AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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

Other trials in Russia

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

Other trials in France

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

Other trials in Australia

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

Other trials in Hungary

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

Other trials in South Korea

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

Other trials in Canada

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

Other trials in Germany

Austria4 sites
  • Study site

    Innsbruck, 6020

  • Study site

    Klagenfurt, 9010

  • Study site

    Vienna, 1140

  • Study site

    Vienna, 1145

Other trials in Austria

China4 sites
  • Study site

    Beijing, 100730

  • Study site

    Guangzhou, 510060

  • Study site

    Guangzhou, 510080

  • Study site

    Shanghai, 200032

Other trials in China

Romania4 sites
  • Study site

    Bucharest, 022328

  • Study site

    Cluj-Napoca, 400015

  • Study site

    Iași, 6600

  • Study site

    Timișoara, 1900

Other trials in Romania

Slovakia4 sites
  • Study site

    Banská Bystrica, 975 17

  • Study site

    Bratislava, 825 56

  • Study site

    Nitra, 949 88

  • Study site

    Poprad, 058 87

Other trials in Slovakia

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

Other trials in Spain

United Kingdom4 sites
  • Study site

    Chelmsford, CM1 7ET

  • Study site

    Dundee, DD1 9SY

  • Study site

    Leicester, LE1 5WW

  • Study site

    Plymouth, PL6 8DH

Other trials in United Kingdom

Czechia3 sites
  • Study site

    České Budějovice, 370 87

  • Study site

    Olomouc, 775 20

  • Study site

    Pilsen, 305 99

Other trials in Czechia

Greece3 sites
  • Study site

    Athens, 11527

  • Study site

    Athens, 14564

  • Study site

    Heraklion, 71110

Other trials in Greece

Italy3 sites
  • Study site

    Ancona, The Marches

  • Study site

    Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, 40139

  • Study site

    Rome, Lazio, 00168

Other trials in Italy

Lithuania3 sites
  • Study site

    Kaunas

  • Study site

    Klaipėda, 92288

  • Study site

    Vilnius, 08660

Other trials in Lithuania

Poland3 sites
  • Study site

    Lodz, 91-520

  • Study site

    Lodz, 94-306

  • Study site

    Otwock, 05-400

Other trials in Poland

Slovenia3 sites
  • Study site

    Golnik

  • Study site

    Ljubljana, 1000

  • Study site

    Maribor

Other trials in Slovenia

South Africa3 sites
  • Study site

    Durban, 4091

  • Study site

    Johannesburg, 2196

  • Study site

    Pretoria, 0001

Other trials in South Africa

Ukraine3 sites
  • Study site

    Kharkiv, 61024

  • Study site

    Uzhhorod, 88000

  • Study site

    Zaporizhzhya, 69104

Other trials in Ukraine

Denmark2 sites
  • Study site

    Herlev, 2730

  • Study site

    Odense, 5000

Other trials in Denmark

Malaysia2 sites
  • Study site

    George Town, 11200

  • Study site

    Kuala Lumpur, 59100

Other trials in Malaysia

New Zealand2 sites
  • Study site

    Auckland, 1009

  • Study site

    Christchurch

Other trials in New Zealand

Belgium1 site
  • Study site

    Antwerp, 2020

Other trials in Belgium

Chile1 site
  • Study site

    Santiago, 0000

Other trials in Chile

Venezuela1 site
  • Study site

    Caracas, 1062

Other trials in Venezuela

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.

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 groups in NCT00556322
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
1ExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: erlotinib [Tarceva]
2Active comparatorNot described
Receives: Drug: Alimta or Taxotere

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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)
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  1. First posted12 Nov 2007 (estimated)
  2. Study startMar 2006
  3. Primary completionJun 2012
  4. Study completionJun 2012

Resources

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)
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

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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in