AE was any untoward medical occurrence with study drug/ device in a trial participant. Serious adverse event (SAE) was an AE resulting in death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. AEs were reported from signing of informed consent until 28 days after the last dose of study medication. SAEs were reported after this time frame if considered to be treatment related. The severity of AEs were graded by the investigator using National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (CTCAE) v.4.02 and was assessed as Grade 0: no change from normal or reference range; Grade 1: mild; Grade 2: moderate; Grade 3: severe; Grade 4: life-threatening or disabling; Grade 5: death related to AE. However the below table included Grade 3, 4, and 5 AEs.

The safety analysis population included all enrolled participants who had received at least 1 dose of study medication.

AE was any untoward medical occurrence with study drug/ device in a trial participant. SAE was an AE resulting in death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. AEs were reported from signing of informed consent until 28 days after the last dose of study medication. SAEs were reported after this time frame if considered to be treatment related. The severity of AEs were graded by the investigator using NCI CTCAE v.4.02 and was assessed as Grade 0: no change from normal or reference range; Grade 1: mild; Grade 2: moderate; Grade 3: severe; Grade 4: life-threatening or disabling; Grade 5: death related to AE. However the below table included Grade 3, 4, and 5 AEs.

The safety analysis population included all enrolled participants who had received at least 1 dose of study medication.

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study treatment in a participant who received study treatment. SAE was an AE resulting in death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. AEs were reported from signing of informed consent until 28 days after the last dose of study medication. SAEs were reported after this time frame if considered to be treatment related. The severity of AEs were graded by the investigator using NCI CTCAE v.4.02 and was assessed as Grade 0: no change from normal or reference range; Grade 1: mild; Grade 2: moderate; Grade 3: severe; Grade 4: life-threatening or disabling; Grade 5: death related to AE. However the below table included Grade 3, 4, and 5 AEs.

The safety analysis population included all enrolled participants who had received at least 1 dose of study medication.

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study treatment in a participant who received study treatment. SAE was an AE resulting in death, initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization, life-threatening experience, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent AEs were those with initial onset or that worsen in severity after the first dose of study medication. AEs were reported from signing of informed consent until 28 days after the last dose of study medication. SAEs were reported after this time frame if considered to be treatment related. The severity of AEs were graded by the investigator using NCI CTCAE v.4.02 and was assessed as Grade 0: no change from normal or reference range; Grade 1: mild; Grade 2: moderate; Grade 3: severe; Grade 4: life-threatening or disabling; Grade 5: death related to AE. However the below table included Grade 3, 4, and 5 AEs.

The safety analysis population included all enrolled participants who had received at least 1 dose of study medication.

DLTs were those AEs which occurred in Cycle 1 of treatment in Dose Escalation Phase which may be attributed to study drug [combined Crizotinib (PF-02341066) plus Dacomitinib (PF-00299804)] without a clear alternative explanation and despite the use of adequate/maximal medical intervention as dictated by local institutional clinical practices or the judgment of the investigator. The following events were considered DLTs (using CTCAE version 4.02);1. Grade ≥4 hematologic events. 2. Grade ≥3 non-hematological events (except Grade 3/4 asymptomatic hypophosphatemia and Grade 3/4 hyperuricemia without signs and symptoms of gout). Nausea, vomiting or diarrhea had to have persisted at Grade 3 or 4 despite maximal medical therapy. Grade 3 hypertension will be considered a DLT only if the event is unmanageable by standard approved pharmacologic agents or if the symptomatic sequelae are identified despite appropriate medical intervention.

The DLT evaluable population was defined as safety analysis (SA) participants in the Dose Escalation phase who did not have a major treatment deviation during the first cycle.

If a participant had not achieved an objective response with confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) - 1.1 as determined by the investigators, relative to the response evaluable population, but remained stable for at least 6 weeks after first dose, then the best overall response for such a participant was considered as stable disease.

The response evaluable population included participants in safety analysis population who had an adequate Baseline tumor assessment.

If a participant had not achieved an objective response with confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to RECIST (1.1) as determined by the investigators, relative to the response evaluable population, but remained stable for at least 6 weeks after first dose, then the best overall response for such a participant was considered as stable disease.

The response evaluable population included participants in safety analysis population who had an adequate Baseline tumor assessment.

ORR was defined as the percent of participants with CR or PR according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) determined by study physicians, relative to the response evaluable population. Participants were considered non-responders until proven otherwise. Thus, participants who: 1) Did not have CR or PR while on study, or 2) Did not have a post-baseline tumor evaluation, or 3) Received anti-tumor treatment other than the study medication prior to reaching a CR or PR, or 4) Died, in progress, or drop out for any reason prior to reaching a CR or PR, were counted as non-responders in the assessment of ORR. To be assigned a status of PR or CR, changes in tumor measurements in participants with responding tumors were confirmed by repeated tumor assessment that were performed 4 weeks after the criteria for response were first met.

The response evaluable population included participants in safety analysis population who had an adequate Baseline tumor assessment.

ORR was defined as the percent of participants with CR or PR according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) determined by study physicians, relative to the response evaluable population. Participants were considered non-responders until proven otherwise. Thus, participants who: 1) Did not have CR or PR while on study, or 2) Did not have a post-baseline tumor evaluation, or 3) Received anti-tumor treatment other than the study medication prior to reaching a CR or PR, or 4) Died, in progress, or drop out for any reason prior to reaching a CR or PR, were counted as non-responders in the assessment of ORR. To be assigned a status of PR or CR, changes in tumor measurements in participants with responding tumors were confirmed by repeated tumor assessment that were performed 4 weeks after the criteria for response were first met.

The response evaluable population included participants in safety analysis population who had an adequate Baseline tumor assessment.

This outcome measure presented the duration of response for one participant in expansion cohort 1 who showed partial response.

This Outcome Measure was only assessed for participants with response.

PFS was defined as the time from the date of the first dose to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST 1.1 or death on study due to any cause, whichever occurred first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used.

The safety analysis population included all enrolled participants who had received at least 1 dose of study medication.

PFS was defined as the time from the date of the first dose to the date of the first documentation of objective tumor progression according to RECIST 1.1 or death on study due to any cause, whichever occurred first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used.

The safety analysis population included all enrolled participants who had received at least 1 dose of study medication. In Expansion Cohort 1, two participants had censored reasons of "no adequate baseline", of which one participant had a censored reason "no tumor assessment data available.

Tumor biomarkers such as HGF, EGFR, and c-Met were analyzed in tumor cells (neoplastic compartment) of tumor specimens from both expansion cohorts 1 and 2 by IHC. The H score was derived by summing the percentages of cells staining at each intensity multiplied by the weighted intensity of staining (0, 1+, 2+, 3+, where 3+ indicates the strongest staining, 2+ indicates medium staining, 1+ indicates weak staining, and 0 indicates no staining). Minimum calculated score of 0 to maximum calculated score of 300, where 0 correspond to no expression and maximum score of 300 indicates the strongest expression. However, the biomarker expression level (higher or lower) was not a predictor of outcome.

The tumor analysis population included participants in safety analysis population who had a screening and on-treatment tumor biopsy for assessment of tumor biomarkers.

Expression of tumor biomarkers EGFR and cMet at Baseline (using FISH method) are presented in this outcome measure.

The tumor analysis population included participants in safety analysis population who had a screening and on-treatment tumor biopsy for assessment of tumor biomarkers.

Participants showed amplification of c-Met, HER2, and EGFR in the tumor cells and gene rearrangement of ALK are presented in this outcome measure.

The tumor analysis population included participants in safety analysis population who had a screening and on-treatment tumor biopsy for assessment of tumor biomarkers.

This outcome measure presented the plasma concentration of sMet at different study visits. s-Met was analyzed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The soluble protein analysis population included participants in safety analysis who had a screening or C1D1 soluble protein assessment, and at least one on-treatment soluble protein assessment (C1D14 C2D1 or C2D14).

Sample analyses were performed in accordance to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidance and included mutation detection for EGFR gene.

The tumor analysis population included participants in safety analysis population who had a screening and on-treatment tumor biopsy for assessment of tumor biomarkers.

Sample analyses were performed in accordance to GLP guidance and included mutation detection for KRAS gene.

The tumor analysis population included participants in safety analysis population who had a screening and on-treatment tumor biopsy for assessment of tumor biomarkers.

Sample analyses were performed in accordance to GLP guidance and included mutation detection for PIK3CA gene.

The tumor analysis population included participants in safety analysis population who had a screening and on-treatment tumor biopsy for assessment of tumor biomarkers.

Sample analyses were performed in accordance to GLP guidance and included translocation detection (RNA based) for ROS1 gene.

The tumor analysis population included participants in safety analysis population who had a screening and on-treatment tumor biopsy for assessment of tumor biomarkers. However, number of participants analyzed in the below table included the participants evaluated for ROS1 gene translocation.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of crizotinib and its metabolite, PF 06260182 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included AUClast for crizotinib and PF-06260182. AUClast was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of crizotinib and its metabolite, PF 06260182 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). AUC10 was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method. The below analysis table included geometric Mean and Geometric Coefficient of Variation of AUC10 for crizotinib and PF-06260182. Arithmetic mean was presented if the n=2.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of crizotinib and its metabolite, PF 06260182 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included Cmax for crizotinib and PF-06260182. Cmax was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of crizotinib and its metabolite, PF 06260182 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included Tlast for crizotinib and PF-06260182. Tlast was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of crizotinib and its metabolite, PF 06260182 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included Tmax for crizotinib and PF-06260182. Tmax was observed directly from data as time of first occurrence.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for PK analysis of dacomitinib and its metabolite, PF 05199265 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included AUClast for dacomitinib and PF-05199265. AUClast was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for PK analysis of dacomitinib and its metabolite, PF 05199265 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included AUC24 for dacomitinib and PF-05199265. AUC24 was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for PK analysis of dacomitinib and its metabolite, PF 05199265 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included Cmax for dacomitinib and PF-05199265. Cmax was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for PK analysis of dacomitinib and its metabolite, PF 05199265 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included Tlast for dacomitinib and PF-05199265. Tlast was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

At each designated time point, blood samples (3 mL) for PK analysis of dacomitinib and its metabolite, PF 05199265 were collected in appropriately labeled collection tubes containing dipotassium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (K2EDTA). The below analysis table included Tmax for dacomitinib and PF-05199265. Tmax was observed directly from data as time of first occurrence.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

Participants were evaluated for the effect of dacomitinib on steady-state PK of crizotinib. PK of crizotinib alone was evaluated on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) after a lead in period of continuous BID dosing of crizotinib for approximately 12 days (±2 days). PK of crizotinib and dacomitinib in combination treatment was evaluated on Day 1 of Cycle 2. Blood samples for crizotinib full PK were to be collected on Day -1 and Day 1 of Cycle 2. The below table included PK data for AUClast. AUClast was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

Participants were evaluated for the effect of dacomitinib on steady-state PK of crizotinib. PK of crizotinib alone was evaluated on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) after a lead in period of continuous BID dosing of crizotinib for approximately 12 days (±2 days). PK of crizotinib and dacomitinib in combination treatment was evaluated on Day 1 of Cycle 2. Blood samples for crizotinib full PK were to be collected on Day -1 and Day 1 of Cycle 2. The below table included PK data for AUC10. AUC10 was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

Participants were evaluated for the effect of dacomitinib on steady-state PK of crizotinib. PK of crizotinib alone was evaluated on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) after a lead in period of continuous BID dosing of crizotinib for approximately 12 days (±2 days). PK of crizotinib and dacomitinib in combination treatment was evaluated on Day 1 of Cycle 2. Blood samples for crizotinib full PK were to be collected on Day -1 and Day 1 of Cycle 2. The below table included PK data for Cmin. Cmin was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

Participants were evaluated for the effect of dacomitinib on steady-state PK of crizotinib. PK of crizotinib alone was evaluated on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) after a lead in period of continuous BID dosing of crizotinib for approximately 12 days (±2 days). PK of crizotinib and dacomitinib in combination treatment was evaluated on Day 1 of Cycle 2. Blood samples for crizotinib full PK were to be collected on Day -1 and Day 1 of Cycle 2. The below table included PK data for Cmax. Cmax was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

Participants were evaluated for the effect of dacomitinib on steady-state PK of crizotinib. PK of crizotinib alone was evaluated on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) after a lead in period of continuous BID dosing of crizotinib for approximately 12 days (±2 days). PK of crizotinib and dacomitinib in combination treatment was evaluated on Day 1 of Cycle 2. Blood samples for crizotinib full PK were to be collected on Day -1 and Day 1 of Cycle 2. The below table included PK data for Tlast. Tlast was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

Participants were evaluated for the effect of dacomitinib on steady-state PK of crizotinib. PK of crizotinib alone was evaluated on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) after a lead in period of continuous BID dosing of crizotinib for approximately 12 days (±2 days). PK of crizotinib and dacomitinib in combination treatment was evaluated on Day 1 of Cycle 2. Blood samples for crizotinib full PK were to be collected on Day -1 and Day 1 of Cycle 2. The below table included PK data for Tmax. Tmax was observed directly from data as time of first occurrence.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

PK samples for full PK evaluation of dacomitinib were drawn on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) and on C2D1. Dacomitinib and PF-05199265 PK parameter (AUClast) following dacomitinib alone and in combination with crizotinib are summarized in the below table. AUClast was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

PK samples for full PK evaluation of dacomitinib were drawn on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) and on C2D1. Dacomitinib and PF-05199265 PK parameter (AUC24) following dacomitinib alone and in combination with crizotinib are summarized in the below table. AUC24 was calculated using Linear/Log trapezoidal method.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

PK samples for full PK evaluation of dacomitinib were drawn on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) and on C2D1. Dacomitinib and PF-05199265 PK parameter (Cmin) following dacomitinib alone and in combination with crizotinib are summarized in the below table. Cmin was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

PK samples for full PK evaluation of dacomitinib were drawn on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) and on C2D1. Dacomitinib and PF-05199265 PK parameter (Cmax) following dacomitinib alone and in combination with crizotinib are summarized in the below table. Cmax was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

PK samples for full PK evaluation of dacomitinib were drawn on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) and on C2D1. Dacomitinib and PF-05199265 PK parameter (Tlast) following dacomitinib alone and in combination with crizotinib are summarized in the below table. Tlast was observed directly from data.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.

PK samples for full PK evaluation of dacomitinib were drawn on Day -1 (one day before C1D1 on which the combination treatment of crizotinib and dacomitinib started) and on C2D1. Dacomitinib and PF-05199265 PK parameter (Tmax) following dacomitinib alone and in combination with crizotinib are summarized in the below table. Tmax was observed directly from data as time of first occurrence.

The PK parameter analysis population was defined as all participants in the safety analysis population who had at least 1 of the PK parameters of interest. N= Number of participants in the treatment group in the indicated population. n= Number of participants contributing to the summary statistics.