Bevacizumab and erlotinib in EGFR wild type NSCLC patients

AuthorPhaseLine of treatmentPtsTreatmentResponse rate(%)Progression-free survival (months)Overall survival (months)
Herbst et al. [17]I/IISecond line40Erlotinib + Bevacizumab20 95% CI: 7.6-32.4%7.0; 1-year PFS = 38.0%, 95% CI: 24.3-59.6%12.6; 1-year OS = 54.2%,
95% CI: 40.0%-73.4%
Herbst et al. [18]IISecond line120Bevacizumab + CT* vs. bevacizumab + erlotinib vs. CT*12.5 vs. 17.9 vs. 12.24.8 vs. 4.4 vs. 3.0 HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.38-1.16 HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.42-1.2312.6 vs. 13.7 vs. 8.6 HR: 0.71,
95% CI: 0.41-1.21 HR: 0.78,
95% CI: 0.46-1.31
Herbst et al. BeTa trial [19]IIISecond line636Erlotinib + Bevacizumab vs. Erlotinib + placebo14 vs. 73.4 vs.1.7 HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.52-0.759.3 vs. 9.2 HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.80-1.18, P = 0.7583
Wang et al. [20]IIISecond line297Erlotinib + Bevacizumab + Panitumumab vs. Erlotinib + placebo38 vs.15 P = 0.0144.6 vs. 1.9 P = 0.00310.4 vs. 8.9 P = 0.031
Besse et al. BRAIN trial [21]IISecond line24Erlotinib + Bevacizumab12.5 95% CI: 2.7-32.46.3 95% CI: 3.0-8.412.0 95% CI: 8.9-20.2
Johnson et al. ATLAS trial [22]IIIMaintenance after I line745Erlotinib + Bevacizumab vs. Bevacizumab alone-4.8 vs. 3.7, HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.86 P < 0.00114.4 vs. 13.3 HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.7-1.21 P = 0.5341
Dingemans et al. [23]IIFirst line47Erlotinib + Bevacizumab253.8 (95% CI: 2.3-5.4)6.9 (95% CI: I 5.5-8.4)
Zappa et al. trial SAKK 19/05 [24]IIFirst line101Erlotinib + Bevacizumab17.84.1 (95% CI: 2.9-5.5)14.1 (95% CI: 10.7-19.0)
Ciuleanu et al. TASK trial [25]IIFirst line200Erlotinib + Bevacizumab vs. Chemo + Bevacizumab23.8 vs. 34.4, P = 0.1918.4 vs. 25 weeks HR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.11-3.7716.4 vs. n.r HR:1.24, 95% CI: 0.75-2.05
Thomas et al. INNOVATIONS [26]IIFirst line224Erlotinib + Bevacizumab vs. Cisplatin + Gemcitabine + Bevacizumab12 vs. 36, P < 0.00013.5 vs. 6.9 HR: 1.85; 95% CI:1.39-2.45 P < 0.000112.6 vs.17.8 HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.01-1.97 P = 0.04

Docetaxel or erlotinib; n.r: not reached