Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): final results of a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the COSMIC-312 trial was to evaluate cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib in patients with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the initial analysis, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus sorafenib. Here, we report the pre-planned final overall survival analysis and updated safety and efficacy results following longer follow-up. METHODS: COSMIC-312 was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done across 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were eligible. Patients must have had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), and adequate marrow and organ function, including Child-Pugh class A liver function; those with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were ineligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) using a web-based interactive response system to a combination of oral cabozantinib 40 mg once daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks, oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, or oral single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib: progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1, as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee, in the first 372 randomly assigned patients (previously reported) and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib. The secondary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib versus sorafenib. Outcomes in all randomly assigned patients, including final overall survival, are presented. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to combination treatment, 217 to sorafenib, and 188 to single-agent cabozantinib, and included in all efficacy analyses. 704 (84%) patients were male and 133 (16%) were female. 824 of these patients received at least one dose of study treatment and were included in the safety population. Median follow-up was 22·1 months (IQR 19·3-24·8). Median overall survival was 16·5 months (96% CI 14·5-18·7) for the combination treatment group and 15·5 months (12·2-20·0) for the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [0·78-1·24]; stratified log-rank p=0·87). Median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (99% CI 5·7-8·2) for the combination treatment group, 4·3 months (2·9-6·1) for the sorafenib group, and 5·8 months (99% CI 5·4-8·2) for the single-agent cabozantinib group (HR 0·74 [0·56-0·97] for combination treatment vs sorafenib; HR 0·78 [99% CI 0·56-1·09], p=0·05, for single-agent cabozantinib vs sorafenib). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 281 (66%) of 429 patients in the combination treatment group, 100 (48%) of 207 patients in the sorafenib group, and 108 (57%) of 188 patients in the single-agent cabozantinib group; the most common were hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (36 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs 16 [9%]), aspartate aminotransferase increased (42 [10%] vs eight [4%] vs 17 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increased (40 [9%] vs six [3%] vs 13 [7%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 223 (52%) patients in the combination treatment group, 84 (41%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 87 (46%) patients in the single agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and four (2%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group (asthenia, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sepsis, and gastric perforation). INTERPRETATION: First-line cabozantinib plus atezolizumab did not improve overall survival versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The progression-free survival benefit of the combination versus sorafenib was maintained, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Association between treatment-emergent hypertension and survival with lenvatinib treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the REFLECT study.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable and/or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Lenvatinib achieved promising clinical benefits in REFLECT but was associated with clinically significant treatment-emergent hypertension (CSTE-HTN, a grouped term), a common class effect of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of CSTE-HTN on the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in HCC. METHODS: Patients from REFLECT who received lenvatinib (n = 476) were stratified according to CSTE-HTN. Tumors were assessed by mRECIST. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using landmark analyses at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients in the lenvatinib arm developed CSTE-HTN, and 264 did not. CSTE-HTN first occurred at 3.7 weeks (median); the worst grade CSTE-HTN occurred at 4.1 weeks (median). No patients had life-threatening CSTE-HTN and/or died due to CSTE-HTN. Median OS was numerically longer in patients with versus without CSTE-HTN (at 4 weeks: 16.3 vs. 11.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.621-1.004; at 8 weeks: 13.5 vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.696-1.089). Median PFS was similar between patients with and without CSTE-HTN (at 4 weeks: 6.6 vs. 6.4 months; HR, 0.887; 95% CI, 0.680-1.157; at 8 weeks: 5.7 vs. 6.4 months; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.84-1.41). Objective response rate was numerically higher in patients with (48.6%) versus without CSTE-HTN (34.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, CSTE-HTN was associated with improved OS but not PFS. CSTE-HTN did not impair the outcomes of patients with HCC treated with lenvatinib when detected early and managed appropriately.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has shown clinical activity in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumours. The COSMIC-312 trial assessed cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib as first-line systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: COSMIC-312 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to curative or locoregional therapy and previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy at 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were not eligible. Tumours involving major blood vessels, including the main portal vein, were permitted. Patients were required to have measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, adequate organ and marrow function, and Child-Pugh class A. Previous resection, tumour ablation, radiotherapy, or arterial chemotherapy was allowed if more than 28 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) via a web-based interactive response system to cabozantinib 40 mg orally once daily plus atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily, or single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee in the first 372 patients randomly assigned to the combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (progression-free survival intention-to-treat [ITT] population), and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (ITT population). Final progression-free survival and concurrent interim overall survival analyses are presented. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Analyses at data cut-off (March 8, 2021) included the first 837 patients randomly assigned between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, to combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n=432), sorafenib (n=217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n=188). Median follow-up was 15·8 months (IQR 14·5-17·2) in the progression-free survival ITT population and 13·3 months (10·5-16·0) in the ITT population. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (99% CI 5·6-8·3) in the combination treatment group versus 4·2 months (2·8-7·0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 99% CI 0·44-0·91, p=0·0012). Median overall survival (interim analysis) was 15·4 months (96% CI 13·7-17·7) in the combination treatment group versus 15·5 months (12·1-not estimable) in the sorafenib group (HR 0·90, 96% CI 0·69-1·18; p=0·44). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were alanine aminotransferase increase (38 [9%] of 429 patients in the combination treatment group vs six [3%] of 207 in the sorafenib group vs 12 [6%] of 188 in the single-agent cabozantinib group), hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), aspartate aminotransferase increase (37 [9%] vs eight [4%] vs 18 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (35 [8%] vs 17 [8%] vs 16 [9%]); serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (18%) patients in the combination treatment group, 16 (8%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 24 (13%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) patient in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and one (<1%) patient in the single-agent cabozantinib group (gastrointestinal haemorrhage). INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab might be a treatment option for select patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but additional studies are needed. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during treatment is an important therapeutic goal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with lenvatinib versus sorafenib on HRQOL. METHODS: REFLECT was a previously published multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and one or more measurable target lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C categorisation, Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or lower, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system; stratification factors for treatment allocation included region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; ECOG performance status; and bodyweight. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), collected at baseline, on day 1 of each subsequent cycle, and at the end of treatment, were evaluated in post-hoc analyses of secondary and exploratory endpoints in the analysis population, which was the subpopulation of patients with a PRO assessment at baseline. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated change from baseline in PROs, including European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and hepatocellular carcinoma-specific QLQ-HCC18 scales (both secondary endpoints of the REFLECT trial). Time-to-definitive-deterioration analyses were done based on established thresholds for minimum differences for worsening in PROs. Responder analyses explored associations between HRQOL and clinical response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Of 954 eligible patients randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476) between March 14, 2013, and July 30, 2015, 931 patients (n=468 for lenvatinib; n=463 for sorafenib) were included in this analysis. Baseline PRO scores reflected impaired HRQOL and functioning and considerable symptom burden relative to full HRQOL. Differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates in most PRO scales generally favoured the lenvatinib over the sorafenib group, although the differences were not nominally statistically or clinically significant. Patients treated with lenvatinib experienced nominally statistically significant delays in definitive, meaningful deterioration on the QLQ-C30 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·69-0·99), pain (0·80, 0·66-0·96), and diarrhoea (0·52, 0·42-0·65) domains versus patients treated with sorafenib. Significant differences in time to definitive deterioration were not observed for other QLQ-C30 domains, and there was no difference in time to definitive deterioration on the global health status/QOL score (0·89, 0·73-1·09). For most PRO scales, differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates favoured responders versus non-responders. Across all scales, HRs for time to definitive deterioration were in favour of responders; median time to definitive deterioration for responders exceeded those for non-responders by a range of 4·8 to 14·6 months. INTERPRETATION: HRQOL for patients undergoing treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is an important therapeutic consideration. The evidence of HRQOL benefits in clinically relevant domains support the use of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib to delay functional deterioration in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Utility of cfDNA Fragmentation Patterns in Designing the Liquid Biopsy Profiling Panels to Improve Their Sensitivity.

Genotyping of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma samples has the potential to allow for a noninvasive assessment of tumor biology, avoiding the inherent shortcomings of tissue biopsy. Next generation sequencing (NGS), a leading technology for liquid biopsy analysis, continues to be hurdled with several major issues with cfDNA samples, including low cfDNA concentration and high fragmentation. In this study, by employing Ion Torrent PGM semiconductor technology, we performed a comparison between two multi-biomarker amplicon-based NGS panels characterized by a substantial difference in average amplicon length. In course of the analysis of the peripheral blood from 13 diagnostic non-small cell lung cancer patients, equivalence of two panels, in terms of overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity was shown. A pairwise comparison of the allele frequencies for the same somatic variants obtained from the pairs of panel-specific amplicons, demonstrated an identical analytical sensitivity in range of 140 to 170 bp amplicons in size. Further regression analysis between amplicon length and its coverage, illustrated that NGS sequencing of plasma cfDNA equally tolerates amplicons with lengths in the range of 120 to 170 bp. To increase the sensitivity of mutation detection in cfDNA, we performed a computational analysis of the features associated with genome-wide nucleosome maps, evident from the data on the prevalence of cfDNA fragments of certain sizes and their fragmentation patterns. By leveraging the support vector machine-based machine learning approach, we showed that a combination of nucleosome map associated features with GC content, results in the increased accuracy of prediction of high inter-sample sequencing coverage variation (areas under the receiver operating curve: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.750-0.752 vs. 0.65, 95% CI: 0.63-0.67). Thus, nucleosome-guided fragmentation should be utilized as a guide to design amplicon-based NGS panels for the genotyping of cfDNA samples.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar ABP 215 Compared with Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (MAPLE): A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared clinical efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 215 with bevacizumab reference product (RP) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ABP 215 or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every three weeks for 6 cycles. All patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel every three weeks for ≥4 and ≤6 cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was risk ratio of objective response rate (ORR); clinical equivalence was confirmed if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the risk ratio was within the margin of 0.67 to 1.5. Secondary endpoints included risk difference of ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS); pharmacokinetics, adverse events (AEs), and incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 820 patients were screened; 642 were randomized to ABP 215 (n = 328) and bevacizumab (n = 314). Overall, 128 (39.0%) and 131 (41.7%) patients in the ABP 215 and bevacizumab groups, respectively, had objective responses [ORR risk ratio: 0.93 (90% CI, 0.80-1.09)]. In the ABP 215 and bevacizumab group, 308 (95.1%) and 289 (93.5%) patients, respectively, had at least 1 AE; 13 (4.0%) and 11 (3.6%) experienced a fatal AE. Anti-VEGF toxicity was low and comparable between treatment groups. At week 19, median trough serum drug concentration was 132 µg/mL (ABP 215 group) and 129 µg/mL (bevacizumab group). No patient tested positive for neutralizing antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: ABP 215 is similar to bevacizumab RP with respect to clinical efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics. The totality of evidence supports clinical equivalence of ABP 215 and bevacizumab.

Towards standardization of next-generation sequencing of FFPE samples for clinical oncology: intrinsic obstacles and possible solutions.

BACKGROUND: Next generation sequencing has a potential to revolutionize the management of cancer patients within the framework of precision oncology. Nevertheless, lack of standardization decelerated entering of the technology into the clinical testing space. Here we dissected a number of common problems of NGS diagnostics in oncology and introduced ways they can be resolved. METHODS: DNA was extracted from 26 formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) specimens and processed with the TrueSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel (Illumina Inc, San Diego, California) targeting 48 cancer-related genes and sequenced in single run. Sequencing data were comparatively analyzed by several bioinformatics pipelines. RESULTS: Libraries yielded sufficient coverage to detect even low prevalent mutations. We found that the number of FFPE sequence artifacts significantly correlates with pre-normalization concentration of libraries (rank correlation -0.81; p < 1e-10), thus, contributing to sample-specific variant detection cut-offs. Surprisingly, extensive validation of EGFR mutation calls by a combination of aligners and variant callers resulted in identification of two false negatives and one false positive that were due to complexity of underlying genomic change, confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Additionally, the study of the non-EGFR amplicons revealed 33 confirmed unique mutations in 17 genes, with TP53 being the most frequently mutated. Clinical relevance of these finding is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of entire mutational spectrum revealed by targeted sequencing is questionable, at least until the clinically-driven guidelines on reporting of somatic mutations are established. The standardization of sequencing protocols, especially their data analysis components, requires assay-, disease-, and, in many cases, even sample-specific customization that could be performed only in cooperation with clinicians.