Experimental validation of rotating detonation for rocket propulsion.

Space travel requires high-powered, efficient rocket propulsion systems for controllable launch vehicles and safe planetary entry. Interplanetary travel will rely on energy-dense propellants to produce thrust via combustion as the heat generation process to convert chemical to thermal energy. In propulsion devices, combustion can occur through deflagration or detonation, each having vastly different characteristics. Deflagration is subsonic burning at effectively constant pressure and is the main means of thermal energy generation in modern rockets. Alternatively, detonation is a supersonic combustion-driven shock offering several advantages. Detonations entail compact heat release zones at elevated local pressure and temperature. Specifically, rotating detonation rocket engines (RDREs) use detonation as the primary means of energy conversion, producing more useful available work compared to equivalent deflagration-based devices; detonation-based combustion is poised to radically improve rocket performance compared to today's constant pressure engines, producing up to 10[Formula: see text] increased thrust. This new propulsion cycle will also reduce thruster size and/or weight, lower injection pressures, and are less susceptible to engine-damaging acoustic instabilities. Here we present a collective effort to benchmark performance and standardize operability of rotating detonation rocket engines to develop the RDRE technology readiness level towards a flight demonstration. Key detonation physics unique to RDREs, driving consistency and control of chamber dynamics across the engine operating envelope, are identified and addressed to drive down the variability and stochasticity observed in previous studies. This effort demonstrates an RDRE operating consistently across multiple facilities, validating this technology's performance as the foundation of RDRE architecture for future aerospace applications.

Selective STING stimulation in dendritic cells primes antitumor T cell responses.

T cells that recognize tumor antigens are crucial for mounting antitumor immune responses. Induction of antitumor T cells in immunogenic tumors depends on STING, the intracellular innate immune receptor for cyclic guanosine monophosphate-adenosine monophosphate (cGAMP) and related cyclic dinucleotides (CDNs). However, the optimal way to leverage STING activation in nonimmunogenic tumors is still unclear. Here, we show that cGAMP delivery by intratumoral injection of virus-like particles (cGAMP-VLP) led to differentiation of circulating tumor-specific T cells, decreased tumor regulatory T cells (Tregs), and antitumoral responses that synergized with PD1 blockade. By contrast, intratumoral injection of the synthetic CDN ADU-S100 led to tumor necrosis and systemic T cell activation but simultaneously depleted immune cells from injected tumors and induced minimal priming of circulating tumor-specific T cells. The antitumor effects of cGAMP-VLP required type 1 conventional dendritic cells (cDC1), whereas ADU-S100 eliminated cDC1 from injected tumors. cGAMP-VLP preferentially targeted STING in dendritic cells at a 1000-fold smaller dose than ADU-S100. Subcutaneous administration of cGAMP-VLP showed synergy when combined with PD1 blockade or a tumor Treg-depleting antibody to elicit systemic tumor-specific T cells and antitumor activity, leading to complete and durable tumor eradication in the case of tumor Treg depletion. These findings show that cell targeting of STING stimulation shapes the antitumor T cell response and identify a therapeutic strategy to enhance T cell-targeted immunotherapy.

Assessing the safety, tolerability and efficacy of PLGA-based immunomodulatory nanoparticles in patients with advanced NY-ESO-1-positive cancers: a first-in-human phase I open-label dose-escalation study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The undiminished need for more effective cancer treatments stimulates the development of novel cancer immunotherapy candidates. The archetypical cancer immunotherapy would induce robust, targeted and long-lasting immune responses while simultaneously circumventing immunosuppression in the tumour microenvironment. For this purpose, we developed a novel immunomodulatory nanomedicine: PRECIOUS-01. As a PLGA-based nanocarrier, PRECIOUS-01 encapsulates a tumour antigen (NY-ESO-1) and an invariant natural killer T cell activator to target and augment specific antitumour immune responses in patients with NY-ESO-1-expressing advanced cancers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label, first-in-human, phase I dose-escalation trial investigates the safety, tolerability and immune-modulatory activity of increasing doses of PRECIOUS-01 administered intravenously in subjects with advanced NY-ESO-1-expressing solid tumours. A total of 15 subjects will receive three intravenous infusions of PRECIOUS-01 at a 3-weekly interval in three dose-finding cohorts. The trial follows a 3+3 design for the dose-escalation steps to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Depending on the toxicity, the two highest dosing cohorts will be extended to delineate the immune-related parameters as a readout for pharmacodynamics. Subjects will be monitored for safety and the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities. If the MTD is not reached in the planned dose-escalation cohorts, the RP2D will be based on the observed safety and immune-modulatory activity as a pharmacodynamic parameter supporting the RP2D. The preliminary efficacy will be evaluated as an exploratory endpoint using the best overall response rate, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Dutch competent authority (CCMO) reviewed the trial application and the medical research ethics committee (CMO Arnhem-Nijmegen) approved the trial under registration number NL72876.000.20. The results will be disseminated via (inter)national conferences and submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04751786.

Intratumoral Administration of a Novel Cytotoxic Formulation with Strong Tissue Dispersive Properties Regresses Tumor Growth and Elicits Systemic Adaptive Immunity in In Vivo Models.

The recent development of immune-based therapies has improved the outcome for cancer patients; however, adjuvant therapies remain an important line of treatment for several cancer types. To maximize efficacy, checkpoint inhibitors are often combined with cytotoxic agents. While this approach often leads to increased tumor regression, higher off target toxicity often results in certain patients. This report describes a novel formulation comprising a unique amphiphilic molecule, 8-((2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino)octanoate (SHAO), that non-covalently interacts with payloads to increase drug dispersion and diffusion when dosed intratumorally (IT) into solid tumors. SHAO is co-formulated with cisplatin and vinblastine (referred to as INT230-6). IT dosing of the novel formulation achieved greater tumor growth inhibition and improved survival in in vivo tumor models compared to the same drugs without enhancer given intravenously or IT. INT230-6 treatment increased immune infiltrating cells in injected tumors with 10% to 20% of the animals having complete responses and developing systemic immunity to the cancer. INT230-6 was also shown to be synergistic with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies at improving survival and increasing complete responses. INT230-6 induced significant tumor necrosis potentially releasing antigens to induce the systemic immune-based anti-cancer attack. This research demonstrates a novel, local treatment approach for cancer that minimizes systemic toxicity while stimulating adaptive immunity.

Intratumorally delivered formulation, INT230-6, containing potent anticancer agents induces protective T cell immunity and memory.

The benefits of anti-cancer agents extend beyond direct tumor killing. One aspect of cell death is the potential to release antigens that initiate adaptive immune responses. Here, a diffusion enhanced formulation, INT230-6, containing potent anti-cancer cytotoxic agents, was administered intratumorally into large (approx. 300mm3) subcutaneous murine Colon26 tumors. Treatment resulted in regression from baseline in 100% of the tumors and complete response in up to 90%. CD8+ or CD8+/CD4+ T cell double-depletion at treatment onset prevented complete responses, indicating a critical role of T cells in promoting complete tumor regression. Mice with complete response were protected from subcutaneous and intravenous re-challenge of Colon26 cells in a CD4+/CD8+ dependent manner. Thus, immunological T cell memory was induced by INT230-6. Colon26 tumors express the endogenous retroviral protein gp70 containing the CD8+ T-cell AH-1 epitope. AH-1-specific CD8+ T cells were detected in peripheral blood of tumor-bearing mice and their frequency increased 14 days after treatment onset. AH-1-specific CD8+ T cells were also significantly enriched in tumors of untreated mice. These cells had an activated phenotype and highly expressed Programmed cell-death protein-1 (PD-1) but did not lead to tumor regression. CD8+ T cell tumor infiltrate also increased 11 days after treatment. INT230-6 synergized with checkpoint blockade, inducing a complete remission of the primary tumors and shrinking of untreated contralateral tumors, which demonstrates not only a local but also systemic immunological effect of the combined therapy. Similar T-cell dependent inhibition of tumor growth was also found in an orthotopic 4T1 breast cancer model.

Phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling. We performed a phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in 7 tumour types (soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], ovarian cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], gastric/esophageal cancer and transitional cell carcinoma [TCC]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: During a 12-week open-label lead-in period, patients received brivanib 800 mg daily and were evaluated for FGF2 status by immunohistochemistry. Patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomised to brivanib or placebo. A study steering committee evaluated week 12 response to determine if enrolment in a tumour type would continue. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) for brivanib versus placebo in patients with FGF2-positive tumours. RESULTS: A total of 595 patients were treated, and stable disease was observed at the week 12 randomisation point in all tumour types. Closure decisions were made for breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer and TCC. Criteria for expansion were met for STS and ovarian cancer. In 53 randomised patients with STS and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 2.8 months for brivanib and 1.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, p = 0.08). For all randomised patients with sarcomas, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.0) for those treated with brivanib compared with 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.6) for placebo (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.38-1.07; p = 0.09). In the 36 randomised patients with ovarian cancer and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 4.0 (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) months for brivanib and 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) for placebo (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.26-1.22). For all randomised patients with ovarian cancer, the median PFS in those randomised to brivanib was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) and was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) in those randomised to placebo (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.25-1.17; p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Brivanib demonstrated activity in STS and ovarian cancer with an acceptable safety profile. FGF2 expression, as defined in the protocol, is not a predictive biomarker of the efficacy of brivanib.

Objective response by mRECIST as a predictor and potential surrogate end-point of overall survival in advanced HCC.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was developed to overcome the limitations of standard RECIST criteria in response assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate whether objective response by mRECIST accurately predicted overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced HCC treated with systemic targeted therapies and also to preliminarily assess this end-point as a potential surrogate of OS. METHODS: Individual patient data from the BRISK-PS randomized phase III trial comparing brivanib vs. placebo (the first to prospectively incorporate mRECIST) were used to analyze objective response as a predictor of OS in a time-dependent covariate analysis. Patients with available imaging scans during follow-up were included (n=334; 85% of those randomized). Moreover, a correlation of the survival probability in deciles vs. the observed objective response was performed to evaluate its suitability as a surrogate end-point. RESULTS: Objective response was observed in 11.5% and 1.9% of patients treated with brivanib and placebo respectively, and was associated with a better survival (median OS 15.0 vs. 9.4months, p<0.001). In addition, objective response had an independent prognostic value (HR=0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.91, p=0.025) along with known prognostic factors. Finally, objective response showed promising results as a surrogate of OS in this trial (R=-0.92; 95% CI, -1 to -0.73, p<0.001). It was an early indicator of the treatment effect (median time to objective response was 1.4months). CONCLUSIONS: Objective response by mRECIST in advanced HCC predicts OS and thus can be considered as a candidate surrogate end-point. Further studies are needed to support this finding. LAY SUMMARY: There is a need to identify surrogate end-points for overall survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We studied patients from the phase III BRISK trial, comparing brivanib treatment with placebo after sorafenib progression. We demonstrate that objective response is an independent predictor of survival and qualifies as a potential surrogate end-point for overall survival in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00825955.

Phase 2 study of CT-322, a targeted biologic inhibitor of VEGFR-2 based on a domain of human fibronectin, in recurrent glioblastoma.

VEGF signaling through VEGFR-2 is the major factor in glioblastoma angiogenesis. CT-322, a pegylated protein engineered from the 10th type III human fibronectin domain, binds the VEGFR-2 extracellular domain with high specificity and affinity to block VEGF-induced VEGFR-2 signaling. This study evaluated CT-322 in an open-label run-in/phase 2 setting to assess its efficacy and safety in recurrent glioblastoma. Eligible patients had 1st, 2nd or 3rd recurrence of glioblastoma with measurable tumor on MRI and no prior anti-angiogenic therapy. The initial CT-322 dose was 1 mg/kg IV weekly, with plans to escalate subsequent patients to 2 mg/kg weekly if tolerated; within each CT-322 dose cohort, patients were randomized to ±irinotecan IV semiweekly. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS-6). Sixty-three patients with a median age of 56 were treated, the majority at first recurrence. One-third experienced serious adverse events, of which four were at least possibly related to study treatment (two intracranial hemorrhages and two infusion reactions). Twenty-nine percent of subjects developed treatment-emergent hypertension. The PFS-6 rate in the CT-322 monotherapy groups was 18.6 and 0.0 % in the 1 and 2 mg/kg treatment groups, respectively; results from the 2 mg/kg group indicated that the null hypothesis that PFS-6 ≤12 % could not be rejected. The study was terminated prior to reaching the planned enrollment for all treatment groups because data from the completed CT-322 2 mg/kg monotherapy treatment arm revealed insufficient efficacy. Despite biological activity and a tolerable side effect profile, CT-322 failed to meet the prespecified threshold for efficacy in recurrent glioblastoma.

Brivanib as adjuvant therapy to transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomized phase III trial.

UNLABELLED: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the current standard of treatment for unresectable intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor signaling, may improve the effectiveness of TACE when given as an adjuvant to TACE. In this multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, 870 patients with TACE-eligible HCC were planned to be randomly assigned (1:1) after the first TACE to receive either brivanib 800 mg or placebo orally once-daily. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included time to disease progression (TTDP; a composite endpoint based on development of extrahepatic spread or vascular invasion, deterioration of liver function or performance status, or death), time to extrahepatic spread or vascular invasion (TTES/VI), rate of TACE, and safety. Time to radiographic progression (TTP) and objective response rate were exploratory endpoints. The trial was terminated after randomization of 502 patients (brivanib, 249; placebo, 253) when two other phase III studies of brivanib in advanced HCC patients failed to meet OS objectives. At termination, median follow-up was approximately 16 months. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no improvement in OS with brivanib versus placebo (median, 26.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 19.1 to not reached] vs. 26.1 months [19.0-30.9]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.66-1.23]; log-rank P=0.5280). Brivanib improved TTES/VI (HR, 0.64 [95% CI: 0.45-0.90]), TTP (0.61 [0.48-0.77]), and rate of TACE (0.72 [0.61-0.86]), but not TTDP (0.94 [0.72-1.22]) versus placebo. Most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included hyponatremia (brivanib, 18% vs. placebo, 5%) and hypertension (13% vs. 3%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, brivanib as adjuvant therapy to TACE did not improve OS.

Brivanib attenuates hepatic fibrosis in vivo and stellate cell activation in vitro by inhibition of FGF, VEGF and PDGF signaling.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases, which are both involved in mechanisms of liver fibrosis. We hypothesized that inhibition of VEGFR and FGFR by brivanib would inhibit liver fibrosis. We therefore examined the effect of brivanib on liver fibrosis in three mouse models of fibrosis. METHODS: In vivo, we induced liver fibrosis by bile duct ligation (BDL), chronic carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), and chronic thioacetamide (TAA) administration. Liver fibrosis was examined by immunohistochemistry and Western immunoblotting. In vitro, we used LX-2 human hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) to assess the effect of brivanib on stellate cell proliferation and activation. RESULTS: After in vivo induction with BDL, CCl4, and TAA, mice treated with brivanib showed reduced liver fibrosis and decreased expression of collagen Iα1 and α-smooth muscle actin in the liver. In vitro, brivanib decreased proliferation of HSCs induced by platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), VEGF, and FGF. Brivanib also decreased stellate cell viability and inhibited PDGFBB-induced phosphorylation of its cognate receptor. CONCLUSION: Brivanib reduces liver fibrosis in three different animal models and decreases human hepatic stellate cell activation. Brivanib may represent a novel therapeutic approach to treatment of liver fibrosis and prevention of liver cancer.

Quality of life in patients with K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: the CO.20 phase 3 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The CO.20 trial randomized patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer to receive cetuximab (CET) plus brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or CET plus placebo (CET/placebo). METHODS: Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks until disease progression. Predefined coprimary QoL endpoints were time to deterioration (first worsening from baseline of ≥ 10 points) on the Physical Function (PF) and Global (GHS) scales. RESULTS: Of 750 randomized patients, 721 (358 of whom received CET/BRIV) were assessable for QoL. QoL compliance and baseline PF and GHS scores did not differ by treatment arm. The median time to deterioration was 1.6 months versus 1.1 months for GHS (P =.02) and 5.6 months versus 1.7 months for PF (P <.0001) favoring CET/placebo. Secondary analysis favored CET/placebo for QOL response on the PF, Cognitive Function, Fatigue, Nausea, Appetite, and Diarrhea scales. A greater percentage of patients on the CET/BRIV arm had PF worsening at 6 weeks (31% vs 17%). Clinical adverse events of ≥ grade 3 were more common with CET/BRIV than with CET/placebo, including fatigue (25% vs 11%), hypertension, rash, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dehydration, and anorexia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CET/placebo, the combination of CET/BRIV worsened time to QoL deterioration for patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer on the PF and GHS scales of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. This result may be due to higher rates of fatigue and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Using Modified RECIST and Alpha-Fetoprotein Levels to Assess Treatment Benefit in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Assessing treatment responses in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is challenging, and alternative radiologic methods of measuring treatment response are required. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for HCC and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels were assessed in a post hoc analysis of a phase II study of brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor signaling. METHODS: HCC patients were treated with first-line (cohort A; n = 55) or second-line (cohort B; n = 46) brivanib alaninate 800 mg once daily. Outcomes were compared between World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and (retrospectively by) mRECIST by independent review. The relationship between on-study AFP changes and outcome was analyzed in patients with elevated AFP at baseline. RESULTS: Response rates were higher with mRECIST versus WHO criteria in cohorts A (25.5% vs. 7.3%) and B (10.9% vs. 4.3%). Progressive disease (PD) as assessed by mRECIST was associated with a very short median overall survival (OS; cohort A, 2.8 months; cohort B, 5.3 months); PD as assessed by WHO criteria reflected a mixed population of patients with better outcomes. mRECIST responders tended to have a>50% AFP decrease during therapy. In cohorts A and B pooled, an early AFP response (>20%or >50% decline from baseline within the first 4 weeks) was not associated with longer median OS. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor response as assessed by mRECIST differed from that by WHO criteria, with mRECIST possibly identifying true nonresponders with a poor prognosis. Many patients had AFP decreases correlating with tumor shrinkage, yet an association with long-term benefit was unclear. mRECIST and on-treatment AFP levels are being explored further with brivanib in HCC.

Brivanib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study.

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.

Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-PS study.

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.

Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetuximab plus brivanib alaninate versus cetuximab plus placebo in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal carcinoma: the NCIC Clinical Trials Group and AGITG CO.20 Trial.

PURPOSE: The antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab has improved survival in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer. The addition of brivanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and fibroblast growth factor receptor, to cetuximab has shown encouraging early clinical activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with combination chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) intravenous loading dose followed by weekly maintenance of 250 mg/m(2) plus either brivanib 800 mg orally daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were randomly assigned (376 in arm A and 374 in arm B). Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 8.8 months in arm A and 8.1 months in arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P = .12). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.0 months in arm A and 3.4 months in arm B (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84; P < .001). Partial responses observed (13.6% v 7.2%; P = .004) were higher in arm A. Incidence of any grade ≥ 3 adverse events was 78% in arm A and 53% in arm B. Fewer patients received ≥ 90% dose-intensity of both cetuximab (57% v 83%) and brivanib/placebo (48% v 87%) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite positive effects on PFS and objective response, cetuximab plus brivanib increased toxicity and did not significantly improve OS in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer.

The effects of liver impairment on the pharmacokinetics of brivanib, a dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases.

PURPOSE: Hepatic impairment may impede tyrosine kinase inhibitor metabolism. This phase I study compared the pharmacokinetics of brivanib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and varying levels of hepatic impairment with those with non-HCC malignancies and normal liver function. METHODS: Patients were assigned to the following groups: Groups A, B, and C (HCC plus mild, moderate, or severe hepatic impairment, respectively) and Group D (non-HCC malignancy and normal hepatic function). Brivanib alaninate (brivanib prodrug) doses were 400 mg in Groups A, B, and D and 200 mg in Group C. Brivanib exposure was determined on day 1 (single dose) and day 28 (multiple doses). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients participated in the study. After a single brivanib alaninate dose, brivanib exposure was comparable between Groups A, B, and D. Area under the concentration-time curve was 50 % higher in Group C versus Group D. There were not enough data to draw conclusions on multiple doses. Safety profile in Groups A, B, and D was consistent with previous brivanib monotherapy experience. Tolerability could not be assessed in Group C because of dose interruptions and discontinuations, generally due to the disease natural history. CONCLUSIONS: Brivanib exposure was similar in patients with HCC and mild or moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh [CP] A or B status) and those with non-HCC malignancies and normal hepatic function, suggesting dose adjustment is unnecessary with CP A or B status. Experience with HCC and severe hepatic impairment (CP C status) is insufficient to recommend brivanib use in this population.

Phase II, open-label study of brivanib as second-line therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor and VEGF signaling, has recently been shown to have activity as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This phase II open-label study assessed brivanib as second-line therapy in patients with advanced HCC who had failed prior antiangiogenic treatment. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Brivanib was administered orally at a dose of 800 mg once daily. The primary objectives were tumor response rate, time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), disease control rate, time to progression (TTP), and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were treated. Best responses to treatment with brivanib (N = 46 patients) using modified World Health Organization criteria were partial responses for two patients (4.3%), stable disease for 19 patients (41.3%), and progressive disease for 19 patients (41.3%). The tumor response rate was 4.3%; the disease control rate was 45.7%. Median OS was 9.79 months. Median TTP as assessed by study investigators following second-line treatment with brivanib was 2.7 months. The most common adverse events were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and hypertension. CONCLUSION: Brivanib had a manageable safety profile and is one of the first agents to show promising antitumor activity in advanced HCC patients treated with prior sorafenib.

Lack of effect of brivanib on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, a CYP3A4 substrate, administered intravenously and orally in healthy participants.

Brivanib alaninate is the orally available prodrug of brivanib, a dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor signaling pathways that is under therapeutic investigation for various malignancies. Brivanib alaninate inhibits CYP3A4 in vitro, and thus there is potential for drug-drug interaction with CYP3A4 substrates, such as midazolam. The present study evaluated pharmacokinetic parameters and safety/tolerability upon coadministration of brivanib alaninate and midazolam. Healthy participants received intravenous (IV) or oral midazolam with and without oral brivanib alaninate. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected up to 12 hours after midazolam and up to 48 hours after brivanib alaninate. Twenty-four participants were administered study drugs; 21 completed the trial. No clinically relevant effect of brivanib alaninate on the overall exposure to midazolam following IV or oral administration was observed. Orally administered brivanib alaninate was generally well tolerated in the presence of IV or oral midazolam. The lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction between brivanib and midazolam indicates that brivanib alaninate does not influence either intestinal or hepatic CYP3A4 and confirms that brivanib alaninate may be safely coadministered with midazolam and other CYP3A4 substrates.

Brivanib, a dual FGF/VEGF inhibitor, is active both first and second line against mouse pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors developing adaptive/evasive resistance to VEGF inhibition.

PURPOSE: Preclinical trials of a mouse model of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) were conducted to determine whether dual FGF/VEGF pathway inhibition with brivanib can improve first-line efficacy in comparison with VEGF inhibitors lacking fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-inhibitory activity and to characterize second-line brivanib activity before and after the onset of evasive resistance to VEGF-selective therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: An anti-VEGFR2 monoclonal antibody (DC101), an inhibitor of FGF signaling (FGF ligand trap), sorafenib, and brivanib were comparatively evaluated in first-line monotherapy in short and longer term fixed endpoint intervention trials in the RIP-Tag2 mouse model of PNET. Brivanib was also tested second line aiming to block adaptive resistance to selective VEGF therapies, assessing tumor growth, vascularity, hypoxia, invasion, and metastasis. The effects of initiating second-line brivanib therapy prior to or following overt relapse on sorafenib therapy were compared in overall survival trials to first-line therapies. RESULTS: Brivanib produced enduring tumor stasis and angiogenic blockade, both first and second line following the failure of DC101 or sorafenib. Overall survival was significantly extended by brivanib versus sorafenib, both first-line and when second-line therapy was initiated prior to sorafenib failure; second-line brivanib was less beneficial when initiated later, after the initiation of revascularization and incipient tumor progression. CONCLUSIONS: Brivanib holds promise and deserves consideration for clinical evaluation as an antiangiogenic therapy, both in the context of impending failures of VEGF-selective therapy and in a first-line setting aiming to limit the adaptive response to VEGF inhibitors that results in evasive resistance.