Immunologic Features of Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Before and During Sorafenib or Anti-programmed Death-1/Programmed Death-L1 Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Today, a promising treatment strategy is focused on the enhancement of antitumor immune responses by immune checkpoint modification. However, as only 20% of patients with HCC are responders, identification of predictive factors is urgently required. Therefore, for the first time, the features of the intrahepatic and circulating immune system in patients with advanced-stage HCC, before and during the treatment, were analyzed. METHODS: We collected fresh HCC biopsies, along with adjacent tumor-free liver tissues and peripheral blood samples, from 21 patients with advanced HCC. Furthermore, we performed an extensive immunomonitoring of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib or programmed death (PD)-1/PD-L1 pathway blockade using multiparametric flow cytometry. RESULTS: We observed that regardless of the treatment, low baseline intratumoral CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio was associated with better overall survival (P = 0.0002). The baseline frequency of intratumoral PD-1 CD8 T cells was significantly lower in patients responding to sorafenib treatment than in the nonresponders (P = 0.0117), and the frequency of circulating PD-1 T cells increased with tumor progression (P = 0.0329). By contrast, responders to PD-1/PD-L1 pathway blockade showed a trend of high baseline frequency of intratumoral PD-1 CD8 T cells. Moreover, we observed a trend of LAG3 and TIM3 upregulation on circulating T cells in nonresponding patients to PD-1/PD-L1 pathway blockade. DISCUSSION: Immunosuppressive state, characterized by an enhanced intratumoral CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio, was associated with poor prognosis. Additionally, our results suggest that the frequency of intratumoral PD-1 CD8 T cells may serve as a biomarker to identify which individuals will benefit from which treatment and support the use of combination strategies.

Brivanib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a dual inhibitor of vascular-endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial compared brivanib with sorafenib as first-line treatment for HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced HCC patients who had no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily orally (n = 578) or brivanib 800 mg once daily orally (n = 577). Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and safety. RESULTS: The primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib in the per-protocol population (n = 1,150) was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95.8% CI, 0.93 to 1.22), based on the prespecified margin (upper CI limit for HR ≤ 1.08). Median OS was 9.9 months for sorafenib and 9.5 months for brivanib. TTP, ORR, and DCR were similar between the study arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events for sorafenib and brivanib were hyponatremia (9% and 23%, respectively), AST elevation (17% and 14%), fatigue (7% and 15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (15% and 2%), and hypertension (5% and 13%). Discontinuation as a result of adverse events was 33% for sorafenib and 43% for brivanib; rates for dose reduction were 50% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study did not meet its primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib. However, both agents had similar antitumor activity, based on secondary efficacy end points. Brivanib had an acceptable safety profile, but was less well-tolerated than sorafenib.

Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-PS study.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors implicated in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An unmet medical need persists for patients with HCC whose tumors do not respond to sorafenib or who cannot tolerate it. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed brivanib in patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 395 patients with advanced HCC who progressed on/after or were intolerant to sorafenib were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive brivanib 800 mg orally once per day plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and safety. RESULTS: Median OS was 9.4 months for brivanib and 8.2 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95.8% CI, 0.69 to 1.15; P = .3307). Adjusting treatment effect for baseline prognostic factors yielded an OS HR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.04; P = .1044). Exploratory analyses showed a median time to progression of 4.2 months for brivanib and 2.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.76; P < .001), and an mRECIST ORR of 10% for brivanib and 2% for placebo (odds ratio, 5.72). Study discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 61 brivanib patients (23%) and nine placebo patients (7%). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3 to 4 AEs for brivanib included hypertension (17%), fatigue (13%), hyponatremia (11%), and decreased appetite (10%). CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib, brivanib did not significantly improve OS. The observed benefit in the secondary outcomes of TTP and ORR warrants further investigation.