4.7 Article

Phase II, Open-Label Study of Brivanib as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 1973-1983

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2011

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb [CA182006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor and VEGF signaling, has demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in preclinical and phase I studies. We performed a phase II open-label study of brivanib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. Experimental Design: Brivanib was administered orally at a dose of 800 mg once daily. The primary objective was 6-month progression-free survival, progression-free survival rate; secondary objectives were tumor response rate, time to response, duration of response, median progression-free survival, median overall survival, disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease >= 42 days), and safety and tolerability. Results: Between March 2007 and May 2009, 55 patients were treated and were evaluable for response. Patients were assessed using modified World Health Organization (mWHO) criteria. According to mWHO criteria and as assessed by Independent Response Review Committee, the six-month progression-free survival rate (95% CI) was 18.2% (9.1%-30.9%). Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 2.7 months (1.4-3.0). One patient achieved a complete response and three achieved a partial response. Twenty-two had stable disease. Median overall survival (95% CI) was 10 (6.8-15.2) months. Brivanib was generally well tolerated; the most common adverse events included fatigue, hypertension, and diarrhea. Conclusion: Brivanib as first-line therapy demonstrates promising antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced, unresectable HCC. Clin Cancer Res; 17(7); 1973-83. (C)2011 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据