Shukui Qin

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

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.

Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment. METHODS In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 152 sites in 21 countries, adults with HCC who tolerated sorafenib (≥400 mg/day for ≥20 of last 28 days of treatment), progressed on sorafenib, and had Child-Pugh A liver function were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system and stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and α-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily during weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774344. FINDINGS Between May 14, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, 843 patients were screened, of whom 573 were enrolled and randomised (379 to regorafenib and 194 to placebo; population for efficacy analyses), and 567 initiated treatment (374 received regorafenib and 193 received placebo; population for safety analyses). Regorafenib improved overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·50-0·79; one-sided p<0·0001); median survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·1-12·1) for regorafenib versus 7·8 months (6·3-8·8) for placebo. Adverse events were reported in all regorafenib recipients (374 [100%] of 374) and 179 (93%) of 193 placebo recipients. The most common clinically relevant grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent events were hypertension (57 patients [15%] in the regorafenib group vs nine patients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (34 patients [9%] vs nine patients [5%]), and diarrhoea (12 patients [3%] vs no patients). Of the 88 deaths (grade 5 adverse events) reported during the study (50 patients [13%] assigned to regorafenib and 38 [20%] assigned to placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafenib group and two (1%) in the placebo group, including two patients (1%) with hepatic failure in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. Future trials should explore combinations of regorafenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafenib and regorafenib. FUNDING Bayer.

Brivanib Versus Sorafenib As First-Line Therapy in Patients With Unresectable, Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results From the Randomized Phase III BRISK-FL Study

PURPOSE Brivanib is a dual inhibitor of vascular-endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial compared brivanib with sorafenib as first-line treatment for HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Advanced HCC patients who had no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily orally (n = 578) or brivanib 800 mg once daily orally (n = 577). Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and safety. RESULTS The primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib in the per-protocol population (n = 1,150) was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95.8% CI, 0.93 to 1.22), based on the prespecified margin (upper CI limit for HR ≤ 1.08). Median OS was 9.9 months for sorafenib and 9.5 months for brivanib. TTP, ORR, and DCR were similar between the study arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events for sorafenib and brivanib were hyponatremia (9% and 23%, respectively), AST elevation (17% and 14%), fatigue (7% and 15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (15% and 2%), and hypertension (5% and 13%). Discontinuation as a result of adverse events was 33% for sorafenib and 43% for brivanib; rates for dose reduction were 50% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSION Our study did not meet its primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib. However, both agents had similar antitumor activity, based on secondary efficacy end points. Brivanib had an acceptable safety profile, but was less well-tolerated than sorafenib.

Sunitinib Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B-infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C-infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%). CONCLUSION OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B-infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C-infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

SEARCH: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Sorafenib Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE To compare the clinical outcomes of sorafenib plus either erlotinib or placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a multicenter, multinational, randomized, phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced HCC and underlying Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis, who were naive to systemic treatment (N = 720), were randomly assigned to sorafenib plus either erlotinib (n = 362) or placebo (n = 358). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median OS was similar in the sorafenib plus erlotinib and sorafenib plus placebo groups (9.5 v 8.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.929; P = .408), as was median time to progression (3.2 v 4.0 months, respectively; HR, 1.135; P = .18). In the sorafenib/erlotinib arm versus the sorafenib/placebo arm, the overall response rate trended higher (6.6% v 3.9%, respectively; P = .102), whereas the disease control rate was significantly lower (43.9% v 52.5%, respectively; P = .021). The median durations of treatment with sorafenib were 86 days in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm and 123 days in the sorafenib/placebo arm. In the sorafenib/erlotinib and sorafenib/placebo arms, the rates of treatment-emergent serious AEs (58.0% v 54.6%, respectively) and drug-related serious AEs (21.0% v 22.8%, respectively) were similar. AEs matched the known safety profiles of both agents, but rates of rash/desquamation, anorexia, and diarrhea were higher in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm, whereas rates of alopecia and hand-foot skin reaction were higher in the sorafenib/placebo arm. Withdrawal rates for AEs during cycles 1 to 3 were higher in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm. CONCLUSION Adding erlotinib to sorafenib did not improve survival in patients with advanced HCC.

Lapatinib Plus Paclitaxel Versus Paclitaxel Alone in the Second-Line Treatment of HER2-Amplified Advanced Gastric Cancer in Asian Populations: TyTAN— A Randomized, Phase III Study

PURPOSE In Asian countries, paclitaxel once per week is used as second-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer, including human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive tumors. The role of anti-HER2 agents, including lapatinib, in this setting and population is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS TyTAN was a two-part, parallel-group, phase III study in Asian patients. An open-label, dose-optimization phase (n = 12) was followed by a randomized phase (n = 261), in which patients who were HER2 positive by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) received lapatinib 1,500 mg once per day plus once-per-week paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) or paclitaxel alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), overall response rate (ORR), time to response, response duration, and safety. Analyses were based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gastrectomy status, prior trastuzumab therapy, and regional subpopulations. RESULTS Median OS was 11.0 months with lapatinib plus paclitaxel versus 8.9 months with paclitaxel alone (P = .1044), with no significant difference in median PFS (5.4 v 4.4 months) or TTP (5.5 v 4.4 months). ORR was higher with lapatinib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone (odds ratio, 3.85; P < .001). Better efficacy with lapatinib plus paclitaxel was demonstrated in IHC3+ compared with IHC0/1+ and 2+ patients and in Chinese compared with Japanese patients. A similar proportion of patients experienced adverse events with each treatment (lapatinib plus paclitaxel, 100% v paclitaxel alone, 98%). CONCLUSION Lapatinib plus paclitaxel demonstrated activity in the second-line treatment of patients with HER2 FISH-positive IHC3+ advanced gastric cancer but did not significantly improve OS in the intent-to-treat population.

Linifanib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to linifanib 17.5 mg once daily or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Patients were stratified by region (Outside Asia, Japan, and rest of Asia), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS; 0 or 1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes or no), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (yes or no). The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS We randomly assigned 1,035 patients (median age, 60 years; Asian, 66.6%; ECOG PS 0, 65.2%; HBV, 49.1%; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 70.1%). Median OS was 9.1 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.2) and 9.8 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 8.3 to 11.0; hazard ratio [HR], 1.046; 95% CI, 0.896 to 1.221). For prespecified stratification subgroups, OS HRs ranged from 0.793 to 1.119 and the 95% CI contained 1.0. Median TTP was 5.4 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) and 4.0 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2; HR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.643 to 0.895; P = .001). Best response rate was 13.0% on the linifanib arm versus 6.9% on the sorafenib arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); serious AEs; and AEs leading to discontinuation, dose interruption, and reduction were more frequent with linifanib (all P < .001). CONCLUSION Linifanib and sorafenib had similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and noninferiority OS boundaries were not met for linifanib and the study failed to meet the primary end point. TTP and ORR favored linifanib; safety results favored sorafenib.

Apatinib for Chemotherapy-Refractory Advanced Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Arm, Phase II Trial

PURPOSE Patients with metastatic gastric cancer (mGC) who do not respond to or who experience progression with second-line chemotherapy have no treatment options that clearly confer a survival benefit. This trial investigated the safety and efficacy of apatinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, as a treatment option for heavily pretreated patients with mGC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who experienced treatment failure with at least two chemotherapeutic regimens were randomly assigned to receive placebo (group A), apatinib 850 mg once daily (group B), or apatinib 425 mg twice daily (group C). RESULTS We enrolled 144 patients onto this study. In groups A, B, and C, the median overall survival (OS) times were 2.50 months (95% CI, 1.87 to 3.70 months), 4.83 months (95% CI, 4.03 to 5.97 months), and 4.27 months (95% CI, 3.83 to 4.77 months), respectively, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) times were 1.40 months (95% CI, 1.20 to 1.83 months), 3.67 months (95% CI, 2.17 to 6.80 months), and 3.20 months (95% CI, 2.37 to 4.53 months), respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the apatinib and placebo groups for both PFS (P < .001) and OS (P < .001 and P = .0017). Nine patients had a partial response (three patients in group B and six patients in group C). Toxicities were tolerable or could be clinically managed. The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome and hypertension. Hematologic toxicities were moderate, and grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities were rare. CONCLUSION Apatinib showed improved PFS and OS in heavily pretreated patients with mGC who had experienced treatment failure with two or more chemotherapy regimens.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial of Apatinib in Patients With Chemotherapy-Refractory Advanced or Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction

PURPOSE There is currently no standard treatment strategy for patients with advanced metastatic gastric cancer experiencing progression after two or more lines of chemotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of apatinib, a novel vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma for whom at least two lines of prior chemotherapy had failed. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Patients from 32 centers in China with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, for whom two or more prior lines of chemotherapy had failed, were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to oral apatinib 850 mg or placebo once daily. The primary end points were overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Between January 2011 and November 2012, 267 patients were enrolled. Median OS was significantly improved in the apatinib group compared with the placebo group (6.5 months; 95% CI, 4.8 to 7.6 v 4.7 months; 95% CI, 3.6 to 5.4; P = .0149; hazard ratio, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.537 to 0.937; P = .0156). Similarly, apatinib significantly prolonged median PFS compared with placebo (2.6 months; 95% CI, 2.0 to 2.9 v 1.8 months; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9; P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.444; 95% CI, 0.331 to 0.595; P < .001). The most common grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic adverse events were hand-foot syndrome, proteinuria, and hypertension. CONCLUSION These data show that apatinib treatment significantly improved OS and PFS with an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to two or more lines of prior chemotherapy.

Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial

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.