TY - JOUR
T1 - Overall Survival From the EORTC LCG-1613 APPLE Trial of Osimertinib Versus Gefitinib Followed by Osimertinib in Advanced EGFR -Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
AU - Remon, Jordi
AU - Besse, Benjamin
AU - Aix, Santiago Ponce
AU - Callejo, Ana
AU - Al-Rabi, Kamal
AU - Bernabe, Reyes
AU - Greillier, Laurent
AU - Majem, Margarita
AU - Reguart, Noemi
AU - Monnet, Isabelle
AU - Cousin, Sophie
AU - Garrido, Pilar
AU - Robinet, Gilles
AU - Campelo, Rosario Garcia
AU - Madroszyk, Anne
AU - Mazières, Julien
AU - Curcio, Hubert
AU - Wasąg, Bartosz
AU - Pretzenbacher, Yassin
AU - Grillet, Fanny
AU - Dingemans, Anne Marie C.
AU - Dziadziuszko, Rafal
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2024/4/20
Y1 - 2024/4/20
N2 - Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Osimertinib has been established as a standard of care for patients with common sensitizing EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) although the sequential approach (first-generation inhibitor gefitinib followed by osimertinib) has not been formally compared. The phase II APPLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02856893) enrolled 156 treatment-naïve patients, and two treatment strategies were evaluated: osimertinib up front or the sequential treatment approach with gefitinib up front followed by osimertinib at the time of progression, either molecular progression (detection of plasma T790M resistance mutation) regardless of the radiologic status or just at the time of radiologic progression. Patients' characteristics were well balanced, except for the higher proportion of baseline brain metastases in the sequential approach (29% v 19%). Per protocol, 73% of patients switched to osimertinib in the sequential arm. Up-front treatment with osimertinib was associated with a lower risk of brain progression versus the sequential approach (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [90% CI, 0.34 to 0.86]), but a comparable overall survival was observed between both strategies (HR, 1.01 [90% CI, 0.61 to 1.68]), with the 18-month survival probability of 84% and 82.3%, respectively. The APPLE trial suggests that a sequential treatment approach is associated with more frequent progression in the brain but a similar survival in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.
AB - Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Osimertinib has been established as a standard of care for patients with common sensitizing EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) although the sequential approach (first-generation inhibitor gefitinib followed by osimertinib) has not been formally compared. The phase II APPLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02856893) enrolled 156 treatment-naïve patients, and two treatment strategies were evaluated: osimertinib up front or the sequential treatment approach with gefitinib up front followed by osimertinib at the time of progression, either molecular progression (detection of plasma T790M resistance mutation) regardless of the radiologic status or just at the time of radiologic progression. Patients' characteristics were well balanced, except for the higher proportion of baseline brain metastases in the sequential approach (29% v 19%). Per protocol, 73% of patients switched to osimertinib in the sequential arm. Up-front treatment with osimertinib was associated with a lower risk of brain progression versus the sequential approach (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [90% CI, 0.34 to 0.86]), but a comparable overall survival was observed between both strategies (HR, 1.01 [90% CI, 0.61 to 1.68]), with the 18-month survival probability of 84% and 82.3%, respectively. The APPLE trial suggests that a sequential treatment approach is associated with more frequent progression in the brain but a similar survival in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85190902587&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.23.01521
DO - 10.1200/JCO.23.01521
M3 - Article
C2 - 38324744
AN - SCOPUS:85190902587
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 42
SP - 1350
EP - 1356
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 12
ER -