Randomized Phase III Trial of Erlotinib Versus Docetaxel As Second- or Third-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA)

<jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p> To investigate the efficacy of erlotinib versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) –unselected patient population. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Patients and Methods</jats:title><jats:p> The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), response rate, safety, and analyses on EGFR wild-type tumors. Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, previous treatment with one or two chemotherapy regimens, evaluable or measurable disease, and performance status of 0 to 2 were eligible. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p> From August 2009 to July 2012, 150 and 151 patients were randomly assigned to erlotinib (150 mg daily) and docetaxel (60 mg/m<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> every 3 weeks), respectively. EGFR wild-type NSCLC was present in 109 and 90 patients in the erlotinib and docetaxel groups, respectively. Median PFS for erlotinib versus docetaxel was 2.0 v 3.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.55; P = .09), and median OS was 14.8 v 12.2 months (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.22; P = .53), respectively. In a subset analysis of EGFR wild-type tumors, PFS for erlotinib versus docetaxel was 1.3 v 2.9 months (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.94; P = .01), and OS was 9.0 v 10.1 months (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.39; P = .91), respectively. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p> Erlotinib failed to show an improvement in PFS or OS compared with docetaxel in an EGFR-unselected patient population. </jats:p></jats:sec>