Table 1.

Afatinib evaluations in lung SqCC in cited studies

Study	Design	Patients (n)	Histology	EGFR mutation	Afatinib dose	Control arm	Results
LUX-Lung 548	Phase III	1,154	Adenocarcinoma/squamous cell carcinoma	Not required	Part A: 50 mg/d Part B: 40 mg/d + paclitaxel	Part A: none Part B: investigator’s choice	PFS: 5.6 versus 2.8 months (P=0.003) (analysis of 202 patients)
LUX-Lung 835	Phase III	795	Squamous cell carcinoma	Not required	40 mg/d	Erlotinib	PFS: 2.4 versus 1.9 months (P=0.042)
LUX-Lung 8, VeriStrat evaluation7	Retrospective	795	Squamous cell carcinoma	Not required	40 mg/d	Erlotinib	675 were classified: VS-G: 412, VS-P: 263 OS in VS-G Afatinib versus erlotinib: HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–0.98 OS in VS-P Afatinib versus erlotinib: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70–1.16 OS in VS-G versus VS-P patients in overall VS-classified population: HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.35–0.49
LUX-Lung 8, symptoms and QoL61	Prospective	795	Squamous cell carcinoma	Not required	40 mg/d	Erlotinib	Questionnaire compliance: Afatinib, 77.3–99% Erlotinib, 68.7–99% Improved scores for GHS/QoL (P=0.041): Afatinib: 36% Erlotinib: 28%; Improved scores for cough (P=0.029) Afatinib: 43% Erlotinib 35%

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; GHS, global health status; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; QoL, quality of life; SqCC, squamous cell carcinoma; VS-G, VeriStrat-good; VS-P, VeriStrat-poor.