4.7 Article

Randomised Phase 1b/2 trial of tepotinib vs sorafenib in Asian patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with MET overexpression

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 125, Issue 2, Pages 200-208

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01380-3

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the efficacy of the MET inhibitor Tepotinib in Asian patients with aHCC, showing improved time to progression and better tolerability compared to sorafenib.
Background This open-label, Phase 1b/2 study evaluated the highly selective MET inhibitor tepotinib in systemic anticancer treatment (SACT)-naive Asian patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) with MET overexpression. Methods In Phase 2b, tepotinib was orally administered once daily (300, 500 or 1,000 mg) to Asian adults with aHCC. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events (AEs). Phase 2 randomised SACT-naive Asian adults with aHCC with MET overexpression to tepotinib (recommended Phase 2 dose [RP2D]) or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was independently assessed time to progression (TTP). Results In Phase 1b (n = 27), no DLTs occurred; the RP2D was 500 mg. In Phase 2 (n = 90, 45 patients per arm), the primary endpoint was met: independently assessed TTP was significantly longer with tepotinib versus sorafenib (median 2.9 versus 1.4 months, HR = 0.42, 90% confidence interval: 0.26-0.70, P = 0.0043). Progression-free survival and objective response also favoured tepotinib. Treatment-related Grade >= 3 AE rates were 28.9% with tepotinib and 45.5% with sorafenib. Conclusions Tepotinib improved TTP versus sorafenib and was generally well tolerated in SACT-naive Asian patients with aHCC with MET overexpression.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available