Pharmacotherapeutic group: antineoplastic agents, protein kinase inhibitors; ATC code: L01EB01
Mechanism of action and pharmacodynamic effects
The epidermal growth factor (EGF) and its receptor (EGFR [HER1; ErbB1]) have been identified as key drivers in the process of cell growth and proliferation for normal and cancer cells. EGFR activating mutation within a cancer cell is an important factor in promotion of tumour cell growth, blocking of apoptosis, increasing the production of angiogenic factors and facilitating the processes of metastasis.
Gefitinib is a selective small molecule inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase and is an effective treatment for patients with tumours with activating mutations of the EGFR tyrosine kinase domain regardless of line of therapy. No clinically relevant activity has been shown in patients with known EGFR mutation-negative tumours.
The common EGFR activating mutations (Exon 19 deletions; L858R) have robust response data supporting sensitivity to gefitinib; for example a progression free survival HR (95% CI) of 0.489 (0.336, 0.710) for gefitinib vs. doublet chemotherapy [WJTOG3405]. Gefitinib response data is more sparse in patients whose tumours contain the less common mutations; the available data indicates that G719X, L861Q and S7681 are sensitising mutations; and T790M alone or exon 20 insertions alone are resistance mechanisms.
Resistance
Most NSCLC tumours with sensitising EGFR kinase mutations eventually develop resistance to IRESSA treatment, with a median time to disease progression of 1 year. In about 60% of cases, resistance is associated with a secondary T790M mutation for which T790M targeted EGFR TKIs may be considered as a next line treatment option. Other potential mechanisms of resistance that have been reported following treatment with EGFR signal blocking agents include: bypass signalling such as HER2 and MET gene amplification and PIK3CA mutations. Phenotypic switch to small cell lung cancer has also been reported in 5-10% of cases.
Circulating Tumour DNA (ctDNA)
In the IFUM trial, mutation status was assessed in tumour and ctDNA samples derived from plasma, using the Therascreen EGFR RGQ PCR kit (Qiagen). Both ctDNA and tumour samples were evaluable for 652 patients out of 1060 screened. The objective response rate (ORR) in those patients who were tumour and ctDNA mutation positive was 77% (95% CI: 66% to 86%) and in those who were tumour only mutation positive 60% (95% CI: 44% to 74%).
Table 2 Summary of baseline mutation status for tumour and ctDNA samples in all screened patients evaluable for both samples
| Measure | Definition | IFUM rate % (CI) | IFUM N |
| Sensitivity | Proportion of tumour M+ that are M+ by ctDNA | 65.7 (55.8, 74.7) | 105 |
| Specificity | Proportion of tumour M- that are M- by ctDNA) | 99.8 (99.0, 100.0) | 547 |
These data are consistent with the pre-planned exploratory Japanese subgroup analysis in IPASS (Goto 2012). In that study ctDNA derived from serum, not plasma was used for EGFR mutation analysis using the EGFR Mutation Test Kit (DxS) (N= 86). In that study, sensitivity was 43.1%, specificity was 100%.
Clinical efficacy and safety
First line treatment
The randomised phase III first line IPASS study was conducted in patients in Asia1 with advanced (stage IIIB or IV) NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology who were ex-light smokers (ceased smoking ≥ 15 years ago and smoked ≤ 10 pack years) or never smokers (see Table 3).
1China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand.
Table 3 Efficacy outcomes for gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel from the IPASS study
| Population | N | Objective response rates and 95% CI for difference between treatmentsa | Primary endpoint Progression free survival (PFS)a2b | Overall survivalab |
| Overall | 1217 | 43.0% vs 32.2% [5.3%, 16.1%] | HR 0.74 [0.65, 0.85] 5.7 m vs 5.8 m p<0.0001 | HR 0.90 [0.79, 1.02] 18.8 m vs 17. 4m p=0.1087 |
| EGFR mutation-positive | 261 | 71.2% vs 47.3% [12.0%, 34.9%] | HR 0.48 [0.36, 0.64] 9.5 m vs 6.3 m p<0.0001 | HR 1.00 [0.76, 1.33] 21.6 m vs 21.9 m |
| EGFR mutation-negative | 176 | 1.1% vs 23.5% [-32.5%, -13.3%] | HR 2.85 [2.05, 3.98] 1.5 m vs 5.5 m p<0.0001 | HR 1.18 [0.86, 1.63] 11.2 m vs 12.7 m |
| EGFR mutation-unknown | 780 | 43.3% vs 29.2% [7.3%, 20.6%] | HR 0.68 [0.58 to 0.81] 6.6 m vs 5.8 m p<0.0001 | HR 0.82 [0.70 to 0.96] 18.9 m vs. 17.2 m |
a Values presented are for IRESSA versus carboplatin/paclitaxel.
b “m” is medians in months. Numbers in square brackets are 95% confidence intervals for HR
N Number of patients randomised.
HR Hazard ratio (hazard ratios <1 favour IRESSA)
Quality of life outcomes differed according to EGFR mutation status. In EGFR mutation-positive patients, significantly more IRESSA-treated patients experienced an improvement in quality of life and lung cancer symptoms vs. carboplatin/paclitaxel (see Table 4).
Table 4 Quality of life outcomes for gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel from the IPASS study
| Population | N | FACT-L QoL improvement rate a % | LCS symptom improvement rate a% |
| Overall | 1151 | (48.0% vs 40.8%) p=0.0148 | (51.5% vs 48.5%) p=0.3037 |
| EGFR mutation-positive | 259 | (70.2% vs 44.5%) p<0.0001 | (75.6% vs 53.9%) p=0.0003 |
| EGFR mutation-negative | 169 | (14.6% vs 36.3%) p=0.0021 | (20.2% vs 47.5%) p=0.0002 |
Trial outcome index results were supportive of FACT-L and LCS results
a Values presented are for IRESSA versus carboplatin/paclitaxel.
N Number of patients evaluable for quality of life analyses
QoL Quality of life
FACT-L Functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung
LCS Lung cancer subscale
In the IPASS trial, IRESSA demonstrated superior PFS, ORR, QoL and symptom relief with no significant difference in overall survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel in previously untreated patients, with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, whose tumours harboured activating mutations of the EGFR tyrosine kinase.
Pretreated patients
The randomised phase III INTEREST study was conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy. In the overall population, no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was observed for overall survival, progression free survival and objective response rates (see Table 5).
Table 5 Efficacy outcomes for gefitinib versus docetaxel from the INTEREST study
| Population | N | Objective response rates and 95% CI for difference between treatmentsa | Progression free survivalab | Primary endpoint overall survivalab |
| Overall | 1466 | 9.1% vs 7.6% [-1.5%, 4.5%] | HR 1.04 [0.93, 1.18] 2.2 m vs 2.7 m p=0.4658 | HR 1.020 [0.905, 1.150] c 7.6 m vs 8.0 m p=0.7332 |
| EGFR mutation-positive | 44 | 42.1% vs 21.1% [-8.2%, 46.0%] | HR 0.16 [0.05, 0.49] 7.0 m vs 4.1 m p=0.0012 | HR 0.83 [0.41, 1.67] 14.2 m vs 16.6 m p=0.6043 |
| EGFR mutation- negative | 253 | 6.6% vs 9.8% [-10.5%, 4.4%] | HR 1.24 [0.94, 1.64] 1.7 m vs 2.6 m p=0.1353 | HR 1.02 [0.78, 1.33] 6.4 m vs 6.0 m p=0.9131 |
| Asiansc | 323 | 19.7% vs 8.7% [3.1%, 19.2%] | HR 0.83 [0.64, 1.08] 2.9 m vs 2.8 m p=0.1746 | HR 1.04 [0.80, 1.35] 10.4 m vs 12.2 m p=0.7711 |
| Non-Asians | 1143 | 6.2% vs 7.3% [-4.3%, 2.0%] | HR 1.12 [0.98, 1.28] 2.0 m vs 2.7 m p=0.1041 | HR 1.01 [0.89, 1.14] 6.9 m vs 6.9 m p=0.9259 |
a Values presented are for IRESSA versus docetaxel.
b “m” is medians in months. Numbers in square brackets are 96% confidence interval for overall survival HR in the overall population, or otherwise 95% confidence intervals for HR
c Confidence interval entirely below non-inferiority margin of 1.154
N Number of patients randomised.
HR Hazard ratio (hazard ratios <1 favour IRESSA)
Figures 1 and 2 Efficacy outcomes in subgroups of non-Asian patients in the INTEREST study
(N patients = Number of patients randomised)


The randomised phase III ISEL study, was conducted in patients with advanced NSCLC who had received 1 or 2 prior chemotherapy regimens and were refractory or intolerant to their most recent regimen. Gefitinib plus best supportive care was compared to placebo plus best supportive care. IRESSA did not prolong survival in the overall population. Survival outcomes differed by smoking status and ethnicity (see Table 6).
Table 6 Efficacy outcomes for gefitinib versus placebo from the ISEL study
| Population | N | Objective response rates and 95% CI for difference between treatmentsa | Time to treatment failureab | Primary endpoint overall survivalabc |
| Overall | 1692 | 8.0% vs 1.3% [4.7%, 8.8%] | HR 0.82 [0.73, 0.92] 3.0 m vs 2.6 m p=0.0006 | HR 0.89 [0.77, 1.02] 5.6 m vs 5.1 m p=0.0871 |
| EGFR mutation- positive | 26 | 37.5% vs 0% [-15.1%, 61.4%] | HR 0.79 [0.20, 3.12] 10.8 m vs 3.8m p=0.7382 | HR NC NR vs 4.3 m |
| EGFR mutation- negative | 189 | 2.6% vs 0% [-5.6%, 7.3%] | HR 1.10 [0.78, 1.56] 2.0 m vs 2.6 m p=0.5771 | HR 1.16 [0.79, 1.72] 3.7 m vs 5.9 m p=0.4449 |
| Never smoker | 375 | 18.1% vs 0% [12.3%, 24.0%] | HR 0.55 [0.42, 0.72] 5.6 m vs 2.8 m p<0.0001 | HR 0.67 [0.49, 0.92] 8.9 m vs 6.1 m p=0.0124 |
| Ever smoker | 1317 | 5.3% vs 1.6% [1.4%, 5.7%] | HR 0.89 [0.78, 1.01] 2.7 m vs 2.6 m p=0.0707 | HR 0.92 [0.79, 1.06] 5.0 m vs 4.9 m p=0.2420 |
| Asiansd | 342 | 12.4% vs 2.1% [4.0%, 15.8%] | HR 0.69 [0.52, 0.91] 4.4 m vs 2.2 m p=0.0084 | HR 0.66 [0.48, 0.91] 9.5 m vs 5.5 m p=0.0100 |
| Non-Asians | 1350 | 6.8% vs 1.0% [3.5%, 7.9%] | HR 0.86 [0.76, 0.98] 2.9 m vs 2.7 m p=0.0197 | HR 0.92 [0.80, 1.07] 5.2 m vs 5.1 m p=0.2942 |
a Values presented are for IRESSA versus placebo.
b “m” is medians in months. Numbers in square brackets are 95% confidence intervals for HR
c Stratified log-rank test for overall; otherwise cox proportional hazards model
d Asian ethnicity excludes patients of Indian origin and refers to the racial origin of a patient group and not necessarily their place of birth
N Number of patients randomised
NC Not calculated for overall survival HR as the number of events is too few
NR Not reached
HR Hazard ratio (hazard ratios <1 favour IRESSA)
The IFUM study was a single-arm, multicentre study conducted in Caucasian patients (n=106) with activating, sensitising EGFR mutation positive NSCLC to confirm that the activity of gefitinib is similar in Caucasian and Asian populations. The ORR according to investigator review was 70% and the median PFS was 9.7 months. These data are similar to those reported in the IPASS study.
EGFR mutation status and clinical characteristics
Clinical characteristics of never smoker, adenocarcinoma histology, and female gender have been shown to be independent predictors of positive EGFR mutation status in a multivariate analysis of 786 Caucasian patients from gefitinib studies* (see Table 7). Asian patients also have a higher incidence of EGFR mutation-positive tumours.
Table 7 Summary of multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors that independently predicted for the presence of EGFR mutations in 786 Caucasian patients*
| Factors that predicted for presence of EGFR mutation | p-value | Odds of EGFR mutation | Positive predictive value (9.5% of the overall population are EGFR mutation-positive (M+)) |
| Smoking status | <0.0001 | 6.5 times higher in never smokers than ever-smokers | 28/70 (40%) of never smokers are M+ 47/716 (7%) of ever smokers are M+ |
| Histology | <0.0001 | 4.4 times higher in adenocarcinoma than in non-adenocarcinoma | 63/396 (16%) of patients with adenocarcinoma histology are M+ 12/390 (3%) of patients with non-adenocarcinoma histology are M+ |
| Gender | 0.0397 | 1.7 times higher in females than males | 40/235 (17%) of females are M+ 35/551 (6%) of males are M+ |
*from the following studies: INTEREST, ISEL, INTACT 1&2, IDEAL 1&2, INVITE