Linifanib versus Sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to linifanib 17.5 mg once daily or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Patients were stratified by region (Outside Asia, Japan, and rest of Asia), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS; 0 or 1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes or no), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (yes or no). The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1,035 patients (median age, 60 years; Asian, 66.6%; ECOG PS 0, 65.2%; HBV, 49.1%; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 70.1%). Median OS was 9.1 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.2) and 9.8 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 8.3 to 11.0; hazard ratio [HR], 1.046; 95% CI, 0.896 to 1.221). For prespecified stratification subgroups, OS HRs ranged from 0.793 to 1.119 and the 95% CI contained 1.0. Median TTP was 5.4 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) and 4.0 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2; HR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.643 to 0.895; P = .001). Best response rate was 13.0% on the linifanib arm versus 6.9% on the sorafenib arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); serious AEs; and AEs leading to discontinuation, dose interruption, and reduction were more frequent with linifanib (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Linifanib and sorafenib had similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and noninferiority OS boundaries were not met for linifanib and the study failed to meet the primary end point. TTP and ORR favored linifanib; safety results favored sorafenib.

Randomized phase II open-label study of mFOLFOX6 in combination with linifanib or bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, second-line CRC treatment is limited. In this trial we examined the efficacy and safety of linifanib, an oral, potent, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor families, with mFOLFOX6, compared with bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6, in previously treated metastatic CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-eight patients with advanced CRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine or irinotecan received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenous), low-dose linifanib (7.5 mg), or high-dose linifanib (12.5 mg), with mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in PFS occurred between bevacizumab and linifanib doses (low, hazard ratio [HR], 1.453 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.830-2.539]; high, HR, 1.257 [95% CI, 0.672-2.351]). Median OS values were similar for bevacizumab and high-dose linifanib (bevacizumab, 16.5 months [95% CI, 13.0-not available]; high-dose linifanib, 16.4 months [95% CI, 11.9-21.7]; low-dose linifanib, 12.0 months [95% CI, 10.1-13.0]). ORRs were similar (bevacizumab, 34.7% [95% CI, 21.7-49.6]; low-dose linifanib, 24.0% [95% CI, 13.1-38.2]; high-dose linifanib, 22.4% [95% CI, 11.8-36.6]). Median cycles of 5-fluorouracil were reduced in the linifanib arms, versus the bevacizumab arm. Grade 3/4 adverse event occurrences were more frequent with linifanib. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypothyroidism, and thrombocytopenia were more common with high-dose linifanib than bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: Combining linifanib with mFOLFOX6 as a second-line treatment for metastatic CRC did not improve PFS, radiographic findings, or duration of response versus bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6.