Table 8. Studies of first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs in early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

EGFR TKI	Study	Number of patients, population	Design	Primary endpoint	Ref.
Gefitinib	ADJUVANT, phase III	222, II–IIIA EGFR-mutant	Gefitinib vs. platinum-based chemotherapy	HR for DFS =0.60; P=0.0054	(149)
	NCIC CTG BR19, phase III	503 stage IB–IIIA, unselected	Gefitinib vs. placebo for 2 years	HR for OS =1.24; P=0.14	(146)
	Phase II, randomized	60, IIIA (N2), EGFR-mutant	Platinum-based chemotherapy followed by gefitinib for 6 months vs. platinum-based chemotherapy	HR for DFS =0.37; P=0.014	(148)
Erlotinib	SELECT, phase II, non-randomised	100, IA–IIIA, EGFR-mutant	Platinum-based chemotherapy followed by erlotinib for 2 years	2-year DFS rate =90%	(150)
	EVAN, phase II	100 IIIA EGFR-mutant	Erlotinib (2 years) vs. platinum-based chemotherapy	HR for DFS =0.26; P<0.001	(151)
	RADIANT, phase III	973, IB–IIIA, EGFR overexpression (IHC or FISH)	Erlotinib vs. placebo for 2 years	HR for DFS =0.90; P=0.324	(147)
	RECEL, phase II	41, unresectable stage III, EGFR-mutant	Erlotinib + RT (erlotinib for 2 years) vs. cisplatin-etoposide + RT	HR for PFS =0.053; P<0.001	(152)
Icotinib	Phase II, randomized	41, IB–IIIA, EGFR-mutant	Platinum-based chemotherapy followed by icotinib for 4–8 months vs. platinum-based chemotherapy	24 months DFS 90.5% vs. 66.7%; P=0. 066	(153)

EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; DFS, disease-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; PFS, progression-free survival.