Phase III Trial of Vandetanib Compared With Erlotinib in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Natale RB, Thongprasert S, Greco FA, Thomas M, Tsai CM, Sunpaweravong P, Ferry D, Mulatero C, Whorf R, Thompson J, Barlesi F, Langmuir P, Gogov S, Rowbottom JA, Goss GD.

Cedars-Sinai Outpatient Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA; Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN; Florida Cancer Specialists, Bradenton, FL; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE; Maharaj Nakorn Chiangmai Hospital, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai; Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand; University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton; St James' Institute of Oncology, Leeds; Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; Université de la Méditerranée, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France; and Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 31.

Abstract

Purpose

Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens.

Patients and Methods

One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. Results There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

PMID: 21282542 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] Source: National Library of Medicine.







Copyright 2026 InterMDnet | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | System Requirements