Anlotinib is a new, orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR), and c-kit. Compared to the effect of placebo, it improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a phase III trial in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite progression of the cancer after two lines of prior treatments. Recently, the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) approved single agent anlotinib as a third-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. Moreover, a randomized phase IIB trial demonstrated that anlotinib significantly prolonged the median PFS in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Anlotinib also showed promising efficacy in patients with advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The tolerability profile of anlotinib is similar to that of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors that target VEGFR and other tyrosine kinase-mediated pathways; however, anlotinib has a significantly lower incidence of grade 3 or higher side effects compared to that of sunitinib. We review the rationale, clinical evidence, and future perspectives of anlotinib for the treatment of multiple cancers.

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo as first-line treatment for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma (ORIENT-16): First results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III study

IMPORTANCE One of the most recent treatment regimens used for hormone receptor (HR)positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer is treatment with the cyclindependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and endocrine therapy (ET). OBJECTIVE To assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and adverse events, especially grades 3 and 4 adverse events, among patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer who were treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET vs ET alone. DATA SOURCES A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the main oncology conference of the European Society of Medical Oncology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium databases for randomized clinical trials of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET vs ET for HR-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Searches were performed up to March 30, 2020. STUDY SELECTION A total of 472 records were assessed in PubMed and Embase by 2 authors, including studies, international meeting reports, and reviews. Inclusion criteria were Englishlanguage phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trials of HR-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer, with patients randomly assigned to receive CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET or ET alone, and having OS or PFS outcomes. The exclusion criteria were phase 1 trials, retrospective studies, or studies without survival outcomes. Excluding the references, 16 articles were relevant. After excluding studies based on exclusion criteria, 9 studies were considered eligible for this meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed potential bias. Data assessment followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. The results were pooled using a fixed-effect model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were used to evaluate PFS, OS, and subgroup analyses. Overall response and 95% CIs were used to evaluate the objective response rate and grade 3 or 4 adverse events. The primary outcome was OS. RESULTS In total, 9 studies that included a total of 5043 patients with metastatic breast cancer were assessed in this meta-analysis.

This open-label, randomized phase II trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of nimotuzumab plus S-1 and cisplatin (NCS) versus S-1 and cisplatin (CS) alone in patients with untreated unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer in the first-line setting.Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either NCS or CS. The treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of twice-daily S-1 40 mg/m2 (on days 1–14) and intravenous cisplatin 30 mg/m2 (on days 1, 2), with or without weekly nimotuzumab (200 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). The second endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and association between efficacy and tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression.Between October, 2009, and February, 2012, we enrolled 62 patients in Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS). The ORR for 31 patients allocated NCS was 54.8% compared with 58.1% for 31 patients who were allocated to receive CS alone (P = 0.798). Median PFS for patients in CS arm was significantly improved than that in NCS arm [7.2 months vs. 4.8 months HR = 2.136 (95% CI 1.193–3.826), P = 0.011]. There was also a trend toward better overall survival for patients in CS arm compared with NCS arm [14.3 months vs. 10.2 months; HR = 1.776 (95% CI 0.972–3.246), P = 0.062]. In the EGFR 2+/3+ subgroup, adding nimotuzumab also failed to show additional benefit than chemotherapy alone. Both groups were well tolerated. Less than 10% of patients in both arms developed grade 3/4 toxicity.Combination of nimotuzumab and S-1-cisplatin provided no additional benefit than chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer.

Background: Polymeric micellar paclitaxel (pm-Pac) is a novel Cremophor EL-free, nanoparticle micellar formulation of paclitaxel. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between pm-Pac plus cisplatin and solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-Pac) plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: A total of 448 stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive six 3-week cycles of either pm-Pac (230 mg/m 2 ) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m 2 ; n ¼ 300), followed by dose escalation of pm-Pac to 300 mg/m 2 from the second 3-week cycle if prespecified toxic effects were not observed after the first cycle, or sb-Pac (175 mg/m 2 ) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m 2 ; n ¼ 148). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by independent review committees (IRCs). The secondary end points included IRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: Patients in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group showed significant improvements in IRC-assessed ORR compared with those in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group (50% versus 26%; rate ratio 1.91; P < 0.0001). Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that a higher ORR was consistently observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histological types. IRC-assessed median PFS was significantly higher in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group than in the sb-Pac-pluscisplatin group (6.4-month versus 5.3-month; hazard ratio 0.63; P ¼ 0.0001). Median OS was not significantly