Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 1

1205 - A Phase III Study Comparing SB8, a Proposed Bevacizumab Biosimilar, and Reference Bevacizumab in Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Non-squamous NSCLC


28 Sep 2019


Poster Display session 1


Tumour Site

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer


Martin Reck


Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v602-v660. 10.1093/annonc/mdz260


M. Reck1, A. Luft2, I. Bondarenko3, S. Shevnia4, D. Trukhin5, N.V. Kovalenko6, K. Vacharadze7, F. Andrea8, A. Hontsa9, J. Choi10, D. Shin11

Author affiliations

  • 1 Thoracic Oncology, Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North, German Center of Lung Research, 22927 - Grosshansdorf/DE
  • 2 Department Of Thoracic Surgery, Leningrad Regional Clinical Hospital, St. Petersburg/RU
  • 3 Oncology And Medical Radiology Department, Dnipropetrovsk city multidisciplinary clinical hospital №4, 49000 - Dnipro/UA
  • 4 Department Of Chemotherapy, Podillia Regional Oncology Center, Vinnytsia/UA
  • 5 Oncology Department, Odessa Regional Oncology Center, Odessa/UA
  • 6 Oncology, Volgograd Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary, 400138 - Volgograd/RU
  • 7 Department Of Phthisiatry, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine, Tbilisi/GE
  • 8 Department Of Pulmonary Class And Bronchology, Országos Korányi TBC és Pulmonológiai Intézet, Budapest/HU
  • 9 Day Staing Department, Chernivtsi Regional Oncology Center, Chernivtsi/UA
  • 10 Biometrics, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., 16678 - Suwon/KR
  • 11 Medical Affairs, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., 16678 - Suwon/KR


Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1205


SB8 is a proposed biosimilar of the reference bevacizumab (BEV). This study compared the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of SB8 to BEV in patients with metastatic or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).


In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre study, patients were randomised (1:1) to receive SB8 or BEV with paclitaxel and carboplatin Q3W followed by SB8 or BEV maintenance therapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or 1 year from the randomisation of the last patient. The primary endpoint was the best overall response rate (ORR) by 24 weeks of chemotherapy; risk ratio was analyzed in the full analysis set (FAS) and risk difference was analyzed in the per-protocol set (PPS). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), safety, PK, and immunogenicity.


A total of 763 patients (SB8, n = 379; BEV, n = 384) were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between SB8 and BEV. In the FAS, the best ORR was 47.6% in SB8 and 42.8% in BEV; the risk ratio was 1.11 and its 90% CI was [0.975, 1.269], which was within the pre-defined equivalence margin of [0.737, 1.357]. In the PPS, the best ORR was 50.1% in SB8 and 44.8% in BEV; the risk difference was 5.3% and its 95% CI was [−2.2%, 12.9%], of which the lower margin was contained within and the upper margin was outside the pre-defined equivalence margin of [−12.5%, 12.5%]. The secondary efficacy endpoints in the FAS were comparable between SB8 vs BEV: median PFS (8.50 vs 7.90 months), median OS (14.90 vs 15.80 months), and median DOR (5.60 vs 5.85 months). The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was comparable between SB8 vs BEV (92.1% vs 91.1%). The most frequently occurring TEAEs were alopecia, anaemia, and nausea. PK parameters (Ctrough and Cmax) and the incidence of overall anti-drug antibodies (16.1% vs 11.0%) were comparable between SB8 vs BEV.


This study demonstrated equivalence between SB8 and BEV in terms of best ORR risk ratio. Other efficacy endpoints, safety, PK, and immunogenicity were comparable between SB8 and BEV.

Clinical trial identification


Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.


Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.


M. Reck: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Celgene; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. J. Choi: Full / Part-time employment: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. D. Shin: Full / Part-time employment: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.