AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common primary liver cancer, remains a deadly cancer, with an incidence that has tripled in the United States since 1980. In recent years, new systemic therapies for HCC have been approved and a critical assessment of the existing data is necessary to balance benefits and harms and inform the development of evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association formed a multidisciplinary group consisting of a Technical Review Panel and a Guideline Panel. The Technical Review Panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of systemic therapies in patients with advanced-stage HCC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence. The Guideline Panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The Panel reviewed the evidence, summarized in the Technical Review, for the following medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HCC: first-line therapies: bevacizumab+atezolizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib; second-line therapies: cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and regorafenib; and other agents: bevacizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab+ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: The Panel agreed on 11 recommendations focused on systemic therapy for HCC in patients who are not eligible for locoregional therapy or resection, those with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, those with poor liver function, and those on systemic therapy as adjuvant therapy.

Potential efficacy of weekly low-dose administration of bevacizumab as a combination therapy for platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab (Bev) plays the central role of the adjuvant therapy for patients with ovarian carcinoma. The aim of our study was to examine whether differences in the administration of Bev influence the prognosis of patients. METHODS: Patients with ovarian carcinoma who received treatment at two hospitals between 1999 and 2020 were identified. Patients treated with weekly low-dose administration of Bev (100 mg Bev on days 1 and 8 and 200 mg Bev on day 15, monthly) at one hospital (group A) and those with monthly high-dose administration of Bev (15 mg/kg of Bev on day 1, monthly) at another hospital (group B) were retrospectively compared. RESULTS: Among the total patients, 44 were assigned to group A and 33 were assigned to group B. More patients in group A had advanced disease (p = 0.03) and a lower dose of Bev at the first time during the first cycle administration (p < 0.01) than in group B. Progression-free survival (PFS) was better in group A than in group B (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that group A was a better prognostic factor for PFS (hazard ratio 0.53, p = 0.03). Stable duration was longer in group A than in group B (p < 0.01). The incidences of adverse effects, including hematological toxicities such as neutropenia (p = 0.01) and nonhematological toxicities such as hypertension (p < 0.01), intestinal obstruction (p < 0.01), and thromboembolic events (p < 0.01), were lower in group A than in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly low-dose administration of Bev might improve prognosis and decrease the frequency of adverse effects associated with this drug although the prospective study was needed to get corroboration.

Perioperative Systemic Therapy vs Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Alone for Resectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, no randomized clinical trials have investigated perioperative systemic therapy relative to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) alone for resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). Objective: To assess the feasibility and safety of perioperative systemic therapy in patients with resectable CPM and the response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, parallel-group phase 2 randomized clinical trial in all 9 Dutch tertiary centers for the surgical treatment of CPM enrolled participants between June 15, 2017, and January 9, 2019. Participants were patients with pathologically proven isolated resectable CPM who did not receive systemic therapy within 6 months before enrollment. Interventions: Randomization to perioperative systemic therapy or CRS-HIPEC alone. Perioperative systemic therapy comprised either four 3-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), six 2-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), or six 2-week neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) and either four 3-week adjuvant cycles of capecitabine or six 2-week adjuvant cycles of fluorouracil with leucovorin. Bevacizumab was added to the first 3 (CAPOX) or 4 (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity. Key secondary outcomes were centrally assessed rates of objective radiologic and major pathologic response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Analyses were done modified intention-to-treat in patients starting neoadjuvant treatment (experimental arm) or undergoing upfront surgery (control arm). Results: In 79 patients included in the analysis (43 [54%] men; mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years), experimental (n = 37) and control (n = 42) arms did not differ significantly regarding the proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC (33 of 37 [89%] vs 36 of 42 [86%] patients; risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.23; P = .74) and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity (8 of 37 [22%] vs 14 of 42 [33%] patients; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.31-1.37; P = .25). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Objective radiologic and major pathologic response rates of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment were 28% (9 of 32 evaluable patients) and 38% (13 of 34 evaluable patients), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized phase 2 trial in patients diagnosed with resectable CPM, perioperative systemic therapy seemed feasible, safe, and able to induce response of CPM, justifying a phase 3 trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02758951.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Importance: Treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C. Conclusions and Relevance: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Clinical significance of enterocyte-specific gene polymorphisms as candidate markers of oxaliplatin-based treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be classified into subtypes based on gene expression signatures. Patients with stage III enterocyte subtype of the CRC Assigner classifier have been shown to benefit from oxaliplatin adjuvant therapy. Here, we investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in two enterocyte subtype-related genes, MS4A12 and CDX2, could predict the efficacy of oxaliplatin in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). Three cohorts of patients were included: a discovery cohort receiving FOLFOX ± bevacizumab (BEV) (n = 146), a validation cohort receiving FOLFOXIRI + BEV (n = 230), and a control cohort receiving FOLFIRI + BEV (n = 228). SNPs were analyzed by PCR-based direct sequencing. In the discovery cohort, MS4A12 rs4939378 and CDX2 rs3812863 were identified as potential markers of efficacy. In the validation cohort, any G allele of MS4A12 rs4939378 was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) than the A/A variant in both univariate analysis (12.4 vs. 10.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.99, P = 0.033) and multivariable analysis (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.44-0.97, P = 0.035) in patients expressing wild-type KRAS, but not mutant KRAS. In contrast, longer PFS was observed for patients expressing the CDX2 rs3812863 G/G variant than any A allele in univariate analysis (32.3 vs. 10.3 months, HR 0.39, 95%CI 0.19-0.81, P = 0.004) only in patients expressing mutant KRAS. These findings were not observed in the control cohort. Thus, MS4A12 and CDX2 SNPs may have utility as predictive biomarkers of response to oxaliplatin-based treatment in mCRC patients.

Laser and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for drusenoid pigment epithelial detachment in age-related macular degeneration.

This study aims to report the 12 months results of efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections for drusenoid pigment epithelial detachment (dPED). In this prospective study, patients with treatment naïve bilateral intermediate age-related macular degeneration, featuring dPED, with visual acuity ≤ 83 letters were enrolled. The study group received PASCAL laser (532 nm) along the periphery of the dPED, and the fellow eye served as a control group. To prevent complications of choroidal neovascularization, intravitreal anti-VEGF injections to laser treated eye were performed on a 3-month interval up to 1 year. Primary outcomes-drusen area, PED height-and secondary outcomes-best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, degree of metamorphopsia, NEI-VFQ 25, and fundus autofluorescence-were analyzed. Among 21 patients, a total of 20 patients satisfied the 12 months follow-up. Drusen area and PED height decreased significantly in the laser group, while no significant change appeared in the control group (74.1% vs. - 3.5%, P < 0.001; 76.6% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.001). Mean BCVA improved 4.6 letters in the laser group (vs. 1.1 letters in the control group, P = 0.019). As for safety, one study eye developed retinal pigment epithelial tear, and one control eye developed retinal angiomatous proliferation. Low energy laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGF injection in eyes with dPED showed some improvement in visual acuity. dPED regressed without developing center involving GA in the study eye, but a longer term follow-up is necessary to reveal the efficacy and safety of these treatments. The 2-year results of this study will be followed to reveal long term efficacy and safety of the treatment for dPED.

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.

HIPEC in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: why is there controversy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The randomized OVHIPEC study provided further evidence that adding heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery significantly improved recurrence-free and overall survival in stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients, who were ineligible for primary cytoreductive surgery due to extensive intraperitoneal disease. Because opinions have been divided as to whether HIPEC is now a new standard of care for advanced EOC, the pros and cons of this approach are examined. A comparison with the ongoing discussion about the role of intraperitoneal chemotherapy is made. RECENT FINDINGS: For both techniques, experience is crucial and a learning curve essential. Compared with intraperitoneal chemotherapy, intraoperative application of HIPEC provides superior distribution through the peritoneal cavity. HIPEC, as given in OVHIPEC, did not significantly increase adverse events, had no negative effect on quality of life and was cost-effective. SUMMARY: Despite the ongoing debate about HIPEC, an important first step in attempting to demonstrate the efficacy of HIPEC in the first-line setting has been made with OVHIPEC. Critics have been of value to optimize future trials with HIPEC in patients with EOC.

Protocol of the QUATTRO-II study: a multicenter randomized phase II study comparing CAPOXIRI plus bevacizumab with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (BEV) is highly effective and regarded as one of the standards-of-care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), despite the high incidence of neutropenia and diarrhea as side effects. AXEPT, an Asian phase III study, showed that modified CAPIRI+BEV [capecitabine (CAP: 1600 mg/m2), irinotecan (IRI: 200 mg/m2), and BEV (7.5 mg/m2)] was non-inferior to FOLFIRI+BEV as a second-line therapy for mCRC patients and was associated with a lower incidence of hematologic toxicities. Thus, a reduced dose of the CAP and IRI regimen in combination with oxaliplatin (OX) and BEV (CAPOXIRI+BEV) may be more feasible than FOLFOXIRI+BEV, without compromising efficacy. METHODS: QUATTRO-II is an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II study. In Step 1, the recommended doses of OX and IRI will be investigated as a safety lead-in. In Step 2, patients will be randomized to the recommended dose of either CAPOXIRI+BEV or FOLFOXIRI+BEV. Induction triplet chemotherapy plus BEV treatments will be administered for up to 4 months followed by fluoropyrimidine plus BEV maintenance. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). The similarity in PFS between the two arms will be evaluated by observing whether the point estimate of hazard ratio (HR) for PFS falls between 0.80 and 1.25. Ensuring a 70% probability that the observed HR will be "0.8 < HR < 1.25" under the assumption of the true HR of 1.0, and 100 patients will be evaluated during the 3-year study period. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and patient reported outcome (PRO) (FACT/GOG-Ntx4). DISCUSSION: Considering the lower incidence of hematologic toxicities with modified CAPIRI+BEV than with FOLFIRI+BEV, CAPOXIRI+BEV may be a promising treatment option if sufficient efficacy and lower hematologic toxicities are indicated in this study. Additionally, a lower incidence of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) reported following CAPEOX treatment compared to that after FOLFOX in ACHIEVE, an adjuvant phase III trial, suggest that CAPOXIRI+BEV can mitigate OX-induced PSN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04097444 . Registered September 20, 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04097444 / Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs041190072. Registered October 9, 2019.

Prognostic impact of immune-microenvironment in colorectal liver metastases resected after triplets plus a biologic agent: A pooled analysis of five prospective trials.

BACKGROUND: Immune-contexture of tumour microenvironment (TME) influences prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and can be altered by cytotoxic and targeted agents. Limited data are available regarding the immune-TME of CRC after treatment. METHODS: An extensive immunohistochemistry evaluation of immunological parameters on tumour cells and TME of colorectal liver metastases from 106 patients who underwent secondary resection, after receiving triplets FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) or COI (capecitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (N = 59) or cetuximab (N = 47) in five first-line no-profit clinical trials was performed. RESULTS: No substantial differences were reported in immunological parameters according to administered targeted agent, RAS/BRAF mutational status and histopathological or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours response. Stromal expression of Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) (p = 0.002), Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) (p = 0.003) and Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) (p = 0.002) were independent prognostic factors for longer relapse-free survival (RFS) at multivariate analysis with a positive trend for post-resection overall survival (OS). Patients whose metastases expressed stromal COX-2, HLA and PD1 (inflamed-score positive) reported longer RFS (25.5 versus 9.8 months; p < 0.001) and post-resection OS (64.3 versus 37.7 months; p = 0.003) as compared with others. In addition, patients with higher expression of CD4 and CD8 T-cells in tumour core and invasive margin (CD4/CD8-score) showed a better post-resection OS (not-reached versus 41.6 months; p = 0.032). A combined score of inflamed-score and CD4/CD8-score (combo-score) showed a clear prognostic role. CONCLUSIONS: The present study emphasises the role of immune-TME as independent predictor of survival in patients resected after triplets plus biologic. Inflamed-, CD4/C8- and combo-scores should be confirmed as prognostic factors in further studies.

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.

Evaluation of FOLFOX or CAPOX reintroduction with or without bevacizumab in relapsed colorectal cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin as adjuvant chemotherapy (REACT study).

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy in relapsed colorectal cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin as adjuvant chemotherapy is under debate. REACT study aimed to investigate the efficacy of reintroducing modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) or CAPOX with or without bevacizumab in recurrent colorectal cancer patients after oxaliplatin adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients that participated in this trial had a medical history of adjuvant chemotherapy, including oxaliplatin with a cumulative dose greater than 400 mg/m2, and recurrence that was diagnosed more six months post adjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR), while key secondary endpoints were time to treatment failure (TTF), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were enrolled between October 2012 and October 2016. Of the 29 eligible patients, 7 received mFOLFOX6 and 22 received CAPOX. The RR was 62.1% (95% confidence interval 42.3-79.3) and the DCR was 82.8% (95% confidence interval 64.2-94.2). The RR for oxaliplatin-free interval was 100.0% in months 6-12 and 56.0% after 12 months. Median TTF, PFS, and OS were 6.3, 10.8, and 28.7 months, respectively. Grade 3 or worse peripheral sensory neuropathy developed in 6.5%. Allergic reactions occurred in 12.9% of the patients, with one (3.2%) grade 3 episode. There were no other severe treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Reintroduction of oxaliplatin was feasible and achieved high RR or DCR in patients after more than 6 months post oxaliplatin adjuvant chemotherapy.

Phase I expansion cohort to evaluate the combination of bevacizumab, sorafenib and low-dose cyclophosphamide in children and young adults with refractory or recurrent solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is critical for tumour growth and metastasis. Dual inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors suppresses angiogenesis. This expansion cohort of a phase I study targeted angiogenesis with sorafenib, bevacizumab and low-dose cyclophosphamide in children and young adults with recurrent solid tumours. METHODS: An expansion cohort including patients with refractory or recurrent solid tumours was enrolled and received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg IV, day 1), sorafenib (90 mg/m2 po twice daily, days 1-21) and low-dose cyclophosphamide (50 mg/m2 po daily, days 1-21). Each course was 21 days. Toxicities were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, v3.0, and responses were evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Serial bevacizumab pharmacokinetic (PK) studies were performed during course 1. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (15 males; median age 14.5 yrs; range 1-22 yr) received a median of 6 courses (range 1-18). Twelve patients had a bone or soft tissue sarcoma. The most common grade III/IV non-haematologic toxicities were hypertension (N = 4), hand/foot rash (N = 3) and elevated lipase (N = 3). The most common grade III/IV haematologic toxicities were neutropenia (N = 7) and lymphopenia (N = 17). Three patients (2 synovial sarcoma, 1 rhabdoid tumour) achieved a partial response and 18 had stable disease. The progression-free survival at 3 and 6 months were 78.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.6-95.6%) and 54% (95% CI 30.2-78.2%), respectively. Bevacizumab PKs in 15 patients was similar to published adult PK results. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous bevacizumab combined with oral sorafenib and low-dose cyclophosphamide was tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in a subset of childhood solid tumours.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from the Phase III Randomized IMmotion151 Trial: Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab versus Sunitinib in Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were evaluated in the phase III IMmotion151 trial (NCT02420821) to inform overall treatment/disease burden of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenous (i.v.) infusions every 3 weeks (q3w) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. q3w or sunitinib 50 mg per day orally 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at baseline, q3w during treatment, at end of treatment, and during survival follow-up. Longitudinal and time to deterioration (TTD) analyses for core and RCC symptoms and their interference with daily life, treatment side-effect bother, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 454 and 461 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sunitinib arms, respectively. Completion rates for each instrument were 83% to 86% at baseline and ≥ 70% through week 54. Milder symptoms, less symptom interference and treatment side-effect bother, and better HRQOL at most visits were reported with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib. The TTD HR (95% CI) favored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for core (HR, 0.50; 0.40-0.62) and RCC symptoms (HR, 0.45; 0.37-0.55), symptom interference (HR, 0.56; 0.46-0.68), and HRQOL (HR, 0.68; 0.58-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: PROs in IMmotion151 suggest lower overall treatment burden with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC and provide further evidence for clinical benefit of this regimen.

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab and reintroduction after progression versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRIBE2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. METHODS: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. FUNDING: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Cost-effectiveness of Anti-VEGF treatments for age-related macular degeneration: a Brazilian perspective.

PURPOSE: To study the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: We used a decision tree model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) perspective. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were administered to patients with the same treatment procedure, and the difference in treatment costs was calculated based on the cost of the drugs. Direct costs were estimated using the information provided by the Brazilian SUS. Effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was calculated based on the utility values for visual impairment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing both treatments. The analytical horizon was one year. RESULTS: The decision tree analysis showed that the difference in treatment effectiveness was 0.01 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that ranibizumab treatment required an incremental annual cost of more than R$ 2 million to generate 1 additional QALY, as compared to bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: From the Brazilian SUS perspective, bevacizumab is more cost-effective than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Its use could allow potential annual savings in health budget.

Cost-effectiveness of Anti-VEGF treatments for age-related macular degeneration: a Brazilian perspective / Estudo de custo-efetividade de tratamentos para a degeneração macular relacionada à idade: uma perspectiva brasileira

ABSTRACT Purpose: To study the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Methods: We used a decision tree model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) perspective. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were administered to patients with the same treatment procedure, and the difference in treatment costs was calculated based on the cost of the drugs. Direct costs were estimated using the information provided by the Brazilian SUS. Effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was calculated based on the utility values for visual impairment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing both treatments. The analytical horizon was one year. Results: The decision tree analysis showed that the difference in treatment effectiveness was 0.01 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that ranibizumab treatment required an incremental annual cost of more than R$ 2 million to generate 1 additional QALY, as compared to bevacizumab. Conclusions: From the Brazilian SUS perspective, bevacizumab is more cost-effective than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Its use could allow potential annual savings in health budget.

RESUMO Objetivo: Estudar o custo-efetividade do ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade neovascular. Métodos: Utilizamos um modelo de árvore de decisão para analisar a relação custo-efetividade do ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade, sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. O ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe foram administrados a pacientes com o mesmo procedimento de tratamento, e a diferença nos custos do tratamernto foi calculada com base no custo dos medicamentos. Os custos diretos foram estimados utilizando as informações fornecidas pelo SUS. A efetividade foi determinada em anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade (QALY) baseados em valores de utilidade em deficiênciavisual. A razãoincremental custo-efetividadefoicalculada comparando os dois tratamentos. O horizonte analítico foi de um ano. Resultados: A análise da árvore de decisão mostrou que a diferença na efetividade do tratamento foi de 0,01 QALY. A razão incremental de custo-efetividade mostrou que o tratamento com ranibizumabe exigiu um custo anual incremental de R$ 2 milhões para gerar um QALY adicional, em comparação ao bevacizumabe. Conclusões: Do ponto de vista do SUS, o bevacizumabe é mais custo-efetivo que o ranibizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade neovascular. O seu uso poderia gerar uma grande economia anual para o orçamento em saúde.

Nomogram for visual acuity outcome after iodine-125 plaque radiotherapy and prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab for uveal melanoma in 1131 patients.

AIMS: To develop a nomogram for prediction of visual acuity outcome following plaque radiotherapy for uveal melanoma. METHODS: Retrospective review of uveal melanoma treated with plaque radiotherapy and prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab injections at 4-month intervals for 2 years duration. Two nomograms for poor visual acuity outcome (Snellen <20/200) were developed based on (1) Clinical risk factors. (2) Or clinical and treatment risk factors. RESULTS: There were 1131 included cases. The most important clinical risk factors (points for nomogram) for poor visual acuity outcome included subretinal fluid involving four quadrants (100), tumour thickness >4 mm (69), presenting visual acuity ≤20/30 (65), non-Caucasian race (58), tumour shape mushroom, bilobed, or multilobulated (57), and insulin-dependent diabetes (54). Risk of poor visual acuity at 2 years and 4 years increased from 11% and 24% with 40 points to 97% and >99% with 304 points. A second analysis was performed using both clinical and treatment risk factors. The most important factors included presenting visual acuity ≤20/30 (100), tumour largest basal diameter >11 mm (80), radiation dose rate to tumour base ≥164 cGy/hour (78), tumour thickness >4 mm (76), insulin-dependent diabetes (75) and abnormal foveolar status by optical coherence tomography at presentation (72). Risk of poor visual acuity at 2 years and 4 years increased from 6% and 14% with 56 points to 88% and 99% with 496 points. CONCLUSIONS: A nomogram using clinical or treatment risk factors can predict visual acuity outcome following plaque radiotherapy and prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab for uveal melanoma and is available online at https://fighteyecancer.com/nomograms/.