Search

Background: LUX-Lung 8 was a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study comparing afatinib and erlotinib as sec-ond-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung. We report the final overall survival (OS) and safety analyses of LUX-Lung 8 and investigate the characteristics of patients who achieved long-term benefit (>12 months’ treatment). Methods: LUX-Lung 8 (NCT01523587) enroled patients between March 2012 and January 2014 and this final analysis had a data cut-off of March 2018. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV lung SCC and had progressed after at least four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression. Endpoints included OS and safety; a post-hoc analysis of patients with long-term benefit (>12 months on treatment) was also conducted. Findings: 795 eligible patients were randomly assigned (398 to afatinib, 397 to erlotinib). OS was significantly prolonged with afatinib compared with erlotinib (median 7.8 months vs 6.8 months; hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.73-0.97; p = 0.0193). These findings were consistent with those of the primary analysis and were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were manageable with dose interruption and reduction, with similar AEs being experienced between both groups. Twenty-one (5.3%) patients receiving afatinib and 13 (3.3%) patients receiving erlotinib achieved long-term benefit; median OS was 34.6 months and 20.1 months, respectively. Amongst 132 afatinib-treated patients who underwent tumour genetic analysis, ERBB family mutations were more common in patients with long-term benefit than in the overall population (50% vs 21%). Interpretation: Afatinib is a treatment option for patients with SCC of the lung progressing on chemotherapy who are ineligible for immunotherapy, particularly those with ERBB family genetic aberrations. Afatinib has a predictable and manageable tolerability profile, and long-term treatment may be well tolerated. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Background There is a major unmet need for effective treatments in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. LUX-Lung 8 compared afatinib (an irreversible ErbB family blocker) with erlotinib (a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor), as second-line treatment for patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Methods We did this open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 183 cancer centres in 23 countries worldwide. We enrolled adults with stage IIIB or IV squamous cell carcinoma of the lung who had progressed after at least four cycles of platinum-based-chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression. The randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system and stratified by ethnic origin (eastern Asian vs non-eastern Asian). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). The key secondary endpoint was overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01523587. Findings 795 eligible patients were randomly assigned (398 to afatinib, 397 to erlotinib). Median follow-up at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival was 6.7 months (IQR 3.1-10.2), at which point enrolment was not complete. Progression free-survival at the primary analysis was significantly longer with afatinib than with erlotinib (median 2.4 months [95% CI 1.9-2.9] vs 1.9 months [1.9-2.2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.82 [95% CI 0.68-1.00], p=0.0427). At the time of the primary analysis of overall survival (median follow-up 18.4 months [IQR 13.8-22.4]), overall survival was significantly greater in the afatinib group than in the erloinib group (median 7.9 months [95% CI 7.2-8.7] vs 6.8 months [5.9-7.8]; HR 0.81 [95% CI 0.69-0.95], p=0.0077), as were progression-free survival (median 2.6 months [95% CI 2.0-2.9] vs 1.9 months [1.9-2.1]; HR 0.81 [95% CI 0.69-0.96], p=0.0103) and disease control (201 [51%] of 398 patients vs 157 [40%] of 397; p=0.0020). The proportion of patients with an objective response did not diff er signifi cantly between groups (22 [6%] vs 11 [3%]; p=0.0551). Tumour shrinkage occurred in 103 (26%) of 398 patients versus 90 (23%) of 397 patients. Adverse event profiles were similar in each group: 224 (57%) of 392 patients in the afatinib group versus 227 (57%) of 395 in the erlotinib group had grade 3 or higher adverse events. We recorded higher incidences of treatment-related grade 3 diarrhoea with afatinib (39 [10%] vs nine [2%]), of grade 3 stomatitis with afatinib (16 [4%] vs none), and of grade 3 rash or acne with erlotinib (23 [6%] vs 41 [10%]). Interpretation The signifi cant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with afatinib compared with erlotinib, along with a manageable safety profile and the convenience of oral administration suggest that afatinib could be an additional option for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

Summary Background There is a major unmet need for effective treatments in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. LUX-Lung 8 compared afatinib (an irreversible ErbB family blocker) with erlotinib (a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor), as second-line treatment for patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Methods We did this open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 183 cancer centres in 23 countries worldwide. We enrolled adults with stage IIIB or IV squamous cell carcinoma of the lung who had progressed after at least four cycles of platinum-based-chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression. The randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system and stratified by ethnic origin (eastern Asian vs non-eastern Asian). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). The key secondary endpoint was overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01523587. Findings 795 eligible patients were randomly assigned (398 to afatinib, 397 to erlotinib). Median follow-up at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival was 6·7 months (IQR 3·1–10·2), at which point enrolment was not complete. Progression free-survival at the primary analysis was significantly longer with afatinib than with erlotinib (median 2·4 months [95% CI 1·9–2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9–2·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–1·00], p=0·0427). At the time of the primary analysis of overall survival (median follow-up 18·4 months [IQR 13·8–22·4]), overall survival was significantly greater in the afatinib group than in the erloinib group (median 7·9 months [95% CI 7·2–8·7] vs 6·8 months [5·9–7·8]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69–0·95], p=0·0077), as were progression-free survival (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0–2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9–2·1]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69–0·96], p=0·0103) and disease control (201 [51%] of 398 patients vs 157 [40%] of 397; p=0·0020). The proportion of patients with an objective response did not differ significantly between groups (22 [6%] vs 11 [3%]; p=0·0551). Tumour shrinkage occurred in 103 (26%) of 398 patients versus 90 (23%) of 397 patients. Adverse event profiles were similar in each group: 224 (57%) of 392 patients in the afatinib group versus 227 (57%) of 395 in the erlotinib group had grade 3 or higher adverse events. We recorded higher incidences of treatment-related grade 3 diarrhoea with afatinib (39 [10%] vs nine [2%]), of grade 3 stomatitis with afatinib (16 [4%] vs none), and of grade 3 rash or acne with erlotinib (23 [6%] vs 41 [10%]). Interpretation The significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with afatinib compared with erlotinib, along with a manageable safety profile and the convenience of oral administration suggest that afatinib could be an additional option for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.