Phase I dose-escalation study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of brivanib alaninate in combination with full-dose cetuximab in patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies who have failed prior therapy.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this phase I study were to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics and efficacy of brivanib combined with full-dose cetuximab in patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: Patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies who had failed prior therapies received brivanib (320, 600 or 800 mg daily) plus cetuximab (400 mg m(-2) loading dose then 250 mg m(-2) weekly). Assessments included adverse events, PK, tumour response, 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron-emitting tomography and K-Ras mutation analyses. RESULTS: Toxicities observed were manageable; the most common treatment-related toxicities (>10% of patients) were fatigue, diarrhoea, anorexia, increase in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, acneiform dermatitis, headache, mucosal inflammation, nausea, dry skin, vomiting, hypertension, pruritus, proteinuria and weight loss. Of 62 patients, 6 (9.7%) had objective radiographic partial responses, with an overall response rate of 10%. Median duration of response was 9.2 months; median progression-free survival was 3.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: The acceptable toxicity profile and efficacy of brivanib observed in this study were promising. These findings are being further evaluated in a phase III study of brivanib plus cetuximab vs cetuximab alone in patients previously treated with combination chemotherapy for K-Ras wild-type advanced metastatic colorectal cancer.

A phase I study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a dual VEGFR and FGFR inhibitor, brivanib, in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of brivanib in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients enrolled in this two-part, phase I open-label study of oral brivanib alaninate. The primary objectives of this study were (in part A) dose-limiting toxicity, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the lowest biologically active dose level and (in part B) the optimal dose/dose range. The secondary objectives of this study were preliminary evidence of antitumor activity, PK and PD. RESULTS: Across part A (open-label dose escalation and MTD) and part B (open-label dose optimization), 68 patients received brivanib alaninate. Brivanib demonstrated a manageable toxicity profile at doses of 180-800 mg. Most toxic effects were mild. Systemic exposure of the active moiety brivanib increased linearly ≤1000 mg/day. The MTD was 800 mg/day. Forty-four patients were treated at the MTD: 20 with 800 mg continuously, 11 with 800 mg intermittently and 13 with 400 mg b.i.d. doses. Partial responses were confirmed in two patients receiving brivanib ≥600 mg. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated statistically significant decreases in parameters reflecting tumor vascularity and permeability after multiple doses in the 800-mg continuous q.d. and 400-mg b.i.d. dose cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced/metastatic cancer, brivanib demonstrates promising antiangiogenic and antitumor activity and manageable toxicity at doses ≤800 mg orally q.d., the recommended phase II study dose.

Association tests for traits with variable age at onset.

This paper is concerned with testing association between marker genotypes and traits with variable age at onset. Two methods are proposed, one which makes use of both age-at-ascertainment and age-at-onset information, and one which may be applied when only age-at-ascertainment information is available. (Here, by age-at-ascertainment, is meant the subject's age when presence of onset and age at onset are determined; for subjects who have died or are otherwise censored before ascertainment, the censoring time should be used instead). Adjustment for confounding due to population stratification is carried out by conditioning on observed traits and parental genotypes, or, if complete parental genotypes are not available, by conditioning on observed traits and the minimal sufficient statistics under the null hypothesis for the parental genotypes. Proportional hazards regression models and logistic regression models are used to motivate the methods, but correct type I error rates result even if the models are not correct. An illustrative example is described.