Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial involving patients with non–small-cell lung cancer with mutant EGFR (T790M) in whom a tyrosine kinase inhibitor had failed, osimertinib was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed. Among patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer with a mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard first-line therapy. 1 – 4 Despite high tumor response rates with first-line EGFR-TKIs, disease progresses in a majority of patients after 9 to 13 months of treatment. 5 – 12 At the time of progression, approximately 60% of patients (regardless of race or ethnic background) are found to have a p.Thr790Met point mutation (T790M) in the gene encoding EGFR. 13 – 16 The presence of the T790M variant reduces binding of first-generation or second-generation EGFR-TKIs to the ATP-binding pocket of EGFR, thereby reducing . . .

State-of-the art therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer suitable for platinum-based re-treatment includes bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, bevacizumab combined with carboplatin–paclitaxel or carboplatin–gemcitabine) or the most active non-bevacizumab regimen: carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The aim of this head-to-head trial was to compare a standard bevacizumab-containing regimen versus carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin combined with bevacizumab. This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 159 academic centres in Germany, France, Australia, Austria, and the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma with first disease recurrence more than 6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were stratified by platinum-free interval, residual tumour, previous antiangiogenic therapy, and study group language, and were centrally randomly assigned 1:1 using randomly permuted blocks of size two, four, or six to receive six intravenous cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, day 1) plus carboplatin (area under the concentration curve [AUC] 4, day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks or six cycles of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, days 1 and 15) plus carboplatin (AUC 5, day 1) plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (30 mg/m2, day 1) every 4 weeks, both followed by maintenance bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks in both groups) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. There was no masking in this open-label trial. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy data were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01837251. Between Aug 1, 2013, and July 31, 2015, 682 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 345 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin–bevacizumab (experimental group) and 337 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin–gemcitabine–bevacizumab (standard group). Median follow-up for progression-free survival at data cutoff (July 10, 2018) was 12·4 months (IQR 8·3–21·7) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·0–18·4) in the standard group. Median progression-free survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·7–14·2) in the experimental group versus 11·6 months (11·0–12·7) in the standard group (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·68–0·96; p=0·012). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (88 [27%] of 332 patients in the experimental group vs 67 [20%] of 329 patients in the standard group) and neutropenia (40 [12%] vs 73 [22%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 33 (10%) of 332 patients in the experimental group and 28 (9%) of 329 in the standard group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one patient in the experimental group (<1%; large intestine perforation) and two patients in the standard group (1%; one case each of osmotic demyelination syndrome and intracranial haemorrhage). Carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin–bevacizumab is a new standard treatment option for platinum-eligible recurrent ovarian cancer. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel–platinum–cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum–fluorouracil–cetuximab) in this setting. This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18–70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2, both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on day 1–4, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695. Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6–44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5–45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5–15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2–15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74–1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group). Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment. Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma.

BackgroundIn Study 19, maintenance monotherapy with olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer.MethodsStudy 19 was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial enrolling 265 patients who had received at least two platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and were in complete or partial response to their most recent regimen. Patients were randomised to olaparib (capsules; 400 mg bid) or placebo. We present long-term safety and final mature overall survival (OS; 79% maturity) data, from the last data cut-off (9 May 2016).ResultsThirty-two patients (24%) received maintenance olaparib for over 2 years; 15 (11%) did so for over 6 years. No new tolerability signals were identified with long-term treatment and adverse events were generally low grade. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was low (6%). An apparent OS advantage was observed with olaparib vs placebo (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.55‒0.95, P = 0.02138) irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status, although the predefined threshold for statistical significance was not met.ConclusionsStudy 19 showed a favourable final OS result irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and unprecedented long-term benefit with maintenance olaparib for a subset of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients.

In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0–33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0–17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0–10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35–0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1–15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4–8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35–0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9–23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2–18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53–0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1–24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9–19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54–0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths. In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports. Clovis Oncology.

PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy had been shown to be an effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there was no robust evidence showing a PD-L1 inhibitor combined with chemotherapy benefited patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC. GEMSTONE-302 aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a PD-L1 inhibitor, sugemalimab, plus chemotherapy for patients with metastatic squamous or non-squamous NSCLC. This randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial was done in 35 hospitals and academic research centres in China. Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years, had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous or non-squamous NSCLC without known EGFR sensitising mutations, ALK, ROS1, or RET fusions, no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sugemalimab (1200 mg, intravenously, every 3 weeks) plus platinum-based chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve (AUC) 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously] and paclitaxel [175 mg/m2, intravenously] for squamous NSCLC, or carboplatin [AUC 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously] and pemetrexed [500 mg/m2, intravenously] for non-squamous NSCLC; sugemalimab group) or placebo plus the same platinum-based chemotherapy regimens for squamous or non-squamous NSCLC as in the sugemalimab group; placebo group) for up to four cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with sugemalimab or placebo for squamous NSCLC, and intravenous sugemalimab 500 mg/m2 or matching placebo plus pemetrexed for non-squamous NSCLC. Randomisation was done by an interactive voice–web-response system via permuted blocks (block size was a mixture of three and six with a random order within each stratum) and stratified by ECOG performance status, PD-L1 expression, and tumour pathology. The investigators, patients, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. Results reported are from a prespecified interim analysis (ie, when the study met the primary endpoint) and an updated analysis (prespecified final analysis for progression-free survival) with a longer follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03789604), is closed to new participants, and follow-up is ongoing. Between Dec 13, 2018, and May 15, 2020, 846 patients were assessed for eligibility; 367 were ineligible, and the remaining 479 patients were randomly assigned to the sugemalimab group (n=320) or placebo group (n=159). At the preplanned interim analysis (data cutoff June 8, 2020; median follow-up 8·6 months [IQR 6·1–11·4]), GEMSTONE-302 met its primary endpoint, with significantly longer progression-free survival in the sugemalimab group compared with the placebo group (median 7·8 months [95% CI 6·9–9·0] vs 4·9 months [4·7–5·0]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·50 [95% CI 0·39–0·64], p<0·0001]). At the final analysis (March 15, 2021) with a median follow-up of 17·8 months (IQR 15·1–20·9), the improvement in progression-free survival was maintained (median 9·0 months [95% CI 7·4–10·8] vs 4·9 months [4·8–5·1]; stratified HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·39–0·60], p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 any treatment-related adverse events were neutrophil count decreased (104 [33%] of 320 with sugemalimab vs 52 [33%] of 159 with placebo), white blood cell count decreased (45 [14%] vs 27 [17%]), anaemia (43 [13%] vs 18 [11%]), platelet count decreased (33 [10%] vs 15 [9%]), and neutropenia (12 [4%] vs seven [4%]). Any treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 73 (23%) patients in the sugemalimab group and 31 (20%) patients in the placebo group. Any treatment-related deaths were reported in ten (3%) patients in the sugemalimab group (pneumonia with respiratory failure in one patient; myelosuppression with septic shock in one patient; pneumonia in two patients; respiratory failure, abdominal pain, cardiac failure, and immune-mediated pneumonitis in one patient each; the other two deaths had an unspecified cause) and in two (1%) patients in the placebo group (pneumonia and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome). Sugemalimab plus chemotherapy showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival improvement compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, in patients with previously untreated squamous and non-squamous metastatic NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression, and could be a newfirst-line treatment option for both squamous and non-squamous metastatic NSCLC. CStone Pharmaceuticals. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy. In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m2 per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. 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 NCT01345682. Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1–9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0–2·7] for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months [1·5–2·4] for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·65–0·98], p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 [10%] of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 [9%] vs three [2%]), stomatitis (20 [6%] vs 13 [8%]), fatigue (18 [6%] vs five [3%]), and neutropenia (1 [<1%] vs 11 [7%]); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients. Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck contributes to treatment resistance and disease progression. Buparlisib, a pan-PI3K inhibitor, has shown preclinical antitumour activity and objective responses in patients with epithelial malignancies. We assessed whether the addition of buparlisib to paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel and placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study (BERIL-1), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after disease progression on or after one previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting. Eligible patients were enrolled from 58 centres across 18 countries and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive second-line oral buparlisib (100 mg once daily) or placebo, plus intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in 28 day treatment cycles. Randomisation was done via a central patient screening and randomisation system with an interactive (voice and web) response system and stratification by number of previous lines of therapy in the recurrent and metastatic setting and study site. Patients and investigators (including local radiologists) were masked to treatment assignment from randomisation until the final overall survival analysis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in all randomly assigned patients. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment according to the treatment they received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01852292, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. Between Nov 5, 2013, and May 5, 2015, 158 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either buparlisib plus paclitaxel (n=79) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n=79). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·5–5·3) in the buparlisib group and 3·5 months (2·2–3·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·45–0·95], nominal one-sided p=0·011). Grade 3–4 adverse events were reported in 62 (82%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 56 (72%) of 78 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of patients in the buparlisib group vs the placebo group) were hyperglycaemia (17 [22%] of 76 vs two [3%] of 78), anaemia (14 [18%] vs nine [12%]), neutropenia (13 [17%] vs four [5%]), and fatigue (six [8%] vs eight [10%]). Serious adverse events (regardless of relation to study treatment) were reported for 43 (57%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 37 (47%) of 78 in the placebo group. On-treatment deaths occurred in 15 (20%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 17 (22%) of 78 patients in the placebo group; most were caused by disease progression and none were judged to be related to study treatment. On the basis of the improved clinical efficacy with a manageable safety profile, the results of this randomised phase 2 study suggest that buparlisib in combination with paclitaxel could be an effective second-line treatment for patients with platinum-pretreated recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Further phase 3 studies are warranted to confirm this phase 2 finding. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Lurbinectedin is an inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, causing DNA-break accumulation, apoptosis and modulation of the tumor microenvironment. Early-phase clinical trials indicate promising activity of lurbinectedin in small-cell lung cancer. Here, we describe the rationale and design of ATLANTIS (NCT02566993), an open-label, randomized, multicenter Phase III study to compare the efficacy of lurbinectedin and doxorubicin combination with standard-of-care chemotherapy, investigator's choice of cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine or topotecan, in patients with small-cell lung cancer that has progressed following one line of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is overall survival and key secondary end points include progression-free survival, best tumor response and duration of response, each assessed by independent review committee.

Inhibition of angiogenesis is a valuable treatment strategy for ovarian cancer. Pazopanib is an anti-angiogenic drug active in ovarian cancer. We assessed the effect of adding pazopanib to paclitaxel for patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory advanced ovarian cancer. We did this open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 hospitals in Italy. We included patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer previously treated with a maximum of two lines of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, and no residual peripheral neurotoxicity. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 with or without pazopanib 800 mg daily, and stratified by centre, number of previous lines of chemotherapy, and platinum-free interval status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01644825. This report is the final analysis; the trial is completed. Between Dec 15, 2010, and Feb 8, 2013, we enrolled 74 patients: 37 were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel and pazopanib and 37 were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel only. One patient, in the paclitaxel only group, withdrew from the study and was excluded from analyses. Median follow-up was 16·1 months (IQR 12·5–20·8). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the pazopanib plus paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel only group (median 6·35 months [95% CI 5·36–11·02] vs 3·49 months [2·01–5·66]; hazard ratio 0·42 [95% CI 0·25–0·69]; p=0·0002). We recorded no unexpected toxic effects or deaths from toxic effects. Adverse events were more common in the pazopanib and paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel only group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [30%] in the pazopanib group vs one [3%] in the paclitaxel group), fatigue (four [11%] vs two [6%]), leucopenia (four [11%] vs one [3%]), hypertension (three [8%] vs none [0%]), raised aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase (three [8%] vs none), and anaemia (two [5%] vs five [14%]). One patient in the pazopanib group had ileal perforation. Our findings suggest that a phase 3 study of the combination of weekly paclitaxel plus pazopanib for patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory advanced ovarian cancer is warranted. National Cancer Institute of Napoli and GlaxoSmithKline.