David Liu

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.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic ultrasound (EFAST) has shown promise in inferring the presence of post-traumatic pneumothoraces (PTXs) and may have a particular value in identifying occult pneumothoraces (OPTXs) missed by the AP supine chest radiograph (CXR). However, the diagnostic utility of hand-held US has not been previously evaluated in this role. METHODS: Thoracic US examinations were performed during the initial resuscitation of injured patients at a provincial trauma referral center. A high frequency linear transducer and a 2.4 kg US attached to a video-recorder were used. Real-time EFAST examinations for PTXs were blindly compared with the subsequent results of CXRs, a composite standard (CXR, chest and abdominal CT scans, clinical course, and invasive interventions), and a CT gold standard (CT only). Charts were reviewed for in-hospital outcomes and follow-up. RESULTS: There were 225 eligible patients (207 blunt, 18 penetrating); 17 were excluded from the US examination because of battery failure or a lost probe. Sixty-five (65) PTXs were detected in 52 patients (22% of patients), 41 (63%) being occult to CXR in 33 patients (14.2% whole population, 24.6% of those with a CT). The US and CXR agreed in 186 (89.4%) of patients, EFAST was better in 16 (7.7%), and CXR better in 6 (2.9%). Compared with the composite standard, the sensitivity of EFAST was 58.9% with a likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+) of 69.7 and a specificity of 99.1%. Comparing EFAST directly to CXR, by looking at each of 266 lung fields with the benefit of the CT gold standard, the EFAST showed higher sensitivity over CXR (48.8% versus 20.9%). Both exams had a very high specificity (99.6% and 98.7%), and very predictive LR+ (46.7 and 36.3). CONCLUSION: EFAST has comparable specificity to CXR but is more sensitive for the detection of OPTXs after trauma. Positive EFAST findings should be addressed either clinically or with CT depending on hemodynamic stability. CT should be used if detection of all PTXs is desired.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors implicated in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An unmet medical need persists for patients with HCC whose tumors do not respond to sorafenib or who cannot tolerate it. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed brivanib in patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 395 patients with advanced HCC who progressed on/after or were intolerant to sorafenib were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive brivanib 800 mg orally once per day plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and safety. RESULTS: Median OS was 9.4 months for brivanib and 8.2 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95.8% CI, 0.69 to 1.15; P = .3307). Adjusting treatment effect for baseline prognostic factors yielded an OS HR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.04; P = .1044). Exploratory analyses showed a median time to progression of 4.2 months for brivanib and 2.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.76; P < .001), and an mRECIST ORR of 10% for brivanib and 2% for placebo (odds ratio, 5.72). Study discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 61 brivanib patients (23%) and nine placebo patients (7%). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3 to 4 AEs for brivanib included hypertension (17%), fatigue (13%), hyponatremia (11%), and decreased appetite (10%). CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib, brivanib did not significantly improve OS. The observed benefit in the secondary outcomes of TTP and ORR warrants further investigation.