Phase 2 trial of tremelimumab in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer previously treated with programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 blockade.

INTRODUCTION: Programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade has changed the landscape of treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer, but single-agent cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) blockade in metastatic urothelial cancer has been underexplored. A prior phase 2 trial of tremelimumab in PD-1/PD-L1-blockade naive patients with metastatic urothelial cancer revealed activity comparable to that observed with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade raising the hypothesis that these classes of immune checkpoint inhibitors might be non-cross-resistant. METHODS: The current phase 2 trial treated patients with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer with single-agent tremelimumab (750 mg intravenously every 28 days for up to 7 cycles). The primary end point was objective response rate. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled and 24 patients were evaluable for response. The objective response rate was 8.3%, composed of a total of two partial responses that lasted 10.9 and 24.0 months. Stable disease was observed in another 20.8% of patients, with a median duration of stable disease of 5.4 months. Diarrhea occurred in 15 patients (58%), elevated hepatic transaminases occurred in seven patients (27%), and adrenal insufficiency occurred in two patients (8%); one patient died after experiencing immune-related hepatitis. CONCLUSIONS: High dose CTLA-4 blockade in patients with PD-1/PD-L1-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer has modest activity and is associated with treatment-related toxicity similar to prior reports.

Multicentre phase II trial of cabozantinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Prospective data on treatment after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. We conducted a phase II multicentre study on cabozantinib after ICI treatment in HCC. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, single-arm, clinical trial involving academic centres in Hong Kong and Korea. Key eligibility criteria included diagnosis of HCC, refractoriness to prior ICI-based treatment, and Child-Pugh A liver function. A maximum of two prior lines of therapy were allowed. All patients were commenced on cabozantinib at 60 mg/day. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were recruited from Oct 2020 to May 2022; 27 and 20 patients had received one and two prior therapies, respectively. Median follow-up was 11.2 months. The median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 3.3-5.3). The median overall survival (OS) was 9.9 months (95% CI 7.3-14.4), and the 1-year OS rate was 45.3%. Partial response and stable disease occurred in 3 (6.4%) and 36 (76.6%) patients, respectively. When used as a second-line treatment (n = 27), cabozantinib was associated with a median PFS and OS of 4.3 (95% CI 3.3-6.7) and 14.3 (95% CI 8.9-NR) months, respectively. The corresponding median PFS and OS were 4.3 (95% CI 3.3-11.0) and 14.3 (95% CI 9.0-NR) months, respectively, for those receiving ICI-based regimens with proven benefits (n = 17). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia (6.4%). The median dose of cabozantinib was 40 mg/day. The number of prior therapies was an independent prognosticator (one vs. two; hazard ratio = 0.37; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib demonstrated efficacy in patients who had received prior ICI regimens; survival data for second-line cabozantinib following first-line ICI regimens provide a reference for future clinical trial design. The number of prior lines of treatment may be considered a stratification factor in randomised studies. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Prospective data on systemic treatment following prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. This phase II clinical trial provides efficacy and safety data on cabozantinib in patients who had received prior ICI-based treatment. Exploratory analyses showed that the performance of cabozantinib differed significantly when used as a second- or third-line treatment. The above data could be used as a reference for clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials on subsequent treatment lines following ICIs. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04588051.

Four-year overall survival update from the phase III HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus sorafenib; durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for OS. Results reported herein are from a 4-year updated OS analysis of HIMALAYA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with uHCC and no previous systemic treatment were randomized to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The updated data cut-off was 23 January 2023. OS and serious adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Additionally, baseline characteristics and subsequent therapies were analyzed in long-term survivors (≥36 months beyond randomization). RESULTS: For STRIDE, durvalumab, and sorafenib, median [95% confidence interval (CI)] follow-up was 49.12 months (46.95-50.17 months), 48.46 months (46.82-49.81 months), and 47.31 months (45.08-49.15 months), respectively. OS hazard ratio (95% CI) for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (0.67-0.92). The 36-month OS rate for STRIDE was 30.7% versus 19.8% for sorafenib. The 48-month OS rate remained higher for STRIDE at 25.2%, versus 15.1% for sorafenib. The long-term OS benefit of STRIDE was observed across clinically relevant subgroups and was further improved in participants who achieved disease control. Long-term survivors with STRIDE (n = 103) included participants across clinically relevant subgroups, and 57.3% (59/103) had no reported subsequent anticancer therapy. No new serious treatment-related AEs occurred with STRIDE from the primary analysis (17.5%; 68/388). Durvalumab maintained OS noninferiority to sorafenib and no late-onset safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These data represent the longest follow-up to date in phase III studies in uHCC. The unprecedented 3- and 4-year OS rates reinforce the sustained long-term OS benefit of STRIDE versus sorafenib. STRIDE maintained a tolerable yet differentiated safety profile from other current uHCC therapies. Results continue to support the long-term benefits of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

Treatment response to durvalumab plus tremelimumab after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is unclear whether sequential ICI treatment-durvalumab plus tremelimumab (DT) after progression on atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB)-is effective for HCC. In this nationwide multicenter study, we aimed to investigate the effect of DT treatment based on the timing of treatment. A total of 85 patients receiving DT treatment were enrolled. The primary endpoint is treatment response at week 8 among patients receiving first-line DT treatment, those receiving second-line or later treatment without prior AB therapy, and those receiving second-line or later treatment with prior AB therapy. Objective response rates (ORRs) in patients with first-line treatment, second-line treatment without AB, and second-line treatment with prior AB were 44%, 54%, and 5%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, disease control rates (DCRs) were 69%, 91%, and 26%, respectively (p < 0.001). ORR and DCR were significantly lower in patients with prior AB treatment. Progression free survival (PFS) was significantly shortened in patients receiving second-line therapy following prior AB treatment and an adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) in those patients for PFS, using first-line therapy as a reference, was 2.35 (1.1-5.1, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the impact of DT sequencing following AB treatment was limited. However, even after second-line treatment, the treatment effect can be equivalent to that of first-line treatment in cases with no history of AB treatment. Thus, prior treatment history should be taken into account when initiating DT treatment.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab plus chemotherapy in HRR non-mutated, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (KGOG 3045): A phase II umbrella trial.

AIM: We investigated the efficacy and safety of durvalumab (D) with or without tremelimumab (T) in addition to single-agent chemotherapy (CT) in patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) lacking homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: KGOG 3045 was an open-label, investigator-initiated phase II umbrella trial. Patients with PROC without HRR gene mutations who had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy were enrolled. Patients with high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥25%) were assigned to arm A (D + CT), whereas those with low PD-L1 expression were assigned to arm B (D + T75 + CT). After completing arm B recruitment, patients were sequentially assigned to arms C (D + T300 + CT) and D (D + CT). RESULTS: Overall, 58 patients were enrolled (5, 18, 17, and 18 patients in arms A, B, C, and D, respectively). The objective response rates were 20.0, 33.3, 29.4, and 22.2%, respectively. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 20.0, 66.7, 47.1, and 66.7 of patients, respectively, but were effectively managed. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that adding T to D + CT improved progression-free survival (adjusted HR, 0.435; 95% CI, 0.229-0.824; P = 0.011). Favorable response to chemoimmunotherapy was associated with MUC16 mutation (P = 0.0214), high EPCAM expression (P = 0.020), high matrix remodeling gene signature score (P = 0.017), and low FOXP3 expression (P = 0.047). Patients showing favorable responses to D + T + CT exhibited significantly higher EPCAM expression levels (P = 0.008) and matrix remodeling gene signature scores (P = 0.031) than those receiving D + CT. CONCLUSIONS: Dual immunotherapy with chemotherapy showed acceptable response rates and tolerable safety in HRR non-mutated PROC, warranting continued clinical investigation.

Significance of changes in tumor markers in patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab combination therapy as a surrogate marker for tumor response to unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: When evaluating response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, the tumor sometimes initially swells before shrinking and ultimately responding, also called pseudo-progression. In this study, we analyzed whether tumor markers were useful for reflecting the treatment response. METHODS: Thirty-three patients who were treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab combination therapy (Dur + Tre) were enrolled. Their functional reserve was Child-Pugh grade A. Their tumor markers α-fetoprotein (AFP), des-γ-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), or AFP-Lectin 3 fraction (AFP-L3) were positive. Tumor markers were evaluated before treatment and at 1, 4, and 8 weeks after the start of treatment. The first radiological evaluation was carried out at 4 weeks and the second evaluation at 8-12 weeks. The responders included those with complete response and partial response and the nonresponders included those with stable disease (SD) and progression disease at best response evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: In the responder group, the change ratio of AFP, DCP, and AFP-L3 specifically decreased at 8 weeks. In the nonresponder group, the change ratio of DCP specifically increased at 4 weeks. The optimal cut-off value to divide responders and nonresponders at 4 weeks was approximately -40%. The ratio of responders was 72.7% in the patients whose AFP or DCP decreased over 40% at 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The change in tumor markers is a more useful predicter of tumor response to Dur + Tre than imaging evaluation alone.

ADJUBIL: phase II study of adjuvant immunotherapy with STRIDE regimen with/without capecitabine in biliary tract cancers.

Biliary tract cancer is a highly heterogeneous group of gastrointestinal cancers, and the only curative treatment is surgery, which is only applicable at early stages of the malignancy. ADJUBIL, a phase II trial (NCT05239169), aims to evaluate immunotherapy with durvalumab and tremelimumab with or without capecitabine in adjuvant situations for biliary tract cancers. A total of 40 prospective patients will be randomly assigned following surgery, consisting of a two-arm feasibility pilot part with a pick-the-winner design with durvalumab and tremelimumab in combination with or without capecitabine.

This article describes the design of a phase II clinical trial called ADJUBIL, which evaluates the use of immunotherapy (durvalumab and tremelimumab) with or without classic chemotherapy (capecitabine) in biliary tract cancer patients who have undergone curative surgery. This type of treatment is also called adjuvant therapy, meaning it is used after the primary treatment. Biliary tract cancer is a rare type of liver cancer, often diagnosed late. Following surgery, patients may experience an early return of the disease, called tumor relapse. To avoid or delay tumor relapse, patients need extra treatment. Pure chemotherapy (capecitabine) is the standard after curative surgery. For patients with no option for cure, chemotherapy together with new powerful immunotherapy has become standard. This study will recruit 40 adult patients with tumor removal, who will be randomly divided into two groups. Half of them will be treated with immunotherapy only (durvalumab and tremelimumab). The other half will be treated with capecitabine together with immunotherapy. This study will continue for 12 months, but the treatment can be stopped if, for example, the tumor reoccurs or any possible side effect of the therapy is detected. The most effective treatment type will be selected. This type of selection is called pick-the winner.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab versus the EXTREME regimen as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: KESTREL, a randomized, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) have a poor prognosis. The phase III KESTREL study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab [programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody] with or without tremelimumab [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) antibody], versus the EXTREME regimen in patients with R/M HNSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HNSCC who had not received prior systemic treatment for R/M disease were randomized (2 : 1 : 1) to receive durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) plus tremelimumab 75 mg Q4W (up to four doses), durvalumab monotherapy 1500 mg Q4W, or the EXTREME regimen (platinum, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab) until disease progression. Durvalumab efficacy, with or without tremelimumab, versus the EXTREME regimen in patients with PD-L1-high tumors and in all randomized patients was assessed. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab were not superior to EXTREME for overall survival (OS) in patients with PD-L1-high expression [median, 10.9 and 11.2 versus 10.9 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.32; P = 0.787 and HR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.80-1.39, respectively]. Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab prolonged duration of response versus EXTREME (49.3% and 48.1% versus 9.8% of patients remaining in response at 12 months), correlating with long-term OS for responding patients; however, median progression-free survival was longer with EXTREME (2.8 and 2.8 versus 5.4 months). Exploratory analyses suggested that subsequent immunotherapy use by 24.3% of patients in the EXTREME regimen arm contributed to the similar OS outcomes between arms. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and EXTREME were 8.9%, 19.1%, and 53.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PD-L1-high expression, OS was comparable between durvalumab and the EXTREME regimen. Durvalumab alone, and with tremelimumab, demonstrated durable responses and reduced TRAEs versus the EXTREME regimen in R/M HNSCC.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or endometrial carcinosarcoma: A randomized open-label phase 2 study.

INTRODUCTION: Our understanding of the biologic heterogeneity of endometrial cancer has improved, but which patients benefit from single-agent versus combination immune checkpoint blockade remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of durvalumab 1500 mg (Arm 1) versus durvalumab 1500 mg plus tremelimumab 75 mg every 4 weeks (Arm 2) in patients with endometrial carcinoma. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 weeks. Patients were stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status and carcinosarcoma histology. Using a Simon two-stage minimax design, we determined 40 patients per arm would provide 90% power and Type 1 error of 10%. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were enrolled; 77 were evaluable for toxicity (Arm 1: 38, Arm 2: 39) and 75 evaluable for efficacy (Arm 1: 37, Arm 2: 38). Patient were stratified by MMR status (Arm 1: 5, Arm 2: 4 were MMR-deficient). The ORR in Arm 1 was 10.8% (one-sided 90% CI: 4.8-100%); the ORR in Arm 2 was 5.3% (one-sided 90% CI: 1.4-100%). Since the primary endpoint of ORR was not met, 24-week PFS was not compared to historical controls per protocol specification. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with predominantly MMR-proficient endometrial cancer, there was limited response with single-agent and combined immune checkpoint blockade. The pre-specified efficacy thresholds were not met for further evaluation. A deeper understanding of potential mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy in MMR-proficient endometrial cancer is needed for the development of novel therapeutic approaches.

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.

Durvalumab and tremelimumab with definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The current standard treatment for patients with inoperable, locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced ESCC received 2 cycles of 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, durvalumab, and tremelimumab every 3 weeks with concurrent radiation therapy (60.2 or 64.5 grays). After completing CCRT plus immunotherapy, patients received 2 cycles of consolidative durvalumab and tremelimumab followed by durvalumab monotherapy every 4 weeks for 2 years after enrollment. Their survival outcomes were compared with those from a propensity score-matched historical control group that had received CCRT alone. RESULTS: In total, 40 patients were enrolled and analyzed. The 24-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates were 57.5% and 75%, respectively. Compared with the historical control group (n = 75), the study population had significantly longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.97; P = .040) and overall survival (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.98; P = .043). In the study population, patients who had PD-L1-positive tumors (n = 28) had significantly longer PFS (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.54; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.56; P = .001) compared with those who had PD-L1-negative tumors (n = 11). However, there was no difference in survival outcomes according to PD-L1 status in the historical control group, indicating a strong interaction between PD-L1-positive status and survival outcomes in the treatment groups (PFS, P for interaction = .003; overall survival, P for interaction = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab and tremelimumab with definitive CCRT had promising efficacy in patients with locally advanced ESCC. In addition, PD-L1 expression had strong predictive value in the study population.

Phase I Study of Tremelimumab Monotherapy or in Combination With Durvalumab in Japanese Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors or Malignant Mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this phase I, open-label trial was to assess safety and tolerability of tremelimumab monotherapy and combination therapy with durvalumab in Japanese patients with advanced cancer. Tremelimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against CTLA-4 in clinical trials; durvalumab is a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1 for the treatment of bladder and lung cancer. METHODS: In part 1, tremelimumab 3 or 10 mg/kg was given every 4 weeks (Q4W) for 6 doses, and thereafter every 12 weeks until discontinuation (n = 8); subsequently tremelimumab 10 mg/kg Q4W for 6 doses/Q12W and thereafter until discontinuation was administered in 41 patients with malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM). In part 2, tremelimumab 10 mg/kg (Q4W for 6 doses followed by Q12W for 3 doses) was given in combination with durvalumab 15 mg/kg (Q4W for 13 doses) in cohort 1 (n = 4). In cohort 2 (n = 6), tremelimumab 1 mg/kg (Q4W for 4 doses) was given in combination with durvalumab 20 mg/kg (Q4W for 4 doses followed by 10 mg/kg Q2W for 22 doses), while in cohort 3 (n = 6), fixed-dose tremelimumab 75 mg Q4W for 4 doses plus durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W for 13 doses was given. RESULTS: In part 1, no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) for tremelimumab 3 or 10 mg/kg (Q4W for 6 doses/Q12W thereafter until discontinuation) were observed. Six (75%) patients reported treatment-related adverse events (trAEs). In the MPM dose-expansion cohort, 38 (92.7%) patients reported trAEs. In part 2, one DLT (Grade 4 myasthenia gravis) was reported for tremelimumab 10 mg/kg (Q4W for 6 doses/Q12W for 3 doses) plus durvalumab 15 mg/kg (Q4W for 13 doses). One DLT (Grade 4 hyperglycemia) was reported for tremelimumab 75 mg (Q4W for 4 doses) plus durvalumab 1500 mg (Q4W for 13 doses). Fourteen (87.5%) patients reported trAEs. Tremelimumab demonstrated low immunogenicity; 1 (16.7%) patient developed antidrug antibodies. CONCLUSION: Tremelimumab 10 mg/kg (Q4W/Q12W), tremelimumab 1 mg/kg (Q4W) plus durvalumab 20 mg/kg (Q4W/10 mg/kg Q2W), and fixed-dose tremelimumab 75 mg (Q4W) plus durvalumab 1500 mg (Q4W) were safe and tolerable.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02141347 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02141347).

Effects of combination treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab on the tumor microenvironment in non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

The rapid development of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies has revolutionized the cancer treatment landscape and brightened the long-term forecast for many cancer patients. However, the specific genomic and proteomic changes in tumors treated with different ICB treatments have yet to be fully characterized. We treated four non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) tumor digests ex vivo with the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (D) alone or in combination with the anti-CTLA-4 antibody tremelimumab (T) to explore changes in gene and protein expression associated with these ICB therapies. All four tumors showed a robust increase in interferon gamma (IFN-γ) production (100-300% higher than isotype control) in both D- and D + T-treated tumors. Three of the four tumors showed additional increases in IFN-γ production with D + T compared with D (40-70%). A substantial reduction in interleukin 10 (IL-10) was also found in three of the four tumors (reduced to 4-8%) in response to D and D + T. Conventional CD4 + /CD8 + populations and T cell activation markers increased after D and D + T treatment. D and D + T upregulated multiple IPA pathways involving T cell activation. D + T resulted in additional upregulation of Th1/Th2 pathways through a different set of genes, as well as greater reduction in genes involved in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), angiogenesis, and cancer stemness. Our results demonstrated that D + T augmented the effects of D in the microenvironment of this set of NSCLC tumors. The specific impact of D + T on the regulation of EMT, angiogenesis, and cancer stemness warrants further evaluation in a larger set of tumors.

Tremelimumab and durvalumab in the treatment of unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Liver cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with over 780,000 deaths in 2018. About 90% of liver cancer cases are hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a prototype of inflammation-driven cancer, leading to a robust rationale for the exploration of immune therapy. Previously approved agents for first-line therapy, such as sorafenib, lenvatinib and bevacizumab combined with atezolizumab, have focused on angiogenesis. HIMALAYA was the first trial to demonstrate the benefit of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors, representing a new treatment option in this scenario.

Liver cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with over 780,000 deaths in 2018. About 90% of liver cancer cases originate in liver cells and are referred to as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Systemic treatment (medications) is the mainstay for patients with advanced disease who are not suitable for resection or liver transplant and aims to improve survival and quality of life. HIMALAYA was the first study to demonstrate the benefit of using a combination of two immunotherapy medications for initial treatment.

Dual immune checkpoint blockade in hepatocellular carcinoma: where do we stand?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death. Surgery, local ablative therapies and liver transplantation are the only potentially curative strategies, but the majority of patients present with advanced disease at diagnosis or develop recurrence after surgery. In recent years, immunotherapy for HCC has received growing interest, and one of the most promising strategies is the association of two immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which has already demonstrated its potential in other solid tumors such as melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. Herein, we discuss the role and the biologic rationale of dual immune checkpoint blockade in HCC patients, focusing on the two ICI combinations: nivolumab plus ipilimumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab.

Diagnosis and management of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have reshaped cancer therapy. ICIs enhance T cell activation through various mechanisms and may help reverse the exhausted phenotype of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes. However, disrupting the key role that checkpoint molecules play in immune homeostasis may result in autoimmune complications. A broad range of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) involve almost every organ but mostly affect the skin, digestive system, lung, endocrine glands, nervous system, kidney, blood cells, and musculoskeletal system. They are usually manageable but can be life-threatening. The incidence of irAEs is not very different in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared to other tumour types, although there is a trend towards a higher incidence of hepatic irAEs. HCC usually develops on a background of cirrhosis with associated systemic manifestations. Extrahepatic organ dysfunction in cirrhosis may cause signs and symptoms that overlap with irAEs or increase their severity. Available guidelines for the management of irAEs have not specifically considered the assessment of toxicities in the context of patients with liver cancer and cirrhosis. This review addresses the toxicity profile of ICIs in patients with HCC, focusing on the challenges that the underlying liver disease poses to their diagnosis and management. Challenges include late recognition, inadequate work-up and delayed treatment, overdiagnosis and inappropriate interruption of ICIs, complications caused by immunosuppressive therapy, and increased cost. A specific algorithm for the management of hepatic irAEs is provided.

ARCTIC: durvalumab with or without tremelimumab as third-line or later treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) experience disease progression after first- and second-line treatment; more treatment options are required for these patients. ARCTIC, a phase III, randomized, open-label study, assessed durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus standard of care (SoC) as ≥ third-line treatment of mNSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARCTIC comprised two independent sub-studies. Study A: 126 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells (TCs) expressing programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) were randomized (1 : 1) to durvalumab [up to 12 months 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (q2w)] or SoC. Study B: 469 patients with PD-L1 TC <25% were randomized (3 : 2 : 2 : 1) to durvalumab + tremelimumab (12 weeks durvalumab 20 mg/kg + tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w then 34 weeks durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), SoC, durvalumab (up to 12 months 10 mg/kg q2w), or tremelimumab (24 weeks 10 mg/kg q4w then 24 weeks q12w). Primary end points: overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab versus SoC (study A; descriptive only) and durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC (study B). RESULTS: Study A: median OS 11.7 (durvalumab) versus 6.8 (SoC) months {hazard ratio (HR) 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.93]}; median PFS 3.8 (durvalumab) versus 2.2 (SoC) months [HR 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.04)]. Study B: median OS 11.5 (durvalumab + tremelimumab) versus 8.7 (SoC) months [HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.05); P = 0.109]. Median PFS of 3.5 months for both groups [HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-1.01); P = 0.056]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events: 9.7% (durvalumab) and 44.4% (SoC; study A) and 22.0% (durvalumab + tremelimumab) and 36.4% (SoC; study B). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC, durvalumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS versus SoC (patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%); numerical improvements in OS and PFS for durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC were observed (patients with PD-L1 TC <25%). Safety profiles were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02352948.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: EAGLE, a randomized, open-label phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w × 4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n = 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n = 247), or SoC (n = 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.08; P = 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85-1.26; P = 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9-43.1), 30.4% (24.7-36.3), and 30.5% (24.7-36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade ≥3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874.

A Canadian cancer trials group phase IB study of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) plus tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4) given concurrently or sequentially in patients with advanced, incurable solid malignancies.

Background The IND.226 study was a phase Ib study to determine the recommended phase II dose of durvalumab + tremelimumab in combination with standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Sequential administration of multiple agents increases total chair time adding costs overall and inconvenience for patients. This cohort of the IND.226 study evaluated the safety and tolerability of durvalumab + tremelimumab given either sequentially (SEQ) or concurrently (CON). Methods Patients with advanced solid tumours were enrolled and randomised to either SEQ tremelimumab 75 mg IV over 1 h followed by durvalumab 1500 mg IV over 1 h q4wks on the same day, or CON administration over 1 h. The serum pharmacokinetic profile of SEQ versus CON of durvalumab and tremelimumab administration was also evaluated. Results 14 patients either received SEQ (n = 7pts) or CON (n = 7 pts). There were no infusion related reactions. Drug related adverse events (AEs) were mainly low grade and manageable, and comparable in frequency between SEQ/CON- fatigue (43%/57%), rash (43%/43%), pruritus (43%/29%) and nausea (14%/29%). One patient in each cohort discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The PK profiles of durvalumab and tremelimumab were similar between CON and SEQ, and to historical reference data. Conclusions Concurrent administration of durvalumab and tremelimumab over 1 h is safe with a comparable PK profile to sequential administration.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for hepatocellular carcinoma.

The position of immunotherapy as a pillar of systemic cancer treatment has been firmly established over the past decade. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a welcome option for patients with different malignancies. This is in part because they offer the possibility of durable benefit, even for patients who have failed other treatment modalities. The recent demonstration that immunotherapy is effective for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a milestone in the history of this recalcitrant disease. The treatment of HCC has been a challenge, and for many years was limited to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib and to several novel tyrosine kinase inhibitors that have shown efficacy and have been approved. The current role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of HCC, and how this role is likely to evolve in the years ahead, are key. Other than efforts evaluating single checkpoint inhibitors, potential combination strategies, including combinations with existing local and systemic approaches, including novel therapies are evolving. This is understandably of special interest considering the potential unique immune system of the liver, which may impact the use of immunotherapy in patients with HCC going forward, and how can it be enhanced further.