Search

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.

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.

Purpose: To compare the quality of life (QoL) of patients receiving oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy and to assess whether pretreatment QoL predicts survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer., Patients and Methods: Three hundred forty-two patients with performance status 0 or 1 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m(2); irinotecan, 180 mg/m(2); leucovorin, 400 mg/m(2); and fluorouracil, 400 mg/m(2) bolus followed by 2,400 mg/m(2) 46-hour continuous infusion, once every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 every 2 weeks., Results: Improvement in global health status (GHS; P < .001) was observed in the FOLFIRINOX arm and improvement in emotional functioning (P < .001) was observed in both arms, along with a decrease in pain, insomnia, anorexia, and constipation in both arms. A significant increase in diarrhea was observed in the FOLFIRINOX arm during the first 2 months of chemotherapy. Time until definitive deterioration ≥ 20 points was significantly longer for FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine for GHS, physical, role, cognitive, and social functioning, and six symptom domains (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, anorexia, and constipation). Physical functioning, constipation, and dyspnea were independent significant prognostic factors for survival with treatment arm, age older than 65 years, and low serum albumin., Conclusion: FOLFIRINOX significantly reduces QoL impairment compared with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, baseline QoL scores improved estimation of survival probability when added to baseline clinical and demographic variables.

Purpose: Randomized studies on tamoxifen treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) produced conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of tamoxifen administration in improving overall survival of patients with advanced HCC., Patients and Methods: A total of 420 patients with HCC who were not suitable for surgery or local treatment were randomly assigned between April 1995 and May 2000: 210 in the control group and 210 in the tamoxifen group (20 mg/d orally). Patients with WHO performance status greater than 2, belonging to Child-Pugh class C, or with serum creatinine greater than 130 mumol/L were not eligible., Results: Tolerance was good and the main reported adverse effects were thrombophlebitis (three patients), nausea (two patients), and hot flushes (three patients). Outcome did not differ between the two treatment arms: estimated median survival was 4.8 and 4.0 months in the tamoxifen and in the control groups, respectively (P = .25). Univariate analysis showed significant association of survival with age, Okuda stage, WHO performance status, Child-Pugh class, intrahepatic tumor stage, alpha-fetoprotein serum concentration, and presence of extrahepatic spread, portal vein thrombosis, hepatomegaly, or hepatalgia. In a Cox proportional hazards model we found a significant beneficial effect of tamoxifen on survival in patients belonging to Okuda I or II stages., Conclusion: In this large study, tamoxifen did not improve the survival of patients with advanced HCC, but there is a suggestion that patients without major hepatic insufficiency seem to have some survival benefit. New trials involving this specific population are warranted.

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and safety of a biweekly regimen of leucovorin (LV) plus fluorouracil (FU) alone or in combination with cisplatin or irinotecan in patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma and to select the best arm for a phase III study., Patients and Methods: One hundred thirty-six patients (two were ineligible) were enrolled onto the randomized multicenter phase II trial. Patients received LV 200 mg/m(2) (2-hour infusion) followed by FU 400 mg/m(2) (bolus) and FU 600 mg/m(2) (22-hour continuous infusion) on days 1 and 2 every 14 days (LV5FU2; arm A), LV5FU2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) (1-hour infusion) on day 1 or 2 (arm B), or LV5FU2 plus irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) (2-hour infusion) on day 1 (arm C)., Results: The overall response rates, which were confirmed by an independent expert panel, were 13% (95% CI, 3.4% to 23.3%), 27% (95% CI, 14.1% to 40.4%), and 40% (95% CI, 25.7% to 54.3%) for arms A, B, and C, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.6 months) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 11.1 months) with LV5FU2, respectively; 4.9 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.3 months) and 9.5 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.2 months) with LV5FU2-cisplatin, respectively; and 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 8.3 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.3 to 13.3 months) with LV5FU2-irinotecan, respectively., Conclusion: Of the three regimens tested, the combination of LV5FU2-irinotecan is the most promising and will be assessed in a phase III trial.

Purpose: To assess antitumor activity and safety of two regimens in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with proven fluorouracil (5-FU) resistance in a randomized phase II study: 5-FU/folinic acid (FA) combined with alternating irinotecan (also called CPT-11) and oxaliplatin (FC/FO tritherapy), and an oxaliplatin/irinotecan (OC) combination., Patients and Methods: Sixty-two patients were treated: arm FC/FO (32 patients) received, every 4 weeks, FA 200 mg/m(2) followed by a 400-mg/m(2) 5-FU bolus injection, then a 600-mg/m(2) continuous infusion of 5-FU on days 1 and 2 every 2 weeks administered alternately with irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) on day 1) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2) on day 15). Arm OC (30 patients) received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks., Results: In an intent-to-treat analysis, two partial responses lasting 10.7 and 16 months were observed with the tritherapy regimen, and seven (median duration, 11 months; range, 10.6 to 11.4 months) were observed with the bitherapy regimen. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 8.2 and 9.8 months, respectively, in the FC/FO arm and 8.5 and 12.3 months, respectively, in the OC arm. Main grade 3/4 toxicities were, respectively, neutropenia, 53% and 47%; febrile neutropenia, 13% and 3%; diarrhea, 19% and 10%; vomiting, 6% and 13%; and neurosensory toxicity, 3% and 3%. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusion: The every-3-weeks OC combination is safe and active in advanced 5-FU-resistant CRC patients. The lower activity data seen with the tritherapy regimen may be related to the lower dose intensities of irinotecan and oxaliplatin in this schedule.

Purpose: To evaluate the objective tumor response rate and safety profile of oxaliplatin when administered to patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma., Patients and Methods: A total of 39 patients were entered onto this phase II trial. One patient was excluded for having had a second cancer, so the study was based on 38 patients. Patients were treated with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 1, every 21 days. Patients were assessed for response every three courses. All clinical and radiologic data were reviewed by an external panel of experts, with their assessment being considered definitive., Results: Nine partial responses (PRs) were observed (response rate, 24.3%; 95% confidence interval, 11.8% to 41.2%). The median duration of response was 216+ days. Fifteen patients (40.5%) had stable disease and 13 (35.2%) had progressive disease. The median progression-free survival time for all patients was 126+ days (range, 21 to 447+). The main toxicity was peripheral sensory neuropathy. Grade 3 neurotoxicity (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria [NCI-CTC]) was reported in 13%. Hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities were mild. The incidence of grade 3 neutropenia was 5.2%, while that of grade 3 or 4 thrombopenia was 7.9%. Vomiting (grade 3 or 4) occurred in 7.9% of patients and grade 3 diarrhea in 2.6%., Conclusion: This phase II study provides clear evidence of the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin monotherapy at this dose and schedule in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma.