Brivanib Versus Sorafenib As First-Line Therapy in Patients With Unresectable, Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results From the Randomized Phase III BRISK-FL Study

Philip J. Johnson(National Cancer Center), Shukui Qin(National Cancer Center), Joong‐Won Park(National Cancer Center), Ronnie T.P. Poon(National Cancer Center), Jean‐Luc Raoul(National Cancer Center), Philip A. Philip(National Cancer Center), Chih‐Hung Hsu(National Cancer Center), Tsung‐Hui Hu(Chang Gung University), Jeong Heo(National Cancer Center), Jianming Xu(National Cancer Center), Ligong Lu(National Cancer Center), Yee Chao(National Cancer Center), Éveline Boucher(National Cancer Center), Kwang‐Hyub Han(National Cancer Center), Seung Woon Paik(National Cancer Center), Jorge Alberto Robles-Aviña(National Cancer Center), Masatoshi Kudo(National Cancer Center), Lünan Yan(National Cancer Center), Abhasnee Sobhonslidsuk(National Cancer Center), Д. В. Комов(National Cancer Center), Thomas Decaens(National Cancer Center), Won Young Tak(National Cancer Center), Long‐Bin Jeng(National Cancer Center), David Liu(Bristol-Myers Squibb (Germany)), Rana Ezzeddine(Bristol-Myers Squibb (Germany)), Ian Walters(Bristol-Myers Squibb (Germany)), Ann‐Lii Cheng(National Cancer Center)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
August 27, 2013
Cited by 773Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

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.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis