Summary Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, ...randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin LUX-Lung 3 or gemcitabine-cisplatin LUX-Lung 6), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion del19, Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 16% of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 15% of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 14% and 13 5%), paronychia (26 11% in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 5% in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 18% of 111 patients), fatigue (14 13%) and leucopenia (nine 8%) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 27% of 113 patients), vomiting (22 19%), and leucopenia (17 15%). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
Summary Background Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy ...and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods We undertook an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 22 centres in China. Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received either oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, or up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation procedure and were stratified according to EGFR mutation type, histological subtype (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), and smoking status. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed in patients with confirmed disease who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00874419 , and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up. Findings 83 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 82 to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 82 in the erlotinib group and 72 in the chemotherapy group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in erlotinib-treated patients than in those on chemotherapy (13.1 95% CI 10.58–16.53 vs 4.6 4.21–5.42 months; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.10–0.26; p<0.0001). Chemotherapy was associated with more grade 3 or 4 toxic effects than was erlotinib (including neutropenia in 30 42% of 72 patients and thrombocytopenia in 29 40% patients on chemotherapy vs no patients with either event on erlotinib); the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects with erlotinib were increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three 4% of 83 patients) and skin rash (two 2% patients). Chemotherapy was also associated with increased treatment-related serious adverse events (ten 14% of 72 patients decreased platelet count, n=8; decreased neutrophil count, n=1; hepatic dysfunction, n=1 vs two 2% of 83 patients both hepatic dysfunction). Interpretation Compared with standard chemotherapy, erlotinib conferred a significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and was associated with more favourable tolerability. These findings suggest that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (China); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality.
Summary Background Afatinib—an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker—improves progression-free survival compared with pemetrexed and cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with EGFR ...mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We compared afatinib with gemcitabine and cisplatin—a chemotherapy regimen widely used in Asia—for first-line treatment of Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. Methods This open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was done at 36 centres in China, Thailand, and South Korea. After central testing for EGFR mutations, treatment-naive patients (stage IIIB or IV cancer American Joint Committee on Cancer version 6, performance status 0–1) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral afatinib (40 mg per day) or intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-week schedule for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done centrally with a random number-generating system and an interactive internet and voice-response system. Randomisation was stratified by EGFR mutation (Leu858Arg, exon 19 deletions, or other; block size three). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment assignment, but the independent central imaging review group were. Treatment continued until disease progression, intolerable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01121393. Findings 910 patients were screened and 364 were randomly assigned (242 to afatinib, 122 to gemcitabine and cisplatin). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the afatinib group (11·0 months, 95% CI 9·7–13·7) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (5·6 months, 5·1–6·7; hazard ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·20–0·39; p<0·0001). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the afatinib group were rash or acne (35 14·6% of 239 patients), diarrhoea (13 5·4%), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 5·4%), compared with neutropenia (30 26·5% of 113 patients), vomiting (22 19·5%), and leucopenia (17 15·0%) in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 15 (6·3%) patients in the afatinib group and nine (8·0%) patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. Interpretation First-line afatinib significantly improves progression-free survival with a tolerable and manageable safety profile in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung NSCLC. Afatinib should be considered as a first-line treatment option for this patient population. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
Summary Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive ...non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months 95% CI 10·6–12·9 with afatinib vs 10·9 months 9·1–11·5 with gefitinib; hazard ratio HR 0·73 95% CI 0·57–0·95, p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months 95% CI 11·9–15·0 with afatinib vs 11·5 months 10·1–13·1 with gefitinib; HR 0·73 95% CI 0·58–0·92, p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 13% of 160 patients given afatinib vs two 1% of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 9% patients given afatinib vs five 3% of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 9% of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR -mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
Urea is an important chemical in agricultural, biosystem and chemical engineering. It can not only be a fertilizer and feed supplement, but also converted into electricity and hydrogen based on the ...counterpart half‐reactions. In this concept, we demonstrated the fundamental mechanism of electrochemical urea oxidation reaction (UOR) and its various applications on environmental, energy and healthcare devices with typical examples. UOR providing potential directions for the electrochemical treatment of urea‐contained wastewater were also introduced in this concept. This work is not focused on electrocatalyst design, but rather offers instructive guidance for the UOR developments in environmental, energy, and healthcare devices.
This concept paper aims at emphasizing that electrochemical urea oxidation reaction has been a key reaction among urea‐assisted hydrogen production, direct urea fuel cell, urea‐contained wastewater urea removal and urea sensors. Urea oxidation reaction has the potential to bridge energy storage and conversion, sewage treatment and healthcare devices, and provides an alternative solution of energy and environmental issues.
Invited for this issue's Front Cover is the group of Dr. Shun Lu of Chongqing Institute of Green and Intelligent Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (China). The cover picture shows the ...electrochemical urea oxidation reaction has been a key reaction among urea‐assisted hydrogen production, direct urea fuel cell, urea‐containing wastewater urea removal and urea sensors. Read the full text of the Concept at 10.1002/celc.202300138.
“The electrochemical urea oxidation is a key reaction for urea‐assisted hydrogen production, direct urea fuel cells, removal of urea from wastewater, and urea sensors. Urea oxidation has the potential to bridge energy storage and conversion, sewage treatment and healthcare devices, and provides an alternative solution for energy and environmental issues….“ Learn more about the story behind the research featured on the front cover in this issue's Cover Profile. Read the corresponding Concept at 10.1002/celc.202300138.
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.
Summary Background Maintenance treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy is a subject of ongoing research. The ...aim of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, INFORM study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the EGFR–tyrosine-kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the maintenance setting. Methods Patients were aged 18 years or older, were of east Asian ethnic origin, had a life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, a WHO performance status of 0–2, and had completed four cycles of first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy without disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Between Sept 28, 2008 and Aug 11, 2009, 296 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either gefitinib (250 mg per day orally) or placebo (orally) within 3–6 weeks after chemotherapy until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was done via an interactive web response system with computer-generated randomisation codes. Our primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This completed study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00770588. Findings Progression-free survival was significantly longer with gefitinib (n=148) than with placebo (148) (median progression-free survival 4·8 months 95% CI 3·2–8·5 vs 2·6 months 1·6–2·8; hazard ratio HR 0·42, 95% CI 0·33–0·55; p<0·0001). Adverse events occurred more frequently with gefitinib than with placebo; the most common adverse events of any grade were rash (73 50% of 147 in the gefitinib group vs 14 9% of 148 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (37 25% vs 13 9%), and alanine aminotransferase increase (31 21% vs 12 8%). The most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 adverse event was alanine aminotransferase increase (3 2% of 147 in the gefitinib group, none of 148 in the placebo group). Ten of 147 (7%) patients given gefitinib and five of 148 (3%) patients given placebo had serious adverse events. Three deaths were thought to be related to treatment with gefitinib: one from interstitial lung disease; one from lung infection; and one from pneumonia. Interpretation Maintenance treatment with gefitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients from east Asia with advanced NSCLC who achieved disease control after first-line chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider these data when making decisions about maintenance treatment in such patients. Funding AstraZeneca.
PDF
