A Phase I/Randomized Phase II Study to Evaluate the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Efficacy of Nintedanib versus Sorafenib in Asian Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

摘要

Background: Nintedanib is an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor/platelet-derived growth factor/fibroblast growth factor receptors. This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase I/II study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in terms of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and efficacy of nintedanib versus sorafenib in Asian patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients and Methods: For the phase I portion, patients were stratified into two groups according to their alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (ALT/AST) and Child-Pugh score at baseline. For phase I, the primary endpoint was determination of the MTD in terms of DLTs. For phase II, patients with a Child-Pugh score of 5–6, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≤2, and an ALT/AST ≤2× the upper limit of normal were enrolled and randomized 2: 1 to nintedanib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (the MTD determined in phase I) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. continuously in 28-day cycles until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression (PD); treatment beyond PD was allowed if clinical benefit was perceived. The primary endpoint for phase II was time to progression (TTP) by central independent review (CIR; by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.0); the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS). All analyses were exploratory. Results: The MTD was 200 mg in both groups. For phase II, 95 patients were randomized to nintedanib ( n = 63) or sorafenib ( n = 32). For nintedanib and sorafenib, respectively, the median CIR TTP was 2.8 vs. 3.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–2.01) and the median OS 10.2 vs. 10.7 months (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.59–1.49). Nintedanib-treated patients had fewer grade 3 or higher AEs (56 vs. 84%), serious AEs (46 vs. 56%), and AEs leading to dose reduction (19 vs. 59%) and drug discontinuation (24 vs. 34%). AEs associated more frequently with nintedanib were vomiting and nausea, whereas those associated more frequently with sorafenib were ALT/AST increases, diarrhea, rash, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. Conclusions: Nintedanib showed numerically similar efficacy to sorafenib for CIR TTP and OS in Asian patients with advanced HCC and adequate liver function. AEs were generally manageable.