Search

Background Ramucirumab is indicated for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL following sorafenib. Here, we prospectively studied ramucirumab following non-sorafenib systemic therapies. Materials and Methods This open-label, non-comparative cohort of REACH-2 enrolled patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class-A liver disease, and AFP ≥400 ng/mL who had received 1-2 lines of therapy, excluding sorafenib or chemotherapy. Ramucirumab was administered 8 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate (RECIST v1.1), time to progression, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported outcomes. Final analysis occurred after all enrolled patients completed ≥3 treatment cycles or discontinued treatment. Results Between April 27, 2018, and March 29, 2021, 47 patients were treated at 21 investigative sites in Asia, Europe, and USA. The most frequently reported grade ≥3 adverse events, regardless of causality, were hypertension (11%), proteinuria (6%), hyponatremia (6%), and AST increased (6%). Two patients died from adverse events (myocardial infarction and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage), deemed related to treatment. Median progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival were 1.7 months, 2.8 months, and 8.7 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 10.6% with a median duration response of 8.3 months. Median time to deterioration in FHSI-8 total score was 4.4 months. Conclusion Ramucirumab demonstrated consistent and meaningful clinical activity with no new safety signals following non-sorafenib therapies in patients with advanced HCC and AFP ≥400 ng/mL. This represents one of the first sequencing studies for patients with advanced HCC not treated with sorafenib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting angiogenesis. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in comparison with sunitinib as first‐line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Materials and Methods: Patients with mRCC from 13 clinical centers were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive anlotinib (n = 90) or sunitinib (n = 43). Anlotinib was given orally at a dose of 12 mg once daily (2 weeks on/1 week off), and sunitinib was given orally at 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results: The median PFS was similar with anlotinib and sunitinib (17.5 vs. 16.6 months, p > .05). The median OS (30.9 vs. 30.5 months, p > .05), ORR (30.3% vs. 27.9%), and 6‐week DCR (97.8% vs. 93.0%) were similar in the two groups. Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or 4 were significantly less frequent with anlotinib than with sunitinib (28.9% vs. 55.8%, p < .01), especially in terms of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. AEs occurring at a lower frequency with anlotinib were hand‐foot syndrome, eyelid edema, hair depigmentation, skin yellowing, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. The incidence of serious AEs was lower with anlotinib than with sunitinib. Conclusion: The clinical efficacy of anlotinib was similar to that of sunitinib as the first‐line treatment for mRCC, but with a more favorable safety profile. Implications for Practice: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of anlotinib for the first‐line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Anlotinib, which was developed independently in China, is a new tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting multiple kinases involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. Results indicated that the efficacy of anlotinib is comparable to and the safety is better than that of sunitinib. Renal cell carcinoma is the most common form of kidney cancer, and most cases are of the clear‐cell histologic subtype. This article reports on the efficacy and safety of anlotinib compared with sunitinib as first‐line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear‐cell histology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of previous studies of lobaplatin in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are small phase I–II studies. The present study aimed to verify the non-inferiority (in terms of efficacy) of lobaplatin plus etoposide (EL) vs. cisplatin plus etoposide (EP) in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). This phase III non-inferiority randomized clinical trial enrolled patients at 17 sites between September 2010 and May 2013. Patients were randomized to EL (30 mg/m2 lobaplatin on day 1 and 100 mg/m2 etoposide on days 1–3, for 21-day cycles) or EP (80 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 100 mg/m2 etoposide on days 1–3, for 21-day cycles). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, disease control rate (DCR), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). A total of 234 patients were randomized to the EL (n=122) and EP (n=112) treatment groups. The median PFS, median OS and DCR were 5.1 vs. 5.3 months (P=0.786), 10.6 vs. 9.7 months (P=0.701) and 85.5 vs. 86.7% (P=0.848) in the EL vs. EP groups, respectively. Patients in the EL group had significantly lower frequencies of nephrotoxicity (2.5 vs. 11.7%; P=0.008), nausea (22.3 vs. 40.5%; P=0.003) and vomiting (14.1 vs. 35.1%; P<0.001) than those in the EP group. Overall, EL was not inferior to EP in terms of PFS and OS. The tolerance and QoL of the EL regimen were better than those of the EP regimen. EL is thus an alternative choice for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate whether the benefit of combining aflibercept with 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) chemotherapy could be confirmed in patients from the Asia-Pacific region (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01661270). Patients & methods: Asian patients with oxaliplatin-pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized to receive aflibercept or placebo, followed by FOLFIRI. The primary end point was progression-free survival.Results: The intention-to-treat population comprised 332 patients. A clinical supply misallocation resulted in 198/332 (60%) patients receiving at least one cycle of misallocated treatment. Nevertheless, the addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI was shown to improve progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.629; 95% CI: 0.488-0.812). Adverse events were in line with expectations.Conclusion: The beneficial treatment effect associated with the addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI was confirmed in Asian patients with pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) have limited effective and tolerable treatment options.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral fruquintinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor, as third-line or later therapy in patients with metastatic CRC.Design, Setting, and Participants: FRESCO (Fruquintinib Efficacy and Safety in 3+ Line Colorectal Cancer Patients) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter (28 hospitals in China), phase 3 clinical trial. From December 2014 to May 2016, screening took place among 519 patients aged 18 to 75 years who had metastatic CRC that progressed after at least 2 lines of chemotherapy but had not received VEGFR inhibitor therapy; 416 met the eligibility criteria and were stratified by prior anti-VEGF therapy and K-ras status. The final date of follow-up was January 17, 2017.Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either fruquintinib, 5 mg (n = 278) or placebo (n = 138) orally, once daily for 21 days, followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles, until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or study withdrawal.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival. Key secondary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (time from randomization to disease progression or death), objective response rate (confirmed complete or partial response), and disease control rate (complete or partial response, or stable disease recorded ≥8 weeks postrandomization). Duration of response was also assessed. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events.Results: Of the 416 randomized patients (mean age, 54.6 years; 161 [38.7%] women), 404 (97.1%) completed the trial. Median overall survival was significantly prolonged with fruquintinib compared with placebo (9.3 months [95% CI, 8.2-10.5] vs 6.6 months [95% CI, 5.9-8.1]); hazard ratio (HR) for death, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was also significantly increased with fruquintinib (3.7 months [95% CI, 3.7-4.6] vs 1.8 months [95% CI, 1.8-1.8] months); HR for progression or death, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.34; P < .001). Grades 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 61.2% (170) of patients who received fruquintinib and 19.7% (27) who received placebo. Serious adverse events were reported by 15.5% (43) of patients in the fruquintinib group and 5.8% (8) in the placebo group, with 14.4% (40) of fruquintinib-treated and 5.1% (7) of placebo-treated patients requiring hospitalization.Conclusions and Relevance: Among Chinese patients with metastatic CRC who had tumor progression following at least 2 prior chemotherapy regimens, oral fruquintinib compared with placebo resulted in a statistically significant increase in overall survival. Further research is needed to assess efficacy outside of China.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02314819. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The V325 study showed that docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) prolonged overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced gastric cancer, but with a high incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. We investigated the efficacy and safety of a modified DCF (mDCF) regimen for Chinese patients with advanced gastric cancer. Methods: Untreated advanced gastric cancer patients randomly received docetaxel and cisplatin at 60 mg/m (day 1) followed by fluorouracil at 600 mg/m/day (days 1-5; mDCF regimen) or cisplatin at 75 mg/m (day 1) followed by fluorouracil at 600 mg/m/day (days 1-5; CF) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end points were OS, overall response rate (ORR), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), and safety. Results: In total, 243 patients were randomized to treatment (mDCF regimen 121; CF 122). Compared with CF, the mDCF regimen significantly improved PFS and OS: the median PFS was 7.2 and 4.9 months, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58, log-rank P = 0.0008], and the median OS was 10.2 and 8.5 months, respectively (HR = 0.71, P = 0.0319). Additionally, the mDCF regimen improved the parameters used as secondary objectives: the ORR was 48.7 % with the mDCF regimen versus 33.9 % with CF ( P = 0.0244); the median TTF was 3.4 months with the mDCF regimen and 2.4 months with CF (HR = 0.67, P = 0.0027). Grade 3 and grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 77.3 % of patients who received the mDCF regimen versus 46.1 % of patients who received CF ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: The mDCF regimen, compared with CF, significantly prolonged PFS and OS and enhanced ORR of Chinese patients with advanced gastric cancer. The mDCF regimen achieved efficacy comparable to that of DCF but with fewer toxicities, which is appropriate for the Chinese population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Background In the international randomised phase 3 CORRECT trial ( NCT01103323 ), regorafenib significantly improved overall survival versus placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Of the 760 patients in CORRECT, 111 were Asian (mostly Japanese). This phase 3 trial was done to assess regorafenib in a broader population of Asian patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer than was studied in CORRECT. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done in 25 hospitals in mainland China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, we recruited Asian patients aged 18 years or older with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer who had received at least two previous treatment lines or were unable to tolerate standard treatments. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 3 months, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, without other uncontrolled medical disorders. We randomly allocated patients (2:1; with a computer-generated unicentric randomisation list [prepared by the study funder] and interactive voice response system; block size of six; stratified by metastatic site [single vs multiple organs] and time from diagnosis of metastatic disease [<18 months vs ≥18 months]) to receive oral regorafenib 160 mg once daily or placebo on days 1–21 of each 28 day cycle; patients in both groups were also to receive best supportive care. Participants, investigators, and the study funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and we analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01584830 . Findings Between April 29, 2012, and Feb 6, 2013, we screened 243 patients and randomly assigned 204 patients to receive either regorafenib (136 [67%]) or placebo (68 [33%]). After a median follow-up of 7·4 months (IQR 4·3–12·2), overall survival was significantly better with regorafenib than it was with placebo (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·40–0·77, one-sided p=0·00016; median overall survival 8·8 months [95% CI 7·3–9·8] in the regorafenib group vs 6·3 months [4·8–7·6] in the placebo group). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 132 (97%) of 136 regorafenib recipients and 31 (46%) of 68 placebo recipients. The most frequent grade 3 or higher regorafenib-related adverse events were hand–foot skin reaction (22 [16%] of 136 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hypertension (15 [11%] vs two [3%] of 68 patients in the placebo group), hyperbilirubinaemia (nine [7%] vs one [1%]), hypophosphataemia (nine [7%] vs none), alanine aminotransferase concentration increases (nine [7%] vs none), aspartate aminotransferase concentration increases (eight [6%] vs none), lipase concentration increases (six [4%] vs one [1%]), and maculopapular rash (six [4%] vs none). Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 12 (9%) patients in the regorafenib group and three (4%) in the placebo group. Interpretation This phase 3 trial is the second to show an overall survival benefit with regorafenib compared with placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantiating the role of regorafenib as an important treatment option for patients whose disease has progressed after standard treatments. In this trial, preceding standard treatments did not necessarily include targeted treatments. Adverse events were generally consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib in this setting. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The EACH study assessed the efficacy of oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (the FOLFOX4 regimen) compared with doxorubicin alone in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We present the results of this study in Chinese patients. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III study (NCT00471965), 371 patients (279 patients from the People's Republic of China) were randomized 1:1 to receive either FOLFOX4 or doxorubicin until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, death, or surgical resection. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the Chinese patients enrolled in the study were similar for the 2 treatment groups and in comparison with the whole EACH cohort. Median OS at the prespecified time point of treatment was 5.7 months with FOLFOX4 and 4.3 months with doxorubicin (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.98; p = .03). At the end of the follow-up period, median OS was 5.9 months with FOLFOX4 and 4.3 months with doxorubicin (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98; p = .03). Median PFS was 2.4 months and 1.7 months in the FOLFOX4 and doxorubicin groups, respectively (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.45-0.78; p = .0002). The response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR) were significantly higher in the FOLFOX4 group than in the doxorubicin group (RR: 8.6% vs. 1.4%, p = .006; DCR: 47.1% vs. 26.6%, p = .0004). Hematological toxicity was more frequently reported in the FOLFOX4 group. CONCLUSION: For Chinese HCC patients enrolled in the EACH study, FOLFOX4 significantly improved the RR and DCR and prolonged survival compared with doxorubicin. Systemic chemotherapy with oxaliplatin-based regimens may play an important role in the treatment of Chinese patients with advanced HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite therapeutic advances in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, resistance to trastuzumab inevitably develops. In the PHOEBE study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pyrotinib (an irreversible pan-HER inhibitor) plus capecitabine after previous trastuzumab.Methods: This is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 29 hospitals in China. Patients with pathologically confirmed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, aged 18-70 years, who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and had been previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral pyrotinib 400 mg or lapatinib 1250 mg once daily plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 of each 21-day cycle. Randomisation was done via a centralised interactive web-response system with a block size of four or six and stratified by hormone receptor status and previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to masked independent central review. Efficacy and safety were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. Results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03080805.Findings: Between July 31, 2017, and Oct 30, 2018, 267 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. 134 patients received pyrotinib plus capecitabine and 132 received lapatinib plus capecitabine. At data cutoff of the interim analysis on March 31, 2019, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with pyrotinib plus capecitabine (12·5 months [95% CI 9·7-not reached]) than with lapatinib plus capecitabine (6·8 months [5·4-8·1]; hazard ratio 0·39 [95% CI 0·27-0·56]; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (41 [31%] in the pyrotinib group vs 11 [8%] in the lapatinib group) and hand-foot syndrome (22 [16%] vs 20 [15%]). Serious adverse events were reported for 14 (10%) patients in the pyrotinib group and 11 (8%) patients in the lapatinib group. No treatment-related deaths were reported in the pyrotinib group and one sudden death in the lapatinib group was considered treatment related.Interpretation: Pyrotinib plus capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival compared with that for lapatinib plus capecitabine, with manageable toxicity, and can be considered an alternative treatment option for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after trastuzumab and chemotherapy.Funding: Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and National Key R&D Program of China.Translations: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Therapeutic options for advanced neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of surufatinib (HMPL-012, sulfatinib) in patients with extrapancreatic NETs.Methods: SANET-ep was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial undertaken at 24 hospitals across China. Patients (aged 18 years or older) with unresectable or metastatic, well differentiated, extrapancreatic NETs, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on no more than two types of previous systemic regimens were enrolled. Patients were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) using stratified block randomisation (block size 3) via an interactive web response system to receive oral surufatinib at 300 mg per day or matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by tumour origin, pathological grade, and previous treatment. Patients, investigators, research staff and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to the surufatinib group was allowed for patients in the placebo group at disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. A preplanned interim analysis was done at 70% of predicted progression-free survival events. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02588170. Follow-up is ongoing.Findings: Between Dec 9, 2015, and March 31, 2019, 198 patients were randomly assigned to surufatinib (n=129) or placebo (n=69). Median follow-up was 13·8 months (95% CI 11·1-16·7) in the surufatinib group and 16·6 months (9·2-not calculable) in the placebo group. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9·2 months (95% CI 7·4-11·1) in the surufatinib group versus 3·8 months (3·7-5·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·33; 95% CI 0·22-0·50; p<0·0001). As the trial met the predefined criteria for early discontinuation of the study at the interim analysis, the study was terminated early, as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee. The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were hypertension (47 [36%] of 129 patients in the surufatinib group vs nine [13%] of 68 patients in the placebo group) and proteinuria (25 [19%] vs zero). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 32 (25%) of 129 patients in the surufatinib group and nine (13%) of 68 patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in three patients in the surufatinib group (disseminated intravascular coagulation and hepatic encephalopathy, liver injury, and death with unknown reason) and one patient in the placebo group (cachexia and respiratory failure).Interpretation: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients given surufatinib compared with patients given placebo, and surufatinib has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with progressive, advanced, well differentiated extrapancreatic NETs. Our results suggest that surufatinib might be a new treatment option for this population.Funding: Hutchison MediPharma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surufatinib showed superior efficacy in extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) in the phase 3 SANET-ep study. In SANET-p, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of surufatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs.Methods: SANET-p was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, done in 21 hospitals across China. Eligible patients were adults (aged 18 years or older) with progressive, advanced, well differentiated pancreatic NETs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on up to two kinds of previous systemic regimens for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system to receive 300 mg of surufatinib or placebo, taken orally once per day in consecutive 4-week treatment cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, poor compliance, use of other antitumour medication, pregnancy, loss to follow-up, or if the investigator deemed discontinuation in the patient's best interest. Randomisation was done centrally using stratified block randomisation (block size three), stratified by pathological grade, previous systemic antitumour treatment, and ECOG performance status score. Patients, investigators, research staff, and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to surufatinib was permitted for patients in the placebo group with disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients in randomisation. A pre-planned interim analysis was done at 70% of the predicted progression-free survival events. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589821.Findings: Between Feb 18, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, of 264 patients who were screened, 172 (65%) patients were randomly assigned to receive surufatinib (n=113) or placebo (n=59). The median follow-up was 19·3 months (95% CI 9·3-19·4) in the surufatinib group and 11·1 months (5·7-35·9) in the placebo group. The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 10·9 months (7·5-13·8) for surufatinib versus 3·7 months (2·8-5·6) for placebo (hazard ratio 0·49, 95% CI 0·32-0·76; p=0·0011). The trial met the early stopping criteria at the interim analysis and was terminated on recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (43 [38%] of 113 with surufatinib vs four [7%] of 59 with placebo), proteinuria (11 [10%] vs one [2%]), and hypertriglyceridaemia (eight [7%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 25 (22%) patients in the surufatinib group and four (7%) patients in the placebo group. There were three on-treatment deaths in the surufatinib group, including two deaths due to adverse events (gastrointestinal haemorrhage [possibly treatment-related] and cerebral haemorrhage [unlikely to be treatment-related]), and one death attributed to disease progression. One on-treatment death in the placebo group was attributed to disease progression.Interpretation: Surufatinib significantly improves progression-free survival and has an acceptable safety profile in patients with progressive, advanced pancreatic NETs, and could be a potential treatment option in this patient population.Funding: Hutchison MediPharma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Methods: This was an open-label, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial that recruited patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who had not received treatment for advanced disease, at 154 sites in 20 countries throughout the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system-with region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; and bodyweight as stratification factors-to receive oral lenvatinib (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg or 8 mg/day for bodyweight <60 kg) or sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation until the date of death from any cause. The efficacy analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle, and only patients who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The non-inferiority margin was set at 1·08. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01761266.Findings: Between March 1, 2013 and July 30, 2015, 1492 patients were recruited. 954 eligible patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476). Median survival time for lenvatinib of 13·6 months (95% CI 12·1-14·9) was non-inferior to sorafenib (12·3 months, 10·4-13·9; hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·79-1·06), meeting criteria for non-inferiority. The most common any-grade adverse events were hypertension (201 [42%]), diarrhoea (184 [39%]), decreased appetite (162 [34%]), and decreased weight (147 [31%]) for lenvatinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (249 [52%]), diarrhoea (220 [46%]), hypertension (144 [30%]), and decreased appetite (127 [27%]) for sorafenib.Interpretation: Lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinib were consistent with those previously observed.Funding: Eisai Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Olaparib combined with paclitaxel has previously shown a significant improvement in overall survival versus placebo plus paclitaxel as second-line therapy in a phase 2 study in Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer, especially in those with ataxia-telangiectasia mutated protein (ATM)-negative tumours. Here, we report the primary efficacy and safety analyses from a subsequent phase 3 trial.Methods: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (GOLD) recruited Asian patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years if Japanese) with advanced gastric cancer that had progressed following, or during, first-line chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (100 mg twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) or matching placebo plus paclitaxel. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system and no stratification factors were used. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Two co-primary populations were assessed: the overall population of all patients and patients whose tumours were ATM-negative (identified after randomisation, before the data cutoff date, March 28, 2016). The primary endpoint in both populations was overall survival (defined as the time from the date of randomisation until death from any cause before data cutoff); a significant difference was defined as p<0·025. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat populations and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01924533 (study ID, D081BC00004), and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.Findings: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 28, 2016, 643 patients were enrolled from 58 study sites in hospitals and medical centres in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. 525 eligible patients were randomly assigned: 263 to receive olaparib plus paclitaxel and 262 to receive placebo plus paclitaxel. 94 patients were determined to have ATM-negative tumours before unmasking for the primary analysis (48 in the olaparib plus paclitaxel group and 46 in the placebo plus paclitaxel group). Overall survival did not differ between treatment groups in the overall patient population (median overall survival 8·8 months [95% CI 7·4-9·6] in the olaparib group vs 6·9 months [6·3-7·9] in the placebo group; HR 0·79 [97·5% CI 0·63-1·00]; p=0·026) or in the ATM-negative population (12·0 months [7·8-18·1] vs 10·0 months [6·4-13·3]; 0·73 [0·40-1·34]; p=0·25). In the overall patient population, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib plus paclitaxel group were neutropenia (78 [30%] of 262 patients), leucopenia (42 [16%]), and decreased neutrophil count (40 [15%]); in the placebo plus paclitaxel group, they were neutropenia (59 [23%] of 259 patients), leucopenia (27 [10%]), and decreased white blood cell count (21 [8%]). Adverse events with an outcome of death causally related to study treatment (according to investigator assessment) were reported in two patients: liver injury in one patient (<1%) in the olaparib plus paclitaxel group and cardiac failure in one patient (<1%) in the placebo plus paclitaxel group.Interpretation: The GOLD study did not meet its primary objective of showing a significant improvement in overall survival with olaparib in the overall or ATM-negative population of Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer. The study generated informative efficacy and safety data regarding the use of olaparib in combination with a chemotherapeutic agent and provides a foundation for future studies in this difficult-to-treat patient population.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Background Nilotinib inhibits the tyrosine kinase activity of ABL1/BCR-ABL1 and KIT, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs), and the discoidin domain receptor. Gain-of-function mutations in KIT or PDGFRα are key drivers in most gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). This trial was designed to test the efficacy and safety of nilotinib versus imatinib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced GISTs. Methods In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial (ENESTg1), participants from academic centres were aged 18 years or older and had previously untreated, histologically confirmed, metastatic or unresectable GISTs. Patients were stratified by previous adjuvant therapy and randomly assigned (1:1) via a randomisation list to receive oral imatinib 400 mg once daily or oral nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was centrally reviewed progression-free survival. Efficacy endpoints were assessed by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00785785 . Findings Because the futility boundary was crossed at a preplanned interim analysis, trial accrual terminated in April, 2011. Between March 16, 2009, and April 21, 2011, 647 patients were enrolled; of whom 324 were allocated nilotinib and 320 were allocated imatinib. At final analysis of the core study (data cutoff, October, 2012), 2-year progression-free survival was higher in the imatinib group (59·2% [95% CI 50·9–66·5]) than in the nilotinib group (51·6% [43·0–59·5]; hazard ratio 1·47 [95% CI 1·10–1·95]). In the imatinib group, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypophosphataemia (19 [6%]), anaemia (17 [5%]), abdominal pain (13; 4%), and elevated lipase level (15; 5%), and in the nilotinib group were anaemia (18; 6%), elevated lipase level (15; 5%), elevated alanine aminotransferase concentration (12; 4%), and abdominal pain (11; 3%). The most common serious adverse event in both groups was abdominal pain (11 [4%] in the imatinib group, 14 [4%] in the nilotinib group). Interpretation Nilotinib cannot be recommended for broad use to treat first-line GIST. However, future studies might identify patient subsets for whom first-line nilotinib could be of clinical benefit. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Icotinib, an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, had shown antitumour activity and favourable toxicity in early-phase clinical trials. We aimed to investigate whether icotinib is non-inferior to gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial we enrolled patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 27 sites in China. Eligible patients were those aged 18–75 years who had not responded to one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using minimisation methods, to receive icotinib (125 mg, three times per day) or gefitinib (250 mg, once per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the full analysis set. We analysed EGFR status if tissue samples were available. All investigators, clinicians, and participants were masked to patient distribution. The non-inferiority margin was 1·14; non-inferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of gefitinib versus icotinib was less than this margin. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01040780, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-09000506. Findings: 400 eligible patients were enrolled between Feb 26, 2009, and Nov 13, 2009; one patient was enrolled by mistake and removed from the study, 200 were assigned to icotinib and 199 to gefitinib. 395 patients were included in the full analysis set (icotinib, n=199; gefitinib, n=196). Icotinib was non-inferior to gefitinib in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·67–1·05; median progression-free survival 4·6 months [95% CI 3·5–6·3] vs 3·4 months [2·3–3·8]; p=0·13). The most common adverse events were rash (81 [41%] of 200 patients in the icotinib group vs 98 [49%] of 199 patients in the gefitinib group) and diarrhoea (43 [22%] vs 58 [29%]). Patients given icotinib had less drug-related adverse events than did those given gefitinib (121 [61%] vs 140 [70%]; p=0·046), especially drug-related diarrhoea (37 [19%] vs 55 [28%]; p=0·033). Interpretation: Icotinib could be a new treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding: Zhejiang Beta Pharma (China), the Chinese National Key Special Program for Innovative Drugs, the 863 Project, and Zhejiang Provincial Key Special Program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endostatin is a potent endogenous angiogenic inhibitor with implicated antitumor activity. However, efficacy of recombinant human endostatin (rhES) in clinical trials is controversial, and application of rhES in treatment of metastatic melanoma awaits further investigations. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of a soluble and stable rhES (Endostar) plus dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanomas that contains no mutations in c-kit and BRAF genes. A total of 110 patients received placebo plus dacarbazine (250 mg/m2, n = 54) or Endostar (7.5 mg/m2) plus dacarbazine (250 mg/m2, n = 56). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Median PFS in the Endostar plus dacarbazine arm was 4.5 months versus 1.5 months in the placebo plus dacarbazine arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.578; P = 0.013). There were statistically significant improvements in OS (median, 12.0 months versus 8.0 months; HR, 0.522; P = 0.005) in favor of the Endostar plus dacarbazine arm. The regimen was generally well tolerated and had a manageable toxicity profile. Our trial suggests that Endostar plus dacarbazine is well tolerated in patients with metastatic melanoma harboring no genetic mutations popular for targeted therapy and yields a significant improvement in PFS and OS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752. Findings: 271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 5·56–7·56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4·2 months (3·75–5·46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·50–0·93]; p=0·014). Median TTP was 2·8 months (2·63–3·58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1·4 months (1·35–1·55) in the placebo group (HR 0·57 [0·42–0·79]; p=0·0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10·7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6·0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3·4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11·4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7·4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation. Interpretation: Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Funding: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]