Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Feb 3.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Nov 2;28(3):452–460. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2225

Table 2.

Efficacy outcomes in mITT population

Arm B
(N = 24)
Arm C
(N = 13)
Arm D
(N = 30)
6-month PFS* %, (95% CI) 10.0 (2.7 - 35.4) 7.7 (1.2 - 50.6) 17.2 (7.8 - 38.3)
  Progression Free at 6 Months, n (%) 2 (8.3) 1 (7.7) 5 (16.7)
Median PFS, months (95% CI) 1.6 (1.2- 3.2) 1.9 (1.8- 14.9) 1.9 (1.8- 3.0)
Median OS, months (95% CI) 10.5 (4.9 - 17.0) 8.5 (7.3 - NE) 10.2 (7.0 - 15.4)
Best Overall Response, n (%) 2 (8.3) 1 (7.7) 3 (10.0)
  95% CI (1.0 - 27.0) (0.2 - 36.0) (2.1 - 26.5)
  Complete Response, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3.3)
    95% CI NE NE (0.1 - 17.2)
  Partial Response, n (%) 2 (8.3) 1 (7.7) 2 (6.7)
    95% CI (1.0 - 27.0) (0.2 - 36) (0.8 - 22.1)
  Stable Disease, n (%) 6 (25.0) 4 (30.8) 7 (23.3)
    95% CI (9.8 - 46.7) (9.1 - 61.4) (9.9 - 42.3)
  Progressive Disease, n (%) 15 (62.5) 8 (61.5) 17 (56.7)
    95% CI (40.6 - 81.2) (31.6 - 86.1) (37.4 - 74.5)

CI, confidence interval; NE, not evaluable; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival

*

survival rate point estimates are presented for 6-month PFS using the Kaplan-Meier method. One patient from Arm C who did not undergo efficacy evaluation is not included in the efficacy analyes.