A Single-Arm Phase Ib/II Study of Lenvatinib plus Eribulin in Advanced Liposarcoma and Leiomyosarcoma.

PURPOSE: Satisfactory treatment options for advanced leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma are limited. The LEADER study (NCT03526679) investigated the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib plus eribulin. METHODS: LEADER is a multicenter phase Ib/II study for advanced leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma. The phase Ib part enrolled 6 patients to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) with the starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day and eribulin 1.1 mg/m2 D1, D8 every 21 days. The primary endpoint of the phase II part was objective response rate (ORR) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1, with phase Ib patients preplanned to be included in the efficacy analysis. Translational analyses were based on the transcriptomic data obtained from the NanoString nCounter platform. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled (leiomyosarcoma 21, liposarcoma 9); the median age was 59. One patient had to temporarily stop lenvatinib due to grade 2 arthritis in the first cycle, meeting DLT criteria. Four of 6 patients had to decrease the dose of lenvatinib to 14 mg between cycles two and three. RP2D was determined at lenvatinib 14 mg/day and eribulin 1.1 mg/m2. The confirmed ORR was 20%, and the ORR was not significantly different between phase Ib/II cohorts (P = 0.23). The median progression-free survival was 8.56 months (95% confidence interval, 4.40-not reached). Translational studies suggested increased dendritic cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME) after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus eribulin has a manageable safety profile and exhibits promising efficacy for treating advanced leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma.

Reliability of a single-region sample to evaluate tumor immune microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Intratumor heterogeneity has frequently been reported in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Thus, the reliability of single-region tumor samples for evaluation of the tumor immune microenvironment is also debatable. We conducted a prospective study to analyze the similarity in tumor immune microenvironments among different regions of a single tumor. METHODS: Multi-region sampling was performed on newly resected tumors. The tumor immune microenvironment was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining of PD-L1, CD4, CD8, CD20, FoxP3, DC-LAMP (or LAMP3), CD68, MPO, and tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs). PD-L1 expression was manually quantified according to the percentage of PD-L1-stained tumor or stromal cells. The densities (number/mm2) of immune cells and the number of TLSs per sample were determined by whole-section counting. RNA-sequencing was applied in selected samples. Similarities in tumor immune microenvironments within each tumor were evaluated by multivariate Mahalanobis distance analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen tumors were collected from 12 patients. The median diameter of tumors was 9 cm (range 3-16 cm). A median of 6 samples (range 3-12) were obtained from each tumor. Nine (69.2%) tumors exhibited uniform expression of PD-L1 in all regions of the tumor. Out of 13 tumors analyzed by immunohistochemical staining, 8 (61.5%) tumors displayed a narrow Mahalanobis distance for all regions within the tumor; while 8 (66.7%) of the 12 tumors analyzed by RNA-sequencing displayed a narrow Mahalanobis distance. Immunohistochemistry and RNA-sequencing had a high concordance rate (83.3%; 10 of 12 tumors) for the evaluation of similarities between tumor immune microenvironments within a tumor. CONCLUSIONS: A single-region tumor sample might be reliable for the evaluation of tumor immune microenvironments in approximately 60-70% of patients with HCC. LAY SUMMARY: Heterogeneity in the regional immune microenvironments of tumors has been reported in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This heterogeneity could be an obstacle when trying to reliably evaluate the immune microenvironment of an entire tumor using only a single-region tumor sample, which may be the only option in patients with more advanced disease. Our study utilized both immunohistochemical and transcriptomic analyses to demonstrate that a single-region sample is reliable for evaluation of tumor immune microenvironments in 60-70% of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Right or left? Side selection for a totally implantable vascular access device: a randomised observational study.

BACKGROUND: Totally implantable vascular access device (TIVAD)-related complications interfere in the anticancer treatment and increase medical expenses. We examined whether the implantation side of central line TIVADs is associated with the occurrence of thrombotic or occlusion events. METHODS: We enrolled patients with cancer who required central line TIVADs and randomised them to receive the TIVAD implantation on either the left or right side. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of catheter-related thrombotic or occlusion events. RESULTS: We randomised 240 patients, of which 235 received TIVAD implantation according to the protocol. In the per-protocol cohort, 117 and 118 patients received implantation on the left and right sides, respectively. Catheter-related thrombotic or occlusion events occurred in 9 (4%) patients, accounting for 0.065 events per 1000 catheter-days. Between the patients with left- and right-sided implantations, the occurrence rates (P=0.333) and the time from catheter implantation to the occurrence of thrombotic or occlusion events (P=0.328) were both similar. In the multivariate analysis, the side of implantation remained unassociated with the occurrence of thrombotic or occlusion events. CONCLUSIONS: The side of central line TIVAD implantation was not associated with the occurrence of catheter-related thrombotic or occlusion events in patients with cancer.