Chengxu Cui

PURPOSE Donafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor and a deuterated sorafenib derivative, has shown efficacy in phase Ia and Ib hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of donafenib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS This open-label, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicenter phase II-III trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC, a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, and no prior systemic therapy from 37 sites across China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral donafenib (0.2 g) or sorafenib (0.4 g) twice daily until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), tested for noninferiority and superiority. Efficacy was primarily assessed in the full analysis set (FAS), and safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS Between March 21, 2016, and April 16, 2018, 668 patients (intention-to-treat) were randomly assigned to donafenib and sorafenib treatment arms; the FAS included 328 and 331 patients, respectively. Median OS was significantly longer with donafenib than sorafenib treatment (FAS; 12.1 v 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.831; 95% CI, 0.699 to 0.988; P = .0245); donafenib also exhibited superior OS outcomes versus sorafenib in the intention-to-treat population. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 v 3.6 months ( P = .0570). The objective response rate was 4.6% v 2.7% ( P = .2448), and the disease control rate was 30.8% v 28.7% (FAS; P = .5532). Drug-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in significantly fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib (125 [38%] v 165 [50%]; P = .0018). CONCLUSION Donafenib showed superiority over sorafenib in improving OS and has favorable safety and tolerability in Chinese patients with advanced HCC, showing promise as a potential first-line monotherapy for these patients.

This randomized, open-label, multi-center phase 2 study (NCT03116152) assessed sintilimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, versus chemotherapy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after first-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), while exploratory endpoint was the association of biomarkers with efficacy. The median OS in the sintilimab group was significantly improved compared with the chemotherapy group (median OS 7.2 vs.6.2 months; P = 0.032; HR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-5 was lower with sintilimab than with chemotherapy (20.2 vs. 39.1%). Patients with high T-cell receptor (TCR) clonality and low molecular tumor burden index (mTBI) showed the longest median OS (15.0 months). Patients with NLR < 3 at 6 weeks post-treatment had a significantly prolonged median OS (16.6 months) compared with NLR ≥ 3. The results demonstrate a significant improvement in OS of sintilimab compared to chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC.

BACKGROUND: Gambogic acid is a pure active compound isolated from the traditional Chinese medicinal plant gamboge (Garcinia morella Desv.). Based on the preliminary results of a phase I study, this phase IIa study compared the efficacy and safety of different dosage schedules of gambogic acid in patients with advanced malignant tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastases cancer who had not received any effective routine conventional treatment or who had failed to respond to the existing conventional treatment were randomly assigned to receive either 45 mg/m(2) gambogic acid intravenously from Days 1 to 5 of a 2-week cycle (Group A), or 45 mg/m(2) every other day for a total of five times during a 2-week cycle (Group B). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients assigned to Group A and 26 to Group B were included in the final analysis. The ORRs were 14.3% in Group A and 0% in Group B. It was not possible to analyze the significant difference because one of the values was zero. The disease control rates (DCRs) were 76.2% in Group A and 61.5% in Group B (P = 0.0456). The observed adverse reactions were mostly Grades I and II, and occurred in most patients after administration of the trial drug. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this phase IIa exploratory study suggest that gambogic acid has a favorable safety profile when administered at 45 mg/m(2). The DCR was greater in patients receiving gambogic acid on Days 1 - 5 of a 2-week cycle, but the incidence of adverse reactions was similar irrespective of the administration schedule.