Impacts of Employment Status, Partnership, Cancer Type, and Surgical Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life in Irradiated Head and Neck Cancer Survivors.

Objectives: This study aimed to examine the relationship between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and sociodemographic and clinical variables in survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) treated with radiotherapy, with or without surgery. Materials and Methods: HRQoL was measured using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-head and neck (FACT-H&N) in a cross-sectional survey involving 150 patients. Of these, 60 had nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), treated exclusively with radiotherapy, while 90 had oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OSCC), undergoing radical surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. Key variables included cancer type, age, gender, partnership status, education, and employment, with additional clinical variables assessed in patients with OSCC. Statistical analyses included multiple regression, ANOVA, and t-tests to explore relationships between variables and HRQoL. Results: Cancer type, surgical treatment, and employment status emerged as significant independent predictors of HRQoL in HNC patients. Patients with NPC reported better HRQoL on three FACT-H&N subscales-social/family well-being, functional well-being, and additional concerns-compared to patients with OSCC. Unemployed individuals exhibited lower HRQoL on four subscales. In patients with OSCC, partnership status and segmental mandibulectomy were found to predict HRQoL independently. Conclusions: This study concludes that cancer type, surgical intervention, and employment status notably influence HRQoL among HNC patients undergoing radiotherapy. In addition, partnership status is a key factor affecting HRQoL in patients with OSCC.

Outcomes of Post-Immunotherapy Durable Responders of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma- with Emphasis on Locoregional Therapy for Oligoprogression.

Introduction: The progression patterns, dispositions, and outcomes of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who achieved durable responses with immunotherapy remain poorly characterized. Methods: Patients with advanced HCC who received immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based immunotherapy and achieved durable responses were retrospectively included. A durable response was defined as partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) per RECIST 1.1 for more than 8 months after initiation of immunotherapy. Oligoprogression and polyprogression were defined as progression at ≤3 and >3 lesions, respectively. Results: A total of 91 durable responders (63 PR and 28 SD) were identified. The majority had chronic viral hepatitis (n = 69, 75.8%). Forty-seven (51.6%) and 44 (48.4%) patients received the index immunotherapy as first-line and second- or beyond-line therapy, respectively. Fifty-four (59.3%) patients subsequently developed progression, with a predominant pattern of oligoprogression (66.7%). The median overall survival (OS) was 46.2 months (95% CI: 34.1-58.3). For patients with subsequent progression, employment of locoregional therapy (LRT) for progression was associated with prolonged OS (univariate analysis: hazard ratio [HR] 0.397, p = 0.009; multivariate analysis: HR 0.363, p = 0.050). Patients with oligoprogression who received LRT showed longer median OS than those who did not (48.4 vs. 20.5 months, p < 0.001). In contrast, the median OS of patients with polyprogression who received LRT was not different from those without LRT (27.7 vs. 25.5 months, p = 0.794). Conclusion: Approximately 60% of the post-immunotherapy durable responders of HCC subsequently develop progression. Proactive LRT may further rescue patients who develop subsequent oligoprogression. Prospective studies are mandatory to clarify the proper management of durable responders with subsequent progression.

Adding-on nivolumab to chemotherapy-stabilized patients is associated with improved survival in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are rarely used to treat advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) due to marginal efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 92 consecutive patients diagnosed with advanced or recurrent PDAC who received nivolumab-based treatment. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify prognostic factors. A control group of 301 patients with PDAC who achieved disease control with palliative chemotherapy but without ICIs was selected for comparison using propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) since nivolumab treatment was 15.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5-19.0), 2.4 (95% CI 1.2-3.6), and 1.1 (95% CI 1.0-1.2) months in patients who received add-on nivolumab after achieving disease control with chemotherapy, in those who received concomitant nivolumab and chemotherapy without prerequisite confirmation of disease control, and in those who received nivolumab without concomitant chemotherapy, respectively (P < 0.001). After PSM, the median overall survival (OS) since initiation of the concomitant chemotherapy that achieved disease control was significantly longer (P = 0.026) in patients who received add-on nivolumab (19.8 months; 95% CI 14.5-25.1) than in those who received chemotherapy alone (13.8 months; 95% CI 10.8-16.9). The immune profiling of the tumors in resected patients revealed higher scores of CD8+ T cells to Tregs in patients with add-on nivolumab comparing to those who received chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSION: Adding-on nivolumab was associated with improved OS in patients with advanced PDAC who achieved disease control following chemotherapy.

Outcomes in the Asian subgroup of the phase III randomised HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the global, phase III HIMALAYA study in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) improved overall survival (OS) vs. sorafenib; durvalumab was non-inferior to sorafenib. HBV is the predominant HCC aetiology in most of Asia vs. HCV or non-viral aetiologies in Western countries and Japan. This analysis evaluated safety and efficacy outcomes for STRIDE and durvalumab monotherapy vs. sorafenib, in HIMALAYA participants enrolled in Asia, excluding Japan. METHODS: In HIMALAYA, participants were randomised to STRIDE, durvalumab, or sorafenib. The Asian subgroup in this analysis included participants enrolled in Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. OS, objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST, version 1.1), and safety were assessed in the Asian subgroup and in an exploratory subgroup of participants in Hong Kong and Taiwan. RESULTS: The Asian subgroup included 479 participants randomised to STRIDE (n = 156), durvalumab (n = 167), or sorafenib (n = 156). OS was improved for STRIDE vs. sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89). The OS HR for durvalumab vs. sorafenib was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.06). In Hong Kong and Taiwan (n = 141), OS HRs for STRIDE vs. sorafenib and durvalumab vs. sorafenib were 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.37-1.08), respectively. In the Asian subgroup, ORR (including unconfirmed responses) was numerically higher for STRIDE (28.2%) and durvalumab (18.6%) vs. sorafenib (9.0%), and Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were numerically lower for STRIDE (19.9%) and durvalumab (13.3%) vs. sorafenib (30.5%). CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE improved outcomes vs. sorafenib in the Asian subgroup. These results support the benefits of STRIDE for participants with uHCC globally, including in the Asia-Pacific region. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03298451. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: The global, phase III HIMALAYA study found that the STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) regimen improved overall survival (OS), including long-term OS vs. sorafenib, and that durvalumab monotherapy was non-inferior to sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, there are differences in the aetiology and clinical practices related to HCC in parts of Asia, compared to Western countries and Japan, which could lead to differences in treatment outcomes between these regions. The results of this analysis demonstrate the benefits of STRIDE for participants in the Asia-Pacific region, consistent with the full, global study population. Overall, these findings continue to support the use of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

Impact of Bevacizumab Being Skipped due to Adverse Events of Special Interest for Bevacizumab in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: An Exploratory Analysis of the Phase III IMbrave150 Study.

Introduction: The phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as the global standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis examined the impact of bevacizumab interruption due to bevacizumab adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Methods: Patients in IMbrave150 who were randomized to atezolizumab + bevacizumab and received treatment for ≥6 months (to reduce immortal time bias) were included in group A-1 if bevacizumab had ever been skipped due to bevacizumab AESIs or to group A-2 otherwise. Efficacy analyses included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by whether bevacizumab was skipped (group A-1 vs. A-2). PFS was evaluated per independent review facility (IRF)-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and HCC-modified RECIST (IRF-HCC mRECIST). Safety was also evaluated. Results: Of the 210 patients who received ≥6 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab, 69 were assigned to group A-1 and 141 to A-2. At data cutoff (August 20, 2020), hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.69) for group A-1 versus A-2. HR for PFS was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.55) per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1 and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.59; 15.5 vs. 9.7 months) per IRF-HCC mRECIST for group A-1 versus A-2. Safety profiles for atezolizumab and bevacizumab were largely similar between groups. More group A-1 patients had grade 3/4 adverse events. A separate analysis investigating the impact of immortal time bias in patients who received ≥3 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab supported the appropriateness of the ≥6-month landmark analysis. Discussion/Conclusion: Efficacy was similar between patients who skipped bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs and those who did not. Although this comparison was nonrandomized and exploratory, results suggest that skipping bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs did not considerably impact the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab.

Clinical Outcomes and Histologic Findings of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Durable Partial Response or Durable Stable Disease After Receiving Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: Durable partial response (PR) and durable stable disease (SD) are often seen in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo-bev). This study investigates the outcome of these patients and the histopathology of the residual tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The IMbrave150 study's atezo-bev group was analyzed. PR or SD per RECIST v1.1 lasting more than 6 months was defined as durable. For histologic analysis, a comparable real-world group of patients from Japan and Taiwan who had undergone resection of residual tumors after atezo-bev was investigated. RESULTS: In the IMbrave150 study, 56 (77.8%) of the 72 PRs and 41 (28.5%) of the 144 SDs were considered durable. The median overall survival was not estimable for patients with durable PR and 23.7 months for those with durable SD. The median progression-free survival was 23.2 months for patients with durable PR and 13.2 months for those with durable SD. In the real-world setting, a total of 38 tumors were resected from 32 patients (23 PRs and nine SDs) receiving atezo-bev. Pathologic complete responses (PCRs) were more frequent in PR tumors than SD tumors (57.7% v 16.7%, P = .034). PCR rate correlated with time from atezo-bev initiation to resection and was 55.6% (5 of 9) for PR tumors resected beyond 8 months after starting atezo-bev, a time practically corresponding to the durable PR definition used for IMbrave150. We found no reliable radiologic features to predict PCR of the residual tumors. CONCLUSION: Durable PR patients from the atezo-bev group showed a favorable outcome, which may be partly explained by the high rate of PCR lesions. Early recognition of PCR lesions may help subsequent treatment decision.

Cyclin dependent kinase 9 inhibition reduced programmed death-ligand 1 expression and improved treatment efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma.

The anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody is a standard therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Tumor expression of PD-L1 can be induced upon stimulus. Because cyclin-dependent kinase 9 (CDK9) inhibition reduces the expression of inducible proteins, we explored the influence of CDK9 inhibition on PD-L1 expression in HCC cells. We found that PD-L1 expression was low in HCC cells; however, IFN-γ treatment increased this expression. CDK9 inhibitors AZD4573 and atuveciclib reduced the IFN-γ induced PD-L1 expression in a dose-dependent manner. CDK9 knockdown yielded similar results, but CDK9 overexpression reversed the influence of the CDK9 inhibitors. In the orthotopic mouse model, mice treated with a CDK9 inhibitor and an anti-PD-L1 antibody had significantly smaller tumors and exhibited longer survival than mice treated with either agent. In conclusion, CDK9 inhibition could reduce the expression of PD-L1 in HCC cells. Using both CDK9 inhibitors and anti-PD-L1 antibodies is more effective than using either agent alone.

Interaction of base excision repair gene polymorphism and estrogen-DNA adducts in breast cancer risk among East Asian women.

PURPOSE: In East Asia, the incidence of breast cancer has been increasing rapidly, particularly among premenopausal women. An elevated ratio of estrogen-DNA adducts was linked to a higher risk of breast cancer. The present study explored the influence of the interaction between base excision repair (BER) gene polymorphisms and estrogen-DNA adducts on breast cancer risk. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study comprising healthy volunteers and individuals with benign breast disease (control arm, n = 176) and patients with invasive carcinoma or carcinoma in situ (case arm, n = 177). Genotyping for BER-related genes, including SMUG1, OGG1, ERCC5, and APEX1, was performed. A logistic regression model, incorporating interactions between gene polymorphisms, estrogen-DNA adduct ratio, and clinical variables, was used to identify the risk factors for breast cancer. RESULTS: Univariate analysis indicated marginal associations between breast cancer risk and APEX1 rs1130409 T > G (P = 0.057) and APEX1 rs1760944 T > G (P = 0.065). Multivariate regression analysis revealed significant associations with increased breast cancer risk for APEX1_rs1130409 (GT/GG versus TT) combined with a natural logarithmic value of the estrogen-DNA adduct ratio (estimated OR 1.164, P = 0.023) and premenopausal status with an estrogen-DNA adduct ratio > 2.93 (estimated OR 2.433, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: APEX1_rs1130409 (GT/GG versus TT) polymorphisms, which are related to decreased BER activity, combined with an increased ratio of estrogen-DNA adducts, increase the risk of breast cancer in East Asian women.

Changes in Posttreatment Spleen Volume Associated with Immunotherapy Outcomes for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Purpose: We investigated whether spleen volume (SV) changes were associated with treatment outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received immunotherapy or first-line sorafenib. Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced HCC who underwent immunotherapy or first-line sorafenib at our institute were retrospectively analyzed. CT was used to measure SV before and within 3 months of treatment initiation. Tumor assessment followed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The association between SV change and tumor response or progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: The immunotherapy group comprised 143 patients (124 men, mean age, 59.8 years ± 11.2 [standard deviation]), while the sorafenib group had 57 (47 men, mean age, 59.6 years ± 9.9). SV increased in 108 (75.5%) immunotherapy and 21 (36.8%) sorafenib patients. In the immunotherapy group, patients with increased SV were more likely than those with decreased SV to have a higher disease control rate (76.9% vs 57.1%, p = 0.024) and durable clinical benefit (52.8% vs 25.7%, p = 0.005). It was also associated with extended PFS in the immunotherapy group in both the univariate (p = 0.028) and multivariate (p = 0.014) analysis. By contrast, in the sorafenib group, an increased in SV was not associated with treatment response but was presumably associated with reduced PFS (p = 0.072) in the multivariate analysis. After IPTW adjustment, the increase in SV remained a significant predictor for DCB and PFS in the immunotherapy group. Conclusion: Most patients exhibited an increase in SV after the initiation of immunotherapy, which may be used to predict response and prognosis. However, this association was not observed in patients who received sorafenib.

The study provides significant evidence that an increase in spleen volume is associated with better treatment outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing immunotherapy. These findings offer oncologists a new potential biomarker for optimizing treatment strategies. Specifically, increased spleen volume could be used to predict higher rates of disease control and durable clinical benefits, allowing for more personalized care.

Patient-Reported Outcomes From the Phase III HIMALAYA Study of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: In the phase III HIMALAYA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), the Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) regimen significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib, and durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), a secondary outcome from HIMALAYA, are reported here. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive STRIDE, durvalumab, or sorafenib. PROs were assessed (preplanned secondary outcome) using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire and the 18-item HCC module. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline and improvement rate in global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), functioning, and disease-related symptoms were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 1,171 participants were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389) and were evaluable for PRO assessments. Across treatment arms, compliance rates for PROs were >77% at baseline and >70% overall. Baseline scores were comparable across treatment arms. TTD in GHS/QoL, physical functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and abdominal pain was numerically longer for both STRIDE and durvalumab versus sorafenib. Clinically meaningful deterioration in PROs was not observed in any treatment arm. However, TTD in nausea and abdominal swelling was numerically longer for STRIDE versus sorafenib, and the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in GHS/QoL, role, emotional and social functioning, and disease-related symptoms was greater with STRIDE and durvalumab versus sorafenib. PROs with STRIDE and durvalumab were generally similar. CONCLUSION: Compared with sorafenib, STRIDE and durvalumab were associated with clinically meaningful, patient-centered GHS/QoL, functioning, and symptom benefits in people with uHCC. These findings support the benefits of the STRIDE regimen compared with sorafenib for a diverse population reflective of the global uHCC population.

Identifying trusted local sources and predicting behavior change pathways according to COVID-19 vaccination status: Results of a 2022 statewide survey of Alaskan adults.

BACKGROUND: Low rates of COVID-19 vaccination remain a substantial public health challenge. Despite early successes, vaccinations of Alaskans trail the US average, drawing attention to the need for better-designed and targeted vaccine confidence interventions. Our objective was to assess levels of community trust and theory-driven predictors of vaccination status to inform the design of future programs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, telephone-based survey of 940 Alaskan adults between May and June 2022. Data were collected on vaccination status (including initial vaccination and receipt of booster shots), trust in local community members, demographic characteristics, and thematic questions designed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behavior (COM-B) model to examine possible predictors (barriers/facilitators) of vaccination status. FINDINGS: Among those who are not fully vaccinated and boosted, we observe significantly lower trust placed in many immediate community members, especially health workers (e.g., doctors, nurses, specialty care physicians, health administrators). Firefighters and emergency medical technicians enjoy the most community trust, followed by medical professionals. Among those who received only a primary vaccine series, we find that perceptions of whether close friends are vaccinated, a sense of professional responsibility, and age were the strongest predictors vaccination status. Among the unvaccinated, we find significant predictive power from the same variables, as well as perceptions of whether family members are vaccinated, perceived risks from non-vaccination and whether vaccination is a healthy choice. CONCLUSIONS: These findings will help inform the design and targeting of future vaccine promotion interventions to adult populations in Alaska. Interventions that leverage reflective motivation and social opportunity domains of the COM-B framework may be most effective. Local community members including firefighters and emergency medical technicians, as well as medical professionals may be perceived as the most trustworthy and influential messengers among those who are not fully vaccinated and boosted.

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.

Effects of Early Short-Course Corticosteroids on Immune-Related Adverse Events in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: In real-world practice, most non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving combined immunochemotherapy are exposed to short-course corticosteroids following immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) infusion to prevent chemotherapy-related adverse events. However, whether this early short-course corticosteroid use prevents immune-related adverse events (irAEs) remains unknown. METHODS: Between January 1st, 2015, and December 31st, 2020, NSCLC patients who received at least one cycle of ICI with or without chemotherapy were enrolled. Early short-course corticosteroids were defined as corticosteroids administered following ICI injection and before chemotherapy on the same day and no longer than 3 days afterward. The patients were categorized as either "corticosteroid group" or "non-corticosteroid group" depending on their exposure to early short-course corticosteroid. The frequencies of irAEs requiring systemic corticosteroid use and irAEs leading to ICI discontinuation were compared between the two groups, and exploratory survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 252 eligible patients, 137 patients were categorized as "corticosteroid group" and 115 patients as "non-corticosteroid group." The corticosteroid group enriched patients in the first-line setting (n = 75, 54.7%), compared to the non-corticosteroid group (n = 28, 24.3%). Thirty patients (21.9%) in the corticosteroid group and 35 patients (30.4%) in the non-corticosteroid group developed irAEs requiring systemic corticosteroid use (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-1.18; p = 0.15). Eight patients (5.8%) in the corticosteroid group, as compared with 18 patients (15.7%) in the non-corticosteroid group, permanently discontinued ICI due to irAEs (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.85; p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Early short-course corticosteroids following each ICI injection may reduce the rate of irAEs that lead to ICIs discontinuation, warranting further investigation of its prophylactic use to mitigate clinically significant irAEs.

Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Alone vs Preceded by Bevacizumab, Etoposide, and Cisplatin for Untreated Brain Metastases From Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The incidence of brain metastasis is increasing in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Treatments to extend the control of brain metastasis are urgently required. Objective: To investigate whether the addition of an induction treatment of bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEEP) improves brain-specific progression-free survival (PFS) after whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, randomized, multicenter clinical trial assessed patients with brain metastases from breast cancer (BMBC) in Taiwan from September 9, 2014, to December 24, 2018, with survival follow-up until December 31, 2021. Key inclusion criteria included metastatic brain tumors not suitable for focal treatment, WBRT naivety, age 20 to 75 years, and at least 1 measurable brain metastatic lesion. The primary end point was brain-specific PFS, with an expected hazard ratio of 0.60, a 2-sided α ≤ .20, and power of 0.8. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 to the experimental arm, which involved 3 cycles of BEEP followed by WBRT, or the control arm, which involved WBRT alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the determination of brain-specific PFS by local investigators according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, the initiation of other brain-directed treatment after WBRT, or death. Other key end points included brain-specific objective response rate after 8 weeks of BEEP treatment or WBRT and 8-month brain-specific PFS rate, PFS, and overall survival. Results: A total of 118 patients with BMBC were randomized, with the intention-to-treat cohort comprising 112 patients. The median age was 56 years (range, 34-71 years), and 61 patients (54.5%) had ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-positive disease. The median (range) brain-specific PFS was 8.1 (0.3-29.5) vs 6.5 (0.9-25.5) months in the experimental and control arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.44-1.13; P = .15; significant at predefined α ≤ .20). The brain-specific objective response rate at 2 months was not significantly different (BEEP treatment vs WBRT, 41.9% vs 52.6%), but the 8-month brain-specific PFS rate was significantly higher in the experimental group (48.7% vs 26.3%; P = .03). Adverse events were generally manageable with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings show that induction BEEP before WBRT may improve the control of BMBC compared with using upfront WBRT, which could address an unmet need for an effective systemic treatment for intractable brain and extracranial metastases from metastatic breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02185352.

Improved outcomes of localized diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at the Waldeyer ring in comparison to the sinonasal area in the rituximab era.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the head-and-neck area primarily involves the Waldeyer ring (WR) and sinonasal area (SN). However, the differential clinical outcomes between patients with WR-DLBCL and those with SN-DLBCL in the rituximab era remain unclear. METHODS: To avoid confounding factors contributed by advanced DLBCL with WR and SN involvement, we assessed the clinical outcomes of patients with stage I/II WR-DLBCL and SN-DLBCL and compared them with those having corresponding stages of DLBCL in the lymph nodes but without other extranodal involvement (LN-DLBCL) in the same period. We compared the patients' clinical characteristics, treatment modalities, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) among the three subgroups. RESULTS: We analyzed 67, 15, and 106 patients with WR-DLBCL, SN-DLBCL, and LN-DLBCL, respectively, between January 2000 and December 2019. All patients received front-line rituximab-based regimens, and > 80% received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone-based regimens. More patients with SN-DLBCL had revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) score 3 (27%) when compared with those with WR-DLBCL (7%) and those with LN-DLBCL (10%, p = 0.181). Patients with WR-DLBCL, LN-DLBCL, and SN-DLBCL had 5-year EFS and OS rates of 80.7%, 59.5%, and 41.9% (p = 0.021) and 83.7%, 70.8%, and 55.8% (p = 0.032), respectively. Compared to patients with LN-DLBCL, those with WR-DLBCL also had a significantly favorable 5-year EFS rate (p = 0.021) and 5-year OS rate (p = 0.023). Three of the 15 patients with SN-DLBCL experienced lymphoma recurrence in the brain after front-line treatment. In multivariate analyses, R-IPI scores of 1-2 and 3 served as significantly poor prognostic factors for patients with poor EFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients with LN-DLBCL, patients with WR-DLBCL receiving front-line rituximab-based treatments had favorable clinical outcomes; however, patients with SN-DLBCL had worse clinical outcomes. Further studies on molecular prognostic factors and treatment strategies for SN-DLBCL are warranted.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib plus placebo for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-002): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapies have improved the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is still a need to further enhance overall survival in first-line advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib versus lenvatinib plus placebo in the first-line setting for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-002), patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child Pugh class A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no previous systemic treatment were enrolled at 172 global sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a central interactive voice-response system (block size of 4) to receive lenvatinib (bodyweight <60 kg, 8 mg/day; bodyweight ≥60 kg, 12 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or lenvatinib plus placebo. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, macrovascular portal vein invasion or extrahepatic spread or both, α-fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Dual primary endpoints were overall survival (superiority threshold at final overall survival analysis, one-sided p=0·019; final analysis to occur after 532 events) and progression-free survival (superiority threshold one-sided p=0·002; final analysis to occur after 571 events) in the intention-to-treat population. Results from the final analysis are reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03713593, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2019, and April 28, 2020, of 1309 patients assessed, 794 were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=395) or lenvatinib plus placebo (n=399). Median age was 66·0 years (IQR 57·0-72·0), 644 (81%) of 794 were male, 150 (19%) were female, 345 (43%) were Asian, 345 (43%) were White, 22 (3%) were multiple races, 21 (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 (3%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 13 (2%) were Black or African American, and 46 (6%) did not have available race data. Median follow up as of data cutoff for the final analysis (June 21, 2022) was 32·1 months (IQR 29·4-35·3). Median overall survival was 21·2 months (95% CI 19·0-23·6; 252 [64%] of 395 died) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 19·0 months (17·2-21·7; 282 [71%] of 399 died) with lenvatinib plus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·71-1·00; stratified log-rank p=0·023). As of data cutoff for the progression-free survival final analysis (April 5, 2021), median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·4-8·4; 270 events occurred [42 deaths; 228 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 8·0 months (6·3-8·2; 301 events occurred [36 deaths; 265 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus placebo (HR 0·87; 95% CI 0·73-1·02; stratified log-rank p=0·047). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (69 [17%] of 395 patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group vs 68 [17%] of 395 patients) in the lenvatinib plus placebo group), increased aspartate aminotransferase (27 [7%] vs 17 [4%]), and diarrhoea (25 [6%] vs 15 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome [n=1 each] and hepatic encephalopathy [n=2]) and in three (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus placebo group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage, hepatorenal syndrome, and cerebrovascular accident [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: In earlier studies, the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shown promising clinical activity; however, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not meet prespecified significance for improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus lenvatinib plus placebo. Our findings do not support a change in clinical practice. FUNDING: Eisai US, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck.

MiR-630 Promotes Radioresistance by Induction of Anti-Apoptotic Effect via Nrf2-GPX2 Molecular Axis in Head-Neck Cancer.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) ranks among the top ten prevalent cancers worldwide. Radiotherapy stands as a pivotal treatment component for HNC; however, radioresistance in cancerous cells often leads to local recurrence, becoming a substantial factor in treatment failure. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are compact, non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression by targeting mRNAs to inhibit protein translation. Although several studies have indicated that the dysregulation of miRNAs is intricately linked with malignant transformation, understanding this molecular family's role in radioresistance remains limited. This study determined the role of miR-630 in regulating radiosensitivity in HNC. We discovered that miR-630 functions as an oncomiR, marked by its overexpression in HNC patients, correlating with a poorer prognosis. We further delineated the malignant function of miR-630 in HNC cells. While it had a minimal impact on cell growth, the miR-630 contributed to radioresistance in HNC cells. This result was supported by decreased cellular apoptosis and caspase enzyme activities. Moreover, miR-630 overexpression mitigated irradiation-induced DNA damage, evidenced by the reduced levels of the γ-H2AX histone protein, a marker for double-strand DNA breaks. Mechanistically, the overexpression of miR-630 decreased the cellular ROS levels and initiated Nrf2 transcriptional activity, resulting in the upregulation of the antioxidant enzyme GPX2. Thus, this study elucidates that miR-630 augments radioresistance by inducing an anti-apoptotic effect via the Nrf2-GPX2 molecular axis in HNC. The modulation of miR-630 may serve as a novel radiosensitizing target for HNC.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with resected or ablated high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave050): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after curative-intent resection or ablation. We aimed to assess the efficacy of adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In the global, open-label, phase 3 IMbrave050 study, adult patients with high-risk surgically resected or ablated hepatocellular carcinoma were recruited from 134 hospitals and medical centres in 26 countries in four WHO regions (European region, region of the Americas, South-East Asia region, and Western Pacific region). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-web response system using permuted blocks, using a block size of 4, to receive intravenous 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab every 3 weeks for 17 cycles (12 months) or to active surveillance. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by independent review facility assessment in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04102098. FINDINGS: The intention-to-treat population included 668 patients randomly assigned between Dec 31, 2019, and Nov 25, 2021, to either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=334) or to active surveillance (n=334). At the prespecified interim analysis (Oct 21, 2022), median duration of follow-up was 17·4 months (IQR 13·9-22·1). Adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with significantly improved recurrence-free survival (median, not evaluable [NE]; [95% CI 22·1-NE]) compared with active surveillance (median, NE [21·4-NE]; hazard ratio, 0·72 [adjusted 95% CI 0·53-0·98]; p=0·012). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 136 (41%) of 332 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 44 (13%) of 330 patients in the active surveillance group. Grade 5 adverse events occurred in six patients (2%, two of which were treatment related) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group, and one patient (<1%) in the active surveillance group. Both atezolizumab and bevacizumab were discontinued because of adverse events in 29 patients (9%) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. INTERPRETATION: Among patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence following curative-intent resection or ablation, recurrence-free survival was improved in those who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance. To our knowledge, IMbrave050 is the first phase 3 study of adjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma to report positive results. However, longer follow-up for both recurrence-free and overall survival is needed to assess the benefit-risk profile more fully. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Longer Term Follow-Up from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 Trial.

Introduction: KEYNOTE-240 showed a favorable benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with sorafenib-treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, prespecified statistical significance criteria for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) superiority were not met at the final analysis. Outcomes based on an additional 18 months of follow-up are reported. Methods: Adults with sorafenib-treated advanced HCC were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), assessed per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, and safety. Results: 413 patients were randomized (pembrolizumab, n = 278; placebo, n = 135). As of July 13, 2020, median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 39.6 (31.7-48.8) months for pembrolizumab and 39.8 (31.7-47.8) months for placebo. Estimated OS rates (95% CI) were 17.7% (13.4-22.5%) for pembrolizumab and 11.7% (6.8-17.9%) for placebo at 36 months. The estimated PFS rate (95% CI) for pembrolizumab was 8.9% (5.3-13.6%) and 0% for placebo at 36 months. ORR (95% CI) was 18.3% (14.0-23.4%) for pembrolizumab and 4.4% (1.6-9.4%) for placebo. Immune-mediated hepatitis events did not increase with follow-up. No viral hepatitis flare events were reported. Conclusion: With extended follow-up, pembrolizumab continued to maintain improvement in OS and PFS and was associated with a consistent adverse event profile compared with placebo in patients with sorafenib-treated advanced HCC. Although KEYNOTE-240 did not meet prespecified statistical significance criteria at the final analysis, these results together with the antitumor activity of second-line pembrolizumab observed in KEYNOTE-224 and the statistically significant and clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits of second-line pembrolizumab in patients from Asia observed in KEYNOTE-394 reinforce the clinical activity of pembrolizumab in previously treated patients with advanced HCC.