. At the time of final analysis, 42 (49%) patients in the icotinib group and 37 (51%) in the WBI group had died. 78 of these patients died from disease progression, and one patient in the WBI group died from thrombogenesis related to chemotherapy. In patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and multiple brain metastases, icotinib was associated with significantly longer intracranial PFS than WBI plus chemotherapy, indicating that icotinib might be a better first-line therapeutic option for this patient population. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Lung Cancer Translational Medicine, National Health and Family Planning Commission of China, Guangzhou Science and Technology Bureau, Betta Pharmaceuticals, and the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group.

Yang JJ ，Zhou C ，Huang Y ，Feng J ，Lu S ，Song Y ，Huang C ，Wu G ，Zhang L ，Cheng Y ，Hu C ，Chen G ，Zhang L ，Liu X ，Yan HH ，Tan FL ，Zhong W ，Wu YL ... -  《-》

Icotinib versus chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (EVIDENCE): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Icotinib has provided survival benefits for patients with advanced, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare icotinib with chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutant stage II-IIIA NSCLC after complete tumour resection. Here, we report the results from the preplanned interim analysis of the study. In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 29 hospitals in China, eligible patients were aged 18-70 years, had histopathogically confirmed stage II-IIIA NSCLC, had complete resection up to 8 weeks before random assignment, were treatment-naive, and had confirmed activation mutation in exon 19 or exon 21 of the EGFR gene. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web-based response system to receive either oral icotinib 125 mg thrice daily for 2 years or four 21-day cycles of intravenous chemotherapy (vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of each cycle plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle for adenocarcinoma or squamous carcinoma; or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks for non-squamous carcinoma). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival assessed in the full analysis set. Secondary endpoints were overall survival assessed in the full analysis set and safety assessed in all participants who received study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02448797. Between June 8, 2015, and August 2, 2019, 322 patients were randomly assigned to icotinib (n=161) or chemotherapy (n=161); the full analysis set included 151 patients in the icotinib group and 132 in the chemotherapy group. Median follow-up in the full analysis set was 24·9 months (IQR 16·6-36·4). 40 (26%) of 151 patients in the icotinib group and 58 (44%) of 132 patients in the chemotherapy group had disease relapse or death. Median disease-free survival was 47·0 months (95% CI 36·4-not reached) in the icotinib group and 22·1 months (16·8-30·4) in the chemotherapy group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·36 [95% CI 0·24-0·55]; p<0·0001). 3-year disease-free survival was 63·9% (95% CI 51·8-73·7) in the icotinib group and 32·5% (21·3-44·2) in the chemotherapy group. Overall survival data are immature with 14 (9%) deaths in the icotinib group and 14 (11%) deaths in the chemotherapy. The HR for overall survival was 0·91 (95% CI 0·42-1·94) in the full analysis set. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in two (1%) of 156 patients in the icotinib group and 19 (14%) of 139 patients in the chemotherapy group. No interstitial pneumonia or treatment-related death was observed in either group. Our results suggest that compared with chemotherapy, icotinib significantly improves disease-free survival and has a better tolerability profile in patients with EGFR-mutant stage II-IIIA NSCLC after complete tumour resection. Betta Pharmaceuticals TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

He J ，Su C ，Liang W ，Xu S ，Wu L ，Fu X ，Zhang X ，Ge D ，Chen Q ，Mao W ，Xu L ，Chen C ，Hu B ，Shao G ，Hu J ，Zhao J ，Liu X ，Liu Z ，Wang Z ，Xiao Z ，Gong T ，Lin W ，Li X ，Ye F ，Liu Y ，Ma H ，Huang Y ，Zhou J ，Wang Z ，Fu J ，Ding L ，Mao L ，Zhou C ... -  《-》

Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

Icotinib, an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, had shown antitumour activity and favourable toxicity in early-phase clinical trials. We aimed to investigate whether icotinib is non-inferior to gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial we enrolled patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 27 sites in China. Eligible patients were those aged 18-75 years who had not responded to one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using minimisation methods, to receive icotinib (125 mg, three times per day) or gefitinib (250 mg, once per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the full analysis set. We analysed EGFR status if tissue samples were available. All investigators, clinicians, and participants were masked to patient distribution. The non-inferiority margin was 1·14; non-inferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of gefitinib versus icotinib was less than this margin. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01040780, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-09000506. 400 eligible patients were enrolled between Feb 26, 2009, and Nov 13, 2009; one patient was enrolled by mistake and removed from the study, 200 were assigned to icotinib and 199 to gefitinib. 395 patients were included in the full analysis set (icotinib, n=199; gefitinib, n=196). Icotinib was non-inferior to gefitinib in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·67-1·05; median progression-free survival 4·6 months [95% CI 3·5-6·3] vs 3·4 months [2·3-3·8]; p=0·13). The most common adverse events were rash (81 [41%] of 200 patients in the icotinib group vs 98 [49%] of 199 patients in the gefitinib group) and diarrhoea (43 [22%] vs 58 [29%]). Patients given icotinib had less drug-related adverse events than did those given gefitinib (121 [61%] vs 140 [70%]; p=0·046), especially drug-related diarrhoea (37 [19%] vs 55 [28%]; p=0·033). Icotinib could be a new treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Shi Y ，Zhang L ，Liu X ，Zhou C ，Zhang L ，Zhang S ，Wang D ，Li Q ，Qin S ，Hu C ，Zhang Y ，Chen J ，Cheng Y ，Feng J ，Zhang H ，Song Y ，Wu YL ，Xu N ，Zhou J ，Luo R ，Bai C ，Jin Y ，Liu W ，Wei Z ，Tan F ，Wang Y ，Ding L ，Dai H ，Jiao S ，Wang J ，Liang L ，Zhang W ，Sun Y ... -  《-》

First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men, is less associated with smoking, but occurs at a younger age than sporadic tumours. To assess the clinical effectiveness of single-agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included response rate, symptom palliation, toxicity, and health-related quality of life. We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 27th July 2020), Embase (1980 to 27th July 2020), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 27th July 2020). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (July 2020); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent. Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis. Twenty-two trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 3023, of whom approximately 2563 were of Asian origin. Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo. Erlotinib was used in eight trials, gefitinib in nine trials, afatinib in two trials, cetuximab in two trials, and icotinib in one trial. The findings of FASTACT 2 suggested a clinical benefit for OS for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, as did the Han 2017 trial for gefitinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, but both results were based on a small number of participants (n = 97 and 122, respectively). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of four trials showed evidence of clinical benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.39 ; 583 participants ; high-certainty evidence). A pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48 ; 491 participants high-certainty evidence), and a pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance also showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, 371 participants ; moderate-certainty evidence). Afatinib showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53, 709 participants high-certainty evidence). All but one small trial showed a corresponding improvement in response rate with tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy. Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events associated with afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and icotinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms; fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies. Seven trials reported on health-related quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, two trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the TKI compared to chemotherapy. The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged PFS compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adverse effect and health-related quality of life. We found limited evidence for increased OS for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy, but the majority of the included trials allowed participants to switch treatments on disease progression, which will have a confounding effect on any OS analysis. Single agent-TKI remains the standard of care and the benefit of combining a TKI and chemotherapy remains uncertain as the evidence is based on small patient numbers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib or icotinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There are no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy. Icotinib is not available outside China.

Greenhalgh J ，Boland A ，Bates V ，Vecchio F ，Dundar Y ，Chaplin M ，Green JA ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): a phase 3 randomised trial.

Optimum management strategies for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are undefined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of continuing gefitinib combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with acquired resistance to first-line gefitinib. The randomised, phase 3, multicentre IMPRESS study was done in 71 centres in 11 countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, chemotherapy-naive, stage IIIB-IV EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with previous disease control with first-line gefitinib and recent disease progression (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central block randomisation to oral gefitinib 250 mg or placebo once daily in tablet form; randomisation did not include stratification factors. All patients also received the platinum-based doublet chemotherapy cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on the first day of each cycle. After completion of a maximum of six chemotherapy cycles, patients continued their randomly assigned treatment until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. All study investigators and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study has completed enrolment, but patients are still in follow-up for overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01544179. Between March 29, 2012, and Dec 20, 2013, 265 patients were randomly assigned: 133 to the gefitinib group and 132 to the placebo group. At the time of data cutoff (May 5, 2014), 98 (74%) patients had disease progression in the gefitinib group compared with 107 (81%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·13; p=0·27; median progression-free survival 5·4 months in both groups [95% CI 4·5-5·7 in the gefitinib group and 4·6-5·5 in the placebo group]). The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (85 [64%] of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 81 [61%] of 132 patients in the placebo group) and decreased appetite (65 [49%] and 45 [34%]). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were anaemia (11 [8%] of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and five [4%] of 132 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (nine [7%] and seven [5%]). 37 (28%) of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 28 (21%) of 132 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. Continuation of gefitinib after radiological disease progression on first-line gefitinib did not prolong progression-free survival in patients who received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as subsequent line of treatment. Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy remains the standard of care in this setting. AstraZeneca.

Soria JC ，Wu YL ，Nakagawa K ，Kim SW ，Yang JJ ，Ahn MJ ，Wang J ，Yang JC ，Lu Y ，Atagi S ，Ponce S ，Lee DH ，Liu Y ，Yoh K ，Zhou JY ，Shi X ，Webster A ，Jiang H ，Mok TS ... -  《-》