A multicentre, open-label, phase-I/randomised phase-II study to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of nintedanib vs. sorafenib in European patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

摘要

Background This multicentre, open-label, phase-I/randomised phase-II trial evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum-tolerated-dose (MTD) per dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and efficacy of nintedanib vs. sorafenib in European patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Methods Phase I: Patients were stratified into two groups per baseline aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase and Child-Pugh score; MTD was determined. Phase II: Patients were randomised 2:1 to nintedanib (MTD) or sorafenib (400-mg bid) in 28-day cycles until intolerance or disease progression. Time-to-progression (TTP, primary endpoint), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined. Results Phase-I: no DLTs observed; nintedanib MTD in both groups was 200?mg bid. Phase-II: patients ( N? =?93) were randomised to nintedanib ( n? =?62) or sorafenib ( n ?=?31); TTP was 5.5 vs. 4.6 months (HR?=?1.44 [95% CI, 0.81–2.57]), OS was 11.9 vs. 11.4 months (HR?=?0.88 [95% CI, 0.52–1.47]), PFS was 5.3 vs. 3.9 months (HR?=?1.35 [95% CI, 0.78–2.34]), respectively (all medians). Dose intensity and tolerability favoured nintedanib. Fewer patients on nintedanib (87.1%) vs. sorafenib (96.8%) had drug-related adverse events (AEs) or grade ≥ 3 AEs (67.7% vs. 90.3%), but more patients on nintedanib (28 [45.2%]) had AEs leading to drug discontinuation than did those on sorafenib (7 [22.6%]). Conclusions Nintedanib may have similar efficacy to sorafenib in aHCC.