Critical Appraisal of Guideline Recommendations on Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review.

Importance: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with antiangiogenic agents has revolutionized the treatment landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, due to rapid publication of new studies that attained their predefined primary end points, a lack of robust cross-trial comparison of first-line therapies, and diverging clinical guidelines, no clear-cut treatment flowchart and sequence of therapies are available. This critical analysis of the recommendations for the management of advanced HCC from the main scientific societies in the US and Europe adopted an integrated approach to provide information on the clinical benefit (overall survival and progression-free survival) and safety profile of these therapies using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) score and an ad hoc network meta-analysis. Observations: There is a major consensus among guidelines that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has a primacy as the recommended first-line treatment of choice in advanced HCC. On progression after immunotherapy-containing regimens and for patients with contraindications for immunotherapies, most guidelines maintain the established treatment hierarchy, recommending lenvatinib or sorafenib as the preferred options, followed by either regorafenib, cabozantinib, or ramucirumab. Thus far, the first-line immune-based regimen of tremelimumab plus durvalumab has been integrated only in the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidance document and the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and has particular utility for patients with a high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Overall, in the first-line setting, both atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sintilimab plus IBI305 (a bevacizumab biosimilar) and durvalumab plus tremelimumab received the highest ESMO-MCBS score of 5, indicating a substantial magnitude of clinical benefit. In a network meta-analysis, no significant differences in overall survival were found among the various combination regimens. However, the newly reported combination of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was associated with a significantly higher risk of treatment-related adverse events compared with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (relative risk, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.25-2.03; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This narrative review found that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is regarded as the primary standard of care for advanced HCC in the first-line setting. These findings from integrating the recommendations from scientific societies' guidelines for managing advanced HCC along with new data from cross-trial comparisons may aid clinicians in decision-making and guide them through a rapidly evolving and complex treatment landscape.

Mytomicin-C, Metronomic Capecitabine, and Bevacizumab in Patients With Unresectable or Relapsed Pseudomyxoma Peritonei of Appendiceal Origin.

INTRODUCTION: Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare, slow growing tumor, traditionally considered chemoresistant. The only curative approach is cytoreductive surgery (CRS) followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). At disease relapse, or in patients with inoperable disease at diagnosis, no standard treatment has been defined, though nonrandomized series showed promising results with fluoropyrimidine-based regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective study in patients with relapsed or unresectable PMP and confirmed disease progression at baseline. Patients received MMC (7 mg/m2 every 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 4 cycles) plus metronomic capecitabine (625 mg/sqm/day b.i.d.) and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate according to RECIST v1.1 criteria, serum markers response and safety. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included. At a median follow-up of 26.1 months (IQR, 17.7-49.6), median PFS was 17.9 months (95% CI, 11.0-NE), with 1-year PFS and OS rates of 73% and 87%. Safety profile was manageable, with only 13% G3/G4 treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Metronomic capecitabine, bevacizumab, and MMC are an active regimen in advanced and progressive PMP and favorably compares with historical series.

Delta tocotrienol as a supplement to FOLFOXIRI in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study.

PURPOSE: Triplet chemotherapy might be more effective than doublet chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but it may also be marked by increased toxicity. To investigate whether δ-tocotrienol, a vitamin E analogue, with possible neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects, reduces the toxicity of triplet chemotherapy, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in mCRC patients receiving first-line 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy patients with mCRC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOXIRI plus either δ-tocotrienol or placebo at the Department of Oncology, Vejle Hospital, Denmark. Eligibility criteria were adenocarcinoma in the colon or rectum, age 18-75 years and ECOG performance status 0-1. FOLFOXIRI was given in eight cycles followed by four cycles of 5-fluorouracil. δ-tocotrienol 300 mg or placebo × 3 daily was added during chemotherapy and for a maximum of two years. The primary endpoint was time to hospitalization or death during treatment with chemotherapy. RESULTS: Median time to first hospitalization or death was 3.7 months in the placebo group (95% CI 1.93-not reached (NR)), and was NR in the δ-tocotrienol group (95% CI 1.87-NR) with a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI 0.36-1.36). Grade 3-4 toxicities were uncommon in both groups, except for neutropenia, which occurred in 19 patients (58%) in the placebo group and 17 patients (50%) in the δ-tocotrienol group. There were no grade 3 or 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy. In the placebo group, 24 patients (71%) had oxaliplatin dose reductions compared to 17 patients (47%) in the δ-tocotrienol group (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: The addition of δ-tocotrienol to FOLFOXIRI did not statistically significant prolong the time to first hospitalization or death compared to FOLFOXIRI plus placebo. Toxicity was manageable and not statistically different. There was a statistically significant difference in dose reductions of oxaliplatin pointing to a possible neuroprotective effect of δ-tocotrienol.

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line. RESULTS: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.

Long-term Outcomes of Bevacizumab and Chemoradiation for Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: The long-term outcomes associated with adding bevacizumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, to standard chemoradiation have continued to be favorable for a group of patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Objective: To assess long-term toxic effects and clinical outcomes associated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy (RT), and bevacizumab for NPC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-arm phase II nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted by the National Cancer Trials Network group and NRG Oncology (formerly Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), with accrual from December 13, 2006, to February 5, 2009, and data analysis from June 26 to July 1, 2019. The study was conducted at 19 cancer centers with a median (IQR) follow-up of 9.0 (7.7-9.3) years. Included patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with NPC that was World Health Organization (WHO) histologic grade I to IIb or III, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB or greater, and with or without lymph node involvement. Interventions: Patients received 3 cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) concurrently with standard cisplatin (100 mg/m2) and RT (69.96 Gy) followed by 3 cycles of adjuvant bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) given concurrently with cisplatin (80 mg/m2) and fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2/d). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was grade 4 hemorrhage or grade 5 adverse events in the first year. Secondary end points were locoregional progression-free (LRPF) interval, distant metastasis-free (DMF) interval, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and other adverse events. Long-term toxic effects and clinical outcomes were reported due to the limited follow-up in the initial report for this trial and the importance of long-term outcomes when combining bevacizumab with chemoradiation. Results: Among 46 patients with NPC who were enrolled, 44 patients were analyzed (29 males [65.9%]; 23 Asian [52.3%], 2 Black [4.5%], and 16 White [36.4%]; 38 not Hispanic [86.4%]; median [IQR] age, 48.5 [39.0-56.0] years). There were 33 patients with a Zubrod performance status of 0, indicating that they were fully functional and asymptomatic (75.0%); 32 patients with a WHO histologic grade of IIb or III (72.7%); and 39 patients with stage III or IVB disease (88.6%). Among analyzed patients, 42 individuals received radiation therapy of 69.96 Gy or greater (95.5%; dose range, 65.72-70.00 Gy); 30 patients received 3 cycles of cisplatin (68.2%) with RT, and 31 patients received 3 cycles of bevacizumab with RT (70.5%); this was followed by 3 cycles of adjuvant cisplatin in 21 patients (47.7%), fluorouracil in 24 patients (54.5%), and bevacizumab in 23 patients (52.3%). No grade 4 hemorrhage or grade 5 AEs were reported in the first year or thereafter. Late grade 3 AEs occurred in 16 patients (36.4%), including 7 patients with dysphagia (15.9%), 6 patients with hearing impairment (13.6%), and 2 patients with dry mouth (4.5%). The 1- and 5-year rates of feeding tube use were 5 of 41 patients (12.2%) and 0 of 27 patients, respectively. There were 19 patients (43.2%) who progressed or died without disease progression (6 patients with locoregional progression [13.6%], 8 patients with distant progression [18.2%], and 5 patients who died without progression [11.4%]). The 5- and 7-year rates were 79.5% (95% CI, 67.6%-91.5%) and 69.7% (95% CI, 55.9%-83.5%) for OS, 61.2% (95% CI, 46.8%-75.6%) and 56.3% (95% CI, 41.5%-71.1%) for PFS, 74.9% (95% CI, 61.4%-86.6%) and 72.3% (95% CI, 58.4%-84.7%) for LRPF interval, and 79.5% (95% CI,66.4%-90.0%) for both times for DMF interval. Among 13 patients who died, death was due to disease in 8 patients (61.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, no grade 4 hemorrhage or grade 5 AEs were reported in the first year or thereafter among patients with NPC receiving bevacizumab combined with chemoradiation. The rate of distant metastasis was low although 89% of patients had stage III to IVB disease, suggesting that further investigation may be warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00408694.

Efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal bevacizumab combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer and peritoneal effusion and the effect on serum lncRNA H19 and VEGF levels.

Peritoneal effusion is a common event in ovarian cancer (OC) patients. LncRNA H19 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are implicated in cancer progression. The study evaluated the curative effect and safety of bevacizumab combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in OC patients with peritoneal effusion and the effect on serum lncRNA H19/VEGF levels. Totally 248 OC patients with peritoneal effusion were treated with intraperitoneal bevacizumab + HIPEC (observation group) or abdominal paracentesis without HIPEC (control group). The clinical efficacy, quality of life, and adverse reactions were evaluated after two treatment cycles. The serum lncRNA H19 and VEGF levels pre-/post-treatment were determined by RT-qPCR and ELISA. The observation group exhibited better clinical efficacy than the control group, evidenced by a higher partial response rate, response rate, and disease control rate. The observation group exhibited reduced physical/cognitive/role/social/emotional function scores and total adverse reactions. LncRNA H19/VEGF levels showed no significant difference between the two groups before treatment but were significantly downregulated in the observation group after treatment. Summarily, intraperitoneal bevacizumab + HIPEC has significant efficacy in treating peritoneal effusion, improves the quality of life, and reduces serum lncRNA H19 and VEGF levels in OC patients, with fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? The utilization of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as an emerging treatment option for abdominal malignancies has garnered the attention of numerous researchers over the years, which has significant clinical effects on peritoneal effusion in ovarian cancer and can control patients' conditions and improve their signs and symptoms to a certain extent.What do the results of this study add? In this paper, we investigated the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal bevacizumab combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of peritoneal effusion in ovarian cancer. Meanwhile, we compared serum lncRNA H19 and VEGF levels before and after treatment.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our findings may provide a clinically worthy method for the treatment of peritoneal effusion in ovarian cancer. The treatment method reduces serum lncRNA H19 and VEGF levels in patients, which provides a theoretical basis for further research.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma progressing after molecular targeted therapy: A multicenter prospective observational study.

To evaluate the efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with molecular targeted agents (MTAs). Thirty-one patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC and previously treated with MTAs were enrolled in this study. The treatment lines ranged from second to sixth lines. The treatment effect on HCC differed from that during first-line treatment. The treatment effect was determined using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST. The treatment response was different for each MTA immediately prior to atezolizumab + bevacizumab treatment. Tumors treated with lenvatinib followed by atezolizumab + bevacizumab showed rapid growth for a short period of time followed by shrinkage. However, patients who received ramucirumab, sorafenib, and regorafenib did not show such changes. This was likely because of differences in the mechanism of action of the MTA administered immediately beforehand. The side-effect profile differed from that observed in the IMbrave150 phase 3 study of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, which showed more adverse events related to hepatic reserve. Patients treated with the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab after lenvatinib therapy may experience rapid tumor growth and subsequent shrinkage.

Sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar IBI305 and chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer who progressed on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy (ORIENT-31): first interim results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGF inhibitors can enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy. However, despite high initial response rates, almost all patients eventually develop treatment resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sintilimab with or without IBI305 plus pemetrexed and cisplatin, compared with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone, for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had disease progression after receiving EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was conducted at 52 hospitals in China. Eligible participants were adults aged 18-75 years with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and EGFRmut who progressed after receiving a EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 with at least one measurable lesion, and an estimated life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive sintilimab (200 mg) plus IBI305 (15 mg/kg) plus pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2), sintilimab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin, or pemetrexed and cisplatin (chemotherapy alone) using block randomisation with stratification according to sex and presence or absence of brain metastases. All study drugs were administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle, once every 3 weeks. Except for cisplatin, which was only given in the first four cycles, treatment was given for 24 months or until disease progression, intolerable toxic effects, withdrawal of consent, death, or other protocol-specified conditions, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. We herein report the first planned interim analysis, with progression-free survival results for the comparison between sintilimab plus IBI305 plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. The progression-free survival results for the sintilimab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group are immature and not reported here. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03802240 (recruiting). FINDINGS: Between July 11, 2019, and July 31, 2021, 936 patients were screened and 444 were randomly assigned (148 to the sintilimab plus IBI305 plus chemotherapy group, 145 to the sintilimab plus chemotherapy group, and 151 to the chemotherapy alone group). Data cutoff for this interim analysis was July 31, 2021. After a median follow-up of 9·8 months (IQR 4·4-13·3), progression-free survival was significantly longer in the sintilimab plus IBI305 plus chemotherapy group versus the chemotherapy alone group (median 6·9 months [95% CI 6·0-9.3] vs 4·3 months [4·1-5·4]; hazard ratio 0·46 [0·34-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (30 [20%] in the sintilimab plus IBI305 plus chemotherapy group vs 26 [18%] in the sintilimab plus chemotherapy group vs 27 [18%] in the chemotherapy alone group), decreased white blood cell count (17 [11%] vs 12 [8%] vs 13 [9%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs ten [7%] vs 15 [10%]). Potentially treatment-related deaths occurred in six patients (intestinal obstruction, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and myelosuppression in one patient each, and three deaths of unknown cause) in the sintilimab plus IBI305 plus chemotherapy group, and in one patient in the chemotherapy alone group (unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: In this interim analysis, sintilimab plus IBI305 plus cisplatin and pemetrexed was generally efficacious and well tolerated in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who progressed after receiving EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. FUNDING: Innovent Biologics and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ranking of transarterial and targeted therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of immuno-oncology: A network meta-analysis of randomized sorafenib-controlled trials.

To date, no studies have compared the new first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab with transarterial therapies combined with the prior standard-of-care, sorafenib, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We compared and ranked all relevant transarterial and targeted treatments competing with atezolizumab+bevacizumab for such disease, based on direct and indirect evidence. This network meta-analysis was conducted as a systematic review of phase 2 and 3 randomized sorafenib-controlled trials investigating systemic treatment strategies for HCCs unsuitable for or that progressed after surgery or locoregional treatments as first-line option published between 2008 and 2021. We ranked the treatments based on overall survival (OS) as the primary outcome, together with progression-free survival (PFS) and grade 3-4 adverse events. Subgroup analyses were also implemented to estimate intervention efficacies in particular groups. We identified 3451 publications, 15 trials consisting of 7158 patients, using 14 different therapies including combinations of sorafenib with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial chemoinfusion, and radioembolization. Regarding OS, atezolizumab+bevacizumab was the only regimen significantly superior to sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.70), and it ranked first. This combination was also the best in the PFS analysis (0.59; 0.47-0.74), followed by lenvatinib (0.66; 0.57-0.76) and TACE+sorafenib (0.73; 0.59-0.91); all had significantly better outcomes than sorafenib alone. TACE+sorafenib (0.52; 0.27-1.00) was ranked first based on OS in a subset with portal invasion, but not in the metastatic series, with atezolizumab+bevacizumab second (0.58; 0.38-0.89). Lenvatinib (odds ratio 1.76; 95% CI 1.35-2.30) and TACE+sorafenib (2.02; 1.23-3.32), but not atezolizumab+bevacizumab (1.38; 0.93-2.05), were significantly less safe than sorafenib monotherapy. Conclusion: Our results indicate that atezolizumab+bevacizumab is the best first-line clinically relevant systemic modality in advanced HCC. TACE+sorafenib may also be considered for the disease with portal invasion. (PROSPERO No. CRD42021250701).

Long-term Survival, Tolerability, and Safety of First-Line Bevacizumab and FOLFIRI in Combination With Ginsenoside-Modified Nanostructured Lipid Carrier Containing Curcumin in Patients With Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignant disease and the second leading cause of death worldwide. Previous studies showed improved bioavailability and cytotoxicity of ginsenoside-modified nanostructured lipid carrier containing curcumin (G-NLC) in human colon cancer cell lines. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability with long-term survival rates in patients with colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases after treatment with first-line bevacizumab/FOLFIRI (folinic acid, bolus/continuous fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in combination with a dietary supplement of G-NLC. METHODS: This study was a prospective, observational, single-group analysis. The enrolled patients had colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases and were administered bevacizumab and FOLFIRI in combination with daily oral G-NLC as first-line treatment. Overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor response, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2019. The median age was 65 (range 45-81) years and the sex ratio was 31:13 (male:female). The primary tumor locations were the colon (31 patients) and rectum (13 patients). The metastatic sites included, liver only (n = 20), lung only (n = 6), both liver and lung (n = 12), and others (n = 6). The median duration of curcumin supply was 7.9 (range 0.9-16.6) months. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (n = 15, 34.1%), followed by nausea (n = 4, 9.1%) and vomiting (n = 4, 9.1%). Within the median follow-up period of 22.8 months, the median overall survival was 30.7 months, and the median progression-free survival was 12.8 months. None of the patients achieved complete response (CR); however, 9 patients showed partial response (PR), and 3 patients underwent conversion surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab/FOLFIRI with G-NLC as first-line chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases presented comparable long-term survival outcomes with acceptable toxicity outcomes. Additional randomized controlled studies are needed to establish definitive conclusions regarding this new regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Do Antiangiogenics Promote Clot Instability? Data from the TESEO Prospective Registry and Caravaggio Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in cancer patients. Much of its morbidity stems from the development of fatal pulmonary embolisms (PE). Little is known about the factors involved in clot stability, with angiogenesis possibly being implicated. METHODS: The database is from the TESEO prospective registry that recruits cancer patients with VTE from 41 Spanish hospitals. Independent validation was conducted in a cohort from the Caravaggio trial. The objective is to evaluate the association between exposure to antiangiogenic therapies and the PE/VTE proportion in oncological patients. RESULTS: In total, 1,536 subjects were evaluated; 58.4% (n = 894) had a PE and 7% (n = 108) received antiangiogenic therapy (bevacizumab in 75%). The PE/VTE proportion among antiangiogenic-treated individuals was 77/108 (71.3%) versus 817/1,428 (57.2%) among those receiving other alternative therapies (p = 0.004). The effect of the antiangiogenics on the PE/VTE proportion held up across all subgroups except for active smokers or those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Exposure to antiangiogenics was associated with increased PEs, odds ratio (OR) 2.27 (95% CI, 1.42-3.63). In the Caravaggio trial, PE was present in 67% of the individuals treated with antiangiogenics, 50% of those who received chemotherapy without antiangiogenic treatment, and 60% without active therapy (p = 0.0016). CONCLUSION: Antiangiogenics are associated with increased proportion of PE in oncological patients with VTE. If an effect on clot stability is confirmed, the concept of thrombotic risk in cancer patients should be reconsidered in qualitative terms.

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.

A Pilot Study of Silymarin as Supplementation to Reduce Toxicities in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated With First-Line FOLFIRI Plus Bevacizumab.

Irinotecan, a topoisomerase inhibitor, is a common cytotoxic agent prescribed for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Diarrhea is the most common adverse event (AE). The underlying mechanism of irinotecan-induced diarrhea is intestinal mucosal damage caused by SN-38 (active metabolite of irinotecan) hydrolyzed from SN-38G (inactive metabolite) by bacterial -glucuronidase (G). According to an animal study, silymarin reduces the activity of bacterial G without impairing antitumor efficacy. We conducted a prospective open-label pilot study to evaluate the effect of silymarin as supplementation in reducing toxicities of mCRC patients undergoing irinotecan-based chemotherapy. We enrolled and randomized 70 mCRC patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. In each treatment cycle, the study group was administered silymarin capsules (150 mg) three times daily for 7 days. The study group experienced less AEs in diarrhea (5.7% vs. 14.6%, p=0.002) and nausea (27.0% vs. 40.2%, p=0.005) in comparison with the control group, but no significant differences in hepatic toxicities were observed. In conclusion, simultaneous administration of silymarin is a potential effective supplementation for reducing toxicities in mCRC patients undergoing first-line FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, especially in diarrhea and nausea.

Patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave150): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2-10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88-100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80-100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88-100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89-100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16-0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46-0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34-0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45-0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46-0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55-1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: -3·29 (SD 17·56) versus -5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, -4·02 (19·42) versus -9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and -3·77 (12·82) versus -7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. INTERPRETATION: Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit-risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

Phase II trial of bevacizumab and sorafenib in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with or without prior-bevacizumab treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether blocking multiple points of the angiogenesis pathway by addition of sorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor against VEGFR2/3, Raf, c-Kit, and PDGFR, to bevacizumab would yield clinical activity in ovarian cancer (OvCa). METHODS: This phase II study tested bevacizumab plus sorafenib in two cohorts; bevacizumab-naïve and bevacizumab-exposed patients. Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) was given with sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off. The primary objective was response rate using a Simon two-stage optimal design. Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Exploratory correlative studies included plasma cytokine concentrations, tissue proteomics and dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). RESULTS: Between March 2007 and August 2012, 54 women were enrolled, 41 bevacizumab-naive and 13 bevacizumab-prior, with median 5 (2-9) and 6 (5-9) prior systemic therapies, respectively. Nine of 35 (26%) evaluable bevacizumab-naive patients attained partial responses (PR), and 18 had stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. No responses were seen in the bevacizumab-prior group and 7 (54%) patients had SD ≥ 4 months, including one exceptional responder with SD of 27 months. The overall median PFS was 5.5 months (95%CI: 4.0-6.8 months). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (≥5%) included hypertension (17/54 [31%]; grade 3 in 16 patients and grade 4 in one patient) and venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (5/54 [9%]; grade 3 in 4 patients and grade 4 in one patient). Pretreatment low IL8 concentration was associated with PFS ≥ 4 months (p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: The bevacizumab and sorafenib combination did not meet the pre-specified primary endpoint although some clinical activity was seen in heavily-pretreated bevacizumab-naive OvCa patients with platinum-resistant disease. Anticipated class toxicities required close monitoring and dose modifications.

A Randomized Phase II Study of Perioperative Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab Versus Postoperative Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Upfront Resectable Hepatic Colorectal Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Whether patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) gain a survival benefit from perioperative chemotherapy remains controversial. The benefit of including bevacizumab in chemotherapy also remains unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-six patients with CRLM were randomly assigned to either 6 cycles of FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin)/FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan) with bevacizumab before and after surgery or 12 cycles after surgery. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. RESULTS: The median PFS of all patients was 37.4 months at 5.4 years follow-up, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The PFS between the perioperative group and the postoperative group did not reveal a statistical difference (P = .280). The OS was significantly better in the perioperative group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI],) 0.35-1.02; P = .049). In subgroup patients with carcinoembryonic antigens (CEA) ≥ 5 ng/mL or those with over 2 liver metastases, perioperative group had longer OS than postoperative group (CEA: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.93; P = .030; number of liver metastases: HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.30-0.99; P = .049). The largest liver metastases size, disease-free interval, and sidedness did not affect PFS or OS. There was no difference between the 2 groups in postoperative complications with bevacizumab or adverse events during chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable CRLMs, perioperative chemotherapy had no effect on PFS, but improved OS. Patients with high CEA levels or over 2 liver metastases may benefit from perioperative chemotherapy.

Bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: updated results from the S-AVANT phase III study by the GERCOR Group.

BACKGROUND: The bevacizumab-Avastin® adjuVANT (AVANT) study did not meet its primary end point of improving disease-free survival (DFS) with the addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer (CC). We report here the long-term survival results (S-AVANT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with curatively resected stage III CC were randomly assigned to FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, or XELOX-bevacizumab. RESULTS: A total of 2867 patients were randomized: FOLFOX4: n = 955, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab: n = 960, XELOX-bevacizumab: n = 952. With a median of 6.73 years follow-up (interquartile range 5.51-10.54), 672 patients died, of whom 198 (20.7%), 250 (26.0%), and 224 (23.5%) were in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively. The 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 74.6%, 67.2%, and 69.9%, (P = 0.003) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 73.2%, 68.5%, and 71.0% (P = 0.174), respectively. OS and DFS hazard ratios were 1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.55; P = 0.008] and 1.16 (95% CI 0.99-1.37; P = 0.063) for FOLFOX4-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4 and 1.15 (95% CI 0.95-1.39; P = 0.147) and 1.1 (95% CI 0.93-1.29; P = 0.269) for XELOX-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4, respectively. CC-related deaths (n = 542) occurred in 157 (79.3%) patients receiving FOLFOX4, 205 (82.0%) receiving FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and 180 (80.4%) receiving XELOX-bevacizumab (P = 0.764), while non-CC-related deaths occurred in 41 (20.7%), 45 (18.0%), and 44 (19.6%) patients, respectively. Cardiovascular-related and sudden deaths during treatment or follow-up were reported in 13 (6.6%), 17 (6.8%), and 14 (6.3%) patients, in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizuamb, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively (P = 0.789). Treatment arm, sex, age, histological differentiation, performance status, T/ N stages, and localization of primary tumor were independent prognostic factors of OS in stage III. CONCLUSIONS: S-AVANT confirms the initial AVANT report. No benefit of the bevacizumab addition to FOLFOX4 adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III CC was observed in terms of DFS with a negative effect in OS, without increase in non-CC related deaths. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: NCT00112918.

Review of neovascular age-related macular degeneration treatment options.

Due to an aging population, visual impairment from neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is increasing in the United States. Despite unprecedented improvements in vision preservation that patients can achieve with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, innovations are needed to reduce the burden of intravitreal injections and improve outcomes in patients who do not respond adequately to currently available agents. The best present option for vision preservation is a "zero-tolerance for fluid" schedule of monitoring and intravitreal injections that patients may need to follow for many years. This treatment burden has resulted in patients not achieving optimal benefit or even falling through the cracks. This article reviews state-of-the-art management approaches including as-needed and treat-and-extend dosing regimens designed to reduce treatment burden.