Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2016
Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 673 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
LUX-Lung 7: A Randomised, Open-label Phase IIb Trial of Afatinib Versus Gefitinib as First-line Treatment of Patients With EGFR Mutation Positive Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Lung
A Single-arm Exploratory Clinical Study of Anlotinib Hydrochloride Combined With Docetaxel in EGFR Mutations Advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Who Have Progressed After Targeted Therapy and Chemotherapy
An Observational Study to Assess the Molecular Epidemiology of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Mutations in Patients With Advanced EGFR Mutation-positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Afatinib in Real-world Clinical Set-tings in Greece
Who cites it
673 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,159 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of first, second, and third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in treatment-naïve EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of exposure-response analysis of osimertinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Immunotherapy for TKI-resistant, EGFR L858R-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and single-arm studies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Hepatotoxicity and efficacy associated with first- and new-generation EGFR-TKIs in patients with NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC in diverse clinicopathological subgroups: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of treatment regimens for unresectable stage III epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) mutant non-small cell lung cancer.Chinese medical journal · 2025Pooled it
- Resistance Mutation Profiles Associated with Current Treatments for Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- What is the optimal first-line regimen for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Pooled it
- First-line treatment of EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Adverse Event Profile of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Meta-analysis.Targeted oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for of advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in Asian populations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Mefatinib versus gefitinib as a first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase III study.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Trial
- An Observational Study of Afatinib 30 mg Daily in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Common EGFR Mutations Treated With Afatinib.Thoracic cancer · 2026Trial
- A phase 2 study of mobocertinib as first-line treatment in Japanese patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Trial
- The ASCENT Trial: a phase 2 study of induction and consolidation afatinib and chemoradiation with or without surgery in stage III EGFR-mutant NSCLC.The oncologist · 2024Trial
- The lack of head-to-head randomised trials and the consequences for patients and national health service: The case of non-small cell lung cancer.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Trial
- Trial
613 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
23 authors at 20 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting.
methodsThis multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660.
findingsBetween Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3-33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6-12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1-11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57-0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9-15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1-13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure.
interpretationAfatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.
fundingBoehringer Ingelheim.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.