Brivanib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Who Were Intolerant to Sorafenib or for Whom Sorafenib Failed: Results From the Randomized Phase III BRISK-PS Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (28) ◽  
pp. 3509-3516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josep M. Llovet ◽  
Thomas Decaens ◽  
Jean-Luc Raoul ◽  
Eveline Boucher ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Dual Inhibitor

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.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (28) ◽  
pp. 3517-3524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J. Johnson ◽  
Shukui Qin ◽  
Joong-Won Park ◽  
Ronnie T.P. Poon ◽  
Jean-Luc Raoul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors ◽  
First Line ◽  
Dual Inhibitor ◽  
End Points ◽  
End Point

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.

scholarly journals SEARCH: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Sorafenib Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 559-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew X. Zhu ◽  
Olivier Rosmorduc ◽  
T.R. Jeffry Evans ◽  
Paul J. Ross ◽  
Armando Santoro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Class A ◽  
Pugh Class

Purpose To compare the clinical outcomes of sorafenib plus either erlotinib or placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a multicenter, multinational, randomized, phase III trial. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced HCC and underlying Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis, who were naive to systemic treatment (N = 720), were randomly assigned to sorafenib plus either erlotinib (n = 362) or placebo (n = 358). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Median OS was similar in the sorafenib plus erlotinib and sorafenib plus placebo groups (9.5 v 8.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.929; P = .408), as was median time to progression (3.2 v 4.0 months, respectively; HR, 1.135; P = .18). In the sorafenib/erlotinib arm versus the sorafenib/placebo arm, the overall response rate trended higher (6.6% v 3.9%, respectively; P = .102), whereas the disease control rate was significantly lower (43.9% v 52.5%, respectively; P = .021). The median durations of treatment with sorafenib were 86 days in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm and 123 days in the sorafenib/placebo arm. In the sorafenib/erlotinib and sorafenib/placebo arms, the rates of treatment-emergent serious AEs (58.0% v 54.6%, respectively) and drug-related serious AEs (21.0% v 22.8%, respectively) were similar. AEs matched the known safety profiles of both agents, but rates of rash/desquamation, anorexia, and diarrhea were higher in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm, whereas rates of alopecia and hand-foot skin reaction were higher in the sorafenib/placebo arm. Withdrawal rates for AEs during cycles 1 to 3 were higher in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm. Conclusion Adding erlotinib to sorafenib did not improve survival in patients with advanced HCC.

Pembrolizumab As Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Finn ◽  
Baek-Yeol Ryoo ◽  
Philippe Merle ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Mohamed Bouattour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Previously Treated

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.

RILOMET-1: An international phase III multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) as first-line therapy in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4153-TPS4153 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cunningham ◽  
Salah-Eddin Al-Batran ◽  
Irina Davidenko ◽  
David H. Ilson ◽  
André M. Murad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Human Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Disease Extent

TPS4153 Background: Rilotumumab is an investigational, fully human monoclonal antibody to hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor that inhibits signaling through the MET receptor. In a randomized phase II study in patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, addition of rilotumumab every 3 weeks (Q3W) to ECX showed trends toward improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with ECX alone. In patients with high tumor MET expression and high rilotumumab exposure, the treatment effect of rilotumumab combined with ECX was significantly enhanced. Methods: In this phase III study, patients (planned N=450) are randomized 1:1 to ECX (intravenous [IV] epirubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, IV cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1, and oral capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1−21) plus double-blind rilotumumab 15 mg/kg or placebo IV Q3W. Randomization is stratified by disease extent (locally advanced vs metastatic) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (0 vs 1). Key eligibility criteria include previously untreated, pathologically confirmed unresectable locally advanced or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma; ECOG score 0 or 1; ≥18 years old; MET-positive by centralized immunohistochemistry; HER2-negative; adequate organ function; and ≥6 months since neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint is OS. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, 12-month survival rate, objective response, OS in MET expression tertiles, safety, and pharmacokinetics. An exploratory objective is to assess associations between outcomes and tumor and circulating biomarkers. Enrollment began in November 2012, and the trial continues to accrue. An independent data monitoring committee will conduct planned interim reviews for safety and efficacy. Status: recruiting participants. Sponsored by Amgen Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT01697072.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Survival of Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Nolatrexed or Doxorubicin

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (21) ◽  
pp. 3069-3075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Gish ◽  
Camillo Porta ◽  
Lucian Lazar ◽  
Paul Ruff ◽  
Ronald Feld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Objective

PurposeThe study objective was to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with nolatrexed (NOL) or doxorubicin (DOX).Patients and MethodsPatients from North America, Europe, and South Africa (N = 445) with HCC were randomly assigned to receive NOL or DOX. Eligible patients had Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 60%, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) score ≤ 3, and adequate organ function. Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates, and safety. The treatment groups were well-balanced with regards to age, sex, ethnic origin, and underlying liver disease. Randomization was stratified according to KPS and CLIP score.ResultsAt the time of the final analysis, 377 patients had died. Median OS was 22.3 weeks for NOL and 32.3 weeks for DOX (P = .0068). The hazard ratio was 0.753 in favor of DOX. Objective response rate (complete response [CR] plus partial response [PR]) was 1.4% for NOL and 4.0% for DOX. Median PFS was 12 weeks for NOL and 10 weeks for DOX (P = .7091). Median time to treatment failure was 8.4 weeks for NOL and 9.1 weeks for DOX (P = .0969). Grade 3 and 4 stomatitis, vomiting, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia were more common in the NOL arm. Alopecia was more common in the DOX arm. More patients were withdrawn from study for toxicity in the NOL arm than in the DOX arm.ConclusionNOL showed minimal activity in this phase III trial. Further exploration at this dose and schedule in HCC is not warranted.

scholarly journals A systematic review and network meta-analysis of second-line therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Delos Santos ◽  
S. Udayakumar ◽  
A. Nguyen ◽  
Y.J. Ko ◽  
S. Berry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Grade 3

Background In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) following sorafenib failure, it is unclear which treatment is most efficacious, as treatments in the second-line setting have not been directly compared and no standard therapy exists. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (nma) aimed to compare the clinical benefits and toxicities of these treatments. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (rcts) was conducted to identify phase iii rcts in advanced hcc following sorafenib failure. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of placebo were examined for het­erogeneity. Primary outcomes of interest were extracted for results, including overall survival (os), progression-free survival (pfs), objective response rate (orr), grade 3/4 toxicities, and subgroups. An nma was conducted to compare both drugs through the intermediate placebo. Comparisons were expressed as hazard ratios (hrs) for os and pfs, and as risk difference (rd) for orr and toxicities. Subgroup analyses for os and pfs were also performed. Results Two rcts were identified (1280 patients) and compared through an indirect network; celestial (cabozantinib vs. placebo) and resorce (regorafenib vs. placebo). Baseline characteristics of patients in both trials were similar. Both trials also had similar placebo outcomes. Cabozantinib, compared with regorafenib, showed similar os [hazard ratio (hr): 1.21; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.90 to 1.62], pfs (hr: 1.02; 95% ci: 0.78 to 1.34) and orr (−3.0%; 95% ci: −7.6% to 1.7%). Both treatments showed similar toxicities, but there were marginally higher risks of grade 3/4 hand–foot syndrome (5%; 95% ci: 0.1% to 9.8%), diarrhea (4.8%; 95% ci: 1.1% to 8.5%), and anorexia (4.4%; 95% ci: 0.8% to 8.0%) for cabozantinib. Subgroup results for os and pfs were consistent with overall results. Conclusions Overall, this nma determined that cabozantinib and regorafenib have similar clinical benefits and toxicities for second-line hcc.

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in combination with TH-302 compared with gemcitabine in combination with placebo in previously untreated patients with metastatic or locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: The MAESTRO trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4148-TPS4148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Robert J. Fram ◽  
Michael Schlichting ◽  
David P. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Treatment Discontinuation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Double Blind

TPS4148 Background: Tumors often consist of highly hypoxic subregions that are resistant to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The investigational hypoxia-targeted drug TH-302 is reduced at its nitroimidazole group, and under hypoxic conditions releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard (Br-IPM). A randomized Phase IIb trial of TH-302 in pts with metastatic or locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) confirmed a significant PFS improvement (p=0.008) in pts treated with TH-302 at 340 mg/m2+ gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone (Borad et al, ESMO 2012). Skin and mucosal toxicities, mainly Grade 1/2, and myelosuppression (thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and anemia) were the most common AEs related to TH-302 and did not lead to increases in treatment discontinuation. Grade 3/4 myelosuppression was more frequent in the TH-302 + gemcitabine arm. AEs leading to treatment discontinuation as well as non-hematological serious AEs were balanced across arms. Methods: This is a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT01746979) of gemcitabine + TH-302 compared with gemcitabine + placebo in pts with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic PDAC. The study is designed to detect a 25% risk reduction of death with 90% power and two-sided alpha of 5%. A total of 660 pts are planned to be randomized 1:1. Key eligibility criteria include histologically or cytologically confirmed disease, no prior chemotherapy or systemic therapy (except as specified in the protocol), ECOG performance status 0 – 1, and bilirubin ≤ 1.5x upper limit of normal. Randomized pts receive TH-302 + gemcitabine or gemcitabine + placebo in 4-week cycles until progressive disease, intolerable toxicity, or pt withdrawal. The primary objective is to evaluate OS. Secondary objectives include PFS, objective response, and disease control; safety and tolerability; pt-reported QoL and pain; CA 19-9 levels and PK of TH-302; exploratory pharmacogenomic markers and potential predictive biomarkers. Enrollment to the study is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01746979.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document