Masitinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after failure of imatinib: A randomized controlled open-label trial
Affiliation auteurs | !!!! Error affiliation !!!! |
Titre | Masitinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after failure of imatinib: A randomized controlled open-label trial |
Type de publication | Journal Article |
Year of Publication | 2014 |
Auteurs | Adenis A., Blay J.-Y, Bui-Nguyen B., Bouche O., Bertucci F., Isambert N., Bompas E., Chaigneau L., Domont J., Ray-Coquard I., Blesius A., Van Tine B.A, Bulusu V.R, Dubreuil P., Mansfield C.D, Acin Y., Moussy A., Hermine O., Le Cesne A. |
Journal | ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY |
Volume | 25 |
Pagination | 1762-1769 |
Date Published | SEP |
Type of Article | Article |
ISSN | 0923-7534 |
Mots-clés | GIST, imatinib-resistant GIST, phase II study, Tyrosine kinase inhibitor |
Résumé | {Background: Masitinib is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against the main oncogenic drivers of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Masitinib was evaluated in patients with advanced GIST after imatinib failure or intolerance. Patients and methods: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with inoperable, advanced imatinib-resistant GIST were randomized (1 : 1) to receive masitinib (12 mg/kg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off) until progression, intolerance, or refusal. Primary efficacy analysis was noncomparative, testing whether masitinib attained a median progression-free survival (PFS) (blind centrally reviewed RECIST) threshold of >3 months according to the lower bound of the 90% unilateral confidence interval (CI). Secondary analyses on overall survival (OS) and PFS were comparative with results presented according to a two-sided 95% CI. Results: Forty-four patients were randomized to receive masitinib (n = 23) or sunitinib (n = 21). Median follow-up was 14 months. Patients receiving masitinib experienced less toxicity than those receiving sunitinib, with significantly lower occurrence of severe adverse events (52% versus 91%, respectively |
DOI | 10.1093/annonc/mdu237 |