Д. В. Комов

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a dual inhibitor of vascular-endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial compared brivanib with sorafenib as first-line treatment for HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced HCC patients who had no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily orally (n = 578) or brivanib 800 mg once daily orally (n = 577). Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and safety. RESULTS: The primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib in the per-protocol population (n = 1,150) was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95.8% CI, 0.93 to 1.22), based on the prespecified margin (upper CI limit for HR ≤ 1.08). Median OS was 9.9 months for sorafenib and 9.5 months for brivanib. TTP, ORR, and DCR were similar between the study arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events for sorafenib and brivanib were hyponatremia (9% and 23%, respectively), AST elevation (17% and 14%), fatigue (7% and 15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (15% and 2%), and hypertension (5% and 13%). Discontinuation as a result of adverse events was 33% for sorafenib and 43% for brivanib; rates for dose reduction were 50% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study did not meet its primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib. However, both agents had similar antitumor activity, based on secondary efficacy end points. Brivanib had an acceptable safety profile, but was less well-tolerated than sorafenib.

4001 Background: SOR is the only approved agent in uHCC and new options are needed. LEN, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1‒3, fibroblast growth factor receptors 1‒4, platelet derived growth factor receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in uHCC in a phase II trial. We report a phase III trial of LEN vs SOR as first-line therapy for uHCC. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, noninferiority (NI) study, pts had uHCC, ≥ 1 measurable target lesion, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C, Child-Pugh class A, ECOG PS ≤ 1, and no prior systemic therapy. Pts were randomized 1:1 to LEN (body weight ≥ 60 kg: 12 mg/day; < 60 kg: 8 mg/day) or SOR 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The OS hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were estimated with a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The predefined NI margin was 1.08. Secondary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) by modified RECIST. Type I error rates for secondary efficacy endpoints were controlled with a fixed sequence procedure at 2-sided α = 0.05 after OS NI was claimed. Results: 954 Pts enrolled (LEN: 478; SOR: 476). Efficacy outcomes are shown in the table. A similar number of pts in both arms had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Most common LEN TEAEs were hypertension (42%), diarrhea (39%), decreased appetite (34%), decreased weight (31%), and fatigue (30%). Median (range) treatment duration was 5.7 mos (0−35.0) for LEN and 3.7 mos (0.1−38.7) for SOR. 13% Of LEN-treated and 9% of SOR-treated pts discontinued due to adverse events. 33% Of LEN-treated and 39% of SOR-treated pts received second-line therapy. Conclusions: LEN is noninferior in OS, and achieves statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PFS, TTP, and ORR, as first line therapy for uHCC. TEAEs were consistent with the known LEN safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT01761266. [Table: see text]