MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175516050 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100940

Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: Final analysis of the randomised phase 3 LUX-Lung 8 trial

2021· article· en· W3175516050 on OpenAlexaff
Glenwood Goss, Manuel Cobo, Shun Lü, Konstantinos Syrigos, Ki Hyeong Lee, Erdem Göker, Vassilis Georgoulias, Dolores Isla, Alessandro Morabito, Young Joo Min, Andrea Ardizzoni, Shaun Bender, A. Cseh, Enriqueta Felip

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsMedicineErlotinibAfatinibLung cancerInternal medicineErlotinib HydrochlorideHazard ratioAdverse effectSurgeryOncologyCancerEpidermal growth factor receptorConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundLUX-Lung 8 was a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study comparing afatinib and erlotinib as second-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).MethodsLUX-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.Findings795 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%).InterpretationAfatinib 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.FundingBoehringer Ingelheim.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207