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.

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (CARES-310): a randomised, open-label, international phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with an anti-angiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been shown to improve overall survival versus anti-angiogenic therapy alone in advanced solid tumours, but not in hepatocellular carcinoma. Therefore, a clinical study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab plus the VEGFR2-targeted TKI rivoceranib (also known as apatinib) versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, international phase 3 trial (CARES-310) was done at 95 study sites across 13 countries and regions worldwide. Patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received any systemic treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either camrelizumab 200 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus rivoceranib 250 mg orally once daily or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. Randomisation was done via a centralised interactive response system. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival, as assessed by the blinded independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. We report the findings from the prespecified primary analysis for progression-free survival and interim analysis for overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03764293). FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2019, and March 24, 2021, 543 patients were randomly assigned to the camrelizumab-rivoceranib (n=272) or sorafenib (n=271) group. At the primary analysis for progression-free survival (May 10, 2021), median follow-up was 7·8 months (IQR 4·1-10·6). Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with camrelizumab-rivoceranib versus sorafenib (5·6 months [95% CI 5·5-6·3] vs 3·7 months [2·8-3·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·41-0·65]; one-sided p<0·0001). At the interim analysis for overall survival (Feb 8, 2022), median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 9·1-18·7). Median overall survival was significantly extended with camrelizumab-rivoceranib versus sorafenib (22·1 months [95% CI 19·1-27·2] vs 15·2 months [13·0-18·5]; HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·80]; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (102 [38%] of 272 patients in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group vs 40 [15%] of 269 patients in the sorafenib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (33 [12%] vs 41 [15%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase (45 [17%] vs 14 [5%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (35 [13%] vs eight [3%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 66 (24%) patients in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group and 16 (6%) in the sorafenib group. Treatment-related death occurred in two patients: one patient in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group (ie, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome) and one patient in the sorafenib group (ie, respiratory failure and circulatory collapse). INTERPRETATION: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, presenting as a new and effective first-line treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals and Elevar Therapeutics.

Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study.

BACKGROUND: China has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the main causative factor. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have a poor prognosis and a substantial unmet clinical need. The phase 2-3 ORIENT-32 study aimed to assess sintilimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus IBI305, a bevacizumab biosimilar, versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study was done at 50 clinical sites in China. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically diagnosed or clinically confirmed unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, no previous systemic treatment, and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients received intravenous sintilimab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus intravenous IBI305 (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). In the phase 3 part, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either sintilimab plus IBI305 (sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily; sorafenib group), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was done using permuted block randomisation, with a block size of six, via an interactive web response system, and stratified by macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis, baseline α-fetoprotein, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 part of the study was safety, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The co-primary endpoints of the phase 3 part of the study were overall survival and independent radiological review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03794440. The study is closed to new participants and follow-up is ongoing for long-term outcomes. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2019 and Jan 15, 2020, we enrolled 595 patients: 24 were enrolled directly into the phase 2 safety run-in and 571 were randomly assigned to sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar (n=380) or sorafenib (n=191). In the phase 2 part of the trial, 24 patients received at least one dose of the study drug, with an objective response rate of 25·0% (95% CI 9·8-46·7). Based on the preliminary safety and activity data of the phase 2 part, in which grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in seven (29%) of 24 patients, the randomised phase 3 part was started. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2020), the median follow-up was 10·0 months (IQR 8·5-11·7) in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group and 10·0 months (8·4-11·7) in the sorafenib group. Patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group had a significantly longer IRRC-assessed median progression-free survival (4·6 months [95% CI 4·1-5·7]) than did patients in the sorafenib group (2·8 months [2·7-3·2]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·46-0·70; p<0·0001). In the first interim analysis of overall survival, sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar showed a significantly longer overall survival than did sorafenib (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 10·4 months [8·5-not reached]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·43-0·75; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (55 [14%] of 380 patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group vs 11 [6%] of 185 patients in the sorafenib group) and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (none vs 22 [12%]). 123 (32%) patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group and 36 (19%) patients in the sorafenib group had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in six (2%) patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group (one patient with abnormal liver function, one patient with both hepatic failure and gastrointestinal haemorrhage, one patient with interstitial lung disease, one patient with both hepatic faliure and hyperkalemia, one patient with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and one patient with intestinal volvulus) and two (1%) patients in the sorafenib group (one patient with gastrointestinal haemorrhage and one patient with death of unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: Sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefit versus sorafenib in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with unresectable, HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, with an acceptable safety profile. This combination regimen could provide a novel treatment option for such patients. FUNDING: Innovent Biologics. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Donafenib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Controlled Phase II-III Trial.

PURPOSE: Donafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor and a deuterated sorafenib derivative, has shown efficacy in phase Ia and Ib hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of donafenib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicenter phase II-III trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC, a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, and no prior systemic therapy from 37 sites across China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral donafenib (0.2 g) or sorafenib (0.4 g) twice daily until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), tested for noninferiority and superiority. Efficacy was primarily assessed in the full analysis set (FAS), and safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS: Between March 21, 2016, and April 16, 2018, 668 patients (intention-to-treat) were randomly assigned to donafenib and sorafenib treatment arms; the FAS included 328 and 331 patients, respectively. Median OS was significantly longer with donafenib than sorafenib treatment (FAS; 12.1 v 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.831; 95% CI, 0.699 to 0.988; P = .0245); donafenib also exhibited superior OS outcomes versus sorafenib in the intention-to-treat population. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 v 3.6 months (P = .0570). The objective response rate was 4.6% v 2.7% (P = .2448), and the disease control rate was 30.8% v 28.7% (FAS; P = .5532). Drug-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in significantly fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib (125 [38%] v 165 [50%]; P = .0018). CONCLUSION: Donafenib showed superiority over sorafenib in improving OS and has favorable safety and tolerability in Chinese patients with advanced HCC, showing promise as a potential first-line monotherapy for these patients.

GPC3-targeted and curcumin-loaded phospholipid microbubbles for sono-photodynamic therapy in liver cancer cells.

More effective strategies are needed to improve the treatment of liver cancer. Sono-photodynamic therapy (SPDT) has a more obvious antitumor effect than sonodynamic therapy (SDT) or photodynamic therapy (PDT). We aimed to investigate Glypican-3-targeted, curcumin-loaded microbubbles (GPC3-CUR-MBs)-mediated SPDT in liver cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. GPC3-CUR-MBs were prepared by streptavidin-biotin interactions and the immune ligation method. The characterization and toxicity of GPC3-CUR-MBs and the anti-liver cancer effects of GPC3-CUR-MB-mediated SPDT in vitro and in vivo were studied. We synthetized GPC3-CUR-MBs and found that GPC3-CUR-MBs had no significant toxicity to HepG2 liver cancer cells. In terms of the anti-liver cancer effects in vitro and in vivo, when we used CUR, CUR-MBs or GPC3-CUR-MBs as the sono/photosensitizers, the outcome of SPDT was superior to that of SDT or PDT alone. The outcomes with GPC3-CUR-MBs were better than those with CUR or CUR-MBs in the SDT, PDT or SPDT groups. During the treatment period, the weight of the HepG2 tumor-bearing mice did not decrease significantly, and no significant evidence of lung, heart, liver, spleen and kidney damage was found with H&E staining. Our results indicated that the anti-liver tumor effect of SPDT was better than that of SDT and PDT and that GPC3-CUR-MBs were promising sono/photosensitizers.

Curcumin-Loaded Poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) Microbubble-Mediated Sono-photodynamic Therapy in Liver Cancer Cells.

Sono-photodynamic therapy (SPDT) activates the same photo-/sonosensitizer and exerts more marked antitumor effects than sonodynamic therapy or photodynamic therapy. We aimed to explore the utilization of curcumin (CUR)-loaded poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) microbubble (MB)-mediated SPDT (CUR-PLGA-MB-SPDT) in HepG2 liver cancer cells. The cytotoxicity and intracellular accumulation of CUR were determined. We used 40 µM CUR as the photo-/sonosensitizer for 3 h. In a comparison of CUR-SDT or CUR-PDT, HepG2 cell viability decreased and apoptotic rate increased in CUR-SPDT. The CUR-PLGA MBs had round spheres with smooth surfaces and an average size of 3.7 µm. In CUR-PLGA MBs, drug entrapment efficiency and drug-loading capacity were 74.29 ± 2.60% and 17.14 ± 0.60%, respectively. CUR-loaded PLGA MBs (CUR-PLGA MBs) had good biocompatibility with normal L02 cells and were almost non-cytotoxic to HepG2 cells. Among CUR-SDT, CUR-PDT, CUR-SPDT or CUR-PLGA-MB-SDT, the cell CUR-PLGA-MB-SPDT had the lowest viability. Transmission electron microscopy revealed pyroptosis and apoptosis in the CUR-PLGA-MB-SPDT group; the potential mechanism was related to the mitochondrial membrane potential loss and increased production of intracellular reactive oxygen species. These findings suggested that CUR-PLGA-MB-SPDT may be a promising treatment for liver cancer.

[Capecitabine combined with cisplatin as first-line therapy in Chinese patients with advanced gastric carcinoma-a phase II clinical study].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the combination chemotherapy of capecitabine (X) with fractionated administration of cisplatin (C) in Chinese patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: 141 patients with AGC were enrolled between July 2002 and August 2004. All patients had measurable tumor according to the criteria of RECIST, Karnofsky performance status > or = 60, adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic functions. Prior radiotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy was not permitted. Patients received oral administration of capecitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) twice a day on D1-D14, and intravenous infusion of fractionated cisplatin at a dose of 20 mg/m(2)/day on D1-D5. The regimen was repeated every 3 weeks, totally for 6 cycles. RESULTS: Of the 141 evaluable patients, there were 104 men and 37 women, with a median age of 54 years (range, 23 - 80 years). Metastases before chemotherapy were detected in lymph nodes (46.8%), liver (40.4%), lung (5.7%) and other area (10.6%). The median treatment duration was 6 cycles (range, 3 - 6 cycles). The objective response rate (RR) was 36.2% (51/141). The median follow-up period was 17.5 months. The median time to progress (TTP) was 9.0 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 12.0 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events (grade 3/4) were: hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (2.1%), leucopenia (0.7%), abnormal alanine transaminase elevation (2.8%). There was no treatment-related death. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine combined with fractionated cisplatin is highly effective and well tolerated as a first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer, with comparable results to 5-Fu plus cisplatin combination therapy.