68Ga-FAP-2286 PET of Solid Tumors: Biodistribution, Dosimetry, and Comparison with 18F-FDG.

Fibroblast activation protein (FAP), expressed in the tumor microenvironment of a variety of cancers, has become a target of novel PET tracers. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the imaging characteristics of 68Ga-FAP-2286, present the first-to our knowledge-dosimetry analysis to date, and compare the agent with 18F-FDG and FAPI compounds. Methods: Patients were administered 219 ± 43 MBq of 68Ga-FAP-2286 and scanned after 60 min. Uptake was measured in up to 5 lesions per patient and within the kidneys, spleen, liver, and mediastinum (blood pool). Absorbed doses were evaluated using MIM Encore and OLINDA/EXM version 1.1 using the International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 tissue weighting factor. Results: Forty-six patients were imaged with 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET. The highest average uptake was seen in sarcoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and colon cancer. The lowest uptake was found in lung cancer and testicular cancer. The average SUVmax was significantly higher on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET than on 18F-FDG PET in cholangiocarcinoma (18.2 ± 6.4 vs. 9.1 ± 5.0, P = 0.007), breast cancer (11.1 ± 6.8 vs. 4.1 ± 2.2, P < 0.001), colon cancer (13.8 ± 2.2 vs. 7.6 ± 1.7, P = 0.001), hepatocellular carcinoma (9.3 ± 3.5 vs. 4.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.01), head and neck cancer (11.3 ± 3.5 vs. 7.6 ± 5.5, P = 0.04), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (7.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.0, P = 0.01). The total-body effective dose was estimated at 1.16E-02 mSv/MBq, with the greatest absorbed organ dose in the urinary bladder wall (9.98E-02 mGy/MBq). Conclusion: 68Ga-FAP-2286 biodistribution, dosimetry, and tumor uptake were similar to those of previously reported FAPI compounds. Additionally,68Ga-FAP-2286 PET had consistently higher uptake than 18F-FDG PET. These results are especially promising in the setting of small-volume disease and differentiating tumor from inflammatory uptake.

Genome-wide association study identifies high-impact susceptibility loci for HCC in North America.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the substantial impact of environmental factors, individuals with a family history of liver cancer have an increased risk for HCC. However, genetic factors have not been studied systematically by genome-wide approaches in large numbers of individuals from European descent populations (EDP). APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a 2-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) on HCC not affected by HBV infections. A total of 1872 HCC cases and 2907 controls were included in the discovery stage, and 1200 HCC cases and 1832 controls in the validation. We analyzed the discovery and validation samples separately and then conducted a meta-analysis. All analyses were conducted in the presence and absence of HCV. The liability-scale heritability was 24.4% for overall HCC. Five regions with significant ORs (95% CI) were identified for nonviral HCC: 3p22.1, MOBP , rs9842969, (0.51, [0.40-0.65]); 5p15.33, TERT , rs2242652, (0.70, (0.62-0.79]); 19q13.11, TM6SF2 , rs58542926, (1.49, [1.29-1.72]); 19p13.11 MAU2 , rs58489806, (1.53, (1.33-1.75]); and 22q13.31, PNPLA3 , rs738409, (1.66, [1.51-1.83]). One region was identified for HCV-induced HCC: 6p21.31, human leukocyte antigen DQ beta 1, rs9275224, (0.79, [0.74-0.84]). A combination of homozygous variants of PNPLA3 and TERT showing a 6.5-fold higher risk for nonviral-related HCC compared to individuals lacking these genotypes. This observation suggests that gene-gene interactions may identify individuals at elevated risk for developing HCC. CONCLUSIONS: Our GWAS highlights novel genetic susceptibility of nonviral HCC among European descent populations from North America with substantial heritability. Selected genetic influences were observed for HCV-positive HCC. Our findings indicate the importance of genetic susceptibility to HCC development.

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.

Plain language summary of the HIMALAYA study: tremelimumab and durvalumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of results from a phase 3 clinical study called HIMALAYA. HIMALAYA looked at treatment with one dose of a medication called tremelimumab combined with multiple doses of a medication called durvalumab (the STRIDE regimen) or multiple doses of durvalumab alone. These treatments were compared with a medication called sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is a type of liver cancer that is difficult to treat because it is often diagnosed when it is unresectable, meaning it can no longer be removed with surgery. Sorafenib has been the main treatment for unresectable HCC since 2007. However, people who take sorafenib may experience side effects that can reduce their quality of life, so alternative medicines are being trialed. Tremelimumab and durvalumab are types of drugs called immunotherapies, and they both work in different ways to help the body's immune system fight cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took STRIDE lived longer than participants who took sorafenib, whilst participants who took durvalumab alone lived a similar length of time as participants who took sorafenib. Participants who took STRIDE or durvalumab had a lower relative risk of experiencing worsening in their quality of life than participants who took sorafenib. The side effects that participants who received STRIDE or durvalumab experienced were expected for these types of treatments and could mostly be managed. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, STRIDE is more effective than sorafenib for people with unresectable HCC.

Modeling of Proliferating CD4 and CD8 T-Cell Changes to Tremelimumab Exposure in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

The STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) regimen of single-dose tremelimumab 300 mg, plus durvalumab 1,500 mg every 4 weeks demonstrated potential for long-term survival in studies of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC; Study 22 and HIMALAYA). The aim of this analysis was to investigate changes in proliferating CD4+ Ki67+ and CD8+ Ki67+ T cells and their relationship with tremelimumab exposure in patients with uHCC. Median cell count, change from baseline, and percent change from baseline in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells peaked around 14 days after STRIDE. A model of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response to tremelimumab exposure was developed. Patients with lower baseline T cell counts had a greater percent change from baseline in T cell response to tremelimumab, and baseline T-cell count was included in the final model. With the full covariate model, the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50 ) of tremelimumab was 6.10 µg/mL (standard error = 1.07 µg/mL); > 98.0% of patients were predicted to have a minimum plasma concentration greater than EC50 with tremelimumab 300 or 750 mg. For EC75 (9.82 µg/mL), 69.5% and 98.2% of patients were predicted to exceed the EC75 with tremelimumab 300 and 750 mg, respectively. This analysis supports the clinical hypothesis that combination anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (anti-CTLA-4) and anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 (anti-PD-L1) therapy primes an immune response that may then be sustained by anti-PD-L1 monotherapy and supports the clinical utility of the STRIDE regimen in patients with uHCC. These insights may also help inform dose selection of anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-L1 combination strategies.

Tumor biology and immune infiltration define primary liver cancer subsets linked to overall survival after immunotherapy.

Primary liver cancer is a rising cause of cancer deaths in the US. Although immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors induces a potent response in a subset of patients, response rates vary among individuals. Predicting which patients will respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors is of great interest in the field. In a retrospective arm of the National Cancer Institute Cancers of the Liver: Accelerating Research of Immunotherapy by a Transdisciplinary Network (NCI-CLARITY) study, we use archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples to profile the transcriptome and genomic alterations among 86 hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma patients prior to and following immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. Using supervised and unsupervised approaches, we identify stable molecular subtypes linked to overall survival and distinguished by two axes of aggressive tumor biology and microenvironmental features. Moreover, molecular responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment differ between subtypes. Thus, patients with heterogeneous liver cancer may be stratified by molecular status indicative of treatment response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers, which arise from the intrahepatic or extrahepatic bile ducts and the gallbladder, generally have a poor prognosis and are rising in incidence worldwide. The standard-of-care treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer is chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Because most biliary tract cancers have an immune-suppressed microenvironment, immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a low objective response rate. We aimed to assess whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin would improve outcomes compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: KEYNOTE-966 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 175 medical centres globally. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; had previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer; had disease measurable per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles). Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, disease stage, and site of origin in block sizes of four. The primary endpoint of overall survival was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoint of safety was evaluated in the as-treated population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2019, and June 8, 2021, 1564 patients were screened for eligibility, 1069 of whom were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (pembrolizumab group; n=533) or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (placebo group; n=536). Median study follow-up at final analysis was 25·6 months (IQR 21·7-30·4). Median overall survival was 12·7 months (95% CI 11·5-13·6) in the pembrolizumab group versus 10·9 months (9·9-11·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·72-0·95]; one-sided p=0·0034 [significance threshold, p=0·0200]). In the as-treated population, the maximum adverse event grade was 3 to 4 in 420 (79%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 400 (75%) of 534 in the placebo group; 369 (70%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 367 (69%) in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 to 4. 31 (6%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 49 (9%) in the placebo group died due to adverse events, including eight (2%) in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group who died due to treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Based on a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin without any new safety signals, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin could be a new treatment option for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Molecular profiling and treatment pattern differences between intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. METHODS: This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P < .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P < .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.

Exposure-Response Analyses of Tremelimumab Monotherapy or in Combination with Durvalumab in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A novel single-dose regimen of 300 mg tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab [Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE)] has demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in the phase I/II Study 22 (NCT02519348) and phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451). This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, exposure-response, and exposure-pharmacodynamics relationships of tremelimumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A previous tremelimumab population pharmacokinetic model was validated using data from parts 2 and 3 of Study 22. Exposure-response analyses explored relationships of tremelimumab exposure with efficacy and safety. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics relationships were evaluated using linear and nonlinear regression models. RESULTS: The observed pharmacokinetics of tremelimumab in uHCC were consistent with predictions; no significant covariates were identified. Tremelimumab exposure was not significantly associated with adverse events, objective response rate, or progression-free survival. Overall survival (OS) was longer for patients with tremelimumab exposure, minimum serum drug concentration (Cmin1) ≥ median versus Cmin1 < median (18.99 months vs. 10.97 months), but this exposure-survival analysis might be confounded with baseline characteristics of albumin level and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, which had a significant impact on OS (P = 0.0004 and 0.0001, respectively). The predicted Cmin1 of tremelimumab in STRIDE regimen (12.9 µg/mL) was greater than the estimated concentration of tremelimumab eliciting half-maximal increases (EC50 = 5.24 µg/mL) in CD8+Ki67+ T-cell counts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support novel insights into tremelimumab pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationships in HCC and support the clinical utility of the STRIDE regimen in patients with uHCC.

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.

Safety and efficacy of cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who advanced to Child-Pugh B liver function at study week 8: a retrospective analysis of the CELESTIAL randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh B liver cirrhosis have poor prognosis and are underrepresented in clinical trials. The CELESTIAL trial, in which cabozantinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with HCC and Child-Pugh A liver cirrhosis at baseline, was evaluated for outcomes in patients who had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis at Week 8. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of adult patients with previously treated advanced HCC. Child-Pugh B status was assessed by the investigator. Patients were randomised 2:1 to cabozantinib (60 mg once daily) or placebo. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients receiving cabozantinib and 22 receiving placebo had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis at Week 8. Safety and tolerability of cabozantinib for the Child-Pugh B subgroup were consistent with the overall population. For cabozantinib- versus placebo-treated patients, median OS from randomisation was 8.5 versus 3.8 months (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58), median PFS was 3.7 versus 1.9 months (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.76), and best response was stable disease in 57% versus 23% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These encouraging results with cabozantinib support the initiation of prospective studies in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh B liver function. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01908426.

Alpha-Fetoprotein as a Potential Surrogate Biomarker for Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab is the new standard of care for systemic treatment-naïve, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory study investigated on-treatment alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response as a potential surrogate biomarker of prognosis for the combination therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Data from Group A of the phase Ib GO30140 study were used to identify the optimal time for AFP measurement and AFP cutoffs to differentiate patients by their best confirmed response per independent review facility-assessed RECIST (IRF-RECIST) version 1.1: responders from nonresponders and patients with disease control from primary progressors. We applied these cutoffs to independent data from the atezolizumab + bevacizumab arm of the phase III IMbrave150 trial to distinguish patients based on (i) overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per IRF-RECIST 1.1 and (ii) best confirmed response per IRF-RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: We derived AFP cutoffs of ≥75% decrease and ≤10% increase from baseline at 6 weeks to identify responders and those who had disease control, respectively. These cutoffs had high sensitivity and specificity in GO30140. In IMbrave150 patients, sensitivity was 0.59 and specificity was 0.86 for the ≥75% decrease AFP cutoff; the sensitivity was 0.77 and specificity was 0.44 for the ≤10% increase AFP cutoff. Both AFP cutoffs were associated with longer OS and PFS, particularly in patients with hepatitis B virus etiology (HR < 0.5; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: AFP response at 6 weeks after initiating treatment is a potential surrogate biomarker of prognosis for patients with HCC receiving atezolizumab + bevacizumab. See related commentary by Cappuyns and Llovet, p. 3405.

Outcomes Based on Plasma Biomarkers for the Phase 3 CELESTIAL Trial of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Cabozantinib, an inhibitor of MET, AXL, and VEGF receptors, significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this exploratory analysis, outcomes were evaluated according to plasma biomarker levels. METHODS: Baseline plasma levels were evaluated for MET, AXL, VEGFR2, HGF, GAS6, VEGF-A, PlGF, IL-8, EPO, ANG2, IGF-1, VEGF-C, and c-KIT for 674/707 randomized patients; and Week 4 levels were evaluated for MET, AXL, VEGFR2, HGF, GAS6, VEGF-A, PlGF, IL-8, and EPO for 614 patients. OS and PFS were analyzed by baseline levels as dichotomized or continuous variables and by on-treatment changes at Week 4 as continuous variables; biomarkers were considered potentially prognostic if p < 0.05 and predictive if p < 0.05 for the interaction between treatment and the biomarker. Multivariable analyses adjusting for clinical covariates were also performed. RESULTS: In the placebo group, high levels of MET, HGF, GAS6, IL-8, and ANG2 and low levels of IGF-1 were associated with shorter OS in univariate and multivariable analyses; these associations were also observed for MET, IL-8, and ANG2 in the cabozantinib group. Hazard ratios for OS and PFS favored cabozantinib over the placebo at low and high baseline levels for all biomarkers. No baseline biomarkers were predictive of a treatment benefit. Cabozantinib promoted pharmacodynamic changes in several biomarkers, including increases in VEGF-A, PlGF, AXL, and GAS6 levels and decreases in VEGFR2 and HGF levels; these changes were not associated with OS or PFS. CONCLUSION: Cabozantinib improved OS and PFS versus placebo at high and low baseline concentrations for all biomarkers analyzed. Low baseline levels of MET, HGF, GAS6, IL-8, and ANG2 and high levels of IGF-1 were identified as potential favorable prognostic biomarkers for survival in previously treated advanced HCC. Although cabozantinib promoted pharmacodynamic changes in several biomarkers, these changes were not associated with survival.

Futibatinib, an Irreversible FGFR1-4 Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors Harboring FGF/FGFR Aberrations: A Phase I Dose-Expansion Study.

Futibatinib, a highly selective, irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor, was evaluated in a large multihistology phase I dose-expansion trial that enrolled 197 patients with advanced solid tumors. Futibatinib demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 13.7%, with responses in a broad spectrum of tumors (cholangiocarcinoma and gastric, urothelial, central nervous system, head and neck, and breast cancer) bearing both known and previously uncharacterized FGFR1-3 aberrations. The greatest activity was observed in FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ORR, 25.4%). Some patients with acquired resistance to a prior FGFR inhibitor also experienced responses with futibatinib. Futibatinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (81.2%), diarrhea (33.5%), and nausea (30.4%). These results formed the basis for ongoing futibatinib phase II/III trials and demonstrate the potential of genomically selected early-phase trials to help identify molecular subsets likely to benefit from targeted therapy. SIGNIFICANCE: This phase I dose-expansion trial demonstrated clinical activity and tolerability of the irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor futibatinib across a broad spectrum of FGFR-aberrant tumors. These results formed the rationale for ongoing phase II/III futibatinib trials in cholangiocarcinoma, breast cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and a genomically selected disease-agnostic population.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 275.

Nivolumab versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 459): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1-2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7-28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7-25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9-18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9-17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72-1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related. INTERPRETATION: First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Efficacy and safety of cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma based on albumin-bilirubin grade.

BACKGROUND: Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade is an objective measure of liver function for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib is approved for patients with advanced HCC who have received prior sorafenib based on the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426). Cabozantinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with previously treated HCC. METHODS: Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive cabozantinib 60 mg or placebo orally every day. Clinical outcomes in patients with ALBI grade 1 or 2 at baseline were evaluated in CELESTIAL. ALBI scores were retrospectively calculated based on baseline serum albumin and total bilirubin, with an ALBI grade of 1 defined as ≤ -2.60 score and a grade of 2 as a score of > -2.60 to ≤ -1.39. RESULTS: Cabozantinib improved OS and PFS versus placebo in both ALBI grade 1 (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.63 [0.46-0.86] and 0.42 [0.32-0.56]) and ALBI grade 2 (HR [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.66-1.06] and 0.46 [0.37-0.58]) subgroups. Adverse events were consistent with those in the overall population. Rates of grade 3/4 adverse events associated with hepatic decompensation were generally low and were more common among patients in the ALBI grade 2 subgroup. DISCUSSION: These results provide initial support of cabozantinib in patients with advanced HCC irrespective of ALBI grade 1 or 2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01908426.