Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 TORCH trial for first line erlotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients
BACKGROUND: The TORCH phase III trial compared the efficacy of first-line erlotinib followed by chemotherapy at progression (experimental arm) with the reverse sequence (standard arm) in unselected advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Here we report biomarker analyses.
METHODS: EGFR and KRAS mutation, expression of EGFR family members and of cMET and PTEN and EGFR and ABCG2 germline polymorphisms were tested on tumor tissue or blood samples to either confirm previously proposed predictive role or describe it in an explorative setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point, overall survival, response rate and side effects (diarrhoea and skin toxicity) were secondary end-points. Interactions between biomarkers and treatment were studied with multivariable models (either Cox model or logistic regression). Statistical analyses accounted for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: At least one biomarker was assessed in 324 out of 760 patients in the TORCH study. EGFR mutation was more common in female (P = 0.0001), East Asians (P < 0.0001) and never smoker (P < 0.0001) patients; low MET protein expression by IHC (H-score <200) was more frequent in squamous (P < 0.00009) and ABCG2 C/A or A/A polymorphism was more frequent among East-Asian patients (P = 0.0003). A significant interaction was found for EGFR mutation in PFS and response rate analyses while no predictive effect on OS was found for any biomarker. No biomarker tested was prognostic for PFS and OS. No polymorphism was significantly associated with skin toxicity or diarrhea.
CONCLUSION: In the present study, beyond the known role of EGFR mutation, no other biomarker has predictive or prognostic role.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2017 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:8 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Oncotarget - 8(2017), 34 vom: 22. Aug., Seite 57528-57536 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Kim, Lucia [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Biomarker analysis |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.09.2017 Date Revised 09.04.2022 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.18632/oncotarget.15725 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM275863891 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM275863891 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225010648.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.18632/oncotarget.15725 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0919.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM275863891 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)28915692 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kim, Lucia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 TORCH trial for first line erlotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 25.09.2017 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 09.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: The TORCH phase III trial compared the efficacy of first-line erlotinib followed by chemotherapy at progression (experimental arm) with the reverse sequence (standard arm) in unselected advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Here we report biomarker analyses | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: EGFR and KRAS mutation, expression of EGFR family members and of cMET and PTEN and EGFR and ABCG2 germline polymorphisms were tested on tumor tissue or blood samples to either confirm previously proposed predictive role or describe it in an explorative setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point, overall survival, response rate and side effects (diarrhoea and skin toxicity) were secondary end-points. Interactions between biomarkers and treatment were studied with multivariable models (either Cox model or logistic regression). Statistical analyses accounted for multiple comparisons | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: At least one biomarker was assessed in 324 out of 760 patients in the TORCH study. EGFR mutation was more common in female (P = 0.0001), East Asians (P < 0.0001) and never smoker (P < 0.0001) patients; low MET protein expression by IHC (H-score <200) was more frequent in squamous (P < 0.00009) and ABCG2 C/A or A/A polymorphism was more frequent among East-Asian patients (P = 0.0003). A significant interaction was found for EGFR mutation in PFS and response rate analyses while no predictive effect on OS was found for any biomarker. No biomarker tested was prognostic for PFS and OS. No polymorphism was significantly associated with skin toxicity or diarrhea | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: In the present study, beyond the known role of EGFR mutation, no other biomarker has predictive or prognostic role | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a EGFR TKI | |
| 650 | 4 | |a NSCLC | |
| 650 | 4 | |a biomarker analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a predictive factors | |
| 650 | 4 | |a prognostic factors | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Saieg, Mauro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Di Maio, Massimo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gallo, Ciro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Butts, Charles |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ciardiello, Fortunato |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Feld, Ronald |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cheng, Dengxiao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gebbia, Vittorio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Burgio, Marco Angelo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Alam, Yasmin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Signoriello, Simona |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rossi, Antonio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Leighl, Natasha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maione, Paolo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Morabito, Alessandro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Liu, Geoffrey |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tsao, Ming-Sound |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Perrone, Francesco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gridelli, Cesare |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Oncotarget |d 2010 |g 8(2017), 34 vom: 22. Aug., Seite 57528-57536 |w (DE-627)NLM199620113 |x 1949-2553 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:8 |g year:2017 |g number:34 |g day:22 |g month:08 |g pages:57528-57536 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15725 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 8 |j 2017 |e 34 |b 22 |c 08 |h 57528-57536 | ||