Efficacy and safety of vitamin K with sorafenib combination treatment against hepatocellular carcinoma: Open-label, randomized phase II study.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15665-e15665
Author(s):  
Yoshimichi Haruna ◽  
Atsuo Inoue ◽  
Seiichi Kawamoto
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin K ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Sorafenib Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
Cancer Outcome ◽  
To Receive

e15665 Background: Some animal studies showed that vitamin K enhances anti-cancer action of sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our previous examination suggested that it might be because the vitamin K suppresses des-γ-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) production of tumor cells under ischemic status caused by sorafenib. The DCP is known as a tumor growth factor and a tumor angiogenesis factor. In order to clarify the efficacy and safety of vitamin K dosing in sorafenib treatment, we have performed a single center, open label, randomized, phase 2 study. Methods: Forty-four patients with advanced HCC were studied. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, to receive vitamin K + sorafenib or to receive sorafenib alone, stratified according to macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread. The anti-cancer outcome was evaluated by modified RECIST. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline characteristics (gender, age, Child-Pugh status and background liver disease). The progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged in the vitamin K + sorafenib group compared with sorafenib alone group (median time 3.7 months vs. 1.5 months, P = 0.001, hazard ratio 0.35). The disease control rates were 55% in vitamin K + sorafenib group and 18% in sorafenib alone group (P = 0.012). On the other hand, median overall survival (OS) times were 12 months in vitamin K + sorafenib group and 11.5 months in sorafenib alone group (P = 0.27, hazard ratio 0.67). However, 5 patients (23%) of 22 survived for more than 21 months in the vitamin K + sorafenib group, while one (5%) of 22 did in sorafenib alone group. There was no significant difference in incidence of adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: The vitamin K dosing safely improved anti-cancer outcome of sorafenib treatment against advanced HCC. Clinical trial information: 000007855.

Sorafenib-Regorafenib Sequential Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Institute Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 611-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuomi Ueshima ◽  
Naoshi Nishida ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Sequential Therapy ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Grade 3

Objectives: Previously, no therapeutic agent has been known to improve the overall survival compared with placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), who have progressed after sorafenib. In this patient population, regorafenib was first demonstrated to confer a survival benefit in the RESORCE trial, and subsequently it was approved as a second-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC. An open-label expanded access program (EAP) of regorafenib was implemented for compassionate use. We investigated the efficacy and safety of regorafenib based on our experience of the RESORCE trial and the EAP. Methods: Data from 5 patients from the RESORCE trial and 6 from the EAP were analyzed retrospectively. All patients had tolerated prior sorafenib and were progressing during sorafenib treatment. Results: The median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (95% CI 2.3-16.1). One patient achieved a partial response and 7 achieved stable disease. The objective response rate was 9.1%, and the disease control rate was 72.7%. No treatment-associated mortalities were observed. Grade 3 hypophosphatemia was observed in 2 patients, grade 2 anorexia was observed in 5 patients, and grade 3 neutropenia was observed in 2 patients. Grade 2 and grade 3 thrombocytopenia were observed in 2 and 3 patients, respectively. All treatment-related adverse events were improved by reduction or interruption of regorafenib. Five patients showed decreased serum albumin levels. Conclusion: Sorafenib and regorafenib sequential therapy presents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with advanced HCC.

scholarly journals Randomized Trial of Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole versus Pyrimethamine-Sulfadiazine for Therapy of Toxoplasmic Encephalitis in Patients with AIDS

1998 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1346-1349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donato Torre ◽  
Salvatore Casari ◽  
Filippo Speranza ◽  
Alessandra Donisi ◽  
Giampietro Gregis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Common Adverse Event ◽  
Toxoplasmic Encephalitis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Acute Therapy ◽  
Valuable Alternative ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Present Pilot Study

ABSTRACT The aim of the present pilot study was to compare the efficacy and safety of trimethoprim (TMP) and sulfamethoxazole (SMX) with those of the standard therapy pyrimethamine (P)-sulfadiazine (S) for the treatment of toxoplasmic encephalitis in patients with AIDS. This was a pilot, multicenter, randomized, and prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive TMP (10 mg/kg of body weight/day) and SMX (50 mg/kg/day) or P (50 mg daily) and S (60 mg/kg/day) as acute therapy (for 4 weeks) and then as maintenance therapy for 3 months at half of the original dosage. Seventy-seven patients were enrolled and randomized to the study: 40 patients were treated with TMP-SMX and 37 were treated with P-S. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical efficacy during acute therapy. In contrast, patients randomized to TMP-SMX appeared more likely to achieve a complete radiologic response after acute therapy. Adverse reactions were significantly more frequent in patients treated with P-S, and skin rash was the most common adverse event noted in these patients. In conclusion, the results of the study suggest that TMP-SMX appears to be a valuable alternative to P-S, in particular in patients with opportunistic bacterial infections.

scholarly journals Aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim ◽  
Natalie Staplin ◽  
Jonathan R Emberson ◽  
Enti Spata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Absolute Increase ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

Background: Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its antithrombotic properties. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus 150mg aspirin once daily until discharge using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 01 November 2020 and 21 March 2021, 7351 patients were randomly allocated to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.04; p=0.35). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days vs. 9 days) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs. 74%; rate ratio 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10; p=0.0062). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs. 22%; risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.03; p=0.23). Aspirin use was associated with an absolute reduction in thrombotic events of 0.6% (SE 0.4%) and an absolute increase in clinically significant bleeding of 0.6% (SE 0.2%). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive.

Efficacy and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the primary and secondary prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with lymphoma.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20061-e20061
Author(s):  
Meifeng Tu ◽  
Jun Zhu ◽  
Yuqin Song
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Primary Group ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Primary And Secondary Prevention ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chemotherapy Induced Neutropenia ◽  
Stimulating Factor

e20061 Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF, brand name: Jinyouli) in the primary and secondary prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with lymphoma. Methods: This single-center, one-arm and open-label clinical study enrolled 119 patients with lymphoma in Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute from May 2016 to December 2018. Patients ≥45 kg received a single dose of PEG-rhG-CSF for 6mg, < 45kg for 3mg, subcutaneous injection once in 24-48 h after chemotherapy. Results: 119 lymphoma patients, including 60 primary and 59 secondary prevention patients, underwent a total of 427 cycles of chemotherapy. The overall incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) was 6.32% (27/427), with rates of 5.39% and 7.17% in the primary and secondary prevention groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between two groups ( P> 0.05).The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the second cycle than in the first cycle in both the primary and secondary prevention groups ( In the primary group: cycle 1 vs. cycle 2: 15.00% vs. 2.22%, respectively, P= 0.027; In the secondary group: cycle 1 vs. cycle 2: 16.95% vs. 5.08%, respectively, P= 0.040). The overall incidence of grade Ⅳ neutropenia was 13.58% (58/427), with rates of 8.82% and 17.94% in the primary and secondary prevention groups, respectively. There was a significant difference between two groups ( P= 0.006). The incidence of grade Ⅳ neutropenia was significantly lower in the second cycle than in the first cycle (In the primary group: cycle 1 vs. cycle 2: 25.00% vs. 4.44%, respectively, P= 0.005; In the secondary group: cycle 1 vs. cycle 2: 47.46% vs. 11.86%, respectively, P< 0.001). The main treatment-related adverse event was bone pain, with an incidence of 2.52% (3/119). Conclusions: PEG-rhG-CSF can effectively reduce the incidence of FN and neutropenia with good safety in patients with lymphoma after chemotherapy. Primary prevention can significantly reduce the risk of grade IV neutropenia in all chemotherapy cycles compared with the secondary prevention. Clinical trial information: NCT02905916 .

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Docetaxel and Sodium Cantharidinate Combination vs. Either Agent Alone as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic NSCLC With Wild-Type or Unknown EGFR Status: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled, Prospective, Multi-Center Phase III Trial (Cando-L1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Wu ◽  
Chao Deng ◽  
Hui Zhang ◽  
Jie Weng ◽  
Youhua Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Nsclc Patients

Second-line treatment options for advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are limited. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel/sodium cantharidinate combination vs. either agent alone as second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients with wild-type or unknown EGFR status. A randomized, open-label, phase III study was performed at 12 institutions. Patients with failure of first-line platinum regimens were randomized to receive either single-agent sodium cantharivsdinate (SCA) or single-agent docetaxel (DOX) or docetaxel/sodium cantharidinate combination (CON). The primary endpoints were centrally confirmed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL) and toxicity. A total of 148 patients were enrolled in our study between October 2016 and March 2020. After a median follow-up time of 8.02 months, no significant difference was observed among the three groups in ORR (SCA vs. DOX vs. CON: 6.00% vs. 8.33% vs. 10.00%, respectively; p=0.814) and DCR (74.00% vs. 52.00% vs. 62.50%, respectively; p=0.080). In additional, the mOS was significantly higher in the CON group, compared with the single-agent groups (7.27 vs. 5.03 vs. 9.83 months, respectively; p=0.035), while no significant differences were observed in terms of PFS (2.7 vs. 2.9 vs. 3.1 months, respectively; p=0.740). There was no significant difference in the baseline QoL scores between the three groups (p&gt;0.05); after treatment, life quality in SCA and CON group was significantly better than that in the DOX group (p&lt;0.05). Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in the SCA group was significantly lower (46.00 vs. 79.17 vs. 25.00%, respectively; p=0.038) and the incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was also significantly lower in the SCA group compared with the DOX and CON groups (10.00 vs. 82.00 vs. 30.00%, respectively; p=0.042). Single-agent SCA and single-agent DOX has similar therapeutic efficacy in the second-line treatment of advanced/metastatic NSCLC with wild-type or unknown EGFR status, but single-agent SCA has fewer AEs and better QoL. Also, SCA plus DOX can significantly improve OS and exerted a significant synergistic effect, with good safety and tolerance profile.

scholarly journals A comparative study of efficacy and safety of glucosamine plus chondroitin sulphate versus rosehip as add on therapy to NSAIDs in patients suffering from osteoarthritis

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 2254
Author(s):  
Kiranpreet Kaur ◽  
Anjleen Kaur ◽  
Prabhsimran Singh ◽  
Amandeep Singh Bakshi
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Chondroitin Sulphate ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Tertiary Care Centre ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Efficacy Parameters ◽  
Group B

Background: Osteoarthritis is a chronic and debilitating disease. Management of disease is a big challenge. NSAIDS play an important role but have many adverse reactions. So, this study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of natural compound rosehip versus glucosamine and chondroitin sulphate in patients of osteoarthritis.Methods: An open label, randomized, parallel group comparative study, conducted on patients of either sex with confirmed diagnosis of osteoarthritis on standard NSAIDs therapy, attending the outpatient department of orthopedics in a tertiary care centre.  150 patients were enrolled and divided into three groups (group A, group B and group C) of 50 each. Patients of group A were given Glucosamine plus chondroitin sulphate for 12 weeks. Group B was given rosehip for 12 weeks and group C placebo.  These supplements were given as add on therapy.  Patients were monitored and adverse drug reactions were noted. The data was analysed statistically using t- test for efficacy and descriptive stats for assessing the safety.Results: Efficacy was assessed by comparing mean reduction in the pain intensity between group A and B, group B gives highly significant results as compared to group A. While comparing joint tenderness, swelling around joint, mean functional capacity and improvement in the overall assessment, group B gives significant results as compared to group A. It was also observed that group A and group B were better than group C in all the efficacy parameters. All the drugs were well tolerated and systemically safe.Conclusions: There was significant difference in efficacy of rosehip compared with glaucosamine and chondroitin sulphate in patients of osteoarthritis. In comparison there was no significant difference in safety of two drugs and both were considered safe in patients.

scholarly journals Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (14) ◽  
pp. 1200-1208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Bayman ◽  
Wiebke Appel ◽  
Linda Ashcroft ◽  
David R. Baldwin ◽  
Andrew Bates ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chest Wall ◽  
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Radiation Dermatitis ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prophylactic Irradiation ◽  
Prophylactic Radiotherapy ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM. METHODS After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy. RESULTS Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). CONCLUSION There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.

Randomized phase II trial comparing the efficacy and safety of nintedanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 238-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel H. Palmer ◽  
Yuk Ting Ma ◽  
Markus Peck-Radosavljevic ◽  
Paul J. Ross ◽  
Janet Shirley Graham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Ecog Ps

238 Background: Nintedanib (N) is an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptors. This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase II study (NCT01004003; 1199.37) evaluated the efficacy and safety of N versus sorafenib (S) in patients with advanced HCC. Methods: Enrolled patients had unresectable advanced HCC, ECOG-PS ≤2, Child–Pugh score 5–6, alanine/aspartate aminotransferase (ALT/AST) ≤2× upper limit of normal, and ≥1 untreated measurable lesion or a previously treated lesion with progression (by RECIST 1.0). Patients were randomized 2:1 to N 200 mg bid or S 400 mg bid continuously in 28-day cycles, until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression (PD); treatment beyond PD was allowed if clinical benefit was perceived. Primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) by independent central review (ICR; RECIST 1.0), and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed (IA) TTP. Results: Ninety-three patients were randomized to receive N (n=62) or S (n=31). At the cutoff date (15 July 2014), 77% of patients had a TTP event, and 70% had an OS event; 3 patients remained on treatment with 1 patient beyond PD. IA TTP was comparable between N and S (median 5.5 vs 3.8 months; HR 1.05 [95% CI: 0.63–1.76]), as was OS (median 11.9 vs 11.4 months; HR 0.88 [95% CI: 0.52–1.47]). ICR TTP data are pending. All patients reported an AE (CTCAE 3.0); more patients treated with S had Grade ≥3 AEs (68% vs 90%). AEs leading to dose reduction were higher with S (19% vs 42%), whereas AEs leading to drug discontinuation were higher with N (45% vs 23%). The only tyrosine kinase inhibitor class-specific AE reported in >15% of patients was hand-foot skin reaction in the S arm. AEs previously observed with N and higher in this arm were diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, and AST increase, while blood bilirubin increase was higher with S. Rash was reported in >15% of patients only in the S arm. Conclusions: N shows similar efficacy to S with respect to TTP and OS, with a manageable safety profile. Further studies of N in patients with advanced HCC are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01004003.

scholarly journals Donafenib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Controlled Phase II-III Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.21.00163
Author(s):  
Shukui Qin ◽  
Feng Bi ◽  
Shanzhi Gu ◽  
Yuxian Bai ◽  
Zhendong Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Multikinase Inhibitor ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Intention To Treat

PURPOSE Donafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor and a deuterated sorafenib derivative, has shown efficacy in phase Ia and Ib hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of donafenib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS This open-label, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicenter phase II-III trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC, a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, and no prior systemic therapy from 37 sites across China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral donafenib (0.2 g) or sorafenib (0.4 g) twice daily until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), tested for noninferiority and superiority. Efficacy was primarily assessed in the full analysis set (FAS), and safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS Between March 21, 2016, and April 16, 2018, 668 patients (intention-to-treat) were randomly assigned to donafenib and sorafenib treatment arms; the FAS included 328 and 331 patients, respectively. Median OS was significantly longer with donafenib than sorafenib treatment (FAS; 12.1 v 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.831; 95% CI, 0.699 to 0.988; P = .0245); donafenib also exhibited superior OS outcomes versus sorafenib in the intention-to-treat population. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 v 3.6 months ( P = .0570). The objective response rate was 4.6% v 2.7% ( P = .2448), and the disease control rate was 30.8% v 28.7% (FAS; P = .5532). Drug-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in significantly fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib (125 [38%] v 165 [50%]; P = .0018). CONCLUSION Donafenib showed superiority over sorafenib in improving OS and has favorable safety and tolerability in Chinese patients with advanced HCC, showing promise as a potential first-line monotherapy for these patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document