Non-Small Cell Lung CancerPhase 3NCT00556322
A Study of Tarceva (Erlotinib) and Standard of Care Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
A Phase 3 study testing Alimta or Taxotere and erlotinib [Tarceva] in people with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, run by Hoffmann-La Roche at 123 sites in 27 countries.
Trial summary
This 2 arm study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of Tarceva and that of standard of care chemotherapy in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC experiencing disease progression after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy.Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Alimta or Taxotere and erlotinib [Tarceva]
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 424 participants
- Where
- 123 sitesin 27 countries
- Study dates
- Mar 2006to Jun 2012
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- adult patients >=18 years of age;
- histologically documented, locally advanced or recurrent or metastatic NSCLC;
- measurable disease;
- disease progression during 1-4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.
Who cannot join
- any other malignancies within the last 5 years;
- unstable systemic disease.
Trial locations and contacts
123 sites in 27 countries.
123 sites in 27 countries
Russia22 sites
Study site
Arkhangelsk, 163045
Study site
Balashikha, 143900
Study site
Chelyabinsk, 454 087
Study site
Kazan', 420029
Study site
Kazan', 420111
Study site
Kirov
Study site
Krasnodar, 350040
Study site
Krasnodar
Study site
Kuzmolovo, 188663
Study site
Moscow, 105203
Study site
Moscow, 105229
Study site
Moscow, 115478
Study site
Moscow, 117837
Study site
Nizhny Novgorod, 603000
Study site
Perm, 614 066
Study site
Saint Petersburg, 191015
Study site
Saint Petersburg, 195067
Study site
Saint Petersburg, 197022
Study site
Saint Petersburg
Study site
Sashi, 354057
Study site
Smolensk
Study site
Yaroslavl, 150054
France11 sites
Study site
Bayonne, 64100
Study site
Brest, 29200
Study site
Clermont-Ferrand, 63003
Study site
Dijon, 21079
Study site
Le Mans, 72037
Study site
Lille, 59020
Study site
Limoges, 87042
Study site
Paris, 75674
Study site
Pau, 64046
Study site
Toulouse, 31400
Study site
Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, 54511
Australia7 sites
Study site
Adelaide, South Australia, 5041
Study site
East Bentleigh, Victoria, VIC 3165
Study site
Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065
Study site
Geelong, Victoria, 3220
Study site
Melbourne, Victoria, 3084
Study site
St Leonards, New South Wales, 2065
Study site
Waratah, New South Wales, 2298
Hungary7 sites
Study site
Budapest, 1125
Study site
Budapest, 1529
Study site
Deszk, 6772
Study site
Nyíregyháza, 4400
Study site
Pécs, 7635
Study site
Szombathely, 9700
Study site
Törökbálint, 2045
South Korea7 sites
Study site
Daegu, 700-712
Study site
Seoul, 110-744
Study site
Seoul, 120-752
Study site
Seoul, 135-710
Study site
Seoul, 138-736
Study site
Seoul, 139-709
Study site
Suwon
Canada6 sites
Study site
Laval, Quebec, H7M 3L9
Study site
Montreal, Quebec, H4J 1C5
Study site
Oshawa, Ontario, L1G 2B9
Study site
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, P6A 2C4
Study site
Toronto, Ontario, M4C 3E7
Study site
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3E 0V9
Germany6 sites
Study site
Bad Berka, 99437
Study site
Bochum, 44791
Study site
Halle, 06120
Study site
Herne, 44625
Study site
Neuruppin, 16816
Study site
Villingen-Schwenningen, 78052
Austria4 sites
Study site
Innsbruck, 6020
Study site
Klagenfurt, 9010
Study site
Vienna, 1140
Study site
Vienna, 1145
China4 sites
Study site
Beijing, 100730
Study site
Guangzhou, 510060
Study site
Guangzhou, 510080
Study site
Shanghai, 200032
Romania4 sites
Study site
Bucharest, 022328
Study site
Cluj-Napoca, 400015
Study site
Iași, 6600
Study site
Timișoara, 1900
Slovakia4 sites
Study site
Banská Bystrica, 975 17
Study site
Bratislava, 825 56
Study site
Nitra, 949 88
Study site
Poprad, 058 87
Spain4 sites
Study site
A Coruña, La Coruña, 15006
Study site
Oviedo, Principality of Asturias, 33006
Study site
Santander, Cantabria, 39008
Study site
Zaragoza, Zaragoza, 50009
United Kingdom4 sites
Study site
Chelmsford, CM1 7ET
Study site
Dundee, DD1 9SY
Study site
Leicester, LE1 5WW
Study site
Plymouth, PL6 8DH
Czechia3 sites
Study site
České Budějovice, 370 87
Study site
Olomouc, 775 20
Study site
Pilsen, 305 99
Greece3 sites
Study site
Athens, 11527
Study site
Athens, 14564
Study site
Heraklion, 71110
Italy3 sites
Study site
Ancona, The Marches
Study site
Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, 40139
Study site
Rome, Lazio, 00168
Lithuania3 sites
Study site
Kaunas
Study site
Klaipėda, 92288
Study site
Vilnius, 08660
Poland3 sites
Study site
Lodz, 91-520
Study site
Lodz, 94-306
Study site
Otwock, 05-400
Slovenia3 sites
Study site
Golnik
Study site
Ljubljana, 1000
Study site
Maribor
South Africa3 sites
Study site
Durban, 4091
Study site
Johannesburg, 2196
Study site
Pretoria, 0001
Ukraine3 sites
Study site
Kharkiv, 61024
Study site
Uzhhorod, 88000
Study site
Zaporizhzhya, 69104
About this study
Official title: An Open-label, Randomized Study to Evaluate the Effect of Tarceva, Compared With Alimta (Pemetrexed) or Taxotere (Docetaxel),on Survival in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Experienced Disease Progression During Platinum-based Chemotherapy
This 2 arm study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of Tarceva and that of standard of care chemotherapy in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC experiencing disease progression after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy.Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either Tarceva 150mg po daily, or comparator (either Alimta 500mg/m2 every 3 weeks, or Taxotere 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks). The anticipated time on study treatment is until disease progression ,and the target sample size is 500+ individuals.
- Conditions
- Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
- Being tested
- Alimta or Taxotere, erlotinib [Tarceva]
- Medical subject headings
- Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Alimta or TaxotereDrug
500mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Alimta) or 75mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Taxotere)
erlotinib [Tarceva]Drug
150mg po daily
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Not described Receives: Drug: erlotinib [Tarceva] |
| 2 | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Drug: Alimta or Taxotere |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010)
Overall survival (OS) was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 or Death and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Duration of Overall Survival in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year
OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: 1 Year
Secondary outcomes (19)
Percentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative Population
EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Duration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population
EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative Population
EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death in EGFR positive and negative populations. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: 1 Year
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death (All Participants; Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)
Tumor response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20 percent (%) increase in the sum of the Longest Diameter (LD) of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. The primary analysis of PFS used objective progression (RECIST) plus clinical progression (based on relevant clinical findings - if any). A further assessment of PFS was made on objective (radiological) progression. If clinical progression was diagnosed first, the participant was censored at the date of the last tumor assessment, where non-progression was documented.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months
Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions. Event free estimates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates.
Measured: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)
EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC.Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). Progressive Disease was defined as At least a 20 % increase in the sum of LD of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the appearance of one or more new lesions.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
PFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first in EGFR positive and negative populations. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative Population
EGFR is a gene in the tumor tissues and mutations in this gene have been linked to a variety of tumors. Presence or absence of EGFR was determined by IHC. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria (version 1.0). PFS was defined as time from randomization to the date of documented disease progression or death, whichever occurred first in EGFR positive and negative populations. Participants without progression were censored at the date of last tumor assessment where non progression was documented. If a participant receives a second anti-cancer therapy without prior documentation of disease progression, the participant was censored at the date of last tumor assessment before starting new chemotherapy. Event free estimates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates.
Measured: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Confirmed Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Assessed by the Investigator Using RECIST
Best overall response was defined as the best response according to RECIST recorded from the date of randomization until disease progression or recurrence. CR: disappearance of all target lesions; PR: reduction by at least 30% of the sum of the longest diameters of each target lesion, taking the initial sum of the longest diameters as a reference; Stable disease (SD): insufficient tumor reduction to define partial response and/or tumor increase less than that necessary to define tumor progression, taking as a reference the smallest sum of the longest diameter since the start of treatment; Progressive Disease (PD): increase by at least 20% in the sum of LD of each target lesion, taking as a reference the smallest sum of the longest diameters, reported since the start of treatment, or appearance of one or more new lesions. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for one sample binomial using Pearson-Clopper method. Participants with a missing response were considered non-responders.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Death or up to 52 months
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in Quality of Life Determined Using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L)
The FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General scale (FACT-G) and the lung cancer subscale (LCS). The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life Using FACT-L
The FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the FACT-G and the LCS. The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL. Time to deterioration of QoL or symptom progression is defined as time from randomization until either a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in Total FACT-L or, death on study, whichever occurs first. The clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine deterioration in QoL was ≥6-point decline from baseline. Participants without deterioration in QoL at the time of analysis were censored at the time of the last FACT-L assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to determine time to event.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Without Deterioration in Quality of Life at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
The FACT-L measures health related QOL and composes of five domains: the four domains (physical well being, emotional well being, social well being, functional well being) from the FACT-G and the LCS. The FACT-L total score ranges from 0 to 136, higher scores represent better QOL. Kaplan Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L
Participants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Time to Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L
Participants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to FACIT measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline. Kaplan Meier estimated were used for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
Participants' responses on the FACT-L were scored according to FACIT measurement system manual. Time to symptom progression is the time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in LCS score, or death on study. A change in 2 to 3 points on the LCS is a clinically meaningful change. Meaningful declines in scores as measured by the FACIT instruments have been found to be larger than improvements. Thus, deterioration in disease-related symptoms was defined by the upper bound (3 points) of the range of clinically meaningful change. However, participants who demonstrated early lung cancer progression demonstrated smaller changes from baseline score on the LCS. Therefore, the clinically meaningful decline that was used to determine progression of symptoms in this study was at least 1.5-point decline in LCS score from baseline. Kaplan Meier estimated were used for analysis.
Measured: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI)
TOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the Physical Well- Being (PWB), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6-point decline from baseline.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Time to Deterioration in the TOI
TOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the PW, FWB, and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6- point decline from baseline. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the TOI at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
TOI is defined as the sum of the scores of the PW, FWB, and LCS of the FACT-L instrument. Trial Outcome Index measures the physical functioning of participants. Time to deterioration in TOI is defined as time from randomization until the earlier of a clinically meaningful decline from baseline in TOI or death on study. The clinically meaningful decline used to determine deterioration in TOI was ≥6-point decline from baseline. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Measured: 6 Months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Nov 2007 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2006
- Primary completionJun 2012
- Study completionJun 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Non-Small Cell Lung CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Hoffmann-La RocheThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 424 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hoffmann-La Roche
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Clinical Trials, Study director, Hoffmann-La Roche
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00556322
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- BO18602
- Status last verified
- Feb 2015
- First submitted
- 9 Nov 2007
- Last updated
- 23 Feb 2015
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
Publications
Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, Cicenas S, Miliauskas S, Grigorescu AC, Hillenbach C, Johannsdottir HK, Klughammer B, Gonzalez EE. Efficacy and safety of erlotinib versus chemotherapy in second-line treatment of patients with advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer with poor prognosis (TITAN): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):300-8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70385-0. Epub 2012 Jan 24.
PubMed 22277837
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Feb 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Open-label, Randomized Study to Evaluate the Effect of Tarceva, Compared With Alimta (Pemetrexed) or Taxotere (Docetaxel),on Survival in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Experienced Disease Progression During Platinum-based Chemotherapy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00556322
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BO18602
- Conditions
- Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 424 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hoffmann-La RocheIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- Mar 2006
- Primary completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Nov 2007 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 23 Feb 2015
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This 2 arm study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of Tarceva and that of standard of care chemotherapy in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC experiencing disease progression after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy.Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either Tarceva 150mg po daily, or comparator (either Alimta 500mg/m2 every 3 weeks, or Taxotere 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks). The anticipated time on study treatment is until disease progression ,and the target sample size is 500+ individuals.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Drug: erlotinib [Tarceva] |
| 2 | Active comparator | Drug: Alimta or Taxotere |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- adult patients >=18 years of age;
- histologically documented, locally advanced or recurrent or metastatic NSCLC;
- measurable disease;
- disease progression during 1-4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- any other malignancies within the last 5 years;
- unstable systemic disease.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Alimta or Taxotere500mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Alimta) or 75mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Taxotere) | Drug | 2 |
| erlotinib [Tarceva]150mg po daily | Drug | 1 |
Primary outcome
Percentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 or Death and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Overall survival (OS) was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death.
Duration of Overall Survival in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year
Time frame: 1 Year
OS was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analysis.
19 secondary outcomes
Percentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative Population
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Duration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative Population
Time frame: 1 Year
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death (All Participants; Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months
Time frame: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
PFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Until Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative Population
Time frame: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Confirmed Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Assessed by the Investigator Using RECIST
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity or Death or up to 52 months
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in Quality of Life Determined Using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life Using FACT-L
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Without Deterioration in Quality of Life at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
Time frame: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Time to Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
Time frame: 6 Months
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI)
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Time to Deterioration in the TOI
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 and Every 12 Weeks until Disease Progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 52 months
Probable Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the TOI at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
Time frame: 6 Months
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Feb 2015.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22277837Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, Cicenas S, Miliauskas S, Grigorescu AC, Hillenbach C, Johannsdottir HK, Klughammer B, Gonzalez EE. Efficacy and safety of erlotinib versus chemotherapy in second-line treatment of patients with advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer with poor prognosis (TITAN): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):300-8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70385-0. Epub 2012 Jan 24.
Related trials for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
A Prospective ,Multicenter ,Non-interventional ,Real-world Study Observing Changes in Molecular Markers Osimertinib Targeted Therapy in EGFRm NSCLC
Non Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study Evaluating Sotorasib Platinum Doublet Combination Versus Pembrolizumab Platinum Doublet Combination as a Front-Line Therapy in Participants With Stage IV or Advanced Stage IIIB/C Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers (CodeBreaK 202)
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Datopotamab Deruxtecan (Dato-DXd, DS-1062a) in Advanced and/or Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Metastatic Lung Cancer, Advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
STAR0602 With Nivolumab in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer and in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer, and STAR0602 Alone in Thymic Carcinoma
NSCLC, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Clinical Trials study director
Hoffmann-La Roche
123 sites in 27 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Alimta or Taxotere and erlotinib [Tarceva] in people with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, run by Hoffmann-La Roche at 123 sites in 27 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Feb 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 123 sites in Russia, France, Australia, Hungary, South Korea and 22 more countries. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 23 Feb 2015). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010) (time frame: Baseline, Weeks 3 and 6, Every 3 Weeks until Week 48 or Death and Every 12 Weeks until Death or Data Cut off (07 September 2010) up to 52 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00556322, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Feb 2015.