Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib in non-viral unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an international propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence suggests that non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might benefit less from immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with non-viral advanced HCC, treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, or sorafenib, in 36 centers in 4 countries (Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and UK). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, and OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib. For the primary and secondary endpoints, we carried out the analysis on the whole population first, and then we divided the cohort into two groups: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) population and non-NAFLD/NASH population. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 569 patients received lenvatinib, and 210 patients received sorafenib. In the whole population, multivariate analysis showed that treatment with lenvatinib was associated with a longer OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95; P = 0.0268] and PFS (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; P = 0.002) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the NAFLD/NASH population, multivariate analysis confirmed that lenvatinib treatment was associated with a longer OS (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.84; P = 0.0110) and PFS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.82; P = 0.031) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the subgroup of non-NAFLD/NASH patients, no difference in OS or PFS was observed between patients treated with lenvatinib and those treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. All these results were confirmed following propensity score matching analysis. By comparing patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib, no statistically significant difference in survival was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis conducted on a large number of advanced non-viral HCC patients showed for the first time that treatment with lenvatinib is associated with a significant survival benefit compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in particular in patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC.

A randomized, multicenter, phase II study of vandetanib monotherapy versus vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus placebo in subjects with advanced biliary tract cancer: the VanGogh study.

BACKGROUND: The management of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) is complex due to limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach. This phase II multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vandetanib monotherapy compared with vandetanib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced BTC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to three treatment groups: vandetanib 300 mg monotherapy (V), vandetanib 100 mg plus gemcitabine (V/G), gemcitabine plus placebo (G/P). Vandetanib (300 mg or 100 mg) or placebo was given in single oral daily doses. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was i.v. infused on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, duration of response, performance status and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients (mean age 63.6 years) were recruited at 19 centers across Italy. Median (95% confidence intervals) PFS (days) were 105 (72-155), 114 (91-193) and 148 (71-225), respectively, for the V, V/G and G/P treatment groups, with no statistical difference among them (P = 0.18). No statistical difference between treatments was observed for secondary end points, except ORR, which slightly favored the V/G combination over other treatments. The proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) was similar for the three groups (96.6% in V arm, 91.4% in the V/G arm and 89.3% in the G/P arm). CONCLUSIONS: Vandetanib treatment did not improve PFS in patients with advanced BTC. The safety profile of vandetanib did not show any additional AEs or worsening of already known AEs. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00753675.

Sorafenib in patients with Child-Pugh class A and B advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective feasibility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class A liver function. There are few prospective data on sorafenib in patients with HCC and CP class B. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive prospective series of 300 patients with CP class A or B HCC were enrolled in a dual-phase trial to determine survival and safety data according to liver function (class A or B) in patients receiving oral sorafenib 800 mg daily. [Results of this study were presented in part at the ASCO 2012 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, 19-21 January 2012. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl 4): abstract 306.] RESULTS: Overall progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9, 4.1 and 9.1 months, respectively. For patients with CP class A versus B status, PFS was 4.3 versus 2.1 months, TTP was 4.2 versus 3.8 months and OS was 10.0 versus 3. 8 months. Extrahepatic spread was associated with worse outcomes but taken together with CP class, liver function played a greater role in reducing survival. Adverse events for the two CP groups were similar. CONCLUSION: Although patients with HCC and CP class B liver function have poorer outcomes than those with CP class A function, data suggest that patients with CP class B liver function can tolerate treatment and may still benefit from sorafenib.

Activity and safety of NGR-hTNF, a selective vascular-targeting agent, in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly vascularised and poor-prognosis tumour. NGR-hTNF is a vascular-targeting agent consisting of human tumour necrosis factor-alpha fused to the tumour-homing peptide NGR, which is able to selectively bind an aminopeptidase N overexpressed on tumour blood vessels. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with advanced-stage disease resistant to either locoregional (59%; range, 1-3), systemic treatments (52%; range, 1-3) or both (33%) received NGR-hTNF 0.8 microg m(-2) once every 3 weeks. The primary aim of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: No grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities were noted. Common toxicity included mild-to-moderate, short-lived chills (63%). Median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.7-2.9). A complete response ongoing after 20 months was observed in a sorafenib-refractory patient and a partial response in a Child-Pugh class-B patient, yielding a response rate of 7%. Six patients (22%) experienced stable disease. The disease control rate (DCR) was 30% and was maintained for a median PFS time of 4.3 months. Median survival was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.5-10.2). In a subset of 12 sorafenib-resistant patients, the response rate was 8% and the median survival was 9.5 months. CONCLUSION: NGR-hTNF was well tolerated and showed single-agent activity in HCC. Further investigation in HCC is of interest.

A phase II randomized multicenter trial of gefitinib plus FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase and preclinical studies indicate that it may enhance CPT-11 cytotoxicity. This randomized phase II trial investigates the feasibility and efficacy of gefitinib and 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to FOLFIRI +/- gefitinib 250 mg daily p.o. Patients randomized to FOLFIRI + gefitinib without disease progression after 6 months continued to receive gefitinib alone until disease progression. RESULTS: From October 2002 to September 2004, 100 patients were enrolled. Twenty-three patients (47.9%) in the FOLFIRI arm and 23 (45.1%) in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm experienced an objective response. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 8.3 and 18.6 months in the FOLFIRI arm, and 8.3 and 17.1 months in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm, respectively. In the combination arm, grades 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 35 (67.3%) patients versus 25 patients (52.1%) in the FOLFIRI arm; 12 patients (23.1%) withdrew for an adverse event in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm and 5 (10.4%) in the FOLFIRI arm. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that adding gefitinib to FOLFIRI does not improve the efficacy of FOLFIRI regimen. These disappointing results could be related to the high toxicity observed that led to significant dose reductions and delays.

EGFR FISH assay predicts for response to cetuximab in chemotherapy refractory colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Standardized conditions to distinguish subpopulations of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients more and less sensitive to cetuximab therapy remain undefined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in paraffin-embedded tumor blocks from 85 chemorefractory CRC patients treated with cetuximab. Results were analyzed according to different score systems previously reported in colorectal and lung cancers. The primary end point of the study was identification of the EGFR FISH score that best associates with response rate (RR). RESULTS: Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the cut-off that best discriminated responders versus nonresponders to cetuximab was a mean of 2.92 EGFR gene copies per cell. This model showed sensitivity of 58.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 47.1-70.1) and specificity of 93.3% (95% CI = 80.6-100). EGFR FISH-positive patients (N = 43, 50.6%) had significantly higher RR (P = 0.0001) and significantly longer time to disease progression (P = 0.02) than EGFR FISH negative (N = 42, 49.4%). Other scoring systems resulted less accurate in discriminating patients with the highest likelihood of response to cetuximab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CRC patients with high EGFR gene copy number have an increased likelihood to respond to cetuximab therapy. Prospective clinical trials with a careful standardization of assay conditions and pattern interpretation are urgently needed.