Absorbed Dose-Response Relationship in Patients with Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE: One Step Closer to Personalized Medicine.

[177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE has been approved for progressive and inoperable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) that overexpress somatostatin receptors. The absorbed doses by limiting organs and tumors can be quantified by serial postinfusion scintigraphy measurements of the γ-emissions from 177Lu. The objective of this work was to explore how postinfusion [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE dosimetry could influence clinical management by predicting treatment efficacy (tumor shrinkage and survival) and toxicity. Methods: Patients with GEP-NETs treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE between 2016 and 2022 and who underwent dosimetry were included. Absorbed doses were calculated for healthy organs (liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and spleen) and tumors using PLANET Dose and the local energy deposition method based on serial posttreatment SPECT/CT. Up to 5 lesions per site were selected and measured on images collected at baseline and 3 mo after treatment end (measurement masked to the somatostatin receptor imaging uptake). For toxicity assessment, laboratory parameters were regularly monitored. Clinical data, including time to death or progression, were collected from the patients' health records. Correlations between absorbed doses by organs and toxicity and between absorbed doses by lesions and tumor volume variation were studied using regression models. Results: In total, 35 dosimetric studies were performed in patients with mostly grade 2 (77%) tumors and metastases in liver (89%), lymph nodes (77%), and bone (34%), and 146 lesions were analyzed: 1-9 lesions per patient, mostly liver metastases (65%) and lymph nodes (25%). The median total absorbed dose by tumors was 94.4 Gy. The absorbed doses by tumors significantly decreased between cycles. The absorbed dose by tumors was significantly associated with tumor volume variation (P < 0.001) 3 mo after treatment end, and it was a significant prognostic factor for survival. Toxicity analysis showed a correlation between the decrease of hematologic parameters such as lymphocytes or platelet concentrations and the absorbed doses by the spleen or bone marrow. The mean absorbed dose by the kidneys was not correlated with nephrotoxicity during the studied period. Conclusion: In patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE for GEP-NETs, tumor and healthy organ dosimetry can predict survival and toxicities, thus influencing clinical management.

A phase Ib/II trial of capmatinib plus spartalizumab vs. spartalizumab alone in patients with pretreated hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & aims: This phase Ib/II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of capmatinib in combination with spartalizumab or spartalizumab alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Eligible patients who had progressed or were intolerant to sorafenib received escalating doses of capmatinib 200 mg, 300 mg, and 400 mg twice a day (bid) plus spartalizumab 300 mg every 3 weeks (q3w) in the phase Ib study. Once the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was determined, the phase II study commenced with randomised 1:1 treatment with either capmatinib + spartalizumab (n = 32) or spartalizumab alone (n = 30). Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability (phase Ib) and investigator-assessed overall response rate per RECIST v1.1 for combination vs. single-agent arms using a Bayesian logistic regression model (phase II). Results: In phase Ib, the RP2D for capmatinib in combination with spartalizumab was determined to be 400 mg bid. Dose-limiting toxicity consisting of grade 3 diarrhoea was reported in one patient at the capmatinib 400 mg bid + spartalizumab 300 mg q3w dose level. The primary endpoint in the phase II study was not met. The observed overall response rate in the capmatinib + spartalizumab arm was 9.4% vs. 10% in the spartalizumab arm. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs, ≥20%) were nausea (37.5%), asthenia and vomiting (28.1% each), diarrhoea, pyrexia, and decreased appetite (25.0% each) in the combination arm; TRAEs ≥10% were pruritus (23.3%), and rash (10.0%) in the spartalizumab-alone arm. Conclusion: Capmatinib at 400 mg bid plus spartalizumab 300 mg q3w was established as the RP2D, with manageable toxicities and no significant safety signals, but the combination did not show superior clinical activity compared with spartalizumab single-agent treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib. Impact and implications: Simultaneous targeting of MET and programmed cell death protein 1 may provide synergistic clinical benefit in patients with advanced HCC. This is the first trial to report a combination of capmatinib (MET inhibitor) and spartalizumab (programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) as second-line treatment after sorafenib for advanced HCC. The combination did not show superior clinical activity compared with spartalizumab single-agent treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib. The results indicate that there is a clear need to identify a reliable predictive marker of response for HCC and to identify patients with HCC that would benefit from the combination of checkpoint inhibitor +/- targeted therapy. Clinical trial number: NCT02795429.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver surgery and thermal ablations: state of the art and future perspectives.

Despite the improvements in surgical and medical therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), recurrence still represents a major issue. Up to 70% of patients can experience HCC recurrence after liver resection (LR), as well as 20% of them even after liver transplantation (LT). The patterns of recurrence are different according to both the time and the location. Similarly, the risk factors and the management can change not only according to these patterns, but also according to the underlying liver condition and to the first treatment performed. Deep knowledge of such correlation is fundamental, since prevention and effective management of recurrence are undoubtedly the most important strategies to improve the outcomes of HCC treatment. Without adjuvant therapy, maintaining very close monitoring during the first 2 years in order to diagnose curable recurrence and continue this monitoring beyond 5 years because late recurrences exist, remains our only possibility today. Surgery represents the cornerstone treatment for HCC, including both LT and LR. However, new interesting therapeutic opportunities are coming from immunotherapy that has shown encouraging results also in the adjuvant setting. In such a complex and evolutionary scenario, the aim of this review is to summarize current strategies for the management of HCC recurrence, focusing on the different possible scenarios, as well as on future perspectives.

Pemigatinib for patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: A joint analysis of the French PEMI-BIL and Italian PEMI-REAL cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Pemigatinib is approved for patients with pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements or fusions. We aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in real-world setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A joint analysis of two multicentre observational retrospective cohort studies independently conducted in France and Italy was performed. All consecutive FGFR2-positive patients affected by CCA and treated with pemigatinib as second- or further line of systemic treatment in clinical practice, within or outside the European Expanded Access Program, were included. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and September 2022, 72 patients were treated with pemigatinib in 14 Italian and 25 French Centres. Patients had a median age of 57 years, 76% were female, 81% had ECOG-PS 0-1, 99% had intrahepatic CCA, 74% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, 67% had metastatic disease at diagnosis, while 38.8% received ≥ 2 previous lines of systemic treatment. At data cut-off analysis (April 2023), ORR and DCR were 45.8% and 84.7%, respectively. Median DoR was 7 months (IQR: 5.8-9.3). Over a median follow-up time of 19.5 months, median PFS and 1-year PFS rate were 8.7 months and 32.8%. Median OS and 1-year OS rate were 17.1 months and 60.6%. Fatigue (69.4%), ocular toxicity (68%), nail toxicities (61.1%), dermatologic toxicity (41.6%) hyperphosphataemia (55.6%), stomatitis (48.6%), and diarrhea (36.1%) were the most frequent, mainly G1-G2 AEs. Overall incidence of G3 AEs was 22.2%, while no patient experienced G4 AE. Dose reduction and temporary discontinuation were needed in 33.3% and 40.3% of cases, with 1 permanent discontinuation due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in a real-world setting.

Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for jaundice in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Retrospective, multicenter study (GALLBLADEUS Study).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) vs. EUS-gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for jaundice resulting from malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to MDBO who underwent EUS-GBD or EUS-CDS with lumen-apposing metal stents after failed ERCP. The primary end-point was clinical success rate. Secondary end-points were technical success, periprocedural adverse events rate (<24 h), late adverse events rate (>24 h), overall survival, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were included: 41 underwent EUS-GBD and 37 underwent EUS-CDS. MDBO was mainly the result of pancreatic cancer (n = 63/78, 80.7%). Clinical success rate was similar for both procedures: 87.8% for EUS-GBD and 89.2% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.8). Technical success rate was 100% for EUS-GBD and 94.6% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.132). Periprocedural morbidity (<24 h) rates were similar between both groups: 4/41 (9.8%) for EUS-GBD and 5/37 (13.5%) for EUS-CDS (P = 0.368). There was a significantly higher rate of late morbidity (>24 h) among patients in the EUS-CDS group (8/37 [21.6%]) than in the EUS-GBD group (3/41 [7.3%]) (P = 0.042). The median follow-up duration was 4.7 months. Overall survival and time to recurrent biliary obstruction did not significantly differ between the groups. DISCUSSION: After failed ERCP for MDBO, EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS show comparable clinical success rates and technical success. EUS-GBD appears to be a promising alternative for MDBO, even as a second-line treatment after failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and compare the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS.

Long-Term Overall Survival After Selective Internal Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinomas: Updated Analysis of DOSISPHERE-01 Trial.

Interim analysis of the DOSISPHERE-01 study demonstrated a strong improvement in response and overall survival (OS) on using 90Y-loaded glass microspheres with personalized dosimetry compared with standard dosimetry in patients with nonoperable locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This report sought to provide a long-term analysis of OS. Methods: In this phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02582034), treatment was randomly assigned (1:1) with the goal to deliver either at least 205 Gy (if possible >250-300 Gy) to the index lesion in the personalized dosimetry approach (PDA) or 120 ± 20 Gy to the treated volume in the standard dosimetry approach (SDA). The 3-mo response of the index lesion was the primary endpoint, with OS being one of the secondary endpoints. This report is a post hoc long-term analysis of OS. Results: Overall, 60 hepatocellular carcinoma patients with at least 1 lesion larger than 7 cm and more than 30% of hepatic reserve were randomized (intent-to-treat population: PDA, n = 31; SDA, n = 29), with 56 actually treated (modified intent-to-treat population: n = 28 in each arm). The median follow-up for long-term analysis was 65.8 mo (range, 2.1-73.1 mo). Median OS was 24.8 mo and 10.7 mo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.9; P = 0.02) for PDA and SDA, respectively, in the modified intent-to-treat population. Median OS was 22.9 mo for patients with a tumor dose of at least 205 Gy, versus 10.3 mo for those with a tumor dose of less than 205 Gy (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.81; P = 0.0095), and was 22.9 mo for patients with a perfused liver dose of 150 Gy or higher, versus 10.3 mo for those with a perfused liver dose of less than 150 Gy (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75; P = 0.0033). Lastly, median OS was not reached in patients who were secondarily resected (n = 11, 10 in the PDA group and 1 in the SDA group), versus 10.8 mo in those without secondary resection (n = 45) (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.065-0.43; P = 0.0002). Only resected patients displayed favorable long-term OS rates, meaning an OS of more than 50% at 5 y. Conclusion: After longer follow-up, personalized dosimetry sustained a meaningful improvement in OS, which was dramatically improved for patients who were accurately downstaged toward resection, including most portal vein thrombosis patients.

FGF19 and its analog Aldafermin cooperate with MYC to induce aggressive hepatocarcinogenesis.

FGF19 hormone has pleiotropic metabolic functions, including the modulation of insulin sensitivity, glucose/lipid metabolism and energy homeostasis. On top of its physiological metabolic role, FGF19 has been identified as a potentially targetable oncogenic driver, notably in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nevertheless, FGF19 remained an attractive candidate for treatment of metabolic disease, prompting the development of analogs uncoupling its metabolic and tumor-promoting activities. Using pre-clinical mice models of somatic mutation driven HCC, we assessed the oncogenicity of FGF19 in combination with frequent HCC tumorigenic alterations: p53 inactivation, CTNNB1 mutation, CCND1 or MYC overexpression. Our data revealed a strong oncogenic cooperation between FGF19 and MYC. Most importantly, we show that this oncogenic synergy is conserved with a FGF19-analog Aldafermin (NGM282), designed to solely mimic the hormone's metabolic functions. In particular, even a short systemic treatment with recombinant proteins triggered rapid appearance of proliferative foci of MYC-expressing hepatocytes. The fact that FGF19 analog Aldafermin is not fully devoid of the hormone's oncogenic properties raises concerns in the context of its potential use for patients with damaged, mutation-prone liver.

Triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment in extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab showed promising results in phase II trials in unsystematically selected RAS population. We evaluated FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab efficacy as first-line treatment in extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab, using data from clinical trials and real-life practice. Extended mutation analysis was performed when RAS/BRAF status was unavailable. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Seventy patients (61.4 % male, median age 58.7 years) were analyzed. Eighty percent had left-sided mCRC and 97.1 % had liver metastases. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 48.5 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 85.7 %, with 20 % complete response. Primary tumor location did not affect OS and PFS. BRAF wild-type patients (n = 65) had longer PFS (13.3 vs. 6.0 months; p = 0.005) and OS (50.1 vs. 21.2 months; p = 0.007) than BRAF mutated patients (n = 5, including four BRAFV600E). Median OS was significantly longer in resected patients (n = 39, 55.1 vs. 30.7 months; p = 0.030). Main toxicities were diarrhea (31.4 %) and neutropenia (21.4 %). CONCLUSION: FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab provides good PFS, high response rate and prolonged disease control in initially unresectable extended RAS wild-type mCRC. This combination is particularly interesting for selected patients with liver-limited disease eligible to secondary resection.

Circulating Tumor DNA Clinical Applications in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Trends and Future Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Globally, liver cancers are the second most lethal malignancy after lung cancer (0.83 million deaths in 2020). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the predominant type of primary liver cancer and is typically associated with liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. HCC diagnosis relies on histologic examination of surgical specimens or conventional tissue biopsy material. However, standard tissue biopsies are invasive and often do not accurately reflect the tumor heterogeneity. On the other hand, the use of liquid biopsies, represented mainly by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs), has greatly increased in the past 2 decades. Indeed, liquid biopsies are a noninvasive, repeatable, and sensitive approach to studying tumor biology. CONTENT: This review describes current clinical applications of ctDNA analysis in the management of patients with chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and HCC. There is a substantial clinical potential of ctDNA, but interventional studies are still lacking for the moment. SUMMARY: Detection of ctDNA in both asymptomatic individuals and high-risk patients (with chronic liver disease or cirrhosis) contributes to the early diagnosis of HCC. ctDNA analysis also offer tremendous information on the tumor burden and on the risk of early recurrence. The implementation of ctDNA analysis, in association with classical tumor markers (e.g., alpha-fetoprotein), may improve (a) HCC screening in high-risk patients, (b) stratification of the recurrence risk after surgery, and (c) prognosis evaluation of patients with HCC.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab for non-resectable or metastatic combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: A multicentric retrospective study.

BACKGROUNDS: The efficacy of atezolizumab/bevacizumab has never been reported in patients with metastatic/unresectable combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included patients with a histological diagnosis of unresectable/metastatic cHCC-CCA and treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab (2020-2022) in 7 centers. Clinical and radiological features were collected at the beginning of atezolizumab/bevacizumab. We reported the radiological response using RECIST criteria, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Sixteen patients with cHCC-CCA were included and were predominantly male (75%) with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis (69%). Nine patients received atezolizumab/bevacizumab as a first-line systemic treatment, 5 as a second line, 1 as a third line and 1 as a fifth line. Severe digestive bleeding occurred in 2 patients. Among the 9 patients treated in the first line, 4 experienced radiological progression, 3 partial response and 1 had stable disease. Patients treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab in the first line had a median OS of 13 months and a median PFS of 3 months. Among the 7 patients receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab as a second line or more, 4 patients harbored a stable disease, 2 a partial response, and 1 a progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed signs of anti-tumor efficacy in patients with unresectable/metastatic cHCC-CCA.

Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment. Objective: To investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022. Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety. Results: A total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib. Conclusions and Relevance: In RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.

A prospective registry study of stereotactic magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) for primary liver tumors.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated safe and effective results for primary liver tumors. Magnetic Resonance guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) is an innovative radiotherapy modality for abdominal tumors. The aim of this study is to report on acute and late toxicities and initial oncological results for primary liver tumors treated with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively included in our cohort all patients treated by MRgRT for a primary liver tumor at the Montpellier Cancer Institute. The primary endpoint was acute and late toxicities assessed according to CTCAE v 5.0. The mean prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 5 fractions. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and April 2022, MRgRT treated 56 patients for 72 primary liver lesions. No acute or late toxicities of CTCAE grade greater than 2 attributable to radiotherapy were noted during follow-up. No cases of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD), either classical or non-classical, occurred. After a median follow-up of 13.2 months (95% CI [8.8; 15.7]), overall survival was 85.1% (95% CI: [70.8; 92.7]) at 1 year and 74.2% at 18 months (95% CI [52.6; 87.0]). Local control was 98.1% (95% CI: [87.4; 99.7]) and 94.7% (95% CI: [79.5; 98.7]) at 12 and 18 months, respectively. Among the HCC subgroup, no local recurrences were observed. CONCLUSION: MRgRT for primary liver tumors is safe without severe adverse events and reach excellent local control. Numerous studies are underway to better assess the value of MRI guidance and adaptive process in these indications.

Evaluation of the interest to combine a CD4 Th1-inducer cancer vaccine derived from telomerase and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized non-comparative phase II study (TERTIO - PRODIGE 82).

BACKGROUND: Several cancer immunotherapies that target the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway show promising clinical activity in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the standard of care in first-line treatment with atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1 therapy) in combination with bevacizumab is associated with a limited objective response rate. Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) activation meets the criteria of oncogenic addiction in HCC and could be actionable therapeutic target and a relevant tumor antigen. Therefore we hypothesized that combining anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy with an anti-telomerase vaccine might be an attractive therapy in HCC. UCPVax is a therapeutic cancer vaccine composed of two separate peptides derived from telomerase (human TERT). UCPVax has been evaluated in a multicenter phase I/II study in non-small cell lung cancers and has demonstrated to be safe and immunogenic, and is under evaluation in combination with atezolizumab in a phase II clinical trial in tumors where telomerase reactivation contributes to an oncogene addiction (HPV+ cancers). The aim of the TERTIO study is to determine the clinical interest and immunological efficacy of a treatment combining the CD4 helper T-inducer cancer anti-telomerase vaccine (UCPVax) with atezolizumab and bevacizumab in unresectable HCC in a multicenter randomized phase II study. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, metastatic or unresectable HCC who have not previously received systemic anti-cancer treatment are eligible. The primary end point is the objective response rate at 6 months. Patients will be allocated to a treatment arm with a randomization 2:1. In both arms, patients will receive atezolizumab at fixed dose of 1200 mg IV infusion and bevacizumab at fixed dose of 15 mg/kg IV infusion, every 3 weeks, according to the standard of care. In the experimental arm, these treatments will be combined with the UCPVax vaccine at 0.5 mg subcutaneously. DISCUSSION: Combining anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy with an anti-telomerase vaccine gains serious consideration in HCC, in order to extend the clinical efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Indeed, anti-cancer vaccines can induce tumor-specific T cell expansion and activation and therefore restore the cancer-immunity cycle in patients lacking pre-existing anti-tumor responses. Thus, there is a strong rational to combine immune checkpoint blockade therapy and anticancer vaccine (UCPVax) in order to activate antitumor T cell immunity and bypass the immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment in HCC. This pivotal proof of concept study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of a CD4 Th1-inducer cancer vaccine derived from telomerase (UCPVax) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable HCC, as well as confirming their synergic mechanism, and settling the basis for a new combination for future clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05528952.

Large, multifocal or portal vein-invading hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) downstaged by Y90 using personalized dosimetry: safety, pathological results and outcomes after surgery.

Background: Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) has recently been recognized as a bridging/downstaging therapy to surgery for early hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) with high rates of complete pathological necrosis (CPN) on liver explants. In patients with portal vein tumoral thrombus (PVTT), multifocal or large tumors, TARE has mainly a palliative role and surgery remains controversial in this poor-prognosis population. Personalized dosimetry recently proved to outperform standard dosimetry used in prior negative Y90 randomized-controlled trials. Methods: In this retrospective study, we evaluated safety, radiological and pathological response and outcomes in HCC patients with PVTT, multifocal or large tumors, who underwent surgery after downstaging using TARE with Y90-loaded glass microspheres with personalized dosimetry. Results: Between December 2015 and October 2021, 18 unresectable patients (14/18 with PVTT) had surgery (16 resections, 2 liver transplantations) 6.2 months (range, 2-14.6 months) after a single Y90 treatment. No 90-day mortality was reported. Objective modified response criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) response were noted in all but one patient. Complete and extensive (50-99%) necrosis was observed in 36% and 45% of tumors, respectively. The post-treatment tumor-absorbed dose significantly differed depending on the extent of pathological necrosis (P=0.045). Median overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) were respectively of 61.8 months [95% CI: 31.4 months-not reached (NR)] and 49.3 months (95% CI: 14 months-NR). PFS was longer in patients with complete imaging response [median NR (none recurred or died) vs. 21.5 months (95% CI: 10.1 months-NR), P<0.001] and in those with complete pathological response [median NR vs. 22.5 months (95% CI: 10.1 months-NR), P<0.001]. Conclusions: Y90 TARE using personalized dosimetry can provide high rates of imaging and pathological response in patients with PVTT, large or multifocal HCC. Subsequent surgery is safe and leads to outcomes far exceeding expectations in an otherwise poor prognosis population with no chance for cure. Trial Registration: Clinical trial number: NCT05045573.

Prognosis of immune checkpoint inhibitors-induced myocarditis: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have transformed cancer treatment over the last decade. Alongside this therapeutic improvement, a new variety of side effects has emerged, called immune-related adverse events (irAEs), potentially affecting any organ. Among these irAEs, myocarditis is rare but life-threatening. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional retrospective study with the aim of better characterizing ICI-related myocarditis. Myocarditis diagnosis was based on the recent consensus statement of the International Cardio-Oncology Society. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were identified, from six different referral centers. Most patients (55%) were treated using anti-programmed-death 1, rather than ICI combination (35%) or anti-programmed-death-ligand 1 (10%). Transthoracic echocardiography was abnormal in 52% of them, and cardiac magnetic resonance showed abnormal features in 14/24 patients (58%). Eleven patients (38%) were classified as severe. Compared with other patients, they had more frequently pre-existing systemic autoimmune disease (45% vs 6%, p=0.018), higher troponin level on admission (42-fold the upper limit vs 3.55-fold, p=0.001), and exhibited anti-acetylcholine receptor autoantibodies (p=0.001). Seven patients (24%) had myocarditis-related death, and eight more patients died from cancer progression during follow-up. Twenty-eight patients received glucocorticoids, 10 underwent plasma exchanges, 8 received intravenous immunoglobulins, and 5 other immunosuppressants. ICI rechallenge was performed in six patients, with only one myocarditis relapse. DISCUSSION: The management of ICI-related myocarditis may be challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Prognostic features are herein described and may help to allow ICI rechallenge for some patients with smoldering presentation, after an accurate evaluation of benefit-risk balance.

Clinical pattern of checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury in a multicentre cohort.

Background & Aims: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the landscape of cancer therapy. Liver toxicity occurs in up to 25% of patients treated with ICIs. The aim of our study was to describe the different clinical patterns of ICI-induced hepatitis and to assess their outcome. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury (CHILI) discussed in multidisciplinary meetings between December 2018 and March 2022 in three French centres specialised in ICI toxicity management (Montpellier, Toulouse, Lyon). The hepatitis clinical pattern was analysed by the ratio of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (R value = (ALT/ULN)/(ALP/ULN)) for characterisation as cholestatic (R ≤2), hepatocellular (R ≥5), or mixed (2

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after treatment failure with multikinase inhibitors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on the effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo-bev) after failure of multikinase inhibitor (MKI) therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are scarce. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study included all consecutive patients treated with atezo-bev after failing one or more MKI treatments in the setting of an early access program. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) by investigator assessment (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using the Kaplan‒Meier method. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in this analysis. Atezo-bev was started between April 2020 and November 2021 (median follow-up, 18.21 months). The investigator-assessed ORR was 14% (95% CI 5.37-22.63%), with 7 patients displaying a tumour response, and the disease control rate was 56% (95% CI 51.21-60.8%). After starting atezo-bev, the median OS was 17.1 months (95% CI 10.58-22.01), and the median PFS was 7.99 months (95% CI 4.78-10.50). Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Atezo-bev every three weeks showed clinical benefit for a proportion of patients previously treated with one or multiple lines of MKIs.

Tislelizumab in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (RATIONALE-208): A Multicenter, Non-Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial.

Introduction: Tislelizumab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody) showed preliminary antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced solid tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced HCC. Methods: The multiregional phase 2 study RATIONALE-208 examined single-agent tislelizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) in patients with advanced HCC with Child-Pugh A, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C, and who had received one or more prior lines of systemic therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), radiologically confirmed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by the Independent Review Committee. Safety was assessed in patients who received ≥1 dose of tislelizumab. Results: Between April 9, 2018, and February 27, 2019, 249 eligible patients were enrolled and treated. After a median study follow-up of 12.7 months, ORR was 13% (n = 32/249; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-18), including five complete and 27 partial responses. The number of prior lines of therapy did not impact ORR (one prior line, 13% [95% CI, 8-20]; two or more prior lines, 13% [95% CI, 7-20]). Median duration of response was not reached. The disease control rate was 53%, and median overall survival was 13.2 months. Of the 249 total patients, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38 (15%) patients; the most common was liver transaminase elevations in 10 (4%) patients. Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 13 (5%) patients or dose delay in 46 (19%) patients. No deaths were attributed to the treatment per investigator assessment. Conclusion: Tislelizumab demonstrated durable objective responses, regardless of the number of prior lines of therapy, and acceptable tolerability in patients with previously treated advanced HCC.

Optimizing Patient Pathways in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers: Recent Advances and a French Perspective.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors that are rare in Western countries and have a poor prognosis. Three subgroups are defined by their anatomical location (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma) and exhibit distinct clinical, molecular, and epidemiologic characteristics. Most patients are diagnosed at an advanced disease stage and are not eligible for curative-intent resection. In addition to first- and second-line chemotherapies (CisGem and FOLFOX, respectively), biologic therapies are now available that target specific genomic alterations identified in BTC. To date, targets include alterations in the genes for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 2, v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 or ERRB2), and neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK), and for those leading to DNA mismatch repair deficiency. Therapies targeting these genomic alterations have demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with BTC. Despite these therapeutic advancements, genomic diagnostic modalities are not widely used in France, owing to a lack of clinician awareness, local availability of routine genomic testing, and difficulties in obtaining health insurance reimbursement. The addition of durvalumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the immune checkpoint programmed cell death ligand-1, to CisGem in the first-line treatment of advanced BTC has shown an overall survival benefit in the TOPAZ-1 trial. Given the high mortality rates associated with BTC and the life-prolonging therapeutic options now available, it is hoped that the data presented here will support updates to the clinical management of BTC in France.

Bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI after failure of platinum-etoposide first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced neuroendocrine carcinoma (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC): a randomised, multicentre, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, and FOLFIRI alone, in this setting. METHODS: We did a randomised, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC) at 26 hospitals in France. We included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma or neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown primary origin, documented progressive disease during or after first-line platinum-etoposide chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of three), without stratification, to receive FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2, calcium folinate 400 mg/m2 or levofolinate 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h) plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI alone, intravenously, every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was overall survival at 6 months after randomisation, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population (all enrolled and randomly assigned patients who received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI). This study is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02820857. FINDINGS: Between Sept 5, 2017, and Feb 8, 2022, 150 patients were assessed for eligibility and 133 were enrolled and randomly assigned: 65 to the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 68 to the FOLFIRI group. 126 patients (59 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 67 in the FOLFIRI group) received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 83 (66%) of whom were male and 43 (34%) were female, and the median age of the patients was 67 years (IQR 58-73). The primary tumour location was colorectal in 38 (30%) of 126 patients, pancreatic in 34 (27%), gastro-oesophageal in 22 (17%), and unknown in 23 (18%). After a median follow-up of 25·7 months (95% CI 22·0-38·2), 6-month overall survival was 53% (80% CI 43-61) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 60% (51-68) in the FOLFIRI group. Grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients were neutropenia (eight [14%] patients), diarrhoea (six [10%]), and asthenia (five [8%]) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group, and neutropenia (seven [10%]) in the FOLFIRI group. One treatment-related death (ischaemic stroke) occurred in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab did not seem to increase the benefit of FOLFIRI with regard to overall survival. FOLFIRI could be considered as a standard second-line treatment in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health and Roche SAS.