A randomised phase 2 study of continuous or intermittent dosing schedule of imatinib re-challenge in patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitor-refractory gastrointestinal stromal tumours.

BACKGROUND: Imatinib re-challenge is one of the available therapeutic options for patients with treatment-refractory gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). Intermittent dosing of imatinib was suggested to delay outgrow of the imatinib-resistant clones in a preclinical study, and it could potentially reduce the adverse events. METHODS: A randomised phase 2 study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a continuous or intermittent imatinib schedule in GIST patients whose disease had progressed to at least imatinib and sunitinib. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the full analysis set. The disease control rate at 12 weeks was 34.8% and 43.5%, and median progression-free survival was 1.68 and 1.57 months in the continuous and intermittent groups, respectively. The frequency of diarrhoea, anorexia, decreased neutrophil, or dysphagia was lower in the intermittent group. The scores for global health status/quality of life was not significantly deteriorated over the 8 weeks in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The intermittent dosage did not improve the efficacy outcomes as compared to the continuous dosage, but showed slightly better safety profiles. Given the limited efficacy of imatinib re-challenge, intermittent dosage may also be considered in clinical circumstances where standard fourth-line agent is unavailable or all other viable treatments failed.

A phase 2 trial of sunitinib in patients with progressive paraganglioma or pheochromocytoma: the SNIPP trial.

BACKGROUND: Pheochromocytoma (PCC) and paraganglioma (PGL) are uncommon neoplasms with high morbidity in advanced stages. Effective systemic treatments are limited. METHODS: A multisite phase 2 trial evaluated sunitinib in patients with progressive PCC/PGL. Patients received 50 mg orally for 4-6 weeks. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and May 2016, 25 patients were enroled. The median age was 50 years and 56% were male. Three patients (12%) received prior chemotherapy and 16 (64%) prior surgery. The DCR was 83% (95% CI: 61-95%) and median PFS 13.4 (95% CI: 5.3-24.6) months. Of 23 evaluable patients, 3 (13%) with germline mutations (SDHA, SDHB, RET) achieved a PR. The patient with mutated RET and MEN2A remains on treatment after 64 cycles. The median time on treatment was 12.4 (1-88.0) months. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were as expected and manageable; fatigue (16%) and thrombocytopenia (16%) were most common. One patient with grade 3 hypertension and 2 with grade 3 cardiac events discontinued treatment. CONCLUSION: Although the primary endpoint of disease control was met, the overall response rate of sunitinib was low in unselected patients with progressive PCC/PGL. Patients with germline variants in RET or in the subunits of SDH may derive greatest benefit.

MRI in predicting the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumor to targeted therapy: a patient-based multi-parameter study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the performance of quantitative indicators of MRI in early prediction of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) to targeted therapy in a patient-based study. METHODS: MRI examinations were performed on 62 patients with GIST using 1.5 T scanners before and at two and 12 weeks after treatment with targeted agents. The longest diameter (LD) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the tumors were measured by T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was determined using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The pre-therapy and early percentage changes (%Δ) of the three parameters were compared with regard to their abilities to differentiate responder and non- responder patients, using ROC curves. RESULTS: There were 42 patients in responder and 20 in non-responder group. After two weeks of therapy, the percentage changes in the ADC and LD were significantly different between the two groups (ADC: responder 30% vs. non- responder 1%, Z = - 4.819, P < 0.001; LD: responder - 7% vs. non- responder - 2%, Z = - 3.238, P = 0.001), but not in T2WI-CNR (responder - 3% vs. non-responder 9%, Z = - 0.663, P = 0.508). The AUCs on ROC for %ΔLD, %ΔT2WI-CNR and %ΔADC after two weeks of therapy were 0.756, 0.552 and 0.881, respectively, for response differentiation. When %ΔADC ≥15% was used to predict responder, the PPV was 93.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage change of the ADC after two weeks of therapy outperformed T2WI-CNR and longest diameter in predicting the early response of GIST to targeted therapy.

[Sunitinib and zoledronic acid induced osteonecrosis of the jaw]. / Sunitinib és zoledronsav által indukált állcsont-osteonecrosis.

The tendency for bisphosphonate and non-bisphosphonate (eg.: antiresorptive or anti-angiogenesis drugs) induced osteonecrosis is increasing. Treatment of these patients is a challenge both for dentists and for oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Cooperation with the drug prescribing general medicine colleagues to prevent osteonecrosis is extremely important. Furthermore, prevention should include dental focus elimination, oral hygienic instructions and education, dental follow-up and, in case of manifest necrosis, referral to maxillofacial departments. Authors outline the difficulties of conservative and surgical treatment of a patient with sunitinib and zoledronic acid induced osteonecrosis. The patient became symptomless and the operated area healed entirely six and twelve months postoperatively. A long term success further follow-up is necessary to verify long-term success.

Sunitinib in combination with trastuzumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer: activity and safety results from a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety/tolerability of sunitinib plus trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS: Eligible patients received sunitinib 37.5 mg/day and trastuzumab administered either weekly (loading, 4 mg/kg; then weekly 2 mg/kg) or 3-weekly (loading, 8 mg/kg; then 3-weekly 6 mg/kg). Prior trastuzumab and/or lapatinib treatment were permitted. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled and evaluable for safety; 57 were evaluable for efficacy. The majority of patients (58%) had received no prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. The ORR was 37%; the clinical benefit rate (CBR; percent objective response plus stable disease ≥ 24 weeks) was 56%. Among patients who were treatment-naïve or had received only adjuvant therapy, the ORR was 44% and the CBR was 59%. Overall, median overall survival had not been reached and the 1-year survival rate was 91%. The majority of adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate in severity. Forty percent of patients experienced AEs related to measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) declines, which occurred more frequently in patients who had received prior anthracycline treatment. Ten percent of patients exhibited symptoms related to LVEF declines. One patient died on study from cardiogenic shock. Antitumor response and several safety parameters appeared to correlate with sunitinib exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib plus trastuzumab demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with HER2-positive ABC, particularly those who were treatment-naïve or had only received prior adjuvant treatment. Sunitinib plus trastuzumab had acceptable safety and tolerability in patients with HER2-positive ABC who had not received prior anthracycline therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00243503.

FOLFIRI and sunitinib as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases--a CESAR phase II study including pharmacokinetic, biomarker, and imaging data.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was the evaluation of pharmacokinetic parameters, biomarkers, clinical outcome, and imaging parameters in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with FOLFIRI plus sunitinib. METHODS: mCRC patients with liver metastases were treated with FOLFIRI and sunitinib as 1st line therapy. At protocol-defined time points, multicontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)measurements, computed tomography (CT) scans, pharmacokinetics (PK), and biomarker analyses were performed during the first and second treatment cycle. Thereafter, patients were treated until tumor progression, investigator’s decision due to toxicity, or patient withdrawal. RESULTS: 28 patients were screened, 26 were included, and 23 received at least one study medication. Full safety analysis was performed in 23 patients. Full PK and biomarker analyses were performed in 21 patients. Strong responses in tumor size reduction forced a change from the original imaging timing scheme. This unforeseen change in the timing scheme resulted in subgroups too small for meaningful statistical analysis of most imaging parameters. Thus, only a descriptive analysis of the MRI data was possible. In 21/22 patients, MRI showeda decrease of the liver metastases. Best response was partial remission (PR) in 8/17 patients. Plasma concentrations of sVEGFR-2 and sVEGFR-3 decreased in all patients. The majority of the patients developed some kind of toxicity not always deducible to FOLFIRI or sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the observed side effect profile, FOLFIRI plus sunitinib 37.5 mg per day cannot be recommended for previously untreated mCRC.

Phase II study of sunitinib in Japanese patients with unresectable or metastatic, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare but are frequently diagnosed at advanced stages and require systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase II study evaluated sunitinib in Japanese patients with well-differentiated pancreatic NET. Patients received sunitinib 37.5 mg/day on a continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR; percentage of complete responses [CRs] plus partial responses [PRs] plus stable disease [SD] ≥ 24 weeks). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), tumor shrinkage, progression-free survival (PFS) probability, safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers. RESULTS: Twelve patients received treatment. The CBR was 75 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 43-94) and included 6 patients with a PR and 3 with SD. The ORR was 50 % (95 % CI, 21-79). PFS probability was 91 % (95 % CI, 54-99) at 6 months and 71 % (95 % CI, 34-90) at 12 months. Commonly reported treatment-emergent (all-causality), any-grade adverse events included diarrhea (n=10), hand-foot syndrome and hypertension (both n=8), fatigue and headache (both n=7), and neutropenia (n=6). No deaths on study were reported; one death due to disease progression occurred >28 days after end of treatment. Sunitinib on a CDD schedule resulted in sustained drug concentrations without accumulation across cycles. Tumor responses in all 12 patients did not appear to correlate with decreases in chromogranin A levels. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib 37.5 mg/day on a CDD schedule demonstrated antitumor activity in Japanese patients with unresectable, well-differentiated pancreatic NET. Commonly reported adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of sunitinib.

Sunitinib as first-line neoadjuvant therapy in two patients with rectal stromal tumors.

In the treatment of rectal stromal tumors, which account for approximately 5% of gastrointestinal stromal tumors, molecular-targeted neoadjuvant therapy should be considered if the tumor is too large to achieve R0 grade resection or multiple visceral resection is required. Currently, imatinib is generally recommended as the first-line agent for such therapy. Although it has been reported that neoadjuvant therapy in patients experiencing imatinib resistance or intolerable adverse events can be successfully achieved by switching to sunitinib, first-line use of sunitinib for neoadjuvant therapy of gastrointestinal stromal tumors has not previously been reported. In this case report, first-line sunitinib neoadjuvant therapy of two patients who had very large rectal stromal tumors at sites close to the prostate and bladder produced good clinical outcomes.

Neuroendocrine tumors: treatment updates.

Neuroendocrine tumors of the gastroenteropancreatic tract remain a difficult array of neoplasia to treat. Treatment of advanced and metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors has traditionally been difficult with few systemic treatment options. In 2011, two new targeted therapies, everolimus and sunitinib were approved for treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. The approval of these agents led to an enhanced interest in exploring novel agents. This can be evidenced by the fact that this is the first year that ASCO assembled related abstracts under a separate title of neuroendocrine tumor. The annual American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference in 2013 presented four abstracts (#4030, #4031, #4032, #4136) that shed light on new therapeutic options that help target the unique pathways involved in these neuroendocrine malignancies.

[Clinical observation of sunitinib treatment for refractory advanced breast cancer ulcer].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the preliminary efficacies and adverse events of sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer ulcer. METHODS: From December 2008 to May 2010, patients with advanced breast cancer ulcer took a single sunitinib. The dosage was adjusted on the basis of adverse events. And clinical response was evaluated. RESULTS: Nine patients with advanced breast cancer ulcer finished the treatment. The objective response and the clinical benefit time to progression of sunitinib were 3 and 7 patients with metastatic breast cancer ulcer, and the median time to progression (TTP) was 2.0 months. The most common adverse events included fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and hypertension. CONCLUSION: Single-agent sunitinib treatment of refractory advanced breast cancer ulcer has marked efficacies. However, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and hypertension are the major dose-limited toxicities.

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma of the kidney treated with sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma of the kidney is a rare malignant vascular tumor with a wide spectrum of behaviors. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 53-year-old male patient with tumor metastases which developed after radical nephrectomy. We describe the immunohistochemistry profile of the tumor and the successful long-term results of treatment with sunitinib, a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Also, we discuss the rationale for using this type of medication based on immunohistochemistry results. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of metastatic renal epithelioid hemangioendothelioma treated successfully with sunitinib.

[Possibilities for inhibiting tumor-induced angiogenesis: results with multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitors]. / A tumorindukált angiogenezis gátlásának lehetõségei: eredmények multi-target tirozinkináz-gátlókkal.

Functional blood vasculature is essential for tumor progression. The main signalization pathways that play a key role in the survival and growth of tumor vessels originate from the VEGF-, PDGF- and FGF tyrosine kinase receptors. In the past decade, significant results have been published on receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (RTKIs). In this paper, the mechanisms of action and the results so far available of experimental and clinical studies on multi-target antiangiogenic TKIs are discussed. On the one hand, notable achievements have been made recently and these drugs are already used in clinical practice in some patient populations. On the other hand, the optimal combination and dosage of these drugs, selection of the apropriate biomarker and better understanding of the conflicting role of PDGFR and FGFR signaling in angiogenesis remain future challenges.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Sunitinib Delays Platelet-Induced Coagulation: Additive Effects of Aspirin.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used for cancer treatment. In platelets, sunitinib affects collagen-induced activation under noncoagulating conditions. We investigated (1) the effects of sunitinib on thrombus formation induced by other TK-dependent receptors, and (2) the effects under coagulating conditions. Cardiovascular disease is a comorbidity in cancer patients, resulting in possible aspirin treatment. Sunitinib and aspirin are associated with increased bleeding risk, and therefore we also investigated (3) the synergistic effects of these compounds on thrombus and fibrin formation. METHODS: Blood or isolated platelets from healthy volunteers or cancer patients were incubated with sunitinib and/or aspirin or vehicle. Platelet activation was determined by TK phosphorylation, flow cytometry, changes in [Ca2+]i, aggregometry, and whole blood perfusion over multiple surfaces, including collagen with(out) tissue factor (TF) was performed. RESULTS: Sunitinib reduced thrombus formation and phosphatidylserine (PS) exposure under flow on collagen type I and III. Also, sunitinib inhibited glycoprotein VI-induced TK phosphorylation and Ca2+ elevation. Upon TF-triggered coagulation, sunitinib decreased PS exposure and fibrin formation. In blood from cancer patients more pronounced effects of sunitinib were observed in lung and pancreatic as compared to neuroglioblastoma and other cancer types. Compared to sunitinib alone, sunitinib plus aspirin further reduced platelet aggregation, thrombus formation, and PS exposure on collagen under flow with(out) coagulation. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib suppresses collagen-induced procoagulant activity and delays fibrin formation, which was aggravated by aspirin. Therefore, we urge for awareness of the combined antiplatelet effects of TKIs with aspirin, as this may result in increased risk of bleeding.

Hemorrhagic complications in a phase II study of sunitinib in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma who has previously received high-dose radiation.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-agent sunitinib in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: Eligible patients had progressive disease after prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Sunitinib was given as continuous once-daily dosing of 37.5 mg in 4-week cycles until progression. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled. Recruitment was stopped after two patients died of hemorrhagic events. All patients had previously received curative radiotherapy (RT) to nasopharynx/neck (including nine patients who had chemoradiotherapy). Patients received a median of three cycles of sunitinib. One patient was still on sunitinib with stable disease after 24 cycles. Hemorrhagic events occurred in nine patients (64%), including epistaxis in six, hemoptyses in three and hematemesis in two patients. Prior RT to thorax was significantly associated with hemoptyses (P = 0.03). Two patients with local tumor invasion into the carotid sheath developed fatal epistaxis/hematemesis within the first cycle of sunitinib, likely due to internal carotid blowout after tumor shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib demonstrated modest clinical activity in heavily pretreated NPC patients. However, the high incidence of hemorrhage from the upper aerodigestive tract in NPC patients who received prior high-dose RT to the region is of concern. Direct vascular invasion by tumors appeared to increase the risk of serious bleeding.

Vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy in the perioperative setting: implications for patient care.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, has become the standard of care in several solid tumours, including colorectal cancer, renal-cell carcinoma, breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, and glioblastoma. VEGF is crucial in the process of angiogenesis and wound healing and, thus, its inhibition has the potential to affect wound healing in patients undergoing surgery. In this review, we summarise the data available on the use of VEGF-targeted therapies, and their effect on perioperative wound complications. Surgery in patients receiving VEGF-targeted therapies seems to be safe when an appropriate interval of time is allowed between surgical procedures and treatment. Recommendations regarding this interval are provided in a disease and agent site-specific manner. We also discuss complications arising from the use of VEGF-directed therapies that might require surgical intervention and the considerations important in their management. At this juncture, safety data on the use of VEGF-targeted therapies in the perioperative period are sparse, and investigators are urged to continue to study this issue prospectively in current and future clinical trials to establish firm guidelines.

Updated Efficacy and Safety Outcomes for Patients with Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Treated with Sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (panNETs) in a phase III trial. The efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with panNETs were confirmed in an open-label phase IV trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical benefit with sunitinib using the combined data from these trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An updated overall survival (OS) in patients with panNETs for the phase IV trial was provided, and an analysis of results from the sunitinib-treated combined cohort from the phase III and IV trials (combined cohort) was conducted to assess PFS, OS, and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: The updated median OS for the phase IV trial was 54.1 months (95% CI 37.9-not reached). Investigator-assessed median PFS for the combined cohort (n = 102) was 12.9 months (95% CI 7.4-16.7) with a significant benefit versus placebo in the phase III trial (n = 35) (HR 0.429; 95% CI 0.245-0.752; p = 0.001). Median OS could not be calculated for the combined cohort or placebo group due to the high number of patients censored; however, the estimated HR of 0.303 (CI 0.100-0.921; p = 0.013) favored sunitinib. ORR for the combined cohort was 16.7% (95% CI 10.0-25.3). Sunitinib was well tolerated in both trials with a safety profile similar to previously seen in other studies. CONCLUSIONS: The combined analysis of these studies confirms the objective tumor responses and improvements in PFS observed in the initial phase III trial, providing further support for the clinical benefit of sunitinib in patients with advanced panNETs. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT00428597 and NCT01525550.

Liver transarterial chemoembolization and sunitinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Results of the PRODIGE 16 study.

BACKGROUND: Trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is one first-line option therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) not suitable for surgical resection. AIMS: We evaluated the effects of sunitinib plus doxorubicin-TACE on bleeding or liver failure. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with HCC were included in this randomized, double-blind study. They received one to three TACE plus either sunitinib or placebo four weeks out of six for one year. The occurrence of severe bleeding or liver failure was assessed during the week after the TACE. The safety and survival outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: No bleeding complication was reported. One and two liver failures were respectively observed in sunitinib and placebo patients. Compliance to sunitinib treatment was acceptable. Sunitinib dose reduction occurred in 37% of patients due to acute toxicity. Main grade 3-4 toxicities were: thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, increased bilirubin, increased ALT and asthenia. In the sunitinib group, the median PFS and OS were 9.05 [5.81;11.63] and 25.0 [13.5;36.8] months, respectively. In the placebo group, the median PFS and OS were 5.51 [4.14;7.79] and 20.5 [15.1;30.6] months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TACE plus sunitinib in the first-line therapy for patients with HCC not suitable for surgical resection was feasible. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT01164202.

Cardiovascular safety of VEGF-targeting therapies: current evidence and handling strategies.

Treatment with the angiogenesis inhibitors bevacizumab, sunitinib, and sorafenib as single agents or in combination with conventional chemotherapy is becoming a cornerstone of modern anticancer therapy. However, the potential toxicity of these drugs, mainly to the cardiovascular system, is still being investigated. Patient assessment at baseline, of crucial importance in candidates for treatment, involves the evaluation of risk factors and screening for past or present cardiovascular disease. Strict monitoring of treatment-related adverse effects must be conducted in order to allow the early detection of cardiovascular toxicities and their prompt medication. In the present paper, the most frequent cardiovascular toxicities and their underlying mechanisms are investigated, with a view to providing indications for effective patient management.

New drugs in neuroendocrine tumors: rising of new therapeutic philosophies?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been a major progress in the understanding of tumor biology during the past decades and, as a consequence, new potential targets for medical treatment of cancer have been identified. Some of the new so-called targeted therapies may prove to be of value also in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This review focuses on recent progress in the treatment of NETs, discussing new agents and also optimization/improvement of currently available therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: New molecular-targeted therapies, exploiting some of the well known biological properties of NETs, such as presence of somatostatin, peptide and tyrosine kinase receptors and high vascularity, are currently being evaluated in clinical trials. Recent phase II and III data indicate that the multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has antiproliferative effects in NETs. Similarly, the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus has demonstrated antitumor activity in both carcinoids and pancreatic endocrine tumors. In addition, two oral chemotherapeutic agents, temozolomide and capecitabine, show promising effects and may replace streptozotocin-based regimens. The use of angiogenesis inhibitors has its rationale and bevacizumab has been tested in combination with other drugs. Radiolabeled somatostatin analogues are established as a well tolerated, effective treatment but timing is still unclear and long-term side effects need to be assessed. SUMMARY: Recent phase II studies have provided very promising new treatment options for NET patients. Phase III trials are needed to confirm the results and combinations of different treatment modalities are needed to make optimal use of the new modalities. Ideally, predictors of response should be developed and the new definitions of response necessitates careful monitoring with biomarkers and imaging procedures including functional imaging. Whether the new therapies prolong survival of the patients should also be established.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: current management.

Herein, we review the current management of localized and advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Although surgery remains the standard of care for patients with localized GIST, adjuvant imatinib can delay recurrence in some of these patients. In patients with advanced or metastatic disease, the standard of care is imatinib and surgery of residual masses is an option. Preoperative imatinib is an emerging treatment option for patients who require cytoreductive therapy. Sunitinib is a standard second-line therapy.