Binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously treated microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS mutations in an open-label phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with previously treated RAS-mutated microsatellite-stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a multicenter open-label phase 1b/2 trial was conducted to define the safety and efficacy of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor binimetinib in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) nivolumab (anti-PD-1) or nivolumab and another ICI, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4). METHODS: In phase 1b, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 1A (binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [BID] plus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks [Q4W]) or Arm 1B (binimetinib 45 mg BID plus nivolumab 480 mg Q4W and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 8 weeks [Q8W]) to determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of binimetinib. The MTD/RP2D was defined as the highest dosage combination that did not cause medically unacceptable dose-limiting toxicities in more than 35% of treated participants in Cycle 1. During phase 2, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 2A (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab) or Arm 2B (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab and ipilimumab) to assess the safety and clinical activity of these combinations. RESULTS: In phase 1b, 21 participants were randomized to Arm 1A or Arm 1B; during phase 2, 54 participants were randomized to Arm 2A or Arm 2B. The binimetinib MTD/RP2D was determined to be 45 mg BID. In phase 2, no participants receiving binimetinib plus nivolumab achieved a response. Of the 27 participants receiving binimetinib, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, the overall response rate was 7.4% (90% CI: 1.3, 21.5). Out of 75 participants overall, 74 (98.7%) reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), of whom 17 (22.7%) reported treatment-related serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D binimetinib regimen had a safety profile similar to previous binimetinib studies or nivolumab and ipilimumab combination studies. There was a lack of clinical benefit with either drug combination. Therefore, these data do not support further development of binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in RAS-mutated MSS mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03271047 (09/01/2017).

Rivoceranib, a VEGFR-2 inhibitor, monotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (ANGEL study): an international, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rivoceranib is an oral, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. ANGEL (NCT03042611) was a global, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating rivoceranib as 3rd-line or ≥4th-line therapy in patients with advanced/metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. METHODS: Patients had failed ≥2 lines of chemotherapy and were randomized 2:1 to rivoceranib 700 mg once daily or placebo with best supportive care. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) by blinded independent central review (BICR). RESULTS: In total, 460 patients (rivoceranib n = 308, placebo n = 152) were enrolled. OS was not statistically different for rivoceranib versus placebo (median 5.78 vs. 5.13 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.15; p = 0.4724). PFS by BICR (median 2.83 vs. 1.77 months; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.71; p < 0.0001), ORR (6.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.0119), and DCR (40.3 vs. 13.2%; p < 0.0001) were improved with rivoceranib versus placebo. In patients receiving ≥4th-line therapy, OS (median 6.34 vs. 4.73 months; p = 0.0192) and PFS by BICR (median 3.52 vs. 1.71 months; p < 0.0001) were improved with rivoceranib versus placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events with rivoceranib were hypertension (17.9%), anemia (10.4%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (9.4%), asthenia (8.5%), and proteinuria (7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not meet its primary OS endpoint. Compared to placebo, rivoceranib improved PFS, ORR, and DCR. Rivoceranib also improved OS in a prespecified patient subgroup receiving ≥4th-line therapy.

Updates on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

This review explores the dynamic landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment, emphasizing on recent developments across various stages and therapeutic approaches. Although curative strategies such as hepatectomy and thermal ablation are standard for early-stage cases, high relapse rates drive investigations into adjuvant and perioperative treatment. Adjuvant therapies face hurdles, but noteworthy advances include IMbrave050 setting a new standard with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. Locoregional treatments gain significance, especially for multifocal HCC, with the integration of innovative combinations with systemic therapies, showing improved outcomes. In the advanced setting, the evolution from sorafenib as the primary first-line option to new standards, such as atezolizumab/bevacizumab and tremelimumab/durvalumab, to other emerging therapies such as tislelizumab and pembrolizumab with lenvatinib, is explored. Additionally, second-line treatments and insights into the interplay between immunotherapies and antiangiogenic agents, as well as novel combination strategies that add complexity to treatment decisions, are discussed.

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.

Background: Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives: To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting: Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants: Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded. Intervention: Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion. Main outcome measures: Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death. Results: The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Neutropenic sepsis, or infection with a low white blood cell count, can occur following cancer treatment. Usually patients receive treatment with intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics delivered into a vein) for two or more days. Patients at low risk of complications from their infection may be able to have a shorter period of intravenous antibiotics benefitting both patients and the NHS. The trial compared whether changing from intravenous to oral antibiotics (antibiotics taken by mouth as tablets or liquid) 12­24 hours after starting antibiotic treatment ('early switch') is as effective as usual care. Patients could take part if they had started intravenous antibiotics for low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients were randomly allocated to 'early switch' or to usual care. The main outcome measured was treatment failure. Treatment failure happened if fever persisted or recurred despite antibiotics, if patients needed to change antibiotics, if they needed to be re-admitted to hospital or needed to be admitted to intensive care within 14 days or died. We had originally intended that 628 patients would take part, but after review of the design of the study the number needed to take part was revised to 230. We were not able to complete the trial as planned as unfortunately only 129 patients took part. As the trial was smaller than expected we were not able to draw conclusions as to whether 'early switch' is no less effective than usual care. Our findings suggest that 'early switch' might result in a shorter time in hospital initially; however, treatment failure was more likely to occur, meaning some patients had to return to hospital for further antibiotics. There were no differences in side effects and no serious complications from treatment or treatment failure (such as intensive care admission or death) among the 65 patients in the 'early switch' group. Patients were satisfied with 'early switch'. Early switch may be a treatment option for some patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis who would prefer a shorter duration of hospital admission but accept a risk of needing hospital re-admission.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Tissue-Free Liquid Biopsies Combining Genomic and Methylation Signals for Minimal Residual Disease Detection in Patients with Early Colorectal Cancer from the UK TRACC Part B Study.

PURPOSE: The absence of postoperative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) identifies patients with resected colorectal cancer (CRC) with low recurrence risk for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) de-escalation. Our study presents the largest resected CRC cohort to date with tissue-free minimal residual disease (MRD) detection. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: TRACC (tracking mutations in cell-free tumor DNA to predict relapse in early colorectal cancer) included patients with stage I to III resectable CRC. Prospective longitudinal plasma collection for ctDNA occurred pre- and postsurgery, post-ACT, every 3 months for year 1 and every 6 months in years 2 and 3 with imaging annually. The Guardant Reveal assay evaluated genomic and methylation signals. The primary endpoint was 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) by postoperative ctDNA detection (NCT04050345). RESULTS: Between December 2016 and August 2022, 1,203 were patients enrolled. Plasma samples (n = 997) from 214 patients were analyzed. One hundred forty-three patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint; 92 (64.3%) colon, 51 (35.7%) rectal; two (1.4%) stage I, 64 (44.8%) stage II, and 77 (53.8%) stage III. Median follow-up was 30.3 months (95% CI, 29.5-31.3). Two-year RFS was 91.1% in patients with ctDNA not detected postoperatively and 50.4% in those with ctDNA detected [HR, 6.5 (2.96-14.5); P < 0.0001]. Landmark negative predictive value (NPV) was 91.2% (95% CI, 83.9-95.9). Longitudinal sensitivity and specificity were 62.1% (95% CI, 42.2-79.3) and 85.9% (95% CI, 78.9-91.3), respectively. The median lead time from ctDNA detection to radiological recurrence was 7.3 months (IQR, 3.3-12.5; n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue-free MRD detection with longitudinal sampling predicts recurrence in patients with stage I to III CRC without the need for tissue sequencing. The UK TRACC Part C study is currently investigating the potential for ACT de-escalation in patients with undetectable postoperative ctDNA, given the high NPV indicating a low likelihood of residual disease.

Circulating microRNA Analysis in a Prospective Co-clinical Trial Identifies MIR652-3p as a Response Biomarker and Driver of Regorafenib Resistance Mechanisms in Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: The multi-kinase inhibitor (mKi) regorafenib has demonstrated efficacy in chemorefractory patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, lack of predictive biomarkers and concerns over significant toxicities hamper the use of regorafenib in clinical practice. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Serial liquid biopsies were obtained at baseline and monthly until disease progression in chemorefractory patients with mCRC treated with regorafenib in a phase II clinical trial (PROSPECT-R n = 40; NCT03010722) and in a multicentric validation cohort (n = 241). Tissue biopsies collected at baseline, after 2 months and at progression in the PROSPECT-R trial were used to establish patient-derived organoids (PDO) and for molecular analyses. MicroRNA profiling was performed on baseline bloods using the NanoString nCounter platform and results were validated by digital-droplet PCR and/or ISH in paired liquid and tissue biopsies. PDOs co-cultures and PDO-xenotransplants were generated for functional analyses. RESULTS: Large-scale microRNA expression analysis in longitudinal matched liquid and tissue biopsies from the PROSPECT-R trial identified MIR652-3p as a biomarker of clinical benefit to regorafenib. These findings were confirmed in an independent validation cohort and in a "control" group of 100 patients treated with lonsurf. Using ex vivo co-culture assays paired with single-cell RNA-sequencing of PDO established pre- and post-treatment, we modeled regorafenib response observed in vivo and in patients, and showed that MIR652-3p controls resistance to regorafenib by impairing regorafenib-induced lethal autophagy and by orchestrating the switch from neo-angiogenesis to vessel co-option. CONCLUSIONS: Our results identify MIR652-3p as a potential biomarker and as a driver of cell and non-cell-autonomous mechanisms of resistance to regorafenib.