Ian Walters

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 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. Clin Cancer Res; 18(7); 2090–8. ©2012 AACR.

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. Clin Cancer Res; 17(16); 5299–310. ©2011 AACR.

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

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. (Hepatology 2014;60:1697–1707)

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.

An Observational, Retrospective Analysis of Retreatment with Bortezomib for Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE The aim of this retrospective chart review of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) was to describe patterns of retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy and responses to retreatment in a community-based setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of patients treated in US Oncology-affiliated community oncology clinics who received 2 separate treatments with bortezomib-based therapy. Eligible patients had > or = 60 days between treatments and > or = 4 bortezomib doses during initial treatment. Responses were determined primarily by laboratory values. Response categories included (1) very good partial response (VGPR), > or = 90% M-protein decrease; (2) partial response (PR), 50%-89% decrease; and (3) less than PR (< PR), < 50% decrease, excluding progressive disease (PD). RESULTS Retreatment response data were available for 82 patients; 5 (6%) had VGPR, 12 (15%) had PR, 52 (63%) had < PR, 5 (6%) had PD, and 8 (10%) died. Among 62 patients with response assessments for initial treatment and retreatment, VGPR/PR rates to retreatment were 44%, 23%, and 13% among patients with VGPR, PR, and < PR to initial treatment, respectively. Median time between bortezomib treatments was 9.7 months; 29% of patients received non-bortezomib therapy between treatments. The most common treatment pattern (58% of patients) was single-agent bortezomib at initial treatment and retreatment. Toxicity contributed to discontinuation in 38% of patients during initial treatment and 22% during retreatment; rates of neuropathy contributing to discontinuation were 18% and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSION Retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy is feasible, with predictable toxicities. This observational analysis supports bortezomib alone or in combination as a retreatment option after initial bortezomib treatment in patients with relapsed MM.

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.

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.

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.