4.5 Article

Randomized phase III trial of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of the CORRECT Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations

Journal

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 740-750

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-014-0154-x

Keywords

Regorafenib; Protein kinase inhibitors; Japanese; Colorectal cancer; Clinical trial; Phase III

Funding

  1. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Leverkusen, Germany
  2. Bayer Yakuhin Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background In the international, phase III, randomized, double-blind CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that had progressed on all standard therapies. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations in the CORRECT trial. Methods Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to regorafenib 160 mg once daily or placebo for weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was OS. Outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics. Results One hundred Japanese and 660 non-Japanese patients were randomized to regorafenib (n = 67 and n = 438) or placebo (n = 33 and n = 222). Regorafenib had a consistent OS benefit in the Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations, with hazard ratios of 0.81 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.51) and 0.77 (95 % CI 0.62-0.94), respectively. Regorafenib-associated hand-foot skin reaction, hypertension, proteinuria, thrombocytopenia, and lipase elevations occurred more frequently in the Japanese subpopulation than in the non-Japanese subpopulation, but were generally manageable. Conclusion Regorafenib appears to have comparable efficacy in Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations, with a manageable adverse-event profile, suggesting that this agent could potentially become a standard of care in patients with mCRC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available