Explore the vast range of titles available.

The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Preclinical studies suggest that treatment with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is associated with enhanced survival and antigen-specific T cell responses compared with adjuvant treatment 1 ; however, optimal regimens have not been defined. Here we report results from a randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant nivolumab versus combined ipilimumab with nivolumab in 23 patients with high-risk resectable melanoma ( NCT02519322 ). RECIST overall response rates (ORR), pathologic complete response rates (pCR), treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) and immune correlates of response were assessed. Treatment with combined ipilimumab and nivolumab yielded high response rates (RECIST ORR 73%, pCR 45%) but substantial toxicity (73% grade 3 trAEs), whereas treatment with nivolumab monotherapy yielded modest responses (ORR 25%, pCR 25%) and low toxicity (8% grade 3 trAEs). Immune correlates of response were identified, demonstrating higher lymphoid infiltrates in responders to both therapies and a more clonal and diverse T cell infiltrate in responders to nivolumab monotherapy. These results describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma and emphasize the need for additional studies to optimize treatment regimens and to validate putative biomarkers. Neoadjuvant combination treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with high-risk melanoma results in higher response rates than nivolumab monotherapy and warrants future optimization of dosing regimens to preserve efficacy while limiting toxicity.

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. 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. 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. 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. Hutchison MediPharma.

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. 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. 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). 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. Hutchison MediPharma.

Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02738346. Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0−37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9–5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3–3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41–0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie).

VEGF and VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR-2)-mediated signalling and angiogenesis can contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to assess whether the addition of ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 antagonist monoclonal antibody, to first-line chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. For this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 20 countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic, HER2-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web response system to receive cisplatin (80 mg/m2, on the first day) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m2, twice daily for 14 days), every 21 days, and either ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. 5-Fluorouracil (800 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on days 1–5) was permitted in patients unable to take capecitabine. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat in the first 508 patients. We did a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint, including a central review of CT scans. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02314117. Between Jan 28, 2015, and Sept 16, 2016, 645 patients were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=326) or placebo plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=319). Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab group than the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·753, 95% CI 0·607–0·935, p=0·0106; median progression-free survival 5·7 months [5·5–6·5] vs 5·4 months [4·5–5·7]). A sensitivity analysis based on central independent review of the radiological images did not corroborate the investigator-assessed difference in progression-free survival (HR 0·961, 95% CI 0·768–1·203, p=0·74). There was no difference in overall survival between groups (0·962, 0·801–1·156, p=0·6757; median overall survival 11·2 months [9·9–11·9] in the ramucirumab group vs 10·7 months [9·5–11·9] in the placebo group). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (85 [26%] of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 85 [27%] of 315 in the placebo group), anaemia (39 [12%] vs 44 [14%]), and hypertension (32 [10%] vs 5 [2%]). The incidence of any-grade serious adverse events was 160 (50%) of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group and 149 (47%) of 315 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse events were vomiting (14 [4%] in the ramucirumab group vs 21 [7%] in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (11 [3%] vs 19 [6%]). There were seven deaths in each group, either during study treatment or within 30 days of discontinuing study treatment, which were the result of treatment-related adverse events. In the ramucirumab group, these adverse events were acute kidney injury, cardiac arrest, gastric haemorrhage, peritonitis, pneumothorax, septic shock, and sudden death (n=1 of each). In the placebo group, these adverse events were cerebrovascular accident (n=1), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (n=2), pulmonary embolism (n=2), sepsis (n=1), and small intestine perforation (n=1). Although the primary analysis for progression-free survival was statistically significant, this outcome was not confirmed in a sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival by central independent review, and did not improve overall survival. Therefore, the addition of ramucirumab to cisplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy is not recommended as first-line treatment for this patient population. Eli Lilly and Company.

Ponatinib has shown potent activity against chronic myeloid leukaemia that is resistant to available treatment, although it is associated with arterial occlusion. We investigated whether this activity and safety profile would result in superior outcomes compared with imatinib in previously untreated patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia. The Evaluation of Ponatinib versus Imatinib in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (EPIC) study was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ponatinib, compared with imatinib, in newly diagnosed patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. Patients from 106 centres in 21 countries were randomly assigned (1:1, with stratification by Sokal score at diagnosis) using an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral ponatinib (45 mg) or imatinib (400 mg) once daily until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other criteria for withdrawal were met. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age, within 6 months of diagnosis, and Philadelphia chromosome-positive by cytogenetic assessment, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and had not previously been treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was major molecular response at 12 months. Patients who remained on study and had molecular assessments at specified timepoints were studied at those timepoints. Safety analyses included all treated patients, as per study protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01650805. Between Aug 14, 2012, and Oct 9, 2013, 307 patients were randomly assigned to receive ponatinib (n=155) or imatinib (n=152). The trial was terminated early, on Oct 17, 2013, following concerns about vascular adverse events observed in patients given ponatinib in other trials. Trial termination limited assessment of the primary endpoint of major molecular response at 12 months, as only 13 patients in the imatinib group and ten patients in the ponatinib group could be assessed at this timepoint; the proportion of patients achieving a major molecular response at 12 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (eight [80%] of ten patients given ponatinib and five [38%] of 13 patients given imatinib; p=0·074). 11 (7%) of 154 patients given ponatinib and three (2%) of 152 patients given imatinib had arterial occlusive events (p=0·052); arterial occlusive events were designated serious in ten (6%) of 154 patients given ponatinib and in one (1%) of 152 patients given imatinib (p=0·010). The data monitoring committee criterion for risk assessment (significant difference in serious grade 3 or 4 ischaemic events between groups) was not met (five [3%] of 154 vs one [1%] of 152; p=0·21). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed in more than 5% of patients in the ponatinib group were increased lipase (22 [14%] of 154 vs three [2%] of 152 with imatinib), thrombocytopenia (19 [12%] of 154 vs ten [7%] of 152 with imatinib), rash (ten [6%] of 154 vs two [1%] of 152 with imatinib). In the imatinib group, grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (12 [8%] of 152 vs five [3%] of 154 with ponatinib) and thrombocytopenia (ten [7%] of 152 vs 19 [12%] of 154 with ponatinib). Serious adverse events that occurred in three or more patients given ponatinib were pancreatitis (n=5), atrial fibrillation (n=3), and thrombocytopenia (n=3). No serious adverse event occurred in three or more patients given imatinib. The efficacy of ponatinib treatment of newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia compared with imatinib could not be assessed due to trial termination, but preliminary data suggest there might be benefit, although with more arterial occlusive events than with imatinib at the doses studied. Because the EPIC trial was terminated early, efficacy of ponatinib in this setting remains to be established. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals.

Treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma and multiple myeloma are limited. CUDC-907 is an oral, first-in-class, small molecule that is designed to inhibit both histone deacetylase (HDAC) and PI3K enzymes, which are members of common oncogenic pathways in haematological malignancies. We aimed to assess overall safety and preliminary activity in this dose-escalation study of CUDC-907 monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma and multiple myeloma. This open-label, first-in-man, phase 1 trial recruited adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with lymphoma or multiple myeloma who were refractory to or had relapsed after two or more previous regimens, from four US cancer centres. CUDC-907 was orally administered in a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design at four different dosing schedules, to which participants were sequentially assigned as follows: once daily, intermittently (twice or three times weekly; simultaneous enrolment), and daily for 5 days followed by a 2-day break (5/2), in 21-day cycles. Dosing started at 30 mg for the once-daily schedule and 60 mg for other schedules, escalating in 30 mg increments. Patients continued to receive CUDC-907 until disease progression or until other treatment discontinuation criteria were met. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose, assessed in patients who received at least 66% of cycle 1 doses without modification and those who had a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in cycle 1 irrespective of dose modification. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01742988. Between Jan 23, 2013, and July 27, 2015, we enrolled 44 patients, of whom ten were sequentially assigned to CUDC-907 once-daily (MTD 60 mg), 12 to twice-weekly (MTD 150 mg), 15 to three-times-weekly (MTD 150 mg), and seven to the 5/2 dosing schedule (MTD 60 mg). 37 (84%) patients had discontinued study drug as a result of progressive disease or clinical signs of progressive disease at the data cutoff. Four DLTs occurred in three of 40 DLT-evaluable patients (diarrhoea and hyperglycaemia in one patient on 60 mg once daily, hyperglycaemia in one patient on 150 mg twice weekly, and diarrhoea in one patient on 150 mg three times weekly); no DLTs were reported in patients on the 5/2 schedule. Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 19 (43%) of 44 patients, the most common of which were thrombocytopenia (in nine [20%] of 44 patients), neutropenia (three [7%]), and hyperglycaemia (three [7%]). 11 (25%) of 44 patients had serious adverse events, three of which were regarded as treatment related (epistaxis and the DLTs of diarrhoea and hyperglycaemia). Adverse events led to dose reductions in six (14%) patients and treatment discontinuation in seven (16%). Five (14%) of 37 response-evaluable patients achieved an objective response (two complete responses and three partial responses). All five responses occurred in the subgroup of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n=9), and three occurred in those with transformed follicular lymphoma DLBCL (n=5). 21 (57%) of 37 response-evaluable patients had stable disease, including those with DLBCL, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. On the basis of these findings, we selected CUDC-907 60 mg on the 5/2 dosing schedule as the recommended phase 2 dose. The safety and tolerability profile of CUDC-907 and the promising preliminary evidence of response support continued development of CUDC-907 at the 60 mg 5/2 dosing schedule, alone and in combination with other therapies. A dose-expansion trial of this dose in patients with refractory and relapsed DLBCL in particular, is ongoing. Curis, Inc, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

Tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective oral inhibitor of MET, has shown promising antitumour activity in hepatocellular carcinoma as monotherapy and in combination with sorafenib. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In this completed, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who had progressed on or were unable to tolerate first-line systemic therapy. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive tivantinib (360 mg twice-daily) or placebo until disease progression. The tivantinib dose was amended to 240 mg twice-daily because of high incidence of treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse neutropenia. Randomisation was done centrally by an interactive voice-response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was time to progression, according to independent radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed tumour samples for MET expression with immunohistochemistry (high expression was regarded as ≥2+ in ≥50% of tumour cells). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988741. 71 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivantinib (38 at 360 mg twice-daily and 33 at 240 mg twice-daily); 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. At the time of analysis, 46 (65%) patients in the tivantinib group and 26 (72%) of those in the placebo group had progressive disease. Time to progression was longer for patients treated with tivantinib (1·6 months [95% CI 1·4–2·8]) than placebo (1·4 months [1·4–1·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 90% CI 0·43–0·94; p=0·04). For patients with MET-high tumours, median time to progression was longer with tivantinib than for those on placebo (2·7 months [95% CI 1·4–8·5] for 22 MET-high patients on tivantinib vs 1·4 months [1·4–1·6] for 15 MET-high patients on placebo; HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·19–0·97; p=0·03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the tivantinib group were neutropenia (ten patients [14%] vs none in the placebo group) and anaemia (eight [11%] vs none in the placebo group). Eight patients (21%) in the tivantinib 360 mg group had grade 3 or worse neutropenia compared with two (6%) patients in the 240 mg group. Four deaths related to tivantinib occurred from severe neutropenia. 24 (34%) patients in the tivantinib group and 14 (39%) patients in the placebo group had serious adverse events. Tivantinib could provide an option for second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and well-compensated liver cirrhosis, particularly for patients with MET-high tumours. Confirmation in a phase 3 trial is needed, with a starting dose of tivantinib 240 mg twice-daily. ArQule, Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi Sankyo Group).

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Imatinib followed by sunitinib and regorafenib is the standard sequence of treatment for advanced disease. Pazopanib is effective in soft tissue sarcomas but has never been assessed in advanced GIST in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with previously treated advanced GIST. In this randomised, open-label phase 2 study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib from 12 comprehensive cancer centres or university hospitals in France and randomly assigned them 1:1 using an interactive web-based centralised platform to 800 mg oral pazopanib once daily in 4-week cycles plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous treatment regimens (2 vs ≥3); no-one was masked to treatment group allocation. Upon disease progression, patients in the best supportive care group were allowed to switch to pazopanib as compassionate treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. All randomised participants who received at least one dose of pazopanib were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01323400. Between April 12, 2011, and Dec 9, 2013, 81 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to pazopanib plus best supportive care (n=40) or best supportive care alone (n=41). The median follow-up was 26·4 months (IQR 22·0–37·8) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 28·9 months (22·0–35·2) in the best supportive care group. 4-month investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 45·2% (95% CI 29·1–60·0) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group versus 17·6% (7·8–30·8) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·37–0·96; p=0·029). Median progression-free survival was 3·4 months (95% CI 2·4–5·6) with pazopanib plus best supportive care and 2·3 months (2·1–3·3) with best supportive care alone (HR 0·59 [0·37–0·96], p=0·03). 36 (88%) of the patients originally assigned to the best supportive care group switched to pazopanib following investigator-assessed disease progression; these patients had a median progression-free survival from pazopanib initiation of 3·5 months (95% CI 2·2–5·2). 55 (72%) of the 76 pazopanib-treated patients had pazopanib-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, the most common of which was hypertension (15 [38%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 13 [36%] in the best supportive care group). 20 (26%) patients had pazopanib-related serious adverse events (14 [35%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and six [17%] in the best supportive care group), including pulmonary embolism in eight (9%) patients (five [13%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and three [7%] in the best supportive care group). Three pazopanib-related deaths occurred (two pulmonary embolisms [one in each group] and one hepatic cytolysis [in the best supportive care group]). Three adverse event-related but not pazopanib-related deaths occurred in the best supportive care group after switch to pazopanib; these deaths were from hyperammonaemic encephalopathy, pneumopathy, and respiratory failure. Pazopanib plus best supportive care improves progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone in patients with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib, with a toxicity profile similar to that reported for other sarcomas. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting for these patients. GlaxoSmithKline, French National Cancer Institute, EuroSARC (FP7-278742), Centre Léon Bérard.