human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Purpose The phase III OAM4971 g study ( METLung ) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen . Patients and Methods Patients were r and omly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab ( 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle ) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg . The primary end point was overall survival ( OS ) in the intent-to-treat population . Secondary end points included median progression-free survival , overall response rate , biomarker analysis , and safety . Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled ( onartuzumab , n = 250 ; placebo , n = 249 ) .  Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo ( stratified hazard ratio [ HR ] , 1.27 ; 95 % CI , 0.98 to 1.65 ; P = .067 ) , with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm ( 130 [ 52 % ] v 114 [ 46 % ] ) . Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months ( stratified HR , 0.99 ; 95 % CI , 0.81 to 1.20 ; P = .92 ) , and overall response rate was 8.4 % and 9.6 % for onartuzumab versus placebo , respectively . Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab ;  patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment ( HR , 4.68 ; 95 % CI , 0.97 to 22.63 ) . Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0 % and 51.2 % of patients , with serious AEs in 33.9 % and 30.7 % , for experimental versus control arms , respectively . Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes , with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm , compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer BACKGROUND Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-lig and 1 ( PD-L1 ) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 ( PD-1 ) and PD-L1 and B7 - 1 interactions , reinvigorating anticancer immunity . We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer . METHODS We did a r and omised , open-label , phase 3 trial ( OAK ) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries . We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer , were 18 years or older , had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors , and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 . Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens ( one or more platinum based combination therapies ) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer . Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel , CD137 agonists , anti-CTLA4 , or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded . Patients were r and omly assigned ( 1:1 ) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block r and omisation ( block size of eight ) via an interactive voice or web response system . Co primary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat ( ITT ) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ( ≥1 % PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells ) . The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients . This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT02008227 . FINDINGS Between March 11 , 2014 , and April 29 , 2015 , 1225 patients were recruited . In the primary population , 425 patients were r and omly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to  receive  docetaxel  .  Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression population s. In the ITT population , overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel ( median overall survival was 13·8 months [ 95 % CI 11·8 - 15·7 ] vs 9·6 months [ 8·6 - 11·2 ] ; hazard ratio [ HR ] 0·73 [ 95 % CI 0·62 - 0·87 ] , p=0·0003 ) . Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab ( n=241 ) compared with docetaxel ( n=222 ; median overall survival was 15·7 months [ 95 % CI 12·6 - 18·0 ] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [ 8·8 - 12·0 ] with docetaxel ; HR 0·74 [ 95 % CI 0·58 - 0·93 ] ; p=0·0102 ) . Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup ( TC0 and IC0 ) also had improved survival with atezolizumab ( median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months ; HR 0·75 [ 95 % CI 0·59 - 0·96 ] ) . Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous ( HR 0·73 [ 95 % CI 0·54 - 0·98 ] ; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group ) or non-squamous ( 0·73 [ 0·60 - 0·89 ] ; n=313 and n=315 ) histology . Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab ( 90 [ 15 % ] of 609 patients ) versus docetaxel ( 247 [ 43 % ] of 578 patients ) . One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group . INTERPRETATION To our knowledge , OAK is the first r and omised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy , with atezolizumab treatment result ing in a clinical ly relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer , regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology , with a favourable safety profile . FUNDING F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd , Genentech , BACKGROUND Nivolumab , a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 ( PD-1 ) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody , disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity . METHODS In this r and omized , open-label , international phase 3 study , we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer ( NSCLC ) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy  to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks . The primary end point was overall survival . RESULTS Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel .  The median overall survival was 12.2 months ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 9.7 to 15.0 ) among 292 patients in the  nivolumab group and 9.4 months ( 95 % CI , 8.1 to 10.7 ) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group ( hazard ratio for death , 0.73 ; 96 % CI , 0.59 to 0.89 ; P=0.002 ) . At 1 year , the overall survival rate was 51 % ( 95 % CI , 45 to 56 ) with nivolumab versus 39 % ( 95 % CI , 33 to 45 ) with docetaxel . With additional follow-up , the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39 % ( 95 % CI , 34 to 45 ) with nivolumab versus 23 % ( 95 % CI , 19 to 28 ) with docetaxel . The response rate was 19 % with nivolumab versus 12 % with docetaxel ( P=0.02 ) . Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel ( median , 2.3 months and 4.2 months , respectively ) , the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel ( 19 % and 8 % , respectively ) . Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy  than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression ( ≥1 % , ≥5 % , and ≥10 % ) of the PD-1 lig and . Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10 % of the patients in the nivolumab group , as compared with 54 % of those in the docetaxel group . CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy  , overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel . ( Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb ; CheckMate 057 Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT01673867 . ) BACKGROUND Bevacizumab and erlotinib target different tumour growth pathways with little overlap in their toxic-effect profiles . On the basis of promising results from a phase 1/2 trial assessing safety and activity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab for recurrent or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer ( NSCLC ) , we aim ed to assess efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 3 trial . METHODS In our double-blind , placebo-controlled , r and omised phase 3 trial ( BeTa ) , we enrolled patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC who presented to 177 study sites in 12 countries after failure of first-line treatment . Patients were r and omly allocated in a one-to-one ratio to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab ( bevacizumab group ) or erlotinib plus placebo ( control group ) according to a computer-generated r and omisation sequence by use of an interactive voice response system . The primary endpoint was overall survival in all enrolled patients . Patients , study staff , and investigators were masked to treatment assignment . We assessed safety by calculation of incidence of adverse events and tissue was collected for biomarker analyses . This trial is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT00130728 . FINDINGS Overall survival did not differ between 317 controls and 319 patients in the bevacizumab group ( hazard ratio [ HR ] 0·97 , 95 % CI 0·80 - 1·18 , p=0·7583 ) . Median overall survival was 9·3 months ( IQR 4·1 - 21·6 ) for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with 9·2 months ( 3·8 - 20·2 ) for controls . Progression-free survival seemed to be longer in the bevacizumab group ( 3·4 months [ 1·4 - 8·4 ] ) than in the control group ( 1·7 months [ 1·3 - 4·1 ] ; HR 0·62 , 95 % CI 0·52 - 0·75 ) and objective response rate suggested some clinical activity of bevacizumab and erlotinib . However , these secondary endpoint differences could not be defined as significant because the study prespecified that the primary endpoint had to be significant before testing of secondary endpoints could be done , to control type I error rate . In the bevacizumab group , 130 ( 42 % ) of 313 patients with safety  data had a serious adverse event , compared with 114 ( 36 % ) controls . There were 20 ( 6 % ) grade 5 adverse events , including two arterial thromboembolic events , in the bevacizumab group , and 14 ( 4 % ) in the control group . INTERPRETATION Addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib does not improve survival in patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC . FUNDING Genentech PURPOSE To confirm the promising phase II results of docetaxel monotherapy , this 
    Output:
    
agent
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Purpose The phase III OAM4971 g study ( METLung ) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen . Patients and Methods Patients were r and omly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab ( 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle ) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg . The primary end point was overall survival ( OS ) in the intent-to-treat population . Secondary end points included median progression-free survival , overall response rate , biomarker analysis , and safety . Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled ( onartuzumab , n = 250 ; placebo , n = 249 ) .  Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo ( stratified hazard ratio [ HR ] , 1.27 ; 95 % CI , 0.98 to 1.65 ; P = .067 ) , with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm ( 130 [ 52 % ] v 114 [ 46 % ] ) . Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months ( stratified HR , 0.99 ; 95 % CI , 0.81 to 1.20 ; P = .92 ) , and overall response rate was 8.4 % and 9.6 % for onartuzumab versus placebo , respectively . Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab ;  patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment ( HR , 4.68 ; 95 % CI , 0.97 to 22.63 ) . Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0 % and 51.2 % of patients , with serious AEs in 33.9 % and 30.7 % , for experimental versus control arms , respectively . Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes , with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm , compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer BACKGROUND Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-lig and 1 ( PD-L1 ) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 ( PD-1 ) and PD-L1 and B7 - 1 interactions , reinvigorating anticancer immunity . We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer . METHODS We did a r and omised , open-label , phase 3 trial ( OAK ) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries . We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer , were 18 years or older , had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors , and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 . Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens ( one or more platinum based combination therapies ) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer . Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel , CD137 agonists , anti-CTLA4 , or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded . Patients were r and omly assigned ( 1:1 ) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block r and omisation ( block size of eight ) via an interactive voice or web response system . Co primary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat ( ITT ) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ( ≥1 % PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells ) . The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients . This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT02008227 . FINDINGS Between March 11 , 2014 , and April 29 , 2015 , 1225 patients were recruited . In the primary population , 425 patients were r and omly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to  receive  docetaxel  .  Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression population s. In the ITT population , overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel ( median overall survival was 13·8 months [ 95 % CI 11·8 - 15·7 ] vs 9·6 months [ 8·6 - 11·2 ] ; hazard ratio [ HR ] 0·73 [ 95 % CI 0·62 - 0·87 ] , p=0·0003 ) . Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab ( n=241 ) compared with docetaxel ( n=222 ; median overall survival was 15·7 months [ 95 % CI 12·6 - 18·0 ] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [ 8·8 - 12·0 ] with docetaxel ; HR 0·74 [ 95 % CI 0·58 - 0·93 ] ; p=0·0102 ) . Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup ( TC0 and IC0 ) also had improved survival with atezolizumab ( median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months ; HR 0·75 [ 95 % CI 0·59 - 0·96 ] ) . Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous ( HR 0·73 [ 95 % CI 0·54 - 0·98 ] ; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group ) or non-squamous ( 0·73 [ 0·60 - 0·89 ] ; n=313 and n=315 ) histology . Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab ( 90 [ 15 % ] of 609 patients ) versus docetaxel ( 247 [ 43 % ] of 578 patients ) . One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group . INTERPRETATION To our knowledge , OAK is the first r and omised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy , with atezolizumab treatment result ing in a clinical ly relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer , regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology , with a favourable safety profile . FUNDING F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd , Genentech , BACKGROUND Nivolumab , a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 ( PD-1 ) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody , disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity . METHODS In this r and omized , open-label , international phase 3 study , we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer ( NSCLC ) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy  to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks . The primary end point was overall survival . RESULTS Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel .  The median overall survival was 12.2 months ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 9.7 to 15.0 ) among 292 patients in the  nivolumab group and 9.4 months ( 95 % CI , 8.1 to 10.7 ) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group ( hazard ratio for death , 0.73 ; 96 % CI , 0.59 to 0.89 ; P=0.002 ) . At 1 year , the overall survival rate was 51 % ( 95 % CI , 45 to 56 ) with nivolumab versus 39 % ( 95 % CI , 33 to 45 ) with docetaxel . With additional follow-up , the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39 % ( 95 % CI , 34 to 45 ) with nivolumab versus 23 % ( 95 % CI , 19 to 28 ) with docetaxel . The response rate was 19 % with nivolumab versus 12 % with docetaxel ( P=0.02 ) . Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel ( median , 2.3 months and 4.2 months , respectively ) , the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel ( 19 % and 8 % , respectively ) . Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy  than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression ( ≥1 % , ≥5 % , and ≥10 % ) of the PD-1 lig and . Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10 % of the patients in the nivolumab group , as compared with 54 % of those in the docetaxel group . CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy  , overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel . ( Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb ; CheckMate 057 Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT01673867 . ) BACKGROUND Bevacizumab and erlotinib target different tumour growth pathways with little overlap in their toxic-effect profiles . On the basis of promising results from a phase 1/2 trial assessing safety and activity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab for recurrent or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer ( NSCLC ) , we aim ed to assess efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 3 trial . METHODS In our double-blind , placebo-controlled , r and omised phase 3 trial ( BeTa ) , we enrolled patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC who presented to 177 study sites in 12 countries after failure of first-line treatment . Patients were r and omly allocated in a one-to-one ratio to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab ( bevacizumab group ) or erlotinib plus placebo ( control group ) according to a computer-generated r and omisation sequence by use of an interactive voice response system . The primary endpoint was overall survival in all enrolled patients . Patients , study staff , and investigators were masked to treatment assignment . We assessed safety by calculation of incidence of adverse events and tissue was collected for biomarker analyses . This trial is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT00130728 . FINDINGS Overall survival did not differ between 317 controls and 319 patients in the bevacizumab group ( hazard ratio [ HR ] 0·97 , 95 % CI 0·80 - 1·18 , p=0·7583 ) . Median overall survival was 9·3 months ( IQR 4·1 - 21·6 ) for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with 9·2 months ( 3·8 - 20·2 ) for controls . Progression-free survival seemed to be longer in the bevacizumab group ( 3·4 months [ 1·4 - 8·4 ] ) than in the control group ( 1·7 months [ 1·3 - 4·1 ] ; HR 0·62 , 95 % CI 0·52 - 0·75 ) and objective response rate suggested some clinical activity of bevacizumab and erlotinib . However , these secondary endpoint differences could not be defined as significant because the study prespecified that the primary endpoint had to be significant before testing of secondary endpoints could be done , to control type I error rate . In the bevacizumab group , 130 ( 42 % ) of 313 patients with safety  data had a serious adverse event , compared with 114 ( 36 % ) controls . There were 20 ( 6 % ) grade 5 adverse events , including two arterial thromboembolic events , in the bevacizumab group , and 14 ( 4 % ) in the control group . INTERPRETATION Addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib does not improve survival in patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC . FUNDING Genentech PURPOSE To confirm the promising phase II results of docetaxel monotherapy , this 
    Output:
    