Skip to main content
. 2014 Dec 15;20:2666–2676. doi: 10.12659/MSM.892476

Table 1.

Characteristics of first-line trials included.

Study Country/region Treatment Total no. pts No. of EGFR+ pts (%) No. of EGFR− pts (%) No. of EGFR unknown pts (%) Progression-free survival Objective response Disease control Overall survival
First-line HR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) HR (95% CI)
WJTOG3405 (2010) Japan Gefitinib vs. Cis+D 172 172 (100) 0 0 0.49 (0.34–0.71) 3.4 (1.6–7.4) 3.8 (1.2–12.5) 1.64 (0.75–3.59)
NEJ002 (2010) Japan Gefitinib vs. Car+Pa 228 228 (100) 0 0 0.32 (0.24–0.43) 6.3 (3.6–11.2) 2.1 (1.0–4.6) 0.89 (0.63–1.26)
IPASS (2009) East Asian Gefitinib vs. Car+Pa 1217 261 (21) 176 (15) 780 (64) 0.74 (0.65–0.84) 1.59 (1.25–2.01) 0.70 (0.54, 0.92) 0.90 (0.79–1.03)
First-SIGNAL (2012) Korean Gefitinib vs. Cis+G 309 43 (14) 54 (17) 212 (69) 1.20 (0.94–1.53) 1.46 (0.93–2.28) 0.56 (0.34, 0.94) 0.93 (0.72–1.20)
Optimal (2011) China Erlotinib vs. Car+G 154 154 (100) 0 0 0.16 (0.10–0.26) 8.6 (4.1–18.2) 5.8 (1.6–21.3) 1.07 (0.79–1.45)
EURTAC (2012) Europe Erlotinib vs. platinum+G/ or platinum+D 173 173 (100) 0 0 0.37 (0.25–0.55) 7.9 (3.8–16.4) 2.0 (1.0–3.9) 1.04 (0.65–1.66)
LUX-Lung 3 (2012) Global Afatinib vs. Cis+Pe 354 354 (100) 0 0 0.58 (0.43–0.78) 4.4 (2.6–7.3) 2.1 (1.1–4.0) 1.12 (0.73–1.72)
LUX-Lung 6 (2013) Asian Afatinib vs. Cis+G 364 364 (100) 0 0 0.28(0.20–0.39) 6.8 (4.1–11.2) 3.9 (2.1–7.3) 0.95 (0.68–1.33)
Pooled HR (95% CI), p value Pooled OR (95% CI), p value Pooled OR (95% CI), p value Pooled HR (95% CI), p value
0.45 (0.30, 0.67), p<0.0001 4.09 (2.35, 7.15), p<0.0001 1.86 (1.01, 3.41), p=0.05 0.95 (0.86, 1.04), p=0.24

EGFR+ – EGFR mutation positive; EGFR− – EGFR mutation negative; Car – carboplatin; Cis – cisplatin; D – docetaxel; Pa – paclitaxel; Pe – pemetrexed; G – gemcitabine; N.A. – not available; OR – odd ratio; HR – hazard ratio; CI – confidential interval; Pts – patients.