Skip to main content
. 2024 Jul 22;31(9):e230337. doi: 10.1530/ERC-23-0337

Table 2.

Secondary efficacy endpoints: objective response ratea and clinical benefit rateb (centrally assessed; ITT population).

Double-blind phase
n (%) (95% CI) LAN vs PBO treatment difference (95% CI)
LAN (n = 51) PBO (n= 26)
ORRa 7/50 (14.0) (5.82; 26.74) 0/25 (0) (0.00; 13.72) 14.0 (−10.97; 37.86)
CBRb 45/50 (90.0) (78.19; 96.67) 23/25 (92.0) (73.97; 99.02) −2.00 (−26.53; 22.69)
Open-label treatment phase
n (%) (95% CI) Treatment difference (95% CI)
LAN (NPD)–LAN (n = 21) PBO (NPD)–LAN (n = 9) PBO (PD)–LAN (n= 10) All patients (n = 40) LAN (NPD)–LAN vs PBO (NPD)–LAN LAN (NPD)–LAN vs PBO (PD)–LAN
CBRb 21/21 (100) (83.89; 100) 8/8 (100) (63.06; 100) 7/9 (77.8) (39.99; 97.19) 36/38 (94.7) (82.25; 99.36) 0 (NC; NC) 22.2 (−17.64; 60.01)

Note that ORR during the open-label treatment phase is not provided because it was not a pre-specified endpoint. Tumors were assessed according to RECIST v1.1 criteria.

aComplete responses plus partial responses; bComplete responses plus partial responses plus stable disease.

CBR, clinical benefit rate; ITT, intention-to-treat; LAN, lanreotide autogel/depot; NC, not calculable; NPD, no progressive disease; ORR, objective response rate; PBO, placebo; PD, progressive disease; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.