Purpose Selective internal radiation therapy or radioembolization (RE) shows efficacy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) limited to the liver. This study compared the safety and efficacy of RE and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced HCC. Patients and Methods SIRveNIB (selective internal radiation therapy v sorafenib), an open-label, investigator-initiated, phase III trial, compared yttrium-90 (Y) resin microspheres RE with sorafenib 800 mg/d in patients with locally advanced HCC in a two-tailed study designed for superiority/detriment. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and stratified by center and presence of portal vein thrombosis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in the treated population. Results A total of 360 patients were randomly assigned (RE, 182; sorafenib, 178) from 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In the RE and sorafenib groups, 28.6% and 9.0%, respectively, failed to receive assigned therapy without significant cross-over to either group. Median OS was 8.8 and 10.0 months with RE and sorafenib, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4; P = .36). A total of 1,468 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported (RE, 437; sorafenib, 1,031). Significantly fewer patients in the RE than sorafenib group had grade ≥ 3 AEs (36 of 130 [27.7%]) v 82 of 162 [50.6%]; P < .001). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were ascites (five of 130 [3.8%] v four of 162 [2.5%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2.3%] v two [1.2%] patients), anemia (zero v four [2.5%] patients), and radiation hepatitis (two [1.5%] v zero [0%] patients). Fewer patients in the RE group (27 of 130 [20.8%]) than in the sorafenib group (57 of 162 [35.2%]) had serious AEs. Conclusion In patients with locally advanced HCC, OS did not differ significantly between RE and sorafenib. The improved toxicity profile of RE may inform treatment choice in selected patients.

Purpose: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common primary neoplasm; surgery is the only curative option but 5-year survival rates are only 25% to 50%. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) are known to be involved in growth and neovascularization of HCC. Therefore, agents that target these pathways may be effective in the treatment of HCC. The aim of this study was to determine the antineoplastic activity of brivanib alaninate, a dual inhibitor of VEGF receptor (VEGFR) and FGF receptor (FGFR) signaling pathways. Experimental Design: Six different s.c. patient-derived HCC xenografts were implanted into mice. Tumor growth was evaluated in mice treated with brivanib compared with control. The effects of brivanib on apoptosis and cell proliferation were evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The SK-HEP1 and HepG2 cells were used to investigate the effects of brivanib on the VEGFR-2 and FGFR-1 signaling pathways in vitro. Western blotting was used to determine changes in proteins in these xenografts and cell lines. Results: Brivanib significantly suppressed tumor growth in five of six xenograft lines. Furthermore, brivanib–induced growth inhibition was associated with a decrease in phosphorylated VEGFR-2 at Tyr1054/1059, increased apoptosis, reduced microvessel density, inhibition of cell proliferation, and down-regulation of cell cycle regulators. The levels of FGFR-1 and FGFR-2 expression in these xenograft lines were positively correlated with its sensitivity to brivanib-induced growth inhibition. In VEGF-stimulated and basic FGF stimulated SK-HEP1 cells, brivanib significantly inhibited VEGFR-2, FGFR-1, extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2, and Akt phosphorylation. Conclusion: This study provides a strong rationale for clinical investigation of brivanib in patients with HCC.

Tracer kinetic methods employed for quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) share common roots with earlier tracer studies involving arterial-venous sampling and other dynamic imaging modalities. This article reviews the essential foundation concepts and principles in tracer kinetics that are relevant to DCE MRI, including the notions of impulse response and convolution, which are central to the analysis of DCE MRI data. We further examine the formulation and solutions of various compartmental models frequently used in the literature. Topics of recent interest in the processing of DCE MRI data, such as the account of water exchange and the use of reference tissue methods to obviate the measurement of an arterial input, are also discussed. Although the primary focus of this review is on the tracer models and methods for T 1 -weighted DCE MRI, some of these concepts and methods are also applicable for analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrastenhanced MRI data.

MRI and MRSI have the potential to identify cancer foci and direct TRUS in patients with a previous negative TRUS biopsy. Further, larger studies are required to quantify the amount of benefit.