This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record. Numerical trial results on this page are restricted to the results posted in the ClinicalTrials.gov record; calculations added by Clinical Biostats are labelled as such.
1. Trial at a Glance
This page covers the registry results for Phase I Trial of Afatinib (BIBW 2992) and Dasatinib in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (NCT01999985), a na phase 1 study. The primary outcome is Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) of Afatinib (BIBW 2992) in Combination With Dasatinib.
| Feature | Registry value |
|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov identifier | NCT01999985 |
| Phase | Phase 1 |
| Condition | Lung Cancer, Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) |
| Allocation | Not applicable (single group) |
| Design model | Sequential |
| Masking | None (open label) |
| Enrollment | 25 |
| Arms in the primary outcome | n/a |
| Lead sponsor | H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute |
| Results posted | Yes |
2. Clinical Question
Population
The study concerns patients with lung cancer, specifically non-small cell lung cancer. For the primary endpoint, the registry record identifies the population as all participants who received at least one dose of afatinib and dasatinib. It does not give further participant characteristics in the record summarized for this trial.
Intervention
The intervention is the combination of afatinib, also identified as BIBW 2992, and dasatinib. The study description says the drugs were evaluated together, with dose escalation followed by dose expansion. The endpoint concerns the maximum tolerated dose of the combination.
Comparator
No separate control treatment or like-for-like comparator is described. Allocation is recorded as NA, and masking is recorded as none. The design is sequential, so the listed cohorts are part of the study's dose-finding structure, not randomized comparison arms.
Primary question
The primary question is how the maximum tolerated dose of afatinib in combination with dasatinib is defined in this study. The registry definition uses dose-limiting toxicities at a dosage cohort or the highest tolerated doses investigated for the two drugs. A primary endpoint result is not reported in the registry record.
This is a Phase I investigation focused on safety, tolerability, and dose selection rather than a randomized test of the combination against another treatment. The study description also states interests in learning how the drugs work in cancer cells when combined and in describing side effects. Objective response and median progression-free survival are listed as secondary outcomes, but their results are not reported in the registry record. The design and available outcome information therefore support a description of the study's aims and reported safety counts, but do not establish comparative treatment effects.
3. Trial Design
NCT01999985 is a completed Phase I trial sponsored by H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute. The registry lists a planned enrollment of 25, a start date of 2013-12-31, and a primary completion date of 2017-03-21. The conditions are lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. The title identifies the study as an evaluation of afatinib, also called BIBW 2992, with dasatinib.
The design is sequential, with allocation recorded as NA and masking recorded as none. The arm description characterizes the study as dose escalation followed by dose expansion. It says the first part, Phase 1A, would enroll 8 - 18 people, after which that part would end; it then describes the next 20 people as entering an expansion cohort. The registry record does not explain how these planned cohort descriptions relate to the listed enrollment of 25, so they should be read as the recorded descriptions rather than reconciled into a different enrollment account.
Four drug intervention entries are listed, identifying dasatinib and afatinib for Level 1A and Level 1B. The record's primary outcome is maximum tolerated dose, with a timeframe of up to 6 months. The listed secondary outcomes are number of participants with objective response and median progression-free survival. The registry record does not report results for these secondary outcomes or a primary maximum-tolerated-dose result.
Because the study is a sequential dose-finding trial without a described control group, comparisons across cohorts are not equivalent to randomized treatment comparisons. Cohorts may differ by dose and by their position in the sequential study. The design is suited to documenting dose exploration and safety observations, while its registry information does not support a controlled estimate of the combination's effect relative to another treatment.
4. Participant Flow and Accounting
The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.
Overall Study
| Stage | Part 1A Level 1 | Part 1A Level 2 | Part 1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| STARTED | 8 | 3 | 14 |
| COMPLETED | 8 | 3 | 14 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Analysis population for the primary outcome, as defined in the registry: All participants who received at least one dose of Afatinib and Dasatinib.
5. Baseline Characteristics
The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.
Population: All participants
| Characteristic | Unit | All Participants |
|---|---|---|
| Participants analysed | 25 | |
| Age, Categorical: <=18 years | Participants | 0 |
| Age, Categorical: Between 18 and 65 years | Participants | 11 |
| Age, Categorical: >=65 years | Participants | 14 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Female | Participants | 17 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Male | Participants | 8 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB): Hispanic or Latino | Participants | 2 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB): Not Hispanic or Latino | Participants | 23 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB): Unknown or Not Reported | Participants | 0 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): American Indian or Alaska Native | Participants | 0 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Asian | Participants | 1 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | Participants | 1 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Black or African American | Participants | 4 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): White | Participants | 19 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): More than one race | Participants | 0 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Unknown or Not Reported | Participants | 0 |
| Region of Enrollment: United States | participants | 25 |
6. Primary Endpoint
The registry lists the primary outcome as Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) of Afatinib (BIBW 2992) in Combination With Dasatinib, measured over Up to 6 Months.
| Element | Registry entry |
|---|---|
| Result type | Number |
| Measure of spread | not applicable |
| Unit | mg |
| Endpoint classification | not reduced to a single comparison |
The primary endpoint is the maximum tolerated dose of afatinib in combination with dasatinib. The registry describes the endpoint as a dose-selection criterion and gives a timeframe of up to 6 months. The specified population is all participants who received at least one dose of both afatinib and dasatinib.
The record allows the MTD to be defined in either of two ways: the highest dosage cohort in which six patients had been treated and there were fewer than two dose-limiting toxicities, or the combination of afatinib at the highest tolerated dose investigated, 40 mg by mouth daily, with dasatinib at the highest tolerated dose investigated, cohort 3, 140 mg by mouth daily. These are endpoint rules; they are not themselves a report of which dose met the rule or what dose was selected.
In general, a maximum-tolerated-dose endpoint is used in early-phase dose-finding research to describe a dose boundary based on observed tolerability. Dose-limiting toxicity is relevant because an endpoint based on toxicity needs to specify which events count and how those events inform dose selection. The registry record gives the threshold structure but does not provide a primary endpoint result, details of individual dose-limiting toxicities, or further operational definitions of those toxicities. As a result, the endpoint's purpose and stated decision rule can be described, but the resulting dose decision cannot be established from the record.
7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown
8. Statistical Interpretation
The registry record identifies the study as a completed Phase I evaluation of afatinib and dasatinib together in non-small cell lung cancer. Its primary question is dose-related: the recorded endpoint is the maximum tolerated dose of the combination, defined through specified dose-limiting-toxicity criteria or through the highest tolerated doses investigated. The record does not report the resulting MTD. It also does not report an estimate, interval, or analysis for the primary outcome. The trial's status as completed therefore should not be mistaken for a posted primary result.
The available safety information is presented by registry group. For Part 1A Level 1, 5 of 8 participants had a serious adverse event, and 8 of 8 had an other adverse event. For Part 1A Level 2, the corresponding counts are 2 of 3 and 3 of 3. For Part 1B, they are 9 of 14 and 14 of 14. These are descriptive counts within groups, not estimates from a controlled comparison. The record also lists deaths by group, but does not establish that those deaths were caused by study treatment. Serious adverse events, other adverse events, and deaths should be kept as distinct reporting categories rather than treated as interchangeable outcomes.
The most frequently listed serious adverse-event terms include diarrhea and dyspnea, each reported as 33.3%; lung infection at 21.4%; and myocardial infarction, neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified - Other, and pleural effusion, each at 14.3%. These percentages describe terms in the posted safety information. The registry record does not provide enough context to infer that an event was caused by the combination, to compare risks against another treatment, or to determine the clinical course of each event.
Objective response and median progression-free survival appear as secondary outcomes, but their results are not reported in the registry record. There are no analyses listed. Statistical estimates such as confidence intervals or comparative effect measures are therefore not available in the record summarized for this trial. The absence of posted estimates is not evidence of no response, no progression-free survival, or no treatment effect; it means those questions cannot be answered from this record.
Any numerical planning illustration based on an observed effect should be interpreted as a hypothetical design calculation, not as trial evidence or observed power. General statistical interpretation depends on the analysis, estimand, and uncertainty measures actually reported. Since the registry does not report a comparative analysis or a primary endpoint result, interpretation should remain focused on the study design, endpoint definition, and descriptive adverse-event data.
9. Statistical Methods Explained
What does a sequential dose-finding design imply?
In general, a sequential design assigns participants to study stages or cohorts in an ordered process rather than using random assignment to concurrent treatment arms. In this trial, the registry describes dose escalation followed by dose expansion and labels the model sequential. The listed cohorts therefore reflect the dose-finding structure. Their results should not be read as if each cohort were a randomized control for the others: dose levels and timing in the study may differ, and the registry does not describe random allocation.
The purpose of dose escalation in general is to observe tolerability as dose levels are explored. The expansion part can add observations at a selected stage or dose, but the registry record does not give the specific operational rules for moving between cohorts, stopping escalation, or choosing expansion doses. Those protocol details are not reported in the registry record. The record's endpoint definition supplies a decision rule involving dose-limiting toxicities, but it does not supply the details needed to reconstruct how that rule was applied.
How should the MTD rule be understood?
The maximum tolerated dose is a dose-selection endpoint, not a measure of comparative efficacy. The registry states that the MTD is defined either by the highest dosage cohort in which six patients had been treated with fewer than two dose-limiting toxicities, or by afatinib at 40 mg by mouth daily with dasatinib at cohort 3, 140 mg by mouth daily. These are alternative conditions as described in the endpoint definition. The record does not say which condition determined the final MTD, and the MTD result itself is not reported.
In general, a threshold-based endpoint simplifies observed tolerability into a dose decision. It does not mean that all participants have the same risk, nor does it describe the full range of possible adverse events. The number of participants treated at a cohort and the observed toxicity count are central to the stated rule, but the registry does not give dose-limiting toxicity counts by cohort. Without those details and the endpoint result, the rule cannot be independently applied from the posted registry information.
What do adverse-event counts and percentages convey?
In general, a count reports how many participants in a defined group experienced an event, while the group size gives its context. A percentage can make event frequency easier to compare across groups of different sizes, but it does not adjust for differences in follow-up, underlying risk, dose, or participant characteristics. Here, the adverse-event information gives group-specific numbers at risk and numbers affected. It also lists terms and percentages for serious adverse events. Those observations are descriptive; they do not by themselves show that treatment caused the events.
Serious adverse events are a regulatory reporting category and should not be confused with dose-limiting toxicities unless the trial's protocol defines them that way. The registry record does not specify that every serious event was a dose-limiting toxicity. Nor does it report whether an event was judged related to afatinib, dasatinib, or the combination. In general, causal attribution requires more information than the occurrence of an event alone.
What is the role of estimates and confidence intervals?
In general, an estimate summarizes an observed quantity, such as a response frequency or a difference between treatment groups. A confidence interval describes statistical uncertainty around an estimate under the analysis assumptions. It is not a guarantee that the true value lies within the interval, and it does not account automatically for biases in study design or data collection. No primary endpoint estimate or interval is reported in the registry record, and the record lists no analyses.
For a nonrandomized, sequential dose-finding study, a between-cohort difference would not automatically be interpretable as a treatment effect. Cohorts are not described as interchangeable groups, and there is no concurrent comparator arm identified. In general, confounding and changes over time can affect comparisons made across sequential cohorts. These design features limit the interpretation of unadjusted contrasts, even if such contrasts were calculated.
How should planning calculations be read?
In general, sample-size planning calculations answer a hypothetical question about the amount of information that might be needed under stated assumptions. The planning illustration described for this trial uses a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between two arms, a normal approximation, and an effect to detect expressed as a stated fraction of the observed effect. For time-to-event outcomes, the calculation concerns the total number of events; for other outcomes, it concerns participants per arm. These assumptions do not describe the actual sequential allocation in this study, which has no like-for-like control comparison recorded.
Such calculations are planning illustrations, not observed power and not evidence that the trial had a particular probability of detecting an effect. A calculation based on an observed effect can be especially sensitive to how that effect was estimated. Since the study's registry record does not report a comparative analysis or the underlying effect estimate, the planning output should not be treated as a result of the trial. The record also does not report a sample-size justification for the original design, so the planning illustration cannot be assumed to reproduce the sponsor's rationale.
10. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations
The registry lists three outcome measures: maximum tolerated dose as the primary outcome, number of participants with objective response, and median progression-free survival as secondary outcomes. Listing multiple outcomes raises general questions about multiplicity: when several hypotheses are assessed, the chance of at least one apparently unusual result can increase if each is tested separately without adjustment. Whether adjustment is needed depends on the prespecified objectives and analysis plan. The registry record does not report a multiplicity strategy or statistical analysis plan, so it is not possible to determine whether any adjustment was planned or used.
The record does not list analyses, and it does not report results for the objective-response or progression-free-survival outcomes. A missing result should not be interpreted as a null finding. It means the outcome cannot be evaluated from the registry record. The record also does not describe missing-data handling, censoring rules for progression-free survival, or how participants with incomplete outcome information were handled. Those details are not reported in the registry record.
The primary endpoint population is described as participants who received at least one dose of afatinib and dasatinib. This is a stated population definition, but the record does not give a fuller analysis-population framework, such as whether different populations were used for safety and efficacy outcomes. General interpretation of missing data depends on why observations are missing and on the analysis method; neither is detailed. The registry does not report interim analyses, monitoring procedures, or stopping rules beyond the endpoint definition. These omissions prevent a full assessment of outcome selection, analysis populations, or possible changes to the plan.
11. Safety Results
The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.
| Arm | Participants with serious adverse events | Participants at risk | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1A Level 1 | 5 | 8 | 62.5% |
| Part 1A Level 2 | 2 | 3 | 66.7% |
| Part 1B | 9 | 14 | 64.3% |
Deaths
| Arm | Deaths (participants affected of at risk) |
|---|---|
| Part 1A Level 1 | 4 of 8 |
| Part 1A Level 2 | 1 of 3 |
| Part 1B | 3 of 14 |
Other (non-serious) adverse events
Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 0% reporting threshold.
| Arm | Participants affected of at risk |
|---|---|
| Part 1A Level 1 | 8 of 8 |
| Part 1A Level 2 | 3 of 3 |
| Part 1B | 14 of 14 |
Most frequent serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Part 1A Level 1 | Part 1A Level 2 | Part 1B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lung infection | Infections and infestations | 1 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 3 of 14 |
| Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified - Other | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | 1 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 2 of 14 |
| Pleural effusion | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 1 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 2 of 14 |
| Myocardial infarction | Cardiac disorders | 0 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 2 of 14 |
| Dyspnea | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 0 of 8 | 1 of 3 | 1 of 14 |
| Thromboembolic event | Vascular disorders | 0 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 2 of 14 |
| Abdominal pain | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 0 of 14 |
| Diarrhea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 0 of 8 | 1 of 3 | 0 of 14 |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 0 of 14 |
| Pancreatitis | Gastrointestinal disorders | 0 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 1 of 14 |
Most frequent non-serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Part 1A Level 1 | Part 1A Level 2 | Part 1B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diarrhea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 4 of 8 | 3 of 3 | 5 of 14 |
| Cough | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 2 of 8 | 2 of 3 | 6 of 14 |
| Pleural effusion | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 4 of 8 | 1 of 3 | 5 of 14 |
| Fatigue | General disorders | 4 of 8 | 2 of 3 | 3 of 14 |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 2 of 8 | 1 of 3 | 4 of 14 |
| Anemia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | 1 of 8 | 0 of 3 | 6 of 14 |
| Vomiting | Gastrointestinal disorders | 2 of 8 | 2 of 3 | 2 of 14 |
| Mucositis oral | Gastrointestinal disorders | 2 of 8 | 2 of 3 | 2 of 14 |
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders - Other | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | 1 of 8 | 2 of 3 | 3 of 14 |
| Dyspnea | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 0 of 8 | 2 of 3 | 3 of 14 |
Serious events with the highest arm-level rate: diarrhea (33.3%), dyspnea (33.3%), lung infection (21.4%), myocardial infarction (14.3%), neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified - other (14.3%).
The adverse-event record gives group-specific counts. In Part 1A Level 1, 5 of 8 participants had a serious adverse event and 8 of 8 had an other adverse event; 4 deaths are listed. In Part 1A Level 2, 2 of 3 had a serious adverse event and 3 of 3 had an other adverse event; 1 death is listed. In Part 1B, 9 of 14 had a serious adverse event and 14 of 14 had an other adverse event; 3 deaths are listed. These counts describe what the registry reports for each group.
The listed serious-event terms include diarrhea and dyspnea, each at 33.3%; lung infection at 21.4%; and myocardial infarction, neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified - Other, and pleural effusion, each at 14.3%. Such percentages should be read as event reporting, not as a comparison with an untreated group. The record does not state that the events were caused by the study drugs, and the listed deaths should not be attributed to treatment without that information. Serious adverse events also should not automatically be treated as dose-limiting toxicities; the record does not equate those categories.
12. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean
The posted information establishes that a completed Phase I study evaluated afatinib with dasatinib in non-small cell lung cancer, using a sequential dose escalation and expansion design. It specifies a maximum-tolerated-dose endpoint and gives the decision criteria used to define that endpoint. It also presents adverse-event counts for the study groups and lists common serious adverse-event terms with percentages. These registry entries describe what the registry record contains, but they do not establish the final dose selected or a comparative effect of the drug combination.
The record does not report the primary MTD result, objective-response results, or median progression-free survival results. It also does not report statistical analyses or a control-group comparison. Consequently, it cannot establish whether the combination improves an outcome relative to another treatment, nor can it establish the size or precision of any such effect. A completed status indicates the study's registry status, not that all results are posted.
Likewise, adverse-event counts show that events were recorded among participants, but do not alone establish causation. There is no control comparison in the listed design, and the record does not report event attribution. The safety observations should therefore be treated as descriptive. They cannot be used to calculate a treatment-related risk difference from the registry information, and no such comparison is reported.
In general, early-phase dose-finding evidence has a different role from evidence produced by a controlled efficacy trial. It can describe dose exploration and observed tolerability, while leaving comparative efficacy questions unanswered. The endpoint definition is useful for understanding the study's intended dose-selection question, but without the endpoint result and supporting toxicity details it does not identify the dose decision. Missing outcome results likewise do not mean that outcomes were absent or that the study found no effect; the relevant findings are simply not reported in the registry record.
13. Why This Trial Matters Statistically
This trial is statistically notable because its main question is dose selection, not a comparison of treatments. The MTD endpoint is defined using dose-limiting toxicities in a dose cohort or the highest tolerated doses investigated for each drug. That makes the endpoint rule central to interpretation: the result depends on how toxicity is defined, which participants contribute, and how the dose cohorts are evaluated. The registry record gives a high-level rule but not the cohort-specific toxicity details or the resulting MTD.
The sequential design also matters. In general, participants in successive cohorts do not create the same conditions as participants randomly assigned to concurrent arms. Their results can reflect the dose being studied and the sequential setting, so cohort differences are not automatically causal treatment contrasts. The record's allocation and masking entries reinforce that no randomized, masked comparator is described.
The reported safety counts illustrate why both numerators and group sizes matter when reading early-phase observations. The groups have different numbers at risk, and serious adverse-event reporting is not equivalent to a treatment effect estimate. Without a concurrent comparator, attribution, and a reported analysis, descriptive counts cannot answer whether the combination changes risk compared with another option.
Finally, the presence of secondary outcome names does not supply results for those outcomes. The absence of analyses and outcome estimates limits what can be learned about efficacy from this registry record. Statistically, distinguishing a clearly defined research question from the available evidence is essential: the endpoint and design are documented, while the primary result and several analysis details are not reported.
14. Limitations
- The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
- Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.
The registry record does not report a primary maximum-tolerated-dose result, so the dose decision cannot be identified from the posted information. It also does not give the dose-limiting toxicity counts by cohort, the specific dose-limiting toxicity criteria beyond the stated threshold, or a detailed account of how the endpoint rule was applied. These gaps limit independent verification of the primary endpoint.
The trial has no like-for-like control comparison described: allocation is NA, masking is none, and the model is sequential. The registry therefore does not support causal comparisons between the study combination and another treatment. Cohort-level safety counts remain descriptive, and treatment attribution for the listed serious adverse events and deaths is not reported. The record also does not state whether serious events were considered dose-limiting toxicities.
Objective response and median progression-free survival are named as secondary outcomes, but their results are not reported in the registry record. Statistical analyses are not listed. The analysis plan, methods for missing data, censoring rules, interim analyses, and analysis-population details beyond the primary endpoint population are also not reported. These omissions limit assessment of uncertainty, multiplicity, and the handling of incomplete outcome information.
The arm description gives an escalation cohort of 8 - 18 people and then describes the next 20 people entering expansion, while the listed enrollment is 25. The registry record does not explain how those descriptions relate to the enrollment figure. This should be treated as an unresolved reporting detail, not a basis for inferring actual cohort enrollment. Overall, the record supports a description of design intentions and posted adverse-event information, but not reconstruction of a complete analysis or a comparative efficacy conclusion.
15. Related Tutorials
16. Related Statistical Calculators
17. Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov: Phase I Trial of Afatinib (BIBW 2992) and Dasatinib in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) — NCT01999985.
- Registry record last updated 2020-11-27; status last verified 2020-11.
- Results first posted 2019-06-14.
- Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
- Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.
Continue through the Clinical Biostats statistical pathway
Use this trial's endpoint as a starting point for deeper study of effect measures, confidence intervals, and sample-size planning.
18. Record Summary
NCT01999985 is a completed Phase I study sponsored by H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute. It evaluated afatinib (BIBW 2992) combined with dasatinib in non-small cell lung cancer, using sequential dose escalation followed by dose expansion. The registry lists enrollment of 25 and a primary completion date of 2017-03-21.
The primary outcome is maximum tolerated dose, with a timeframe of up to 6 months and a definition based on dose-limiting toxicities or the highest tolerated doses investigated. The record lists objective response and median progression-free survival as secondary outcomes. It reports group-specific adverse-event counts, but does not report the primary endpoint result, secondary outcome results, or statistical analyses. The design has no randomized comparator described, so the posted safety counts are descriptive rather than comparative evidence.