Integrative analysis of risk factors for immune-related adverse events of checkpoint blockade therapy in cancer.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) induced by checkpoint inhibitors involve a multitude of different risk factors. Here, to interrogate the multifaceted underlying mechanisms, we compiled germline exomes and blood transcriptomes with clinical data, before and after checkpoint inhibitor treatment, from 672 patients with cancer. Overall, irAE samples showed a substantially lower contribution of neutrophils in terms of baseline and on-therapy cell counts and gene expression markers related to neutrophil function. Allelic variation of HLA-B correlated with overall irAE risk. Analysis of germline coding variants identified a nonsense mutation in an immunoglobulin superfamily protein, TMEM162. In our cohort and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data, TMEM162 alteration was associated with higher peripheral and tumor-infiltrating B cell counts and suppression of regulatory T cells in response to therapy. We developed machine learning models for irAE prediction, validated using additional data from 169 patients. Our results provide valuable insights into risk factors of irAE and their clinical utility.

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.

Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin versus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic biliary tract cancer after progression on gemcitabine plus cisplatin (NIFTY): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer who have progressed on gemcitabine plus cisplatin is dismal. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of second-line liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with metastatic biliary tract cancer that has progressed on gemcitabine plus cisplatin. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2b (NIFTY) study was done at five academic institutions in South Korea and included patients aged 19 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic biliary tract cancer that had progressed on first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. By use of an interactive web-based response system integrated with an electronic data capture system, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks (block size 4) to receive either intravenous liposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2 for 90 min) plus intravenous leucovorin (400 mg/m2 for 30 min) and intravenous fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2 for 46 h) every 2 weeks or leucovorin and fluorouracil only every 2 weeks, and were stratified by primary tumour site, previous surgery with curative intent, and participating centre. Study treatment was continued until the patient had disease progression or unacceptable toxicities, or withdrew consent. The primary endpoint was blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed progression-free survival. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the full analysis set and the safety analysis set, respectively, both of which comprised all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03524508, and enrolment is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 5, 2018, and Feb 18, 2020, 193 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 174 (88 in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group and 86 in the fluorouracil plus leucovorin group) were enrolled and included in the full analysis and safety analysis sets. At a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·7-18·7), the median BICR-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group (7·1 months, 95% CI 3·6-8·8) than in the fluorouracil and leucovorin group (1·4 months, 1·2-1·5; hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·39-0·81; p=0·0019). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [24%] of 88 in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group vs one [1%] of 86 in the fluorouracil and leucovorin group) and fatigue or asthenia (11 [13%] vs three [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 (42%) patients receiving liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin and 21 (24%) patients receiving fluorouracil and leucovorin. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Adding liposomal irinotecan to fluorouracil and leucovorin significantly improved BICR-assessed progression-free survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin could be considered a standard-of-care second-line therapy for advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Servier and HK inno. N TRANSLATION: For the Korean translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Sequential Treatment of Sorafenib-Regorafenib Versus Sorafenib-Physician's Choice: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib has been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared to placebo, becoming a standard second-line therapy for sorafenib-progressed and -tolerated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. OBJECTIVE: We performed a multicentre, retrospective study in Italy and Korea to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment sequence sorafenib-regorafenib compared with sorafenib and physician's choice in a real-life setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A propensity score model was developed to control the results for baseline variable imbalances between the arm treated with sorafenib and regorafenib (S-R) and the arm treated with sorafenib and physician's choice (S-P). Survival analysis was conducted on the matched population. RESULTS: After the application of propensity score matching, we analysed 99 patients in the arm treated with S-R and 99 patients in the arm treated with S-P. For the S-R group, the median overall survival was 22.2 months (95% CI 17.1-27.4), compared to 17.9 months (95% CI 15.1-50.0) for the S-P group. The results of the univariate analysis showed a 31% reduction of death risk for patients treated with S-R (p = 0.0382) compared to patients treated with S-P. Interaction tests highlighted the predictive role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and extrahepatic spread. CONCLUSION: This study provides additional proof of the superiority of the S-R treatment over the S-P treatment approach in advanced HCC patients from a real-life setting.

Regorafenib versus cabozantinb as second-line treatment after sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, three published phase III trials highlighted the superiority of investigational drugs compared to placebo, thus leading to their approval in the second-line setting. We report here a MAIC of second-line MKI options for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib using individual real-world data of regorafenib and aggregate data of second-line cabozantinib from the CELESTIAL trial. METHODS: Data from 278 patients who received regorafenib as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure for unresectable HCC were used as IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the CELESTIAL trial in the subset of patients who received sorafenib as the only prior therapy. Survival medians and rates were obtained from Kaplan-Meier curves, and differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib groups were explored through Cox regression adjusted for weights originating from MAIC. RESULTS: The median OS of the weighted regorafenib group was 11.1 months (IQR: 5.6-16.4) and 11.3 (IQR: 6.7-22.4) for cabozantinib; HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.62-1.09). The median PFS of the weighted regorafenib group was 3.0 months (IQR: 1.9-4.8) and 5.5 (IQR: 2.3-9.3) for cabozantinib; HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.41-0.62). In the subgroup who received prior sorafenib for < 3 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 6.5 months (IQR: 4.7-10.9) and 9.5 months (IQR: 5.9-18.2) for cabozantinib; HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.39-1.16). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for 3 to < 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 8.0 months (IQR: 4.2-15.2) and 11.5 (IQR: 6.5-23.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.66 (95%CI 0.42-1.02). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for ≥ 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 13.4 (IQR: 8.1-46.5) and 12.3 (IQR: 6.6-22.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.52-1.51). CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed no differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib in terms of OS. However, in earlier progressors on prior sorafenib a larger benefit might be expected from cabozantinib treatment.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

PURPOSE: Data from common clinical practice were used to generate balanced cohorts of patients receiving either sorafenib or lenvatinib, for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, with the final aim to investigate their declared equivalence. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and sorafenib patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival was the primary endpoint and occurrence of adverse events was the secondary. RESULTS: The analysis included 385 patients who received lenvatinib, and 555 patients who received sorafenib. In the unadjusted cohort, lenvatinib did not show a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.02). After IPTW adjustment, lenvatinib still not returned a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) even in presence of balanced baseline characteristics. Lenvatinib provided longer survival than sorafenib in patients previously submitted to TACE (HR: 0.69), with PS of 0 (HR: 0.73) or without extrahepatic disease (HR: 0.69). CONCLUSION: Present results confirmed randomized controlled trial in the real-life setting, but also suggests that in earlier stages some benefit can be expected.

Rivaroxaban Versus Low-molecular-weight Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism in Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal Tract and Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included patients with advanced unresectable/metastatic upper gastrointestinal (GI) or hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancers with high risks of VTE and bleeding. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in potential bleeding factors between the rivaroxaban (n=105) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (n=69) groups. Rivaroxaban exhibited similar risk of recurrent/aggravated VTE compared with LMWH (p=0.625) but increased risk of major bleeding (17.4% vs. 7.6%; p=0.072), clinically relevant bleeding (31.9% vs. 14.3%; p=0.019), and total bleeding (40.6% vs. 19%; p=0.010). The multivariate analysis regarded rivaroxaban as a significant factor for major bleeding (p=0.043) and clinically relevant bleeding (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban exhibits comparable efficacy but increases bleeding risks compared with LMWH in patients with active unresectable/metastatic upper GI tract or HPB cancers, requiring extra caution of higher major bleeding risks.

Multicenter retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of regorafenib after progression on sorafenib in Korean patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background The pivotal RESORCE trial showed that regorafenib was effective as second-line therapy for patients with advanced HCC who progressed on first-line sorafenib. Real-world data are needed to assess clinical outcomes and adverse events in the setting of daily practice. Methods Between April 2017 and August 2017, the Named Patient Program (NPP) was activated to provide controlled, pre-approval access of regorafenib in Korea. This analysis is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who received regorafenib under the NPP. Results A total of 49 patients entered into this NPP, and 40 patients received regorafenib in five Korean institutions. All but one patient received regorafenib as second-line therapy after progression on sorafenib, and 36 (90%) and 34 (85%) patients were classified as Child-Pugh A and BCLC stage C, respectively. The response rate was 10% (n = 4). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.5-4.9 months), and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The 1 year OS rate was 54.6%. The time-to-progression (TTP) on prior sorafenib was significantly associated with PFS and OS. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were hand-foot skin reaction (n = 3, 8%), hypertension (n = 2, 5%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (n = 2, 5%). Conclusion Regorafenib was well-tolerated and effective in patients with advanced HCC who progressed on first-line sorafenib, with efficacy and safety outcomes consistent with those of the previous RESORCE trial. TTP on first-line sorafenib may predict the efficacy of subsequent regorafenib.