Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour

Progression-free survival assessment by local investigators versus blinded independent central review in randomized clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), blinded independent central review (BICR) is used to minimize heterogeneity and bias associated with radiological response evaluation by local investigators. However, BICR adds costs and complexity to the trial management. We assessed the discrepancy index between progression-free survival (PFS) assessment by local investigators and by BICR in RCTs conducted in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane databases and conference proceedings (ASCO, SABCS, ESMO) was performed up to January 4, 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42021229865). All RCTs published from 2000 to 2022, including MBC patients treated in first- or second-line, and reporting PFS assessed by local investigators and BICR were included. A discrepancy index between BICR-assessed and investigator-assessed HR was calculated for each trial and an overall combined DI was obtained using a fixed-effects model. The agreement between hazard ratios (HR) of PFS assessed by local investigators and BICR was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

We analyzed 24 studies including 13,168 patients. Among them, 19 (79%) were in first-line, 18 (75%) were phase III trials and 23 (96%) had PFS as primary endpoint. The overall combined discrepancy index was 0.97 (95%CI 0.85-1.10; ICC 0.831, p < 0.001) suggesting no statistically significant difference in PFS assessment between local investigators and BICR. This result was consistent across all analyzed subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The good concordance between local investigator and BICR assessments supports the reliability of local investigator-assessed PFS as primary endpoint for RCTs in MBC and questions the practical utility of implementing BICR in all RCTs.

Detection bias in open-label trials of anticancer drugs: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

In anticancer clinical trials, particularly open-label trials, central reviewers are recommended to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) to avoid detection bias of local investigators. However, it is not clear whether the bias has been adequately identified, or to what extent it consistently distorts the results. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the detection bias in oncological open-label trials by confirming whether local investigators overestimate the PFS and ORR compared with the findings of central reviewers.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE via PubMed from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Open-label, parallel-group superiority, randomised trials of anticancer drugs that adjudicated PFS or ORR by both central reviewers and local investigators.

REVIEW METHODS

We assessed the values for the same outcome (PFS and ORR) adjudicated by both central reviewers and local investigators. A random-effects model was used to estimate the ratio of HR (RHR) for PFS and the ratio of OR (ROR) for ORR between central reviewers and local investigators. An RHR lower than 1 and an ROR higher than 1 indicated an overestimation of the effect estimated by local investigators.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1197 records of oncological open-label trials after full-text screening. We identified 171 records (PFS: 149 records, ORR: 136 records) in which both central reviewers and local investigators were used, and included 114 records (PFS: 92 records, ORR: 74 records) for meta-analyses. While the RHR for PFS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98), the ROR of ORR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.09). The results remained unchanged in the prespecified sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-epidemiological study found that overestimation of local investigators has a small impact on evaluating PFS and ORR in oncological open-label trials. However, a limitation of this study is that it did not include data from all trials; hence, the results may not fully evaluate detection bias. The necessity of central reviewers in oncological open-label trials needs to be assessed by further studies that overcome this limitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTR-UMIN000044623.

Optimizing disease progression assessment using blinded central independent review and comparing it with investigator assessment in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial: challenges and solutions

OBJECTIVE

Progression-free survival is an established clinically meaningful endpoint in ovarian cancer trials, but it may be susceptible to bias; therefore, blinded independent centralized radiological review is often included in trial designs. We compared blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease performance in the PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 trial examining niraparib monotherapy.

METHODS

PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial; patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer received niraparib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] v1.1), determined by two independent radiologists, an arbiter if required, and by blinded central clinician review. Discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator assessment of progressive disease and non-progressive disease were routinely assessed. To optimize disease assessment, a training intervention was developed for blinded independent centralized radiological reviewers, and RECIST refresher training was provided for investigators. Discordance rates were determined post-intervention.

RESULTS

There was a 39% discordance rate between blinded independent centralized review and investigator-assessed progressive disease/non-progressive disease in an initial patient subset (n=80); peritoneal carcinomatosis was the most common source of discordance. All reviewers underwent training, and as a result, changes were implemented, including removal of two original reviewers and identification of 10 best practices for reading imaging data. Post-hoc analysis indicated final discordance rates between blinded independent centralized review and investigator improved to 12% in the overall population. Median progression-free survival and hazard ratios were similar between blinded independent centralized review and investigators in the overall population and across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

PRIMA/ENGOT-ov26/GOG-3012 highlights the need to optimize blinded independent centralized review and investigator concordance using early, specialized, ovarian-cancer-specific radiology training to maximize validity of outcome data.

Challenges, Complexities, and Considerations in the Design and Interpretation of Late-Phase Oncology Trials

Optimal management of cancer patients relies heavily on late-phase oncology randomized controlled trials. A comprehensive understanding of the key considerations in designing and interpreting late-phase trials is crucial for improving subsequent trial design, execution, and clinical decision-making. In this review, we explore important aspects of late-phase oncology trial design. We begin by examining the selection of primary endpoints, including the advantages and disadvantages of using surrogate endpoints. We address the challenges involved in assessing tumor progression and discuss strategies to mitigate bias. We define informative censoring bias and its impact on trial results, including illustrative examples of scenarios that may lead to informative censoring. We highlight the traditional roles of the log-rank test and hazard ratio in survival analyses, along with their limitations in the presence of nonproportional hazards as well as an introduction to alternative survival estimands, such as restricted mean survival time or MaxCombo. We emphasize the distinctions between the design and interpretation of superiority and noninferiority trials, and compare Bayesian and frequentist statistical approaches. Finally, we discuss appropriate utilization of phase II and phase III trial results in shaping clinical management recommendations and evaluate the inherent risks and benefits associated with relying on phase II data for treatment decisions.

Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Uncontrolled Oncology Trials: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Several drugs gained market authorization based on the demonstration of improved progression-free survival (PFS), adopted as a primary endpoint in Phase 3 clinical trials. In addition, an increasing number of drugs have been granted accelerated approval, and sometimes regular approval, by the main regulatory agencies based on the evaluation of the overall response rate in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. However, while the overall survival is an unbiased measure of drug efficacy, these outcomes rely on the assessment of radiological images and patients’ categorization using standardized response criteria. The evaluation of these outcomes may be influenced by subjective factors, particularly when the analysis is performed locally. In fact, blinding of treatment is not always possible in modern oncology trials. Therefore, a blinded independent central review is often adopted to overcome the problem of expectation bias associated with local investigator assessments. In this regard, we have recently observed that local investigators tend to overestimate the overall response rate in comparison to central reviewers in Phase 2 clinical trials, whereas we did not find any significant evaluation bias between local investigators and central reviews when considering progression-free survival in both Phase 2 and 3 trials. In the present article, we have tried to understand the reasons behind this discrepancy by reviewing the available evidence in the literature. In addition, a further analysis of Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that included the evaluation of both endpoints showed that local investigators significantly overestimate overall response rates compared to blinded independent central reviews in uncontrolled oncology trials.

Effectiveness and safety of immunotherapy in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS score ≥2 - Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however their status in patients with poor performance status (PS) is poorly defined. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICIs in NSCLC patients with PS ≥ 2.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional and observational studies, which reported efficacy and safety data on ICIs in PS ≥ 2 comparing to PS ≤ 1 NSCLC patients. Efficacy endpoints included: Objective Response Rate (ORR), Disease-Control Rate (DCR), Overall Survival (OS), Progression-Free Survival (PFS). Safety endpoint was the incidence of severe (grade≥3) Adverse Events (AE). Random-effects model was applied for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I². The review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020162668).

FINDINGS

Sixty-seven studies (n = 26,442 patients) were included. In PS ≥ 2 vs. PS ≤ 1 patients, the pooled odds ratios were: for ORR 0.46 (95 %CI: 0.39-0.54, I²:0 %); for DCR 0.39 (95 %CI: 0.33-0.48, I²:50 %) and for AEs 1.12 (95 %CI: 0.84-1.48, I²:39 %). The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 2.17 (95 %CI: 1.96-2.39, I²:65 %) and for OS was 2.76 (95 %CI: 2.43-3.14, I²:76 %). The safety profile was comparable regardless of the PS status.

INTERPRETATION

Patients with impaired PS status are, on average, twice less likely to achieve a response when exposed to ICIs when compared with representative PS ≤ 1 population. For lung cancer patients treated with ICIs, the impaired PS is not only prognostic, but also predictive for response, while the safety profile is not affected. Prospective randomized studies are indispensable to determine whether poor PS patients derive benefit from ICIs.

Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Phase 2 Oncology Trials

The overall response rate (ORR) is a largely adopted outcome measure in early-phase oncology trials. ORR is highly relevant in cancer drug development at the time of deciding whether to move to confirmatory phase 3 trials; moreover, ORR is gaining increasing relevance in fast-track registration procedures. No systematic analysis has been conducted so far to investigate whether a discrepancy exists between ORR assessed by local investigators and those assessed by blinded reviewers in phase 2 oncology trials. In this study, we carried out a search in the clinicaltrials.gov and EudraCT databases, looking at the trials reporting the results of both investigator-assessed and independently-assessed ORR. A discrepancy index was obtained by calculating the ratio of each investigator-assessed ORR on the corresponding independently assessed ORR, so that a discrepancy index >1 indicates that the investigator was "more optimistic," whereas a discrepancy index <1 indicates the opposite. We also analyzed different subgroups (by tumor type, by drug type, by year). Twenty trials met the search criteria; in some cases, >1 comparison was conducted in the trial, so that the total number of comparisons analyzed was 33. The estimated mean discrepancy index was 1.175 (95% confidence interval, 1.083-1.264; n = 33). In conclusion, local investigators significantly overestimate ORR compared to paired blinded reviewers in phase 2 oncology trials. This may represent a risk in drug development, when deciding whether to move to confirmatory, more expensive phase 3 trials. Blinded independent central review should be used in ORR assessment if a more conservative estimate of treatment efficacy is required, as in the case of fast-track drug developments leading to accelerated approvals of cancer therapies.

Progression-free survival is a suboptimal predictor for overall survival among metastatic solid tumour clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of overall survival (OS) as the gold standard primary end-point (PEP) in metastatic oncologic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has declined in favour of progression-free survival (PFS) without a complete understanding of the degree to which PFS reliably predicts for OS.

METHODS

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 1239 phase III oncologic RCTs, 260 of which were metastatic solid tumour trials with a superiority-design investigating a therapeutic intervention by using either a PFS or OS PEP. Each individual trial was reviewed to quantify RCT design factors and disease-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 172,133 patients were enrolled from the year 1999 to 2015 in RCTs that used PFS (56.2%, 146/260) or OS (43.8%, 114/260) as the PEP. PFS trials were more likely to restrict patient eligibility by using molecular criteria (15.1% versus 4.4%, p = 0.005) use targeted therapy (80.1% versus 67.5%, p = 0.048), accrue fewer patients (median 495 versus 619, p = 0.03), and successfully meet the trial PEP (66.9% versus 33.3%, p < 0.0001). On multiple binary logistic regression analysis, factors that predicted for PFS or OS PEP trial success included choice of PFS PEP (p < 0.0001), molecular profile restriction (p = 0.02) and single agent therapy (p = 0.02). Notably, there was only a 38% (31/82) conversion rate of positive PFS-to-OS benefit; lack of industry sponsorship predicted for PFS-to-OS signal conversion (80.0% without industry sponsorship versus 35.1% with industry sponsorship, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

A PFS PEP has suboptimal positive predictive value for OS among phase III metastatic solid tumour RCTs. Regulatory agency decisions should be judicious in using PFS results as the primary basis for approval.

Phase 2 study of cemiplimab in patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: primary analysis of fixed-dosing, long-term outcome of weight-based dosing

BACKGROUND

Cemiplimab, a high-affinity, potent human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody to programmed cell death-1 demonstrated antitumor activity in a Phase 1 advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) expansion cohort (NCT02383212) and the pivotal Phase 2 study (NCT02760498). Here we report the primary analysis of fixed dose cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) (Group 3) and provide a longer-term update after the primary analysis of weight-based cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W) (Group 1) among metastatic CSCC (mCSCC) patients in the pivotal study (NCT02760498).

METHODS

The primary objective for each group was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included ORR by investigator review (INV), duration of response (DOR) per ICR and INV, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

For Group 3 (n=56) and Group 1 (n=59), median follow-up was 8.1 (range, 0.6 to 14.1) and 16.5 (range, 1.1 to 26.6) months, respectively. ORR per ICR was 41.1% (95% CI, 28.1% to 55.0%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 45.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 54.8%) in both groups combined. Per ICR, Kaplan-Meier estimate for DOR at 8 months was 95.0% (95% CI, 69.5% to 99. 3%) in responding patients in Group 3, and at 12 months was 88.9% (95% CI, 69.3% to 96.3%) in responding patients in Group 1. Per INV, ORR was 51.8% (95% CI, 38.0% to 65.3%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 50.4% (95% CI, 41.0% to 59.9%) in both groups combined. Overall, the most common adverse events regardless of attribution were fatigue (27.0%) and diarrhea (23.5%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with mCSCC, cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously Q3W produced substantial antitumor activity with durable response and an acceptable safety profile. Follow-up data of cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously Q2W demonstrate ongoing durability of responses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02760498. Registered May 3, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02760498.

A comparison between the assessments of progression-free survival by local investigators versus blinded independent central reviews in phase III oncology trials

PURPOSE

In this study, we compared the assessments of progression-free survival (PFS) carried out by the local investigator or by a blinded independent central review in the framework of phase III registration randomized controlled trials (RCT) in oncology.

METHODS

We carried out a search in the clinicatrials.gov database, looking at the RCTs reporting the results of both independently assessed and investigator-assessed PFS. The hazard ratios (HRs) of investigator-assessed PFS and independently assessed PFS were recorded, and a discrepancy index was obtained by calculating the ratio of their respective HRs. Moreover, we investigated possible factors of discrepancy by analyzing the trials in different groups (by year, by tumor type, by drug type, by study design).

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 RCTs meeting the search criteria. The estimated mean discrepancy index was 0.98 (confidence interval 0.927-1.032 (n = 32)). Subgroup analysis showed that the confidence intervals in all cases included the value 1, except in the subgroup of studies started in the period 2003-2006.

CONCLUSION

In phase III oncology trials, we found no significant differences between the hazard ratios estimated by local investigators and those estimated by blinded independent central reviews. A relatively higher variability, in terms of large CI, was found in trials with biological agents.

Adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Adjuvant chemotherapy has significantly improved outcomes following surgical resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal adjuvant strategy remains unclear. This systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to provide indirect comparative evidence across adjuvant chemotherapies. Electronic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane and ASCO databases were conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT). Direct pairwise meta-analysis was conducted for disease-free survival (DFS), overall-survival (OS) and adverse events (AE). Network meta-analysis of DFS and OS was conducted to evaluate indirect comparisons. Ten publications of eleven RCT met eligibility criteria. Indirect DFS comparison demonstrated superiority of mFOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine-capecitabine, gemcitabine-erlotinib and gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel. S-1 demonstrated a DFS benefit versus gemcitabine-capecitabine, gemcitabine-erlotinib, gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel. OS benefits were demonstrated for mFOLFIRINOX verus gemcitabine-erlotinib and for S-1 versus gemcitabine-based combination with erlotinib, capecitabine and nab-paclitaxel. In conclusion, mFOLFIRINOX is the preferred approach for adjuvant therapy. For mFOLFIRINOX-ineligible patients no additional benefit is seen with gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel.

Rituximab in primary central nervous system lymphoma-A systematic review and meta-analysis

The CD-20 antibody rituximab is a standard component of treatment of non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphomas, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Primary DLBCL of the central nervous system, also called primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), is a DLBCL confined to the central nervous system. There has been debate whether intravenous rituximab accumulates sufficiently in the central nervous system to exert an effect. In this systematic review, we assess the benefits and harms of rituximab in the treatment of immunocompetent patients with PCNSL. By searching MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClincialTrials.gov up to March 2019, we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of rituximab in patients with PCNSL. We extracted study characteristics and results, assessed risk of bias, performed trial-level random-effects meta-analyses, and graded the certainty of evidence. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019121965). Main outcomes were overall survival (time to death), progression-free survival (time to progression or death), quality of life, grades 3 and 4 toxicity, and treatment-related mortality. We included two RCTs with a total of 343 participants. Overall survival was not statistically significantly improved (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52-1.12; low certainty), with 187 fewer to 39 more deaths after 2 years in 1000 treated patients. Low certainty of evidence indicated that rituximab improved progression-free survival (HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.95), which translated into 137 fewer progressions or deaths after 2 years in 1000 treated patients (231 to 18 fewer). None of the RCTs provided data on quality of life. We found no evidence that rituximab increased grades 3 and 4 toxicity or treatment-related mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.20-1.37; low certainty). Overall, the available evidence suggests with low certainty that rituximab in combination with methotrexate-based chemotherapy may improve progression-free survival in immunocompetent patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL, the pooled effect estimates did not show evidence for improvement of overall survival.

Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy of pivotal randomised controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

European regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, and supplementary appendices.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Pivotal randomised controlled trials of new cancer drugs approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study design characteristics (randomisation, comparators, and endpoints); risk of bias using the revised Cochrane tool (bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result); and reporting adequacy (completeness and consistency of information in trial protocols, publications, supplementary appendices, clinical trial registry records, and regulatory documents).

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2016, the EMA approved 32 new cancer drugs on the basis of 54 pivotal studies. Of these, 41 (76%) were randomised controlled trials and 13 (24%) were either non-randomised studies or single arm studies. 39/41 randomised controlled trials had available publications and were included in our study. Only 10 randomised controlled trials (26%) measured overall survival as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, with the remaining trials evaluating surrogate measures such as progression free survival and response rates. Overall, 19 randomised controlled trials (49%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for their primary outcome. Concerns about missing outcome data (n=10) and measurement of the outcome (n=7) were the most common domains leading to high risk of bias judgments. Fewer randomised controlled trials that evaluated overall survival as the primary endpoint were at high risk of bias than those that evaluated surrogate efficacy endpoints (2/10 (20%) v 16/29 (55%), respectively). When information available in regulatory documents and the scientific literature was considered separately, overall risk of bias judgments differed for eight randomised controlled trials (21%), which reflects reporting inadequacies in both sources of information. Regulators identified additional deficits beyond the domains captured in risk of bias assessments for 10 drugs (31%). These deficits included magnitude of clinical benefit, inappropriate comparators, and non-preferred study endpoints, which were not disclosed as limitations in scientific publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.

A randomised, multicentre open-label phase II study to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus intravenous vinorelbine plus cisplatin in Chinese patients with chemotherapy-naive unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Background

A phase II study to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of oral or intravenous vinorelbine (VRL) plus cisplatin (CDDP) in Chinese patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

One hundred and thirty-one patients were randomised to oral VRL 60 mg/m² (arm A) or intravenous VRL 25 mg/m² (arm B) on days 1 and 8, plus CDDP 80 mg/m² on day 1 (both arms). VRL was increased to 80 mg/m² (arm A) or 30 mg/m² (arm B) in cycles 2-4 in the absence of toxicity. Primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). VRL pharmacokinetics was evaluated for possible drug-drug interactions with CDDP.

Results

ORR was 25.8% in arm A and 23.1% in arm B. Disease control rate was 72.7% in arm A, 72.3% in arm B. Median overall survival was 16.1 months in arm A and 19.0 months in arm B. Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months in arm A and 4.9 months in arm B. Forty-three point nine percent and 86.2% of patients had grade 3/4 neutropenia in arms A and B, respectively; incidence of febrile neutropenia was low (6.1% and 9.2%, respectively). Frequency of grade 3/4 non-haematological adverse events was also low. VRL pharmacokinetics was not affected by co-administration of CDDP.

Conclusions

Oral and intravenous VRL in combination with CDDP is effective and well-tolerated in Chinese patients with advanced NSCLC. VRL pharmacokinetics is unaffected by CDDP co-administration. Oral VRL could be an effective alternative to intravenous VRL as a first-line treatment for NSCLC, as it optimises treatment convenience while maintaining high efficacy.