Kelly S. Oliner

Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA in Early- and Late-Stage Human Malignancies

Circulating tumor DNA can be used in a variety of clinical and investigational settings across tumor types and stages for screening, diagnosis, and identifying mutations responsible for therapeutic response and drug resistance. Circulating Tumor DNA for Early Detection and Managing Resistance Cancer evolves over time, without any warning signs. Similarly, the development of resistance to therapy generally becomes apparent only when there are obvious signs of tumor growth, at which point the patient may have lost valuable time. Although a repeat biopsy may be able to identify drug-resistant mutations before the tumor has a chance to regrow, it is usually not feasible to do many repeat biopsies. Now, two studies are demonstrating the utility of monitoring the patients’ blood for tumor DNA to detect cancer at the earliest stages of growth or resistance. In one study, Bettegowda and coauthors showed that sampling a patient’s blood may be sufficient to yield information about the tumor’s genetic makeup, even for many early-stage cancers, without a need for an invasive procedure to collect tumor tissue, such as surgery or endoscopy. The authors demonstrated the presence of circulating DNA from many types of tumors that had not yet metastasized or released detectable cells into the circulation. They could detect more than 50% of patients across 14 tumor types at the earliest stages, when these cancers may still be curable, suggesting that a blood draw could be a viable screening approach to detecting most cancers. They also showed that in patients with colorectal cancer, the information derived from circulating tumor DNA could be used to determine the optimal course of treatment and identify resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) blockade. Meanwhile, Misale and colleagues illustrated a way to use this information to overcome treatment resistance. These authors also found that mutations associated with EGFR inhibitor resistance could be detected in the blood of patients with colorectal cancer. In addition, they demonstrated that adding MEK inhibitors, another class of anticancer drugs, can successfully overcome resistance when given in conjunction with the EGFR inhibitors. Thus, the studies from Bettegowda and Misale and their colleagues show the effectiveness of analyzing circulating DNA from a variety of tumors and highlight the potential investigational and clinical applications of this novel technology for early detection, monitoring resistance, and devising treatment plans to overcome resistance. The development of noninvasive methods to detect and monitor tumors continues to be a major challenge in oncology. We used digital polymerase chain reaction–based technologies to evaluate the ability of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to detect tumors in 640 patients with various cancer types. We found that ctDNA was detectable in >75% of patients with advanced pancreatic, ovarian, colorectal, bladder, gastroesophageal, breast, melanoma, hepatocellular, and head and neck cancers, but in less than 50% of primary brain, renal, prostate, or thyroid cancers. In patients with localized tumors, ctDNA was detected in 73, 57, 48, and 50% of patients with colorectal cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast adenocarcinoma, respectively. ctDNA was often present in patients without detectable circulating tumor cells, suggesting that these two biomarkers are distinct entities. In a separate panel of 206 patients with metastatic colorectal cancers, we showed that the sensitivity of ctDNA for detection of clinically relevant KRAS gene mutations was 87.2% and its specificity was 99.2%. Finally, we assessed whether ctDNA could provide clues into the mechanisms underlying resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor blockade in 24 patients who objectively responded to therapy but subsequently relapsed. Twenty-three (96%) of these patients developed one or more mutations in genes involved in the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. Together, these data suggest that ctDNA is a broadly applicable, sensitive, and specific biomarker that can be used for a variety of clinical and research purposes in patients with multiple different types of cancer.

Randomized, Phase III Trial of Panitumumab With Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) Versus FOLFOX4 Alone As First-Line Treatment in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The PRIME Study

PURPOSE Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS), is approved as monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Panitumumab Randomized Trial in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy (PRIME) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as initial treatment for mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and available tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4. The primary end point was PFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Results were prospectively analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis by tumor KRAS status. RESULTS KRAS results were available for 93% of the 1,183 patients randomly assigned. In the wild-type (WT) KRAS stratum, panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX4 (median PFS, 9.6 v 8.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02). A nonsignificant increase in OS was also observed for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 (median OS, 23.9 v 19.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02; P = .072). In the mutant KRAS stratum, PFS was significantly reduced in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 arm versus the FOLFOX4 arm (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62; P = .02), and median OS was 15.5 months versus 19.3 months, respectively (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57; P = .068). Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 was well tolerated and significantly improved PFS in patients with WT KRAS tumors and underscores the importance of KRAS testing for patients with mCRC.

Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy. METHODS In this prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone, according to RAS (KRAS or NRAS) or BRAF mutation status. A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following: KRAS exon 3 or 4; NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4; or BRAF exon 15. The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90%. RESULTS Among 512 patients without RAS mutations, progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90; P=0.004). Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; P=0.04). A total of 108 patients (17%) with nonmutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations. These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2. BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4. In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations, improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy. (Funded by Amgen and others; PRIME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00364013.).

The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers

Colorectal tumours that are wild type for KRAS are often sensitive to EGFR blockade, but almost always develop resistance within several months of initiating therapy. The mechanisms underlying this acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies are largely unknown. This situation is in marked contrast to that of small-molecule targeted agents, such as inhibitors of ABL, EGFR, BRAF and MEK, in which mutations in the genes encoding the protein targets render the tumours resistant to the effects of the drugs. The simplest hypothesis to account for the development of resistance to EGFR blockade is that rare cells with KRAS mutations pre-exist at low levels in tumours with ostensibly wild-type KRAS genes. Although this hypothesis would seem readily testable, there is no evidence in pre-clinical models to support it, nor is there data from patients. To test this hypothesis, we determined whether mutant KRAS DNA could be detected in the circulation of 28 patients receiving monotherapy with panitumumab, a therapeutic anti-EGFR antibody. We found that 9 out of 24 (38%) patients whose tumours were initially KRAS wild type developed detectable mutations in KRAS in their sera, three of which developed multiple different KRAS mutations. The appearance of these mutations was very consistent, generally occurring between 5 and 6 months following treatment. Mathematical modelling indicated that the mutations were present in expanded subclones before the initiation of panitumumab treatment. These results suggest that the emergence of KRAS mutations is a mediator of acquired resistance to EGFR blockade and that these mutations can be detected in a non-invasive manner. They explain why solid tumours develop resistance to targeted therapies in a highly reproducible fashion.

Randomized Phase III Study of Panitumumab With Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) Compared With FOLFIRI Alone As Second-Line Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE Panitumumab is a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS) in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone after failure of initial treatment for mCRC by tumor KRAS status. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with mCRC, one prior chemotherapy regimen for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, and available tumor tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks. The coprimary end points of PFS and overall survival (OS) were independently tested and prospectively analyzed by KRAS status. RESULTS From June 2006 to March 2008, 1,186 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and received treatment. KRAS status was available for 91% of patients: 597 (55%) with wild-type (WT) KRAS tumors, and 486 (45%) with mutant (MT) KRAS tumors. In the WT KRAS subpopulation, when panitumumab was added to chemotherapy, a significant improvement in PFS was observed (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; P = .004); median PFS was 5.9 months for panitumumab-FOLFIRI versus 3.9 months for FOLFIRI. A nonsignificant trend toward increased OS was observed; median OS was 14.5 months versus 12.5 months, respectively (HR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P = .12); response rate was improved to 35% versus 10% with the addition of panitumumab. In patients with MT KRAS, there was no difference in efficacy. Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of known toxicities associated with anti-EGFR therapy. CONCLUSION Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI significantly improved PFS and is well-tolerated as second-line treatment in patients with WT KRAS mCRC.

PEAK: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase II Study of Panitumumab Plus Modified Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) or Bevacizumab Plus mFOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Untreated, Unresectable, Wild-Type KRAS Exon 2 Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate panitumumab plus modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 (codons 12 and 13) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A prespecified secondary objective was to assess treatment effects in an extended RAS analysis that included exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with WT KRAS exon 2 tumors were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS Of 285 randomly assigned patients, 278 received treatment. In the WT KRAS exon 2 intent-to-treat group, PFS was similar between arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.17; P = .353). Median OS was 34.2 and 24.3 months in the panitumumab and bevacizumab arms, respectively (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.89; P = .009). In the WT RAS subgroup (WT exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS), PFS favored the panitumumab arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.96; P = .029). Median OS was 41.3 and 28.9 months (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P = .058) in the panitumumab and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were similar between arms. CONCLUSION PFS was similar and OS was improved with panitumumab relative to bevacizumab when combined with mFOLFOX6 in patients with WT KRAS exon 2 tumors. Patients with WT RAS tumors seemed to experience more clinical benefit with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy.

Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM) : an open-label phase 3 randomised trial

BACKGROUND Previous trials have shown that anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies can improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab combined with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for these patients. METHODS This open-label phase 3 randomised trial was done at 126 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years; had histologically or cytologically confirmed SCCHN; had distant metastatic or locoregionally recurrent disease, or both, that was deemed to be incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less; and had adequate haematological, renal, hepatic, and cardiac function. Patients were randomly assigned according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by previous treatment, primary tumour site, and performance status) to one of two groups. Patients in both groups received up to six 3-week cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle) and fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of each cycle); those in the experimental group also received intravenous panitumumab (9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle). Patients in the experimental group could choose to continue maintenance panitumumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. In a prospectively defined retrospective analysis, we assessed tumour human papillomavirus (HPV) status as a potential predictive biomarker of outcomes with a validated p16-INK4A (henceforth, p16) immunohistochemical assay. Patients and investigators were aware of group assignment; study statisticians were masked until primary analysis; and the central laboratory assessing p16 status was masked to identification of patients and treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00460265. FINDINGS Between May 15, 2007, and March 10, 2009, we randomly assigned 657 patients: 327 to the panitumumab group and 330 to the control group. Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 9·8-12·2) in the panitumumab group and 9·0 months (8·1-11·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·873, 95% CI 0·729-1·046; p=0·1403). Median progression-free survival was 5·8 months (95% CI 5·6-6·6) in the panitumumab group and 4·6 months (4·1-5·4) in the control group (HR 0·780, 95% CI 0·659-0·922; p=0·0036). Several grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the panitumumab group than in the control group: skin or eye toxicity (62 [19%] of 325 included in safety analyses vs six [2%] of 325), diarrhoea (15 [5%] vs four [1%]), hypomagnesaemia (40 [12%] vs 12 [4%]), hypokalaemia (33 [10%] vs 23 [7%]), and dehydration (16 [5%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 patients (4%) in the panitumumab group and eight (2%) in the control group. Five (2%) of the fatal adverse events in the panitumumab group were attributed to the experimental agent. We had appropriate samples to assess p16 status for 443 (67%) patients, of whom 99 (22%) were p16 positive. Median overall survival in patients with p16-negative tumours was longer in the panitumumab group than in the control group (11·7 months [95% CI 9·7-13·7] vs 8·6 months [6·9-11·1]; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0115), but this difference was not shown for p16-positive patients (11·0 months [7·3-12·9] vs 12·6 months [7·7-17·4]; 1·00 [0·62-1·61]; p=0·998). In the control group, p16-positive patients had numerically, but not statistically, longer overall survival than did p16-negative patients (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·47-1·04]). INTERPRETATION Although the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival in an unselected population of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, it improved progression-free survival and had an acceptable toxicity profile. p16 status could be a prognostic and predictive marker in patients treated with panitumumab and chemotherapy. Prospective assessment will be necessary to validate our biomarker findings. FUNDING Amgen Inc.

Final results from PRIME: randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND The Panitumumab Randomized trial In combination with chemotherapy for Metastatic colorectal cancer to determine Efficacy (PRIME) demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus FOLFOX4 as first-line treatment of wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the primary end point of the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized 1:1 to panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks + FOLFOX4 (arm 1) or FOLFOX4 (arm 2). This prespecified final descriptive analysis of efficacy and safety was planned for 30 months after the last patient was enrolled. RESULTS A total of 1183 patients were randomized. Median PFS for WT KRAS mCRC was 10.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.3-11.4 months] for arm 1 and 8.6 months (95% CI 7.5-9.5 months) for arm 2; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.95; P = 0.01. Median overall survival (OS) for WT KRAS mCRC was 23.9 months (95% CI 20.3-27.7 months) for arm 1 and 19.7 months (95% CI 17.6-22.7 months) for arm 2; HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.73-1.06; P = 0.17 (68% OS events). An exploratory analysis of updated survival (>80% OS events) was carried out which demonstrated improvement in OS; HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.70-0.98; P = 0.03 for WT KRAS mCRC. The adverse event profile was consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS In WT KRAS mCRC, PFS was improved, objective response was higher, and there was a trend toward improved OS with panitumumab-FOLFOX4, with significant improvement in OS observed in an updated analysis of survival in patients with WT KRAS mCRC treated with panitumumab + FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 alone (P = 0.03). These data support a positive benefit-risk profile for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 for patients with previously untreated WT KRAS mCRC. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate patients for treatment with panitumumab.BACKGROUND The Panitumumab Randomized trial In combination with chemotherapy for Metastatic colorectal cancer to determine Efficacy (PRIME) demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus FOLFOX4 as first-line treatment of wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the primary end point of the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized 1:1 to panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks + FOLFOX4 (arm 1) or FOLFOX4 (arm 2). This prespecified final descriptive analysis of efficacy and safety was planned for 30 months after the last patient was enrolled. RESULTS A total of 1183 patients were randomized. Median PFS for WT KRAS mCRC was 10.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.3-11.4 months] for arm 1 and 8.6 months (95% CI 7.5-9.5 months) for arm 2; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.95; P = 0.01. Median overall survival (OS) for WT KRAS mCRC was 23.9 months (95% CI 20.3-27.7 months) for arm 1 and 19.7 months (95% CI 17.6-22.7 months) for arm 2; HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.73-1.06; P = 0.17 (68% OS events). An exploratory analysis of updated survival (>80% OS events) was carried out which demonstrated improvement in OS; HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.70-0.98; P = 0.03 for WT KRAS mCRC. The adverse event profile was consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS In WT KRAS mCRC, PFS was improved, objective response was higher, and there was a trend toward improved OS with panitumumab-FOLFOX4, with significant improvement in OS observed in an updated analysis of survival in patients with WT KRAS mCRC treated with panitumumab + FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 alone (P = 0.03). These data support a positive benefit-risk profile for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 for patients with previously untreated WT KRAS mCRC. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate patients for treatment with panitumumab.

Massively Parallel Tumor Multigene Sequencing to Evaluate Response to Panitumumab in a Randomized Phase III Study of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: To investigate whether EGF receptor (EGFR) pathway mutations predicted response to monotherapy with panitumumab, an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody, in a randomized phase III study of metastatic colorectal cancer. Experimental Design: Using massively parallel multigene sequencing, we analyzed 320 samples for 9 genes, with multigene sequence data from 288 (90%) samples. Results: Mutation rates were: KRAS (45%), NRAS (5%), BRAF (7%), PIK3CA (9%), PTEN (6%), TP53 (60%), EGFR (1%), AKT1 (<1%), and CTNNB1 (2%). In the randomized study and open-label extension, 22 of 138 (16%) wild-type KRAS (codons 12/13/61) patients versus 0 of 103 mutant KRAS (codons 12/13) patients had objective responses. Of 6 mutant KRAS (codon 61) patients, 1 with a Q61H mutation achieved partial response during the extension. Among wild-type KRAS (codons 12/13/61) patients, 0 of 9 patients with NRAS mutations, 0 of 13 with BRAF mutations, 2 of 10 with PIK3CA mutations, 1 of 9 with PTEN mutations, and 1 of 2 with CTNNB1 mutations responded to panitumumab. No patients responded to best supportive care alone. Panitumumab treatment was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) among wild-type KRAS (codons 12/13/61) patients [HR, 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28–0.56]. Among wild-type KRAS patients, a treatment effect for PFS favoring panitumumab occurred in patients with wild-type NRAS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27–0.56) and wild-type BRAF (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24–0.55) but not mutant NRAS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.44–8.44). Conclusions: These results show the feasibility and potential clinical use of next-generation sequencing for evaluating predictive biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res; 19(7); 1902–12. ©2012 AACR.

Rilotumumab in combination with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line treatment for gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: an open-label, dose de-escalation phase 1b study and a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study

BACKGROUND Dysregulation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET pathway promotes tumour growth and metastasis. Rilotumumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that neutralises HGF. We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) in patients with advanced gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer. METHODS We recruited patients (≥18 years old) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, who had not received previous systemic therapy, from 43 sites worldwide. Phase 1b was an open-label, dose de-escalation study to identify a safe dose of rilotumumab (initial dose 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) plus ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice a day orally on days 1-21, respectively), administered every 3 weeks. The phase 1b primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in all phase 1b patients who received at least one dose of rilotumumab and completed the dose-limiting toxicity assessment window (first cycle of therapy). Phase 2 was a double-blind study that randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, or placebo, plus ECX (doses as above), stratified by ECOG performance status and disease extent. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719550. FINDINGS Seven of the nine patients enrolled in the phase 1b study received at least one dose of rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, only two of whom had three dose-limiting toxicities: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, cerebral ischaemia, and deep-vein thrombosis. In phase 2, 121 patients were randomly assigned (40 to rilotumumab 15 mg/kg; 42 to rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg; 39 to placebo). Median PFS was 5·1 months (95% CI 2·9-7·0) in the rilotumumab 15 mg/kg group, 6·8 months (4·5-7·5) in the rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg group, 5·7 months (4·5-7·0) in both rilotumumab groups combined, and 4·2 months (2·9-4·9) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for PFS events compared with placebo was 0·69 (80% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·164) for rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, 0·53 (80% CI 0·38-0·73; p=0·009) for rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, and 0·60 (80% CI 0·45-0·79; p=0·016) for combined rilotumumab. Any grade adverse events more common in the combined rilotumumab group than in the placebo group included haematological adverse events (neutropenia in 44 [54%] of 81 patients vs 13 [33%] of 39 patients; anaemia in 32 [40%] vs 11 [28%]; and thrombocytopenia in nine [11%] vs none), peripheral oedema (22 [27%] vs three [8%]), and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs five [13%]). Grade 3-4 adverse events more common with rilotumumab included neutropenia (36 [44%] vs 11 [28%]) and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs four [10%]). Serious adverse events were balanced between groups except for anaemia, which occurred more frequently in the combined rilotumumab group (ten [12%] vs none). INTERPRETATION Rilotumumab plus ECX had no unexpected safety signals and showed greater activity than placebo plus ECX. A phase 3 study of the combination in MET-positive gastric and oesophagogastric junction cancer is in progress. FUNDING Amgen Inc.