TY - JOUR
T1 - Brivanib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
T2 - Results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study
AU - Johnson, Philip J.
AU - Qin, Shukui
AU - Park, Joong Won
AU - Poon, Ronnie T.P.
AU - Raoul, Jean Luc
AU - Philip, Philip A.
AU - Hsu, Chih Hung
AU - Hu, Tsung Hui
AU - Heo, Jeong
AU - Xu, Jianming
AU - Lu, Ligong
AU - Chao, Yee
AU - Boucher, Eveline
AU - Han, Kwang Hyub
AU - Paik, Seung Woon
AU - Robles-Aviña, Jorge
AU - Kudo, Masatoshi
AU - Yan, Lunan
AU - Sobhonslidsuk, Abhasnee
AU - Komov, Dmitry
AU - Decaens, Thomas
AU - Tak, Won Young
AU - Jeng, Long Bin
AU - Liu, David
AU - Ezzeddine, Rana
AU - Walters, Ian
AU - Cheng, Ann Lii
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2013/10/1
Y1 - 2013/10/1
N2 - 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-footskin 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.
AB - 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-footskin 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890274647&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890274647&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.4410
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.4410
M3 - Article
C2 - 23980084
AN - SCOPUS:84890274647
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 31
SP - 3517
EP - 3524
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 28
ER -