Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00556322
Registration number
NCT00556322
Ethics application status
Date submitted
9/11/2007
Date registered
12/11/2007
Date last updated
23/02/2015
Titles & IDs
Public title
A Study of Tarceva (Erlotinib) and Standard of Care Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
Query!
Scientific 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
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
BO18602
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Cancer
0
0
0
0
Query!
Lung - Mesothelioma
Query!
Cancer
0
0
0
0
Query!
Lung - Non small cell
Query!
Cancer
0
0
0
0
Query!
Lung - Small cell
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Drugs - Alimta or Taxotere
Treatment: Drugs - erlotinib [Tarceva]
Experimental: 1 -
Active comparator: 2 -
Treatment: Drugs: Alimta or Taxotere
500mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Alimta) or 75mg/m2 / 3 weeks (Taxotere)
Treatment: Drugs: erlotinib [Tarceva]
150mg po daily
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Drugs
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Died (All Participants; Data Cutoff: 07 September 2010)
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
Overall survival (OS) was determined from the date of randomization to the date of death irrespective of the cause of death.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
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
Query!
Primary outcome [2]
0
0
Duration of Overall Survival in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
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
Query!
Primary outcome [3]
0
0
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
1 Year
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Died in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Positive and Negative Population
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Duration of OS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive at 1 Year in the EGFR Positive and Negative Population
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
1 Year
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death (All Participants; Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in All Participants (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
6 Months
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression or Death in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cut Off 07 September 2010)
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
0
0
PFS in EGFR Positive and Negative Population (Data Cutoff 07 September 2010)
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [9]
0
0
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Alive and Progression Free at 6 Months in EGFR Positive and Negative Population
Query!
Assessment method [9]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [9]
0
0
6 Months
Query!
Secondary outcome [10]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Best Overall Response of Confirmed Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Assessed by the Investigator Using RECIST
Query!
Assessment method [10]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [10]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [11]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in Quality of Life Determined Using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L)
Query!
Assessment method [11]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [11]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [12]
0
0
Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life Using FACT-L
Query!
Assessment method [12]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [12]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [13]
0
0
Probable Percentage of Participants Remaining Without Deterioration in Quality of Life at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
Query!
Assessment method [13]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [13]
0
0
6 Months
Query!
Secondary outcome [14]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L
Query!
Assessment method [14]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [14]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [15]
0
0
Time to Symptomatic Progression Using FACT-L
Query!
Assessment method [15]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [15]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [16]
0
0
Probable Percentage of Participants With Symptomatic Progression at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
Query!
Assessment method [16]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [16]
0
0
6 Months
Query!
Secondary outcome [17]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI)
Query!
Assessment method [17]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [17]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [18]
0
0
Time to Deterioration in the TOI
Query!
Assessment method [18]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [18]
0
0
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
Query!
Secondary outcome [19]
0
0
Probable Percentage of Participants With Deterioration in the TOI at 6 Months as Assessed by FACT-L
Query!
Assessment method [19]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [19]
0
0
6 Months
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
* 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.
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
* any other malignancies within the last 5 years;
* unstable systemic disease.
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 3
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/03/2006
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/06/2012
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
424
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW,SA,VIC
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
- St. Leonards
Query!
Recruitment hospital [2]
0
0
- Waratah
Query!
Recruitment hospital [3]
0
0
- Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment hospital [4]
0
0
- East Bentleigh
Query!
Recruitment hospital [5]
0
0
- Fitzroy
Query!
Recruitment hospital [6]
0
0
- Geelong
Query!
Recruitment hospital [7]
0
0
- Melbourne
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
2065 - St. Leonards
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
0
0
2298 - Waratah
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [3]
0
0
5041 - Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [4]
0
0
VIC 3165 - East Bentleigh
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [5]
0
0
3065 - Fitzroy
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [6]
0
0
3220 - Geelong
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [7]
0
0
3084 - Melbourne
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
Innsbruck
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
Klagenfurt
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
Wien
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Antwerpen
Query!
Country [5]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [5]
0
0
Manitoba
Query!
Country [6]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [6]
0
0
Ontario
Query!
Country [7]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [7]
0
0
Quebec
Query!
Country [8]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [8]
0
0
Santiago
Query!
Country [9]
0
0
China
Query!
State/province [9]
0
0
Beijing
Query!
Country [10]
0
0
China
Query!
State/province [10]
0
0
Guangzhou
Query!
Country [11]
0
0
China
Query!
State/province [11]
0
0
Shanghai
Query!
Country [12]
0
0
Czech Republic
Query!
State/province [12]
0
0
Ceské Budejovice
Query!
Country [13]
0
0
Czech Republic
Query!
State/province [13]
0
0
Olomouc
Query!
Country [14]
0
0
Czech Republic
Query!
State/province [14]
0
0
Plzen
Query!
Country [15]
0
0
Denmark
Query!
State/province [15]
0
0
Herlev
Query!
Country [16]
0
0
Denmark
Query!
State/province [16]
0
0
Odense
Query!
Country [17]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [17]
0
0
Bayonne
Query!
Country [18]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [18]
0
0
Brest
Query!
Country [19]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [19]
0
0
Clermont-ferrand
Query!
Country [20]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [20]
0
0
Dijon
Query!
Country [21]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [21]
0
0
Le Mans
Query!
Country [22]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [22]
0
0
Lille
Query!
Country [23]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [23]
0
0
Limoges
Query!
Country [24]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [24]
0
0
Paris
Query!
Country [25]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [25]
0
0
PAU
Query!
Country [26]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [26]
0
0
Toulouse
Query!
Country [27]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [27]
0
0
Vandoeuvre-les-nancy
Query!
Country [28]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [28]
0
0
Bad Berka
Query!
Country [29]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [29]
0
0
Bochum
Query!
Country [30]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [30]
0
0
Halle (Saale)
Query!
Country [31]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [31]
0
0
Herne
Query!
Country [32]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [32]
0
0
Neuruppin
Query!
Country [33]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [33]
0
0
Villingen-Schwenningen
Query!
Country [34]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [34]
0
0
Athens
Query!
Country [35]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [35]
0
0
Heraklion
Query!
Country [36]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [36]
0
0
Budapest
Query!
Country [37]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [37]
0
0
Deszk
Query!
Country [38]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [38]
0
0
Nyíregyháza
Query!
Country [39]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [39]
0
0
Pecs
Query!
Country [40]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [40]
0
0
Szombathely
Query!
Country [41]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [41]
0
0
Torokbalint
Query!
Country [42]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [42]
0
0
Emilia-Romagna
Query!
Country [43]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [43]
0
0
Lazio
Query!
Country [44]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [44]
0
0
Marche
Query!
Country [45]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [45]
0
0
Daegu
Query!
Country [46]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [46]
0
0
Seoul
Query!
Country [47]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [47]
0
0
Suwon
Query!
Country [48]
0
0
Lithuania
Query!
State/province [48]
0
0
Kaunas
Query!
Country [49]
0
0
Lithuania
Query!
State/province [49]
0
0
Klaipeda
Query!
Country [50]
0
0
Lithuania
Query!
State/province [50]
0
0
Vilnius
Query!
Country [51]
0
0
Malaysia
Query!
State/province [51]
0
0
Kuala Lumpur
Query!
Country [52]
0
0
Malaysia
Query!
State/province [52]
0
0
Penang
Query!
Country [53]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [53]
0
0
Auckland
Query!
Country [54]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [54]
0
0
Christchurch
Query!
Country [55]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [55]
0
0
Lodz
Query!
Country [56]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [56]
0
0
Otwock
Query!
Country [57]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [57]
0
0
Bucuresti
Query!
Country [58]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [58]
0
0
Cluj Napoca
Query!
Country [59]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [59]
0
0
Iasi
Query!
Country [60]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [60]
0
0
Timisoara
Query!
Country [61]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [61]
0
0
Arkhangelsk
Query!
Country [62]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [62]
0
0
Balashikha
Query!
Country [63]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [63]
0
0
Chelyabinsk
Query!
Country [64]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [64]
0
0
Kazan
Query!
Country [65]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [65]
0
0
Kirov
Query!
Country [66]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [66]
0
0
Krasnodar
Query!
Country [67]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [67]
0
0
Kuzmolovo
Query!
Country [68]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [68]
0
0
Moscow
Query!
Country [69]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [69]
0
0
Nizhny Novgorod
Query!
Country [70]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [70]
0
0
Perm
Query!
Country [71]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [71]
0
0
Smolensk
Query!
Country [72]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [72]
0
0
Soshi
Query!
Country [73]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [73]
0
0
St Petersburg
Query!
Country [74]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [74]
0
0
Yaroslavl
Query!
Country [75]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [75]
0
0
Banska Bystrica
Query!
Country [76]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [76]
0
0
Bratislava
Query!
Country [77]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [77]
0
0
Nitra
Query!
Country [78]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [78]
0
0
Poprad
Query!
Country [79]
0
0
Slovenia
Query!
State/province [79]
0
0
Golnik
Query!
Country [80]
0
0
Slovenia
Query!
State/province [80]
0
0
Ljubljana
Query!
Country [81]
0
0
Slovenia
Query!
State/province [81]
0
0
Maribor
Query!
Country [82]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [82]
0
0
Durban
Query!
Country [83]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [83]
0
0
Johannesburg
Query!
Country [84]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [84]
0
0
Pretoria
Query!
Country [85]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [85]
0
0
Asturias
Query!
Country [86]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [86]
0
0
Cantabria
Query!
Country [87]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [87]
0
0
La Coruña
Query!
Country [88]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [88]
0
0
Zaragoza
Query!
Country [89]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [89]
0
0
Kharkov
Query!
Country [90]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [90]
0
0
Uzhgorod
Query!
Country [91]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [91]
0
0
Zaporozhye
Query!
Country [92]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [92]
0
0
Chelmsford
Query!
Country [93]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [93]
0
0
Dundee
Query!
Country [94]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [94]
0
0
Leicester
Query!
Country [95]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [95]
0
0
Plymouth
Query!
Country [96]
0
0
Venezuela
Query!
State/province [96]
0
0
Caracas
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name
Hoffmann-La Roche
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief 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 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.
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00556322
Query!
Trial related presentations / 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.
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Clinical Trials
Query!
Address
0
0
Hoffmann-La Roche
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
0
0
Query!
Address
0
0
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Results are available at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00556322
Download to PDF