Table 3.

Results of clinical trials of sorafenib and nintedanib.

	Trial	Phase	Line	Type	n	RR(CR/PR)	DCR(CR/PR/SD)	Time to progression	PFS	MST or OS
Sorafenib	Blumenschein G.R. 2009 Sorafenib alone	II	2nd–3rd line	NSCLC	54	0%	59%		2.7 m	6.7 m
	Paz-Ares L. 2015 Sorafenib alone vs. placebo (MISSION trial)	III	3rd–4th line	NSCLC	703	4.9% vs. 0.9%	47.1% vs. 24.7%	2.9 m vs. 1.4 m	2.8 m vs. 1.4 m	8.2 m vs. 8.3 m
				EGFR mutation+	89	6.8% vs. 0%	40.9% vs. 2.2%		2.7 m vs. 1.4 m	13.9 m vs. 6.5 m
				wild-type EGFR	258	7.4% vs. 1.5%	46.7% vs. 25.8%		2.7 m vs. 1.5 m	8.3 m vs. 8.4 m
				KRAS mutation+	68	2.9% vs. 0%	44.1% vs. 7.6%		2.6 m vs. 1.7 m	6.4 m vs. 5.1 m
				wild-type KRAS	279	8.3% vs. 1.4%	45.4% vs. 20.4%		2.7 m vs. 1.4 m	11.0 m vs. 9.1 m
	Scagliotti G. 2010 CBDCA/PTX/sorafenib vs. CBDCA/PTX/placebo (ESCAPE trial)	III	1st line	NSCLC	926	27% vs. 24%	50% vs. 56%		4.6 m vs. 5.4 m	10.7 m vs. 10.6 m
				Sq	223	25% vs. 35%	42% vs. 60%		4.3 m vs. 5.8 m	8.9 m vs. 13.6 m
				Other	703	28% vs. 20%	52% vs. 55%		4.8 m vs. 5.3 m	11.5 m vs. 10.2 m
Nintedanib	Reck M. 2014 DTX/nintedanib vs. DTX/placebo (LUME-Lung 1 trial)	III	2nd line	NSCLC	1314	4.4% vs. 3.3%	54% vs. 41.3%		3.4 m vs. 2.7 m	10.1 m vs. 9.1 m
				Adeno	658	4.7% 3.6%	60.2% vs. 44%			12.6 m vs. 10.3 m
	Hanna N.H. 2016 Nintedanib/PEM vs. PEM (LUME-Lung 2 trial)	III	2nd line	NonSq NSCLC	713	9.1% vs. 8.3%	60.9% vs. 53.3%		4.4 m vs. 3.6 m	12.0 m vs. 12.7 m
				Adeno	670	9.6% vs. 9.0%	61.8% vs. 54.6%		4.5 m vs. 3.9 m	12.3 m vs. 13.1 m

NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer, NonSq: nonsquamous cell carcinoma, RR: response rate, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, DCR: disease control rate, SD: stable disease, PFS: progression free survival, MST: medial survival time, OS: overall survival, EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor, KRAS: kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog, CBDCA: carboplatin, PTX: paclitaxel, DTX: docetaxel, PEM: pemetrexed.