Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29496255›Full record

Trial reportLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2018

Randomized phase 2 study of tivantinib plus erlotinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in previously treated KRAS mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

David E Gerber, Mark A Socinski, Joel W Neal, Heather A Wakelee, Keisuke Shirai, Lecia V Sequist, Rachel P Rosovsky, Rogerio C Lilenbaum, Bruno R Bastos, Chao Huang and 11 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Breast Cancer CAFs: Spectrum of Phenotypes and Promising Targeting Avenues.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

David E GerberHarold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States. Electronic address: david.gerber@utsouthwestern.edu.
Mark A SocinskiUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Joel W NealStanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Heather A WakeleeStanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Keisuke ShiraiMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
Lecia V SequistMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, United States.
Rachel P RosovskyMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, United States.
Rogerio C LilenbaumYale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, United States.
Bruno R BastosYale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, United States.
Chao HuangUniversity of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood, KS, United States.
Melissa L JohnsonSarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN, United States.
Paul J HeskethLahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, United States.
Deepa S SubramaniamGeorgetown University Hospital, WA, DC, United States.
Martin F DietrichHarold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.
Feng ChaiArQule, Inc., Woburn, MA, United States.
Yunxia WangArQule, Inc., Woburn, MA, United States.
Julia KazakinArQule, Inc., Woburn, MA, United States.
Brian SchwartzArQule, Inc., Woburn, MA, United States.
Joan H SchillerHarold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.
Julie R BrahmerSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Ronan J KellySidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Arqule (United States) · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center · USStanford Medicine · USYale Cancer Center · USGeorgetown University · USLahey Medical Center · USMedical University of South Carolina · USSarah Cannon · USThe University of Kansas Cancer Center · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

Development of New Cancer Treatments and InvestigatorsK24CA201543 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI GERBER, DAVID ERIC · 2016 to 2020
$737k
NCI NIH HHS K24 CA201543
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKRAS mutations are identified in approximately 25% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases and are associated with resistance to currently available targeted therapies. The MET oncogene may be implicated in malignant progression of KRAS-mutant tumors. In a pre-specified subset analysis of KRAS mutant cancers in an earlier phase 2 study of erlotinib plus the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib, combination therapy was associated with substantial clinical benefit compared to erlotinib alone (progression-free survival [PFS] HR 0.18; P < 0.01). The current study was conducted to evaluate this combination further in KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND

methodsPreviously treated patients with advanced KRAS mutant NSCLC were randomized to receive either oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) plus erlotinib (150 mg daily) (ET) or single-agent chemotherapy (investigator's choice of pemetrexed, docetaxel, or gemcitabine) (C). The primary endpoint was PFS. At progression, crossover from C to ET was permitted.

resultsNinety-six patients were randomly assigned to ET (n = 51) or to C (n = 45). Median PFS was 1.7 months (mos) for ET and 4.3 mos for C (HR 1.19; 95% CI, 0.71-1.97; P = 0.50). There was no difference in overall survival (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.76-1.88; P = 0.44). There were 4 partial responses in the C arm, and none in the ET arm. Overall, adverse events occurred more frequently in the C arm, with more cytopenias, nausea, fatigue, and alopecia. Dermatologic toxicities were more common in the ET arm.

conclusionIn previously treated patients with advanced KRAS mutant NSCLC, the combination of the MET inhibitor tivantinib and erlotinib is not superior to conventional single-agent chemotherapy.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDeoxycytidineDocetaxelErlotinib HydrochlorideFemaleGemcitabineHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasm StagingPemetrexedProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ARQ 197DeoxycytidineDocetaxelErlotinib HydrochlorideGemcitabineKRAS protein, humanPemetrexedProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)PyrrolidinonesQuinolinesAdenocarcinomaMETSmall moleculeTargeted therapyTyrosine kinase inhibitor

Identifiers

PMID29496255
PMCPMC5836800
OpenAlexW2791721408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.