An interventional study of erlotinib (Tarceva) and pemetrexed (Alimta) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, sponsored by National Cheng-Kung University Hospital. Status unknown at 1 site in Taiwan. Open to participants aged 20 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2009-05-18.
Sponsored by National Cheng-Kung University Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Screening
Currently the investigators have two different classes of second-line treatment options in recurrent non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). In chemotherapy, docetaxel and pemetrexed produced similar treatment efficacy outcomes, while pemetrexed had a better tolerability. In recent analysis of pemetrexed clinical studies, a strong treatment-by-histology interaction in overall survival and progression free survival that indicated better efficacy for non-squamous patients treated with pemetrexed. These data supports that pemetrexed could be a preferable chemotherapy drug especially in adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients.
On the other hand, EGFR TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib) both produced somewhat similar higher response rate (around 25%) in general Taiwan adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients, while the median overall survival time didn't longer than chemotherapy treated patients. A recent prospective study of gefitinib in chemonaive adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients showed that the objective response rate was lower to be only 1.1% among EGFR mutation negative patients.
Since typical EGFR gene mutations (i.e., the deletion of typically five amino acids at codons 746-750 (ELREA) in exon 19 and a leucine-to-arginine mutation at codon 858 (L858R)) are a good predictor for tumor response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor, this present study is to tailor the patient's treatment according to his/her EGFR gene mutation status. Receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib in this study) will be the suggested second-line drug of recommendation for typical EGFR gene mutation patients, and chemotherapy (pemetrexed in this study) will be the suggested second-line drug of recommendation for EGFR wild type patients.
The aim of this study is to increase the overall tumor response rate to 40% from current treatment outcome (around 25%) by this tailored second line treatment. The further interests of this study include prospectively evaluate the predictivity of EGFR gene mutation to tumor response.
The primary objective of this study is to determine the overall tumor response rate of tailored second line treatment determined by typical EGFR gene mutation in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.
2,004 studies on the registry are indexed under Adenocarcinoma; 375 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 52 is above the median of 45 across 1,553 interventional studies indexed under Adenocarcinoma.
Browse Adenocarcinoma studies →National Cheng-Kung University Hospital is the lead sponsor of 268 studies on the registry; 68 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients must have previously received one chemotherapy regimen for palliative therapy of locally advanced or metastatic disease.
Adequate organ function including the following:
Exclusion Criteria:
Subject has untreated brain or meningeal metastases.
Inability to interrupt aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 2 days before, the day of, and 2 days after the dose of pemetrexed.
If EGFR mutation found then assigned to thyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib)
Drug: erlotinib (Tarceva)
If EGFR wild type found then assigned to chemotherapy (pemetrexed)
Drug: pemetrexed (Alimta)
chemotherapy with erlotinib
Chemotherapy with pemetrexed
The primary analysis will be the overall best response rate, including a 95% confidence interval (Leemis and Trivedi 1996).
Time frame: 02/2009 - 04/2010
This study is status unknown, as verified in May 2009. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
National Cheng-Kung University Hospital