Efficacy of cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer experiencing early vs late disease relapse after surgery: a large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND: In the TOPAZ-1, patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) and recurrence within 6 months after surgery were excluded, even if this event is frequently observed in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess if the efficacy of cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab (CGD) in this population is comparable to that reported in the phase 3 trial. METHODS: The study cohort included patients with BTC who underwent surgery on the primary tumor, experienced disease recurrence occurring ≤6 months or >6 months after surgery or after the end of adjuvant therapy and started CGD. The primary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were enrolled. No significant differences were observed between early and late relapse groups in OS (23.4 months vs not reached; HR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.67-2.37; P = .45) and PFS [7.0 months vs 9.8 months; HR 1.3(95% CI, 0.9-2.1) P = .13]. Overall response rate and disease control rate (P = .33 and P = .62) were comparable between the 2 groups, as the overall safety profile. In addition, we compared survival outcomes between the selected population and a historical cohort of patients with BTC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG) and found that despite the absence of statistical significance, CGD showed an outcome trend compared with CG regardless of the time of recurrence after surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy [(CG ≤ 6 vs CGD ≤ 6 months: HR 0.59, 95%CI, 0.35-1.01, P = .05; HR 0.70; 95%CI, 0.46-1.06, P = .09, OS and PFS, respectively) and (CG > 6 vs. CGD > 6 months: HR 0.50; 95%CI, 0.29-0.88, P = 0.0165; HR 0.54; 95%CI, 0.35-0.84, P = .0068, OS and PFS, respectively)]. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that CGD retains its efficacy independently of the timing of relapse after surgery or completion of adjuvant treatment in patients with advanced BTC.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib second-line therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab: a retrospective real-world study.

INTRODUCTION: the most frequently used first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Upon progression after this treatment, the standard of care in many countries is sorafenib, due to the lack of reimbursement for other drugs. Several randomized trials are currently underway to clarify the best second-line therapy in patients with HCC. This real-world study aims to compare outcomes reached by lenvatinib and sorafenib second-line therapy in this setting. METHODS: the overall cohort included 891 patients with HCC from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line setting between October 2018 and April 2022. At data cut-off (May 2022), 41.5% of patients were continuing first-line treatment, 5.5% were lost at follow up, and 53.0% of patients had progressive disease after first-line therapy. 51.5% of patients with progressive disease received a second-line treatment, while 48.5% didn't receive any subsequent therapy. Between patients receiving second-line treatment, 11.1% patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization, 21.0% received sorafenib, 35.4% underwent lenvatinib, and 32.5% were treated with other drugs. RESULTS: lenvatinib second-line subgroup achieved a median overall survival (mOS) of 18.9 months, significative longer (p = 0.01; HR: 2.24) compared to sorafenib subgroup that reached a mOS of 14.3 months. The multivariate analysis highlighted Albumin-Bilirubin 1 grade [p < 0.01; hazard ratio (HR): 5.23] and lenvatinib second-line therapy (p = 0.01; HR: 2.18) as positive prognostic factors for OS. The forest plot highlighted a positive trend in terms of OS in favor of patients treated with lenvatinib second-line regardless of baseline characteristics before first-line therapy. CONCLUSION: these results suggest that, in patients with HCC progressed to first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib second-line therapy is associated to an improved survival compared to sorafenib.

Disease Etiology Impact on Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: A Real-World, Multicenter Study.

Introduction: The impact of etiology on response to immunotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being debated, with contrasting findings between early and recent post hoc analyses of IMbrave-150 and metanalyses of clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockers. As a results, it is not clear whether the first-line systemic treatment atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) is equally effective in viral and nonviral patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 885 HCC patients treated with the first-line A + B from multiple centers from Eastern and Western countries, 53.9% having viral and 46.1% nonviral etiology. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were analyzed with uni- and multivariate models to explore potential differences on overall survival (OS), time-to-progression (TTP), disease control rates (DCRs) based on etiology and to identify putative prognostic factors in etiology subgroups. Treatment toxicities and access to the second-line treatments and outcomes were also reported and compared between etiologies. Results: Overall, no statistically significant differences were found in median OS (mOS: viral 15.9 months; nonviral 16.3 months), TTP (mTTP: viral 8.3 months; nonviral 7.2 months), and DCRs (viral 78.1%; nonviral 80.8%) based on etiology. Prognostic factors of survival and progression were mainly shared between viral and nonviral etiologies, including alpha-fetoprotein, aspartate transaminase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and ALBI score. Exploratory analyses highlighted a possible stronger association of immunological factors, i.e., NLR and eosinophil count, to treatment outcomes in viral patients. The toxicity profile, the access to and type of the second-line treatments and their outcome in terms of OS almost overlap in the two etiology subgroups. Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab efficacy does not vary according to underlying etiology of HCC in a multicenter, real-world population, matching recent post hoc findings from the IMbrave-150 trial. Preliminary analyses suggest that some prognostic factors differ between viral and nonviral patients, potentially due to biological and immunological differences. Prospective and comparative trials stratifying by etiology are warranted to validate these findings and guide clinical practice.

Suboptimal outcomes of sorafenib as a second-line treatment after atezolizumab-bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most patients receiving atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) for hepatocellular carcinoma will eventually experience disease progression. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are undergoing to identify second-line treatments. Where RCTs are unavailable or patients are non-eligible, sorafenib is often prescribed based on approval and reimbursement policies. However, evidence supporting this approach is minimal. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients who permanently discontinued AB. METHODS: The ARTE database prospectively collects patients treated with AB in a real-life setting. We analysed the outcome of patients who received sorafenib as second-line treatment. RESULTS: Amongst 213 patients, 130 (61.0 %) permanently discontinued AB. Of them, 54 received second- line treatments, and sorafenib was prescribed in 40 patients. The disease control rate (DCR) was 10.0 %. The median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival were 3.3 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.7-3.9) and 6.9 months (95 % CI 2.7-11.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients progressing under AB, the efficacy of sorafenib on different outcomes is limited.

Network meta-analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in biliary tract cancers: Setting the scene for new randomized evidence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The best adjuvant chemotherapy for resected biliary tract cancer (BTC) is under debate, with capecitabine supported by weak evidence. Aim of this network meta-analysis is to estimate the efficacy of different phase II/III regimens, comparing monotherapies (gemcitabine or fluoropyrimidines) head-to-head, against observation and combination regimens. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed and EMBASE for phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available as of December 2023, reporting hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). A frequentist framework employing a random-effects model was applied; treatment rankings were outlined according to P-score, based on direct and indirect evidence. Exploratory subgroup analyses for OS were also performed (primary site, resected margin status and nodal involvement). RESULTS: Six RCTs (1979 total patients) were identified. Fluoropyrimidine monotherapy showed significantly better OS (HR .84 [.72-.97]) and EFS (HR .79 [.69-.91]) than observation, as any monotherapy did (HR .84 [.74-.96]; HR .79 [.70-.89]). In the head-to-head comparison for OS, only S1 confirmed to be superior to observation alone (HR .69 [.49-.98]) while fluoropyrimidines achieved the best P score (.81), similarly to any monotherapy (0.92). Combinations failed to prove superior to monotherapies with respect both to OS and EFS. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive due to results' inconsistency and limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Our work confirmed that adjuvant chemotherapy grants OS and EFS benefit for resected BTC patients. Fluoropyrimidines appeared the most effective option, confirming capecitabine as the preferred choice for the Western population.

Immunotherapy vs Best Supportive Care for Patients With Hepatocellular Cancer With Child-Pugh B Dysfunction.

Importance: Whether patients with Child-Pugh class B (CP-B) cancer with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) benefit from active anticancer treatment vs best supportive care (BSC) is debated. Objective: To evaluate the association of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies vs BSC with overall survival (OS) of patients with uHCC and CP-B liver dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter, international clinical case series examined data of patients with CP-B with uHCC who were receiving first-line ICI-based regimens from September 2017 to December 2022 whose data were extracted from an international consortium and compared with a cohort of patients with CP-B receiving BSC. Patients were treated in tertiary care centers across Europe, US, and Asia in routine clinical practice. After applying the inclusion criteria, 187 and 156 patients were left in the ICI and BSC groups, respectively. The propensity score was calculated for the following variables: age, alpha-fetoprotein levels, Child-Pugh score, extrahepatic spread, portal vein tumor thrombosis, cirrhosis, ascites, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Exposures: Patients in the ICI group received first-line systemic therapy with either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) (n = 141) or nivolumab (n = 46). Main Outcomes and Measures: OS in the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) populations was the main outcome, and it was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method; univariable Cox regression test was used to make comparisons between the 2 groups. Results: The median age was 66 (IQR, 61-72) and 73 (IQR, 66-81) years in the ICI (33 women [18%]) and BSC groups (41 women [26%]), respectively. In the IPTW populations, median OS was significantly longer in the ICI group (7.50 months; 95% CI, 5.62-11.15) compared with BSC (4.04 months; 95% CI, 3.03-5.03; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80; P < .001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that ICI exposure was associated with a reduction of approximately 50% in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.86; P < .001), and the presence of portal vein tumor thrombosis, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of greater than 1, and alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or greater were associated with increased risk of death. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this case series provide comparative evidence of improved survival in association with ICI treatment compared with BSC in patients with uHCC with CP-B liver dysfunction.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer: A large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). To understand this combination's real-world efficacy and tolerability, we conducted a global multicenter retrospective analysis of its first-line treatment outcomes. METHODS: We included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin at 39 sites in 11 countries (Europe, the United States, and Asia). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 666 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 15.1 months and median PFS was 8.2 months. The investigator-assessed overall response rate was 32.7 %, with stable disease in 45.2 % of patients. High baseline CEA levels, ECOG PS > 0, metastatic disease, and NLR > 3 were associated with poor survival. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92.9 % of patients (grade >2: 46.6 %). Immune-related AEs (irAEs) occurred in 20.0 % (grade >2: 2.5 %). Three deaths (0.5 %) were deemed treatment-related, none linked to immunotherapy. Common irAEs were rash (8.2 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2), itching (10.3 % all grades; 0.2 % grade >2), and hypothyroidism (5.1 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2). Durvalumab discontinuation rate due to AEs was 1.5 %. ESMO-recommended genes were analyzed and no outcome differences were found. A comparative analysis with a historical cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy alone confirmed the positive survival impact of durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine. CONCLUSION: This first global real-world analysis largely confirmed the TOPAZ-1 findings, supporting gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab as a first-line standard of care for patients with advanced BTC.

Hepatic decompensation is the major driver of mortality in patients with HCC treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab: The impact of successful antiviral treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Unlike other malignancies, hepatic functional reserve competes with tumor progression in determining the risk of mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the relative contribution of hepatic decompensation over tumor progression in influencing overall survival (OS) has not been assessed in combination immunotherapy recipients. APPROACH AND RESULTS: From the AB-real observational study (n = 898), we accrued 571 patients with advanced/unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child-Pugh A class treated with frontline atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB). Hepatic decompensation and tumor progression during follow-up were studied in relationship to patients' OS using a time-dependent Cox model. Baseline characteristics were evaluated as predictors of decompensation in competing risks analysis. During a median follow-up of 11.0 months (95% CI: 5.1-19.7), 293 patients (51.3%) developed tumor progression without decompensation, and 94 (16.5%) developed decompensation. In multivariable time-dependent analysis, decompensation (HR: 19.04, 95% CI: 9.75-37.19), hepatocellular carcinoma progression (HR: 9.91, 95% CI: 5.85-16.78), albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2/3 (HR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.69-2.77), and number of nodules >3(HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.28-2.08) were independently associated with OS. Pretreatment ALBI grade 2/3 (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 3.35, 95% CI: 1.98-5.67) was independently associated with decompensation, whereas viral etiology was protective (sHR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34-0.87). Among patients with viral etiology, effective antiviral treatment was significantly associated with a lower risk of decompensation (sHR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic decompensation identifies patients with the worst prognosis following AB and is more common in patients with baseline ALBI >1 and nonviral etiology. Effective antiviral treatment may protect from decompensation, highlighting the prognostic disadvantage of patients with nonviral etiologies and the importance of multidisciplinary management to maximize OS.

Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Objective: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC). Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis. Methods: This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs. Results: Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

Durvalumab Plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Biliary Tract Cancer: a Real-World Retrospective, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial reported a survival benefit with the anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated for the first time the impact on survival of adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine compared with cisplatin/gemcitabine in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analyzed population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine or with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. The impact of adding durvalumab to chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was investigated with univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 563 patients were included in the analysis: 213 received cisplatin/gemcitabine alone, 350 received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab. At the univariate analysis, the addition of durvalumab was found to have an impact on survival, with a median OS of 14.8 months versus 11.2 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.80, p = 0.0002] in patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab compared to those who received cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. At the univariate analysis for PFS, the addition of durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated a survival impact, with a median PFS of 8.3 months and 6.0 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47-0.70, p < 0.0001) in patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab and cisplatin/gemcitabine alone, respectively. The multivariate analysis confirmed that adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS, with patients > 70 years old and those affected by locally advanced disease experiencing the highest survival benefit. Finally, an exploratory analysis of prognostic factors was performed in the cohort of patients who received durvalumab: neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and disease stage were to be independent prognostic factors in terms of OS. The interaction test highlighted NLR ≤ 3, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) = 0, and locally advanced disease as positive predictive factors for OS on cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab. CONCLUSION: In line with the results of the TOPAZ-1 trial, adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine has been confirmed to confer a survival benefit in terms of OS and PFS in a real-world setting of patients with advanced BTC.

Incidence and Predictors of Esophagogastric Varices Bleeding in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Lenvatinib.

Introduction: Lenvatinib is indicated for the forefront treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), but its use may be limited by the risk of esophagogastric varices (EGV) bleeding. This study assessed the prevalence, predictors, and complications of EGV in aHCC patients treated with lenvatinib. Methods: In this multicenter international retrospective study, cirrhotic patients treated with lenvatinib for aHCC, were enrolled if upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy was available within 6 months before treatment. Primary endpoint was the incidence of EGV bleeding during lenvatinib therapy; secondary endpoints were predictors for EGV bleeding, prevalence, and risk factors for the presence of EGV and high-risk EGV at baseline, as well as impact of EGV bleeding on patients' survival. Results: 535 patients were enrolled in the study (median age: 72 years, 78% male, 63% viral etiology, 89% Child-Pugh A, 16% neoplastic portal vein thrombosis [nPVT], 56% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-C): 234 had EGV (44%), 70 (30%) were at high risk and 59 were on primary prophylaxis. During lenvatinib treatment, 17 patients bled from EGV (3 grade 5), the 12-month cumulative incidence being 3%. The only baseline independent predictor of EGV bleeding was the presence of baseline high-risk EGV (hazard ratio: 6.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.23-21.57, p = 0.001). In these patients the 12-month risk was 17%. High-risk varices were independently associated with Child-Pugh B score (odds ratio [OR]: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.08-4.17, p = 0.03), nPVT (OR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.40-4.61, p = 0.002), and platelets <150,000/µL (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.35-4.50, p = 0.003). Conclusion: In hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with lenvatinib, the risk of EGV bleeding was mostly low but significant only in patients with high-risk EGV at baseline.

Adverse Events as Potential Predictive Factors of Activity in Patients with Advanced HCC Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: In the context of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with systemic therapy, the correlation between the appearance of adverse events (AEs) and reported efficacy outcomes is well-known and widely investigated. From other pathological settings, we are aware of the prognostic and predictive value of the occurrence of immune-related AEs in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective multicenter real-world study aims to investigate the potential prognostic value of AEs in patients with HCC treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 823 patients from five countries (Italy, Germany, Portugal, Japan, and the Republic of Korea). RESULTS: Of the patients, 73.3% presented at least one AE during the study period. The most common AEs were proteinuria (29.6%), arterial hypertension (27.2%), and fatigue (26.0%). In all, 17.3% of the AEs were grade (G) 3. One death due to bleeding was reported. The multivariate analysis confirmed the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 [versus G ≥ 2; hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.90; p < 0.01] and immunotoxicity G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.70; 95% CI 0.24-0.99; p = 0.04) as independent prognostic factors for overall survival, and the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.43-0.95; p = 0.01), diarrhea (yes versus no; HR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.85; p = 0.01), fatigue (yes versus no; HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.65-0.95; p < 0.01), arterial hypertension G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.87; p < 0.01), and proteinuria (yes versus no; HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98; p = 0.03) as independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated for other therapies, there is also a correlation between the occurrence of AEs and outcomes for patients with HCC for the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Impact of body mass index on the prognosis of unresectable HCC patients receiving first-line Lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

INTRODUCTION: Overweight is a negative prognostic factor in the general population in the long term. However, the role of body mass index (BMI) in the short-mid term in advanced tumours is unclear. The present analysis investigates the role of BMI weight classes in a large sample of patients affected by HCC and receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line treatment. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The cohort included consecutive patients affected by BCLC-c and BCLC-B HCC patients from a multicenter international study group who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line therapy. Population was stratified according to the BMI in under-, over- and normal-weight according to the conventional thresholds. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive impact of BMI in patients affected by advanced or intermediate HCC. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analysed with log-rank tests. RESULTS: 1292 consecutive patients with HCC were analysed. 466 (36%) patients were treated with lenvatinib and 826 (64%) patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab arm, 510 (62%) patients were normal-weight, 52 (6%) underweight and 264 (32%) overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients, whereas no differences were found between normal-weight versus overweight. Multivariate analysis confirmed that underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0-2.8; p = .0323). In the lenvatinib arm, 26 patients (5.6%) were categorized as underweight, 256 (54.9%) as normal-weight, and 184 (39.5%) as overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, no significant differences were found between normal-weight versus underweight and between normal-weight versus overweight, which was confirmed at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our analysis highlighted a prognostic role of BMI in a cohort of patients with advanced HCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, while no prognostic role for low BMI was apparent in patients who received lenvatinib.

Pemigatinib for patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: A joint analysis of the French PEMI-BIL and Italian PEMI-REAL cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Pemigatinib is approved for patients with pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements or fusions. We aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in real-world setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A joint analysis of two multicentre observational retrospective cohort studies independently conducted in France and Italy was performed. All consecutive FGFR2-positive patients affected by CCA and treated with pemigatinib as second- or further line of systemic treatment in clinical practice, within or outside the European Expanded Access Program, were included. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and September 2022, 72 patients were treated with pemigatinib in 14 Italian and 25 French Centres. Patients had a median age of 57 years, 76% were female, 81% had ECOG-PS 0-1, 99% had intrahepatic CCA, 74% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, 67% had metastatic disease at diagnosis, while 38.8% received ≥ 2 previous lines of systemic treatment. At data cut-off analysis (April 2023), ORR and DCR were 45.8% and 84.7%, respectively. Median DoR was 7 months (IQR: 5.8-9.3). Over a median follow-up time of 19.5 months, median PFS and 1-year PFS rate were 8.7 months and 32.8%. Median OS and 1-year OS rate were 17.1 months and 60.6%. Fatigue (69.4%), ocular toxicity (68%), nail toxicities (61.1%), dermatologic toxicity (41.6%) hyperphosphataemia (55.6%), stomatitis (48.6%), and diarrhea (36.1%) were the most frequent, mainly G1-G2 AEs. Overall incidence of G3 AEs was 22.2%, while no patient experienced G4 AE. Dose reduction and temporary discontinuation were needed in 33.3% and 40.3% of cases, with 1 permanent discontinuation due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in a real-world setting.

Different Genomic Clusters Impact on Responses in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer Treated with Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Plus Durvalumab.

BACKGROUND: The results reported in the TOPAZ-1 phase III trial led to the approval of the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine with durvalumab as the new first-line standard of care for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. OBJECTIVE: We performed a clustering analysis to classify patients into different groups based on their mutation profile, correlating the results of the analysis with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We selected 51 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with the combination of chemotherapy and durvalumab and who were screened using the next-generation sequencing-based FoundationOne gene panel. We conducted mutation-based clustering of tumors and a survival analysis. RESULTS: Three main clusters were identified. Cluster 1 is mostly characterized by mutations in genes belonging to the chromatin modification pathway, altered in 100% of patients. Cluster 2 is characterized by the alteration of several pathways, among which DNA damage control, chromatin modification, RTK/RAS, cell-cycle apoptosis, TP53, and PI3K were the most affected. Finally, most altered pathways in cluster 3 were RTK/RAS and cell-cycle apoptosis. Overall response rate was 4/13 (31%), 12/24 (50%), and 0/10 (0%) in cluster 1, cluster 2, and cluster 3, respectively, and the difference between the three clusters was statistically significant (p = 0.0188). CONCLUSIONS: By grouping patients into three clusters with distinct molecular and genomic alterations, our analysis showed that patients included in cluster 2 had higher overall response rates, whereas patients included in cluster 3 had no objective response. Further investigations on larger and external cohorts are needed in order to validate our results.

A meta-analysis and real-world cohort study on the sex-related differences in efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & Aims: Sex-related differences in the immune pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly related to oestrogen-dependent secretion of pro-tumourigenic cytokines, are well-known. Whether sex influences the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy is not known. Methods: We performed a restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis of five phase III trials that evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced HCC and reported overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex to evaluate sex-related differences in OS. In a real-world cohort of 840 patients with HCC from 22 centres included between 2018 and 2023, we directly compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A+B) between sexes. Radiological response was reported according to RECIST v1.1. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the meta-analysis, immunotherapy was associated with a significant OS benefit only in male (pooled HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86) but not in female (pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.03) patients with HCC. When directly comparing model estimates, no differences in the treatment effect between sexes were observed. Among 840 patients, 677 (81%) were male (mean age 66 ± 11 years), and 163 (19%) were female (mean age 67 ± 12 years). Type and severity of adverse events were similar between the two groups. OS and PFS were comparable between males and females upon uni- and multivariable analyses (aHR for OS and PFS: 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.04; 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.30, respectively). Objective response rates (24%/22%) and disease control rates (59%/59%) were also similar between sexes. Conclusion: Female phase III trial participants experienced smaller OS benefit following ICI therapy for advanced HCC, while outcomes following A+B treatment were comparable between sexes in a large real-world database. Based on the ambiguous sex-related differences in survival observed here, further investigation of sex-specific clinical and biologic determinants of responsiveness and survival following ICIs are warranted. Impact and implications: While immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as standard of care for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, there are conflicting reports on whether the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy differs between females and males. Our study suggests ambiguous sex-related differences in outcomes from immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Further investigation of sex-specific clustering in clinicopathologic and immunologic determinants of responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be prioritised. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023429625.

Safety and Efficacy of Lenvatinib in Very Old Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Data concerning the use of lenvatinib in very old patients (≥ 80 years) are limited, although the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in this patient population is constantly increasing. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in a large cohort of very old patients (≥ 80 years) with unresectable HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on a cohort of 1325 patients from 46 centers in four Western and Eastern countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) who were undergoing first-line treatment with lenvatinib between July 2010 and February 2022. Patients were stratified according to age as very old (≥ 80 years) and not very old (< 80 years). RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) was 15.7 months for patients < 80 years old and 18.4 months for patients ≥ 80 years old [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.25, p = 0.8281]. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months for patients < 80 years old and 6.5 months for patients ≥ 80 years old (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91-1.25, p = 0.3954). No differences between the two study groups were found in terms of disease control rate (DCR; 80.8% versus 78.8%; p = 0.44) and response rate (RR; 38.2% versus 37.9%; p = 0.88). Patients < 80 years old experienced significantly more hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) grade ≥ 2 and decreased appetite grade ≥ 2. Conversely, patients ≥ 80 years old experienced significantly more fatigue grade ≥ 2. In the very old group, parameters associated with prognosis were AFP, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), and Child-Pugh score. BCLC stage was the only independent predictor of overall survival (OS; HR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.11-2.29, p = 0.01115). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the same efficacy and safety of lenvatinib between very old and not very old patients.

Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Biliary Tract Cancer: Prognostic Implications and Correlation with Histology.

INTRODUCTION: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency represents a biomarker and therapeutic target in various neoplasms, but its role in biliary tract cancers (BTCs) remains misunderstood. METHODS: MMR status was retrospectively assessed using immunohistochemistry in 163-BTCs patients. We identified MMR proficiency (pMMR)/deficiency (dMMR) according to the loss of MMR proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6). The primary objective of the study was to assess the incidence of dMMR in BTCs; the secondary purpose was to explore its association with prognosis and clinical features. RESULTS: dMMR was recorded in 9 patients, and it was strongly associated with mucinous histology (p < 0.01). Regarding the prognostic effect, in 122-radically resected patients, disease-free survival (DFS) resulted significantly shorter in dMMR patients compared to pMMR patients (10.7 vs. 31.3 months, p = 0.025) and so did nodal status (48.2 vs. 15.3 months in N0 vs. N+) (p < 0.01). Moreover, dMMR confirmed its prognostic role in terms of DFS at multivariate analysis (p = 0.03), together with nodal status (p = 0.01), and resection margin (p = 0.03). In 103 M+ patients (encompassing 41 metastatic de novo and 62 recurred after surgery patients) there were not differences between dMMR and pMMR regarding survival analyses. CONCLUSIONS: dMMR status is strongly correlated with mucinous histology and represents an independent prognostic factor in terms of disease relapse in patients with resected BTC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: MMR may play an independent role in promoting an aggressive behaviour in patients with radically resected BTC. These results could be useful in improving the selection of patients after resection and, above all, should justify the evaluation of MMR status as a therapeutic target in BTC, especially in patients with atypical histology.

α-FAtE: A new predictive score of response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib can be alternatively used as first-line systemic treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no direct comparison of the two regimens has been performed in randomized clinical trials, making the identification of baseline differential predictors of response of major relevance to tailor the best therapeutic option to each patient. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of real-world AB-treated HCC patients were analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses to find potential prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). Significant variables were incorporated in a composite score (α-FAtE) and it was tested for specificity and sensitivity in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and in multivariate analysis for OS. The score was applied in uni- and multivariate analyses for OS of a comparable lenvatinib-treated HCC population. Finally, comparison between treatments was performed in patients with low and high α-FAtE scores and predictivity estimated by interaction analysis. Time-to-progression (TTP) was a secondary endpoint. OS of AB-treated HCC patients was statistically longer in those with α-fetoprotein <400 ng/mL (HR 0.62, p = .0407), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) <125 IU/L (HR 0.52, p = .0189) and eosinophil count ≥70/µL (HR 0.46, p = .0013). The α-FAtE score was generated by the sum of single points attributed to each variable among the above reported. In ROC curve analysis, superior sensitivity and specificity were achieved by the score compared to individual variables (AUC 0.794, p < .02). Patients with high score had longer OS (HR 0.44, p = .0009) and TTP (HR 0.34, p < .0001) compared to low score if treated with AB, but not with lenvatinib. Overall, AB was superior to lenvatinib in high score patients (HR 0.55, p = .0043) and inferior in low score ones (HR 1.75, p = .0227). At interaction test, low α-FAtE score resulted as negative predictive factor of response to AB (p = .0004). In conclusion, α-FAtE is a novel prognostic and predictive score of response to first-line AB for HCC patients that, if validated in prospective studies, could drive therapeutic choice between lenvatinib and AB.