Close

Bayer’s Stivarga® (regorafenib) tablets approved by FDA for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

Bayer HealthCare announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Stivarga® (regorafenib) tablets for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have been previously treated with currently available therapies (including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy, and if KRAS wild type, an anti-EGFR therapy). The approval of Stivarga is based on results from the pivotal Phase III study (CORRECT) that demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo in patients with mCRC whose disease had progressed after approved standard therapies. Stivarga is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor that inhibits various kinases within the mechanisms involved in tumor growth and progression – angiogenesis, oncogenesis and the tumor microenvironment.

“The U.S. approval of Stivarga is an important milestone for Bayer as it marks the first approval of this innovative cancer treatment to fulfill a significant unmet medical need in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Jörg Reinhardt, Chief Executive Officer, Bayer HealthCare. “Bayer makes significant investments to provide patients and their physicians with groundbreaking therapies for a better life. With Stivarga we are expanding our product portfolio in oncology which will significantly contribute to the future growth of our company.”

“The approval of regorafenib adds to the treatments we have for metastatic colorectal cancer, which is important for those patients who have no further options,” said Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, FACP, CORRECT investigator and associate director for clinical research and co-leader of the Gastrointestinal Cancers Program at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center. “In the pivotal Phase III CORRECT trial, the drug has been shown to prolong survival and slow the progression of cancer in patients whose disease had progressed after treatment with currently available therapies. It provides patients another avenue to fight this cancer.”

In the Phase III CORRECT (Colorectal cancer treated with regorafenib or placebo after failure of standard therapy) trial, regorafenib plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly improved OS (HR=0.77, 2-sided p-value=0.0102) and PFS (HR=0.49, 2-sided p-value<0.0001) compared to placebo plus BSC. Median OS was 6.4 months with regorafenib versus 5.0 months with placebo; median PFS was 2.0 months with regorafenib versus 1.7 months with placebo. The data also showed a survival benefit (OS and PFS) in the regorafenib arm across nearly all subgroups analyzed. No difference in overall response rate was observed. Five patients (1%) in the regorafenib arm and one patient (0.4%) in the placebo arm experienced partial responses. History of KRAS evaluation was reported for 729 (96%) patients; 430 (59%) of these patients were reported to have KRAS mutation. The most frequently observed adverse drug reactions (≥30%) in patients receiving regorafenib were asthenia/fatigue, decreased appetite and food intake, hand-foot-skin reaction/ palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, diarrhea, mucositis, weight loss, infection, hypertension, and dysphonia. The most serious adverse drug reactions in patients receiving regorafenib were hepatotoxicity, hemorrhage and gastrointestinal perforation.

Primary efficacy and safety data for this trial were first reported at the Annual Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO-GI) in January 2012 and additional data were presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June 2012.

Stivarga was developed and reviewed under the fast track program and received priority review designation from the FDA. These designations are granted by the FDA to expedite the development and review of drugs to treat serious diseases and fill an unmet medical need (fast track), and given to drugs that offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists (priority review).

About Colorectal Cancer

CRC is the fourth most common cancer worldwide, with over one million cases occurring every year. The mortality rate from CRC is approximately half of its global incidence. The five-year survival estimate for CRC on average is 55 percent, but is highly variable dependent on the stage of the disease (from 74 percent for patients with Stage I disease to only 6 percent for Stage IV patients).

In mCRC, KRAS status is an important biomarker and can be a predictor of treatment response. Approximately 40 percent of colorectal cancers are characterized by mutations in the KRAS gene. Some of the CRC therapies currently available have demonstrated efficacy only in patients without KRAS mutations.

About the CORRECT Study

CORRECT was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III study that enrolled 760 patients with mCRC whose disease had progressed during or within three months following last administration of approved standard therapies. Patients were randomized to receive regorafenib plus BSC or placebo plus BSC, respectively. Treatment cycles consisted of 160 mg of regorafenib (or matching placebo) once daily for three weeks on / one week off plus BSC.

About Stivarga® (regorafenib)

Stivarga® is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor that inhibits various kinases within the mechanisms involved in tumor growth and progression – angiogenesis, oncogenesis and the tumor microenvironment. In preclinical studies, Stivarga inhibits several angiogenic VEGF receptor tyrosine kinases that play a role in tumor neoangiogenesis (the growth of new blood vessels). It also inhibits various oncogenic and tumor microenvironment kinases including VEGFR 1-3, KIT, RET, PDGFR, and FGFR, which individually and collectively impact upon tumor growth, formation of a stromal microenvironment and disease progression.

Regorafenib was also submitted for marketing approval for the treatment of metastatic CRC in the EU in May 2012. The NDA for regorafenib for the treatment of advanced CRC filed in Japan in July 2012 was granted priority review.

Regorafenib is also under investigation in metastatic and/or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) for patients whose disease had progressed despite prior treatment with imatinib and sunitinib. Positive Phase III data showing a significant increase in PFS has been presented at the ASCO 2012 Annual Meeting. Regorafenib has been granted orphan drug designation and Fast Track designation by the FDA for this tumor type. Bayer has submitted a New Drug Application to the FDA for regorafenib in GIST in August 2012.

Regorafenib is a Bayer compound developed by Bayer. In 2011, Bayer entered into an agreement with Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., under which Onyx will receive a royalty on any future global net sales of Stivarga in oncology. Bayer and Onyx will jointly promote Stivarga in the U.S.

About Bayer HealthCare

The Bayer Group is a global enterprise with core competencies in the fields of health care, agriculture and high-tech materials. Bayer HealthCare, a subgroup of Bayer AG with annual sales of EUR 17.2 billion (2011), is one of the world’s leading, innovative companies in the healthcare and medical products industry and is based in Leverkusen, Germany. The company combines the global activities of the Animal Health, Consumer Care, Medical Care and Pharmaceuticals divisions. Bayer HealthCare’s aim is to discover, develop, manufacture and market products that will improve human and animal health worldwide. Bayer HealthCare has a global workforce of 55,700 employees (Dec 31, 2011) and is represented in more than 100 countries.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »