Open Access

Efficacy and safety of surufatinib in the treatment of advanced solid tumors: a systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis

  • Authors:
    • Tianying Cai
    • Yonglang Cheng
    • Yichao Du
    • Peng Tan
    • Tongxi Li
    • Yifan Chen
    • Lin Gao
    • Wenguang Fu
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: May 10, 2023
  • Article Number: 273
  • Copyright: © Cai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Previous retrospective studies have suggested that surufatinib is effective for treating advanced solid tumors; however, the efficacy and safety of this drug needs to be investigated further via high‑quality evidence or randomized controlled trials. In the present study, a meta‑analysis was carried out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surufatinib for patients with advanced solid tumors. Systematic, electronic literature searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and The disease control rate (DCR) of surufatinib in solid tumors was 86% [effect size (ES), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82‑0.90; I2=34%; P=0.208] and the objective response rate was 16% (ES, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.12‑0.21; I2=48%; P=0.103), while the progressive disease rate was only 9% (ES, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05‑0.15; I2=68%, P=0.014). Surufatinib showed different degrees of adverse reactions during the treatment of solid tumors. Among these adverse events, the incidence of increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were 24% (ES, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.18‑0.30; I2=45.1%; P=0.141) and 33% (ES, 0.33; 95%CI, 0.28‑0.38; I2=63.9%; P=0.040), respectively. In the placebo‑controlled trial, the relative risks (RRs) of elevated AST and ALT were 1.04 (95% CI, 0.54‑2.02; I2=73.3%; P=0.053) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.57‑1.23; I2=0%; P=0.886), respectively. Overall, surufatinib was characterized by a high DCR and a low disease progression rate, thus indicating that it could exert a good therapeutic effect on solid tumors. Additionally, surufatinib showed a lower RR for adverse effects compared with other treatment modalities.


The treatment of advanced or recurrent metastatic solid tumors has been a major challenge in the medical community, with limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. Furthermore, the incidence of advanced solid tumors such as neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is still increasing globally (1). As the most notable means for the treatment of unresectable tumors, molecularly targeted drugs such as everolimus, sunitinib and capecitabine have been developed and widely used in previous years (24). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a key mediator of tumor angiogenesis, and it is also considered an important therapeutic target, receiving increasing attention from researchers working on targeted molecular drugs (5). Surufatinib, also known as sulfatinib in the past, is a potent, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which selectively targets VEGF receptor (VEGFR)-1, −2 and −3, fibroblast growth factor receptor-1 (FGFR-1) and colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) (6).

Previous clinical studies revealed that surufatinib had a notable effect on pancreatic and extra-pancreatic NETs (7,8), and this drug also showed a high objective response rate (ORR) for other solid tumors, such as cholangiocarcinoma thyroid cancer and ovarian cancer (9,10). However, high-quality evidence and verification studies by randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the efficacy and safety of surufatinib. In the current study, a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of surufatinib in treating different types of advanced solid tumors. Overall, the present study aimed to investigate whether surufatinib could exert a practical effect on various solid tumors, including NETs, and whether it could be considered a safe drug for treating patients with solid tumors.

Materials and methods

Literature search

Literature screening was performed using four major electronic databases, specifically PubMed (, EMBASE (, Cochrane Library ( and ( The key words ‘surufatinib’ or ‘sulfatinib’ were used in the database search. All screening results were divided into the categories ‘irrelevant’, ‘non-sofatinib’ and ‘possibly relevant’ based on the obtained study abstracts. When multiple publications for the same clinical trial were obtained, only the latest or most complete study was selected. The databases were searched between the dates that they were established and February 2022. To select the eligible studies, the manuscripts in the ‘possibly relevant’ category were reviewed according to the following inclusion criteria: i) Studies describing surufatinib in advanced solid malignancies; and ii) studies reporting tumor ORRs and/or toxicity. In addition, the following exclusion criteria were applied: i) Case reports, editorials, reviews, meta-analyses and review articles, as well as animal and experimental studies; and ii) non-English articles.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from every selected article: Author(s), publication year, study design, number of patients enrolled, age and sex of patients, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-performance status (ECOG-ps) (11), as well as basic information, including primary tumor location and tumor staging and grading (12). Subsequently, stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), partial response (PR), ORR, disease control rate (DCR), duration of response and time to response were extracted from these articles. In addition, the adverse effects, including proteinuria, hypertriglyceridemia, diarrhea, hypertension, abnormal high levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and blood bilirubin, were added to the evaluation system.

Quality evaluation

Based on the particular content of the seven studies selected, two quality assessment scales were used. Among the aforementioned studies, five were observational studies using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) scores (13), which included the following 11 items: i) A definition of the source of information (survey or record review); ii) a listing of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed (case) and unexposed (controls) subjects or reference to previous publications; iii) an indication of the time period used to select patients; iv) an indication of whether all patients were included in the study over a period of time if not population-based; v) an indication of whether the evaluators of the subjective components of every study were masked into other aspects of the status of the patients; vi) a description of any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes, such as testing or re-testing of primary outcome measurements; vii) an explanation for patient exclusion; viii) a description of how confounding variables were assessed and/or controlled; ix) an explanation of how any missing data were handled in the analysis, if applicable; x) a summary of the patient response rates and completeness of data collection; and xi) a clarification of the expected follow-up, if any, and the percentage of patients for whom missing data or follow-up was obtained. There were three answer forms for the AHRQ scale: ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unclear’. The other two studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used (14). The NOS scoring system included three aspects of evaluation: i) Selection; ii) comparability; and iii) outcome. Selection was assessed by four questions, comparability contained two options, while outcome was also evaluated by three questions. A total of 9 points were assigned.

Statistical analysis

The meta-analysis was performed using Microsoft Office Excel (Microsoft Corporation) and StataCorp Stata 15.1 (StataCorp LP) software. Data were first transformed into Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine, while the effect of treatment on the incidence of adverse event ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method (15) for meta-analyses with random effects. To evaluate the heterogeneity among the included studies, Higgins's I2 statistics and Q-tests were used. Q-test results are expressed as P-values. An I2 value of <25% indicated that there was no heterogeneity among studies. Small, mild and strong heterogeneity were indicated by I2 values of 25–50, 50–75 and >75%, respectively. Overall, strong heterogeneity was assessed using heterogeneity analysis. The results of the two RCTs were statistically analyzed in the meta-analysis as aforementioned. P<0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. The current study was registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) platform ( under the registration number, INPLASY202260026.


Search results

This systematic review was performed according to the guidelines for the meta-analysis of observational epidemiological studies (16). A total of 160 articles were identified across the aforementioned four major electronic databases. A total of 57 duplicate articles were identified and excluded. Following literature screening by title and abstract, a total of 76 irrelevant studies were also excluded. After full text reading, an additional 20 studies were excluded. Finally, seven clinical experimental studies that included 638 participants (810,1720) were retained (Fig. 1). Among these seven studies, five studies were single-arm trials, with a medium or high score in the AHRQ scale (Table I), while the other two were multicenter RCTs, with a score of 7–9 defining high quality studies on NOS (Table II).

Table I.

Healthcare research and quality scale score.

Table I.

Healthcare research and quality scale score.

First author, yearDefinition of sourceInclusion/exclusion criteriaTime periodIncluded over timeMasked evaluatorsQuality assuranceExclusion explanationConfounding variable controlMissing data processingSummaryClarification of the follow-upTotal pointsQuality(Refs.)
Hamilton et al, 2019YesNoUnclearUnclearUnclearNoYesNoYesYesYes5Medium(19)
Chen et al, 2020YesYesNoYesYesNoYesUnclearYesYesYes8High(10)
Xu et al, 2019YesYesNoYesYesYesNoNoYesYesYes8High(17)
Dasari et al, 2020YesNoUnclearUnclearUnclearNoYesNoYesYesNo4Medium(20)
Xu et al, 2021YesYesNoYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYes9High(9)

Table II.

Newcastle-Ottawa scale score.

Table II.

Newcastle-Ottawa scale score.


Analysis of the most important factorsThe second important factor analysisDetermination of exposure factorsSame approachNo response rateScore(Refs.)
First author, yearCase identificationRepresentation of casesChoice of comparisonDetermination of control
Xu et al, 20201st11-11111-7(8)
Xu et al, 20202nd11-11111-7(18)
Treatment regimens

A total of 638 patients were included in the meta-analysis; 510 were assigned to treatment arms, of which 35 patients participated in a dose escalation study (19). These patients were equally divided into five groups and they were then treated with different concentrations of surufatinib (50, 100, 200, 300 and 400 mg) once daily and continuously for every 28-day cycle until disease progression, intolerable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. An additional 475 patients received 300 mg surufatinib once daily, in 28-day treatment cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity or withdrawal of consent (810,1720). The 128 patients who participated in the RCT studies were randomly assigned in either the placebo or the control arms, and the results were not disclosed to the patients. Patients in the placebo group received 300 mg placebo every day, in 4-week treatment cycles, while patients in the control group received 300 mg of surufatinib once daily in 4-week treatment cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of patient consent, poor compliance, use of other antitumour medication, pregnancy, loss to follow-up, or if the investigator deemed discontinuation to be in the patient's best interest (8,18) (Table III).

Table III.

Characteristics of the study.

Table III.

Characteristics of the study.

First author, yearRegionType of studyTreatment regimenPatients, nSex, no. of males/femalesMean age, yearsECOGTypes of tumorPathological stage, nFunding(Refs.)
Hamilton et al, 2019USAOpen-labelSurufatinib, 50/100/200/300/400 mg qd; 28-day cycle3523/3462-Any solid tumor-Hutchison MediPharma, Limited(19)
Surufatinib, 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle22 -Biliary tract cancers; Pancreatic NETs; Extra-pancreatic NETs-
Chen et al, 2020ChinaOpen-labelSurufatinib, 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle3231/285912/47 (0/1)Differentiated thyroid cancer1/31 (TNM stage III/TNM stage IV)Hutchison MediPharma, Limited(10)
27 Medullary thyroid cancer27 (TNM stage IV)
Xu et al, 2019ChinaOpen-labelSurufatinib, 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle4225/174632/10 (0/1)Pancreatic NETs7/35 (G1/G2)Hutchison MediPharma, Limited(17)
3919/205422/17 (0/1)Extrapancreatic NETs9/30 (G1/G2)
Dasari et al, 2020USA-Surufatinib, 300 mg32---Pancreatic NETs--(20)
Extra-pancreatic NETs
Xu et al, 20201stChinaRCTSurufatinib, 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle12973/565272/57 (0/1)Extra-pancreatic NETs21/108 (G1/G2)Hutchison MediPharma, Limited(8)
Placebo, 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle6935/345446/23 (0/1)Extra-pancreatic NETs11/58 (G1/G2)
Xu et al, 20202ndChinaRCTSurufatinib, 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle11353/605173/40 (0/1)Pancreatic NETs14/99 (G1/G2)Hutchison MediPharma, Limited(18)
Placebo, 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle5931/284843/16 (0/1)Pancreatic NETs9/50 (G1/G2)
Xu et al, 2021ChinaOpen-labelSurufatinib of 300 mg qd; 28-day cycle2922/1756.210/29 (0/1)Intra-hepatic cholangio-carcinoma1/28 (TNM stage III/TNM Stage IV)Hutchison MediPharma, Limited(9)
10 Extra-hepatic cholangio-carcinoma; Gallbladder cancer10 (TNM stage IV)

[i] RCT, randomized controlled trial; qd, per day; TNM, Tumor-Node-Metastasis; NET, neuroendocrine tumors.

Tumor response

Tumor response was assessed in all studies using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (21). The DCR range reported in four studies was 81–91%. The random effect analysis revealed that surufatinib exerted a favorable DCR in patients with advanced solid tumors (ES, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91; I2=34%; P=0.208; Fig. 2A). In addition, random effect analysis of the pooled results from five studies also indicated a beneficial ORR in patients with advanced solid tumors (ES, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.11-0.18; I2=48%; P=0.103; Fig. 2B). PR in patients treated with surufatinib was reported in seven studies. The pooled results demonstrated that surufatinib significantly improved PR (ES, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.10-0.16; I2=54.6%; P=0.051; Fig. 2C). Additionally, SD was reported in four studies. Overall, the analysis showed that SD was significantly improved in patients with solid tumors treated with surufatinib (ES, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75; I2=58.7%; P=0.064; Fig. 2D). Finally, the pooled results regarding PD were reported in five studies and suggested that surufatinib could also improve PD in the aforementioned group of patients (ES, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.09; I2=68%; P=0.014; Fig. 2E).

Safety assessment

In terms of drug safety, the analysis of the pooled results from three studies suggested that treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors with surufatinib notably reduced the incidence of adverse events. The most common adverse effects in patients treated with surufatinib were proteinuria (ES, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75; I2=69.3%; P=0.011; Fig. 3A), followed by hypertension (ES, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.68; I2=0%; P=0.588; Fig. 3B) and diarrhea (ES, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.54; I2=87.9%; P<0.001, Fig. 3C). Furthermore, increased AST (ES, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28-0.38; I2=63.9%; P=0.040; Fig. 3D) and ALT (ES, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.18-0.27; I2=45.1%; P=0.141, Fig. 3E) levels were reported in four studies. Additionally, three studies showed that surufatinib enhanced the serum levels of thyrotropin (ES, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.38-0.48; I2=44.6%; P=0.164; Fig. 3F), while hypertriglyceridemia was also reported in five studies (ES, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.30-0.39; I2=35.6%; P=0.184; Fig. 3G). The I2 value for diarrhea was 87.9%, indicating strong heterogeneity. Further sensitivity analysis resulted in a reduced I2 value of 64.1% (ES, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.38-0.49; I2=64.1%; P=0.039; Fig. 3H), supporting the robustness of the primary analysis. To stabilize the changes in the ES ratios, double-arcsine transformation was performed using the Freeman-Tukey transformation formula (Table IV).

Table IV.

Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation.

Table IV.

Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation.

ParameterRate95% CIPost-conversion rateTransformed 95% CI
Elevated ALT0.230.18-

[i] DCR, disease control rate; ORR, overall response rate; PR, partial response; PD, progressive disease; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CI, confidence interval.

Relative risk analysis

To further verify the results of the current meta-analysis, the results of two high-quality RCTs were analyzed. These two RCTs compared the effect of surufatinib between patients treated with surufatinib and those left untreated (placebo group). The RR ratios of adverse events were also recorded. The levels of AST were increased in the surufatinib group (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.77-1.51), with mild heterogeneity (I2, 73.4%; P=0.052; Fig. 4A). However, the difference between treatment and placebo groups was not statistically significant (P=0.658). Additionally, in both trials, increased ALT levels were observed in the surufatinib group (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57-1.23), without heterogeneity (I2, 0%; P=0.886; Fig. 4B). Again, statistical significance was not reached (P=0.365). Among the other adverse events, the pooled results for proteinuria (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.69) showed no heterogeneity (I2, 0%; P=0.877; Fig. 4C) with a statistically significant difference (P=0.002). For diarrhea (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.57-3.23), there was no heterogeneity (I2, 0%; P=0.527; Fig. 4D), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). For hypertriglyceridemia (RR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.26-7.81), the pooled results revealed no heterogeneity (I2, 0%; P=0.886; Fig. 4E), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). For hypertension (RR, 2.82, 95% CI, 2.02-3.94), there was no heterogeneity (I2, 2.8%; P=0.310; Fig. 4F), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). For increased blood bilirubin levels (RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.39-3.11), there was no heterogeneity (I2, 0%; P=0.853; Fig. 4G), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Finally, for increased thyroid hormone levels (RR, 4.63; 95% CI, 2.58-8.30), there was no heterogeneity (I2, 0%; P=0.671; Fig. 4H), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001).

Publication bias

Since a small number of studies were included in the meta-analysis, publication bias was not assessed. Therefore, bias might have occurred in the analysis and the evaluation of the research data.


Different types of solid tumors, such as pancreatic NETs, extra-pancreatic NETs and biliary tract cancer, are characterized by different degrees of aggressiveness and require different treatment approaches. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with lutetium-177 dotatate (177 Lu-DOTATATE) has been approved for advanced gastroenteropancreatic-NETs and the antiangiogenic agent sunitinib is mainly used for pancreatic NETs (22). In recent years, more and more researchers have paid increasing attention to the most common characteristics, such as abnormal angiogenesis and gene mutations, of different types of solid tumors, such as tumors of the uterus, pancreatic cancer and thyroid cancer (23,24), while investigating more effective treatment approaches for several of them (2527).

It has been reported that VEGF and FGF can mediate the formation of tumor blood vessels in solid tumors to provide sufficient oxygen, thereby promoting tumor growth, cell migration and invasion (2830). It has been also suggested that several VEGFR-targeted therapies are unsatisfactory, with numerous patients exhibiting no or a limited respond to treatment, possibly due to the induction of other pro-angiogenic pathways, including those of FGFR and CSF-1R that promote drug resistance (7,2832).

Surufatinib is a novel, orally administered, small-molecule TKI of VEGFR-113, FGFR-1 and CSF-1R, which can reduce tumor angiogenesis and immune system evasion, and also enhance antitumor immunity (31) to treat pancreatic and extra-pancreatic NETs (32). Several systemic therapies have been approved for the treatment of NETs, including somatostatin analogue therapy, the TKI sunitinib, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) and cytotoxic chemotherapy (23,3133). The effect of aminokinase inhibitors can be counteracted by the induction of other proangiogenic pathways, including the FGFR-1 and CSF-1R signaling pathways (31). Therefore, the application of surufatinib could provide a solution to this issue to some extent. The first studies on surufatinib were performed in China, while the scope of its application has gradually expanded from NETs to several different types of advanced solid tumors, thus attracting worldwide attention (810,17,18).

To the best of our knowledge, the present study was the first meta-analysis to particularly focus on the efficacy and safety of surufatinib in solid tumors. In the current meta-analysis, seven studies involving 638 patients suffering from different types of solid tumors, such as pancreatic NETs, extra-pancreatic NETs, biliary tract cancer and thyroid cancer, were included. The results of the meta-analysis revealed overall DCR, ORR, PR, SD and PD rates of 87, 14, 1, 71 and 6%, respectively. The results also showed that compared with 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT, immunosuppressive agents, such as programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/PD-ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors and cytokine-induced killer cells, surufatinib resulted in higher DCR and SD rates, while PD also remained at a lower level. This supports the fact that surufatinib could exhibit a better efficacy in the treatment of solid tumors (21,34,35). The study by Xu et al (8) showed that at the time of data cut-off, 77 (60%) patients in the surufatinib group and 51 (74%) in the placebo group experienced progression-free survival (PFS) events. The median follow-up time for PFS was 13.8 months (95% CI, 11.1-16.7) and 16.6 months (95% CI, 9.2-not calculable) in the surufatinib and placebo groups, respectively. Additionally, the median investigator-assessed PFS time was 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-11.1) in the surufatinib group and 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.7-5.7) in the placebo group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.22-0.50; P<0.0001), which crossed the predefined P-value threshold (two-sided, P=0.015) for the interim analysis (8). The aforementioned findings also supported the beneficial effect of surufatinib on the prognosis of patients with solid tumors.

In addition to analyzing the direct efficacy of surufatinib in the treatment of solid tumors, the present study also analyzed the adverse events that occurred during the treatment of patients with surufatinib. More specifically, three studies reported treatment-emergent adverse events with an overall incidence of 44%, and four articles mentioned increased AST and ALT levels with an incidence of 23 and 33%, respectively, while five studies reported proteinuria (70%), diarrhea (50%), hypertriglyceridemia (34%) and hypertension (64%). Increased thyrotropin serum levels were reported in three articles (43%).

When compared with a placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in increased AST and ALT levels in patients treated with surufatinib, thus indicating that surufatinib could not reduce the incidence of the aforementioned adverse reactions. However, there was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of proteinuria, diarrhea, hypertriglyceridemia, hypertension, increased blood bilirubin and thyrotropin serum levels between the placebo and surufatinib groups, suggesting that treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors with surufatinib could notably decrease the incidence of the aforementioned adverse events. Conclusively, overall analysis indicated that surufatinib could reduce the incidence of adverse events, indicating a satisfactory safety profile.

On the other hand, the RR of adverse events, such as diarrhea, hypertension and hyperbilirubinemia in patients treated with surufatinib was decreased compared with those treated with regorafenib (36). The incidence of gastrointestinal-related adverse events during the treatment of refractory thyroid cancer was lower in patients treated with surufatinib compared with that in patients treated with sorafenib (37). Additionally, surufatinib was associated with a lower incidence of diarrhea compared with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib. Overall, the reduced RR of gastrointestinal-related adverse events suggested that surufatinib exhibited high safety in treating patients with solid tumors (38).

The current study analyzed the results of seven clinical studies with regard to the therapeutic effect of surufatinib on solid tumors, such as pancreatic NETs, extra-pancreatic NETs and cholangiocarcinoma. However, the present study had some limitations. Surufatinib was approved in China in December 2020 for the treatment of late-stage, well-differentiated, extrapancreatic NETs (39,40). Surufatinib has been filed for approval in China for the treatment of pancreatic NETs (41) and in the USA for the treatment of pancreatic and extrapancreatic NETs (42). Since surufatinib has been only recently used in clinical practice to treat advanced solid tumors (5), the currently available studies on surufatinib are limited. Further studies on different types of solid tumors are urgently needed. In addition, this was a single-ratio meta-analysis with high heterogeneity; even in the categorical analyses performed, the existence of partial heterogeneity could not be ruled out. However, the magnitude of the observed treatment effect, the consistency of the diarrhea incidence rates in the sensitivity analysis and the lower incidence of adverse events in patients treated with surufatinib compared with those treated with other agents, provided evidence of the clinically meaningful benefit of surufatinib.

In conclusion, the findings of the current meta-analysis suggested that surufatinib could be considered an effective and safe drug in the treatment of solid tumors. Additional clinical data and original studies of high quality are required to further validate the results of the present study and to provide more evidence to support the clinical applications of surufatinib.


Not applicable.


This study was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 82170587), the Luzhou Municipal People's Government-Southwest Medical University Science and Technology Strategic Cooperation Project (grant no. 2021LZXNYD-Z01), the Sichuan Province International Science and Technology Innovation Cooperation Project (grant no. 2023YFH0078) and the Talent Development Project of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

TYC and YLC conceptualized the study and visualized the data. YLC collected and analyzed data. TYC wrote and prepared the original draft. WGF conceptualized and supervised the study. YCD and PT collected and analyzed data, and edited the manuscript. TXL and YFC analyzed data and edited the manuscript. LG performed the statistical analysis, supervised the study and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. TYC and YLC confirm the authenticity of all the raw data.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.



Shah MH, Goldner WS, Benson AB, Bergsland E, Blaszkowsky LS, Brock P, Chan J, Das S, Dickson PV, Fanta P, et al: Neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 19:839–868. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Yao JC, Pavel M, Lombard-Bohas C, Cutsem EV, Voi M, Brandt U, He W, Chen D, Capdevila J, de Vries EGE, et al: Everolimus for the treatment of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: Overall survival and circulating biomarkers from the randomized, phase III RADIANT-3 study. J Clin Oncol. 34:3906–3913. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Raymond E, Dahan L, Raoul JL, Bang YJ, Borbath I, Lombard-Bohas C, Valle J, Metrakos P, Smith D, Vinik A, et al: Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. New Engl J Med. 364:501–513. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Lu Y, Zhao Z, Wang J, Lv W, Lu L, Fu W and Li W: Safety and efficacy of combining capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) to treat advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 97:e127842018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Hosaka K, Yang Y, Seki T, Du Q, Jing X, He X, Wu J, Zhang Y, Morikawa H, Nakamura M, et al: Therapeutic paradigm of dual targeting VEGF and PDGF for effectively treating FGF-2 off-target tumors. Nat Commun. 11:37042020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Syed YY: Surufatinib: First approval. Drugs. 81:723–732. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar


Xu JM, Wang Y, Chen YL, Jia R, Li J, Gong JF, Li J, Qi C, Hua Y, Tan CR, et al: Sulfatinib, a novel kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors: Results from a phase I study. Oncotarget. 8:42076–42086. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Xu J, Shen L, Zhou Z, Li J, Bai C, Chi Y, Li Z, Xu N, Li E, Liu T, et al: Surufatinib in advanced extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (SANET-ep): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 21:1500–1512. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Xu J, Bai Y, Sun H, Bai C, Jia R, Li Y, Zhang W, Liu L, Huang C, Guan M, et al: A single-arm, multicenter, open-label phase 2 trial of surufatinib in patients with unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer. Cancer. 127:3975–3984. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Chen J, Ji Q, Bai C, Zheng X, Zhang Y, Shi F, Li X, Tang P, Xu Z, Huang R, et al: Surufatinib in Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid cancer: A multicenter, open-label, phase II trial. Thyroid. 30:1245–1253. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET and Carbone PP: Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol. 5:649–655. 1982. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


O'Sullivan B, Brierley J, Byrd D, Bosman F, Kehoe S, Kossary C, Pineros M, Van Eycken E, Weir HK and Gospodarowicz M: The TNM classification of malignant tumours-towards common understanding and reasonable expectations. Lancet Oncol. 18:849–851. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Carlson EA: Agency for healthcare research and quality (AHRQ) web site. Orthop Nurs. 27:258–259. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Stang A: Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 25:603–605. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


DerSimonian R and Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 7:177–188. 1986. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al: The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372:n712021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Xu J, Li J, Bai C, Xu N, Zhou Z, Li Z, Zhou C, Jia R, Lu M, Cheng Y, et al: Surufatinib in advanced well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase Ib/II trial. Clin Cancer Res. 25:3486–3494. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Xu J, Shen L, Bai C, Wang W, Li J, Yu X, Li Z, Li E, Yuan X, Chi Y, et al: Surufatinib in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (SANET-p): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 21:1489–1499. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Hamilton E, Wang JS, Li D, Dasari NA, Paulson S, Cohn AL, Sauter NP, Kania M, Kauh K and Falchook GS: 1393P-Safety and tolerability of surufatinib in western patients with solid tumours. Ann Oncol. 30 (Suppl 5):v569–v570. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar


Dasari A, Li D, Sung MW, Tucci C, Kauh JS, Kania MK and Paulson AS: Efficacy and safety of surufatinib in United States (US) patients (pts) with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). J Clin Oncol. 38 (15 Suppl):S46102020. View Article : Google Scholar


Ma Y, Zhang Z, Tang L, Xu YC, Xie ZM, Gu XF and Wang HX: Cytokine-induced killer cells in the treatment of patients with solid carcinomas: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Cytotherapy. 14:483–493. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Cives M and Strosberg JR: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. CA Cancer J Clin. 68:471–487. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Hyman DM, Smyth LM, Donoghue MTA, Westin SN, Bedard PL, Dean EJ, Bando H, El-Khoueiry AB, Pérez-Fidalgo JA, Mita A, et al: AKT inhibition in solid tumors with AKT1 mutations. J Clin Oncol. 35:2251–2259. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Ukidve A, Cu K, Kumbhojkar N, Lahann J and Mitragotri S: Overcoming biological barriers to improve solid tumor immunotherapy. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 11:2276–2301. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Xiao WY, Wang Y, An HW, Hou D, Mamuti M, Wang MD, Wang J, Xu W, Hu L and Wang H: Click Reaction-Assisted Peptide Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Solid Tumor Treatment. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 12:40042–40051. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Heery CR, O'Sullivan-Coyne G, Madan RA, Cordes L, Rajan A, Rauckhorst M, Lamping E, Oyelakin I, Marté JL, Lepone LM, et al: Avelumab for metastatic or locally advanced previously treated solid tumours (JAVELIN Solid Tumor): A phase 1a, multicohort, dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 18:587–598. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Speck T, Heidbuechel JPW, Veinalde R, Jaeger D, von Kalle C, Ball CR, Ungerechts G and Engeland CE: Targeted BiTE expression by an oncolytic vector augments therapeutic efficacy against solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 24:2128–2137. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Cébe-Suarez S, Zehnder-Fjällman A and Ballmer-Hofer K: The role of VEGF receptors in angiogenesis; complex partnerships. Cell Mol Life Sci. 63:601–615. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Daniele G, Corral J, Molife LR and de Bono JS: FGF receptor inhibitors: Role in cancer therapy. Curr Oncol Rep. 14:111–119. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Al-Ostoot FH, Sherapura A, V V, Basappa G, H K V, B T P and Khanum SA: Targeting HIF-1α by newly synthesized Indolephenoxyacetamide (IPA) analogs to induce anti-angiogenesis-mediated solid tumor suppression. Pharmacol Rep. 73:1328–1343. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Xu J: Current treatments and future potential of surufatinib in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Ther Adv Med Oncol. 13:175883592110426892021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Lu X, Yan S, Koral KA and Chen Z: Surufatinib for the treatment of advanced extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 21:917–926. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Bodei L, Kwekkeboom DJ, Kidd M, Modlin IM and Krenning EP: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogue therapy of gastroenteropancreatic cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 46:225–238. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Rao Q, Li M, Xu W, Pang K, Guo X, Wang D, Liu J, Guo W and Zhang Z: Clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatol Int. 14:765–775. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Zhang J, Song Q, Cai L, Xie Y and Chen Y: The efficacy of 177Lu-DOTATATE peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 146:1533–1543. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Yin X, Yin Y, Shen C, Chen H, Wang J, Cai Z, Chen Z and Zhang B: Adverse events risk associated with regorafenib in the treatment of advanced solid tumors: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Onco Targets Ther. 11:6405–6414. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Feng G, Luo Y, Zhang Q, Zeng F, Xu J and Zhu J: Sorafenib and radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endocrine. 68:56–63. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


Santoni M, Conti A, De Giorgi U, Iacovelli R, Pantano F, Burattini L, Muzzonigro G, Berardi R, Santini D and Cascinu S: Risk of gastrointestinal events with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib in patients with solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Int J Cancer. 135:763–773. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI


HUTCHMED, . Chi-Med announces the NMPA approval of surufatinib (Sulanda® in China) for non-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. 30–2020


HUTCHMED, . Surufatinib (Sulanda): Chinese prescribing information. 29–2020


HUTCHMED, . Chi-Med announces second NDA acceptance in China for surufatinib in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. 17–2020


HUTCHMED, . Chi-Med initiates rolling submission of NDA to U.S. FDA for surufatinib for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumors. 28–2020

Related Articles

Journal Cover

Volume 25 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
Spandidos Publications style
Cai T, Cheng Y, Du Y, Tan P, Li T, Chen Y, Gao L and Fu W: Efficacy and safety of surufatinib in the treatment of advanced solid tumors: a systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis. Oncol Lett 25: 273, 2023
Cai, T., Cheng, Y., Du, Y., Tan, P., Li, T., Chen, Y. ... Fu, W. (2023). Efficacy and safety of surufatinib in the treatment of advanced solid tumors: a systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis. Oncology Letters, 25, 273.
Cai, T., Cheng, Y., Du, Y., Tan, P., Li, T., Chen, Y., Gao, L., Fu, W."Efficacy and safety of surufatinib in the treatment of advanced solid tumors: a systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis". Oncology Letters 25.6 (2023): 273.
Cai, T., Cheng, Y., Du, Y., Tan, P., Li, T., Chen, Y., Gao, L., Fu, W."Efficacy and safety of surufatinib in the treatment of advanced solid tumors: a systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis". Oncology Letters 25, no. 6 (2023): 273.