Plonmarlimab, a novel anti-GM-CSF blocking antibody, ameliorates disease progression in the pre-clinical model of macrophage activation syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize and investigate the safety and efficacy of Plonmarlimab, a novel anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (anti-GM-CSF) neutralizing antibody, on the treatment of macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), a life-threatening systemic inflammatory disease, in pre-clinical models. METHODS: The binding affinity was evaluated using Biacore. The neutralizing activity was measured through the blockade of ligand-receptor interaction, inhibition of STAT5 phosphorylation and suppression of TF-1 cell proliferation. The efficacy of Plonmarlimab was evaluated in a humanized MAS model, which was established by engrafting human umbilical cord blood (UCB) cells into NOG-EXL mice. Additionally, the safety profile of Plonmarlimab was investigated in cynomolgus monkeys. RESULTS: At the molecular level, Plonmarlimab showed sub-nanomolar binding affinity with human GM-CSF and effectively blocked the binding of GM-CSF to its receptor. At the cellular level, Plonmarlimab dose-dependently inhibited intracellular STAT5 phosphorylation and suppressed GM-CSF-induced TF-1 proliferation. In the UCB-engrafted NOG-EXL MAS mouse model, Plonmarlimab treatment significantly ameliorated disease progression, demonstrated by the improvements in body weight loss, anaemia and some histopathological features. Furthermore, Plonmarlimab was well tolerated up to 150 mg/kg weekly in monkeys with no reported adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Plonmarlimab is a highly potent GM-CSF blocking antibody and has demonstrated promising efficacy in a pre-clinical MAS model with a favourable safety profile, supporting its clinical development.

Resection of NAFLD/NASH-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): Clinical Features and Outcomes Compared with HCC Due to Other Etiologies.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are the leading causes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide. Limited data exist on surgical outcomes for NAFLD/NASH-related HCC compared with other HCC etiologies. We evaluated differences in clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical resection for NAFLD/NASH-associated HCC compared with other HCC etiologies. METHODS: Demographic, clinicopathological features, and survival outcomes of patients with surgically resected HCC were collected. NAFLD activity score (NAS) and fibrosis score were assessed by focused pathologic review in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Among 492 patients screened, 260 met eligibility (NAFLD/NASH [n = 110], and other etiologies [n = 150]). Median age at diagnosis was higher in the NAFLD/NASH HCC cohort compared with the other etiologies cohort (66.7 vs. 63.4 years, respectively, P = .005), with an increased percentage of female patients (36% vs. 18%, P = .001). NAFLD/NASH-related tumors were more commonly >5 cm (66.0% vs. 45%, P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of lymphovascular or perineural invasion, histologic grade, or serum AFP levels. The NAFLD/NASH cohort had lower rates of background liver fibrosis, lower AST and ALT levels, and higher platelet counts (P < .01 for all). Median overall survival (OS) was numerically shorter in NAFLD/NASH vs other etiology groups, however, not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC more commonly lacked liver fibrosis and presented with larger HCCs compared with patients with HCC from other etiologies. No differences were seen in rates of other high-risk features or survival. With the caveat of sample size and retrospective analysis, this supports a similar decision-making approach regarding surgical resection for NAFLD/NASH and other etiology-related HCCs.

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed encouraging antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b trial involving patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In a global, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received systemic treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or sorafenib until unacceptable toxic effects occurred or there was a loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed at an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 336 patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group and 165 patients in the sorafenib group. At the time of the primary analysis (August 29, 2019), the hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab-bevacizumab as compared with sorafenib was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.79; P<0.001). Overall survival at 12 months was 67.2% (95% CI, 61.3 to 73.1) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab and 54.6% (95% CI, 45.2 to 64.0) with sorafenib. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.3) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.6) in the respective groups (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.5% of 329 patients who received at least one dose of atezolizumab-bevacizumab and in 55.1% of 156 patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib. Grade 3 or 4 hypertension occurred in 15.2% of patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group; however, other high-grade toxic effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab resulted in better overall and progression-free survival outcomes than sorafenib. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.).

Biology of IDH mutant cholangiocarcinoma.

Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 (IDH1 and IDH2) are the most frequently mutated metabolic genes across human cancers. These hotspot gain-of-function mutations cause the IDH enzyme to aberrantly generate high levels of the oncometabolite, R-2-hydroxyglutarate, which competitively inhibits enzymes that regulate epigenetics, DNA repair, metabolism, and other processes. Among epithelial malignancies, IDH mutations are particularly common in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Importantly, pharmacological inhibition of mutant IDH (mIDH) 1 delays progression of mIDH1 iCCA, indicating a role for this oncogene in tumor maintenance. However, not all patients receive clinical benefit, and those who do typically show stable disease rather than significant tumor regressions. The elucidation of the oncogenic functions of mIDH is needed to inform strategies that can more effectively harness mIDH as a therapeutic target. This review will discuss the biology of mIDH iCCA, including roles of mIDH in blocking cell differentiation programs and suppressing antitumor immunity, and the potential relevance of these effects to mIDH1-targeted therapy. We also cover opportunities for synthetic lethal therapeutic interactions that harness the altered cell state provoked by mIDH1 rather than inhibiting the mutant enzyme. Finally, we highlight key outstanding questions in the biology of this fascinating and incompletely understood oncogene.

Placental growth factor promotes tumour desmoplasia and treatment resistance in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)-a rare liver malignancy with limited therapeutic options-is characterised by aggressive progression, desmoplasia and vascular abnormalities. The aim of this study was to determine the role of placental growth factor (PlGF) in ICC progression. DESIGN: We evaluated the expression of PlGF in specimens from ICC patients and assessed the therapeutic effect of genetic or pharmacologic inhibition of PlGF in orthotopically grafted ICC mouse models. We evaluated the impact of PlGF stimulation or blockade in ICC cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) using in vitro 3-D coculture systems. RESULTS: PlGF levels were elevated in human ICC stromal cells and circulating blood plasma and were associated with disease progression. Single-cell RNA sequencing showed that the major impact of PlGF blockade in mice was enrichment of quiescent CAFs, characterised by high gene transcription levels related to the Akt pathway, glycolysis and hypoxia signalling. PlGF blockade suppressed Akt phosphorylation and myofibroblast activation in ICC-derived CAFs. PlGF blockade also reduced desmoplasia and tissue stiffness, which resulted in reopening of collapsed tumour vessels and improved blood perfusion, while reducing ICC cell invasion. Moreover, PlGF blockade enhanced the efficacy of standard chemotherapy in mice-bearing ICC. Conclusion PlGF blockade leads to a reduction in intratumorous hypoxia and metastatic dissemination, enhanced chemotherapy sensitivity and increased survival in mice-bearing aggressive ICC.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has shown clinical activity in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumours. The COSMIC-312 trial assessed cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib as first-line systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: COSMIC-312 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to curative or locoregional therapy and previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy at 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were not eligible. Tumours involving major blood vessels, including the main portal vein, were permitted. Patients were required to have measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, adequate organ and marrow function, and Child-Pugh class A. Previous resection, tumour ablation, radiotherapy, or arterial chemotherapy was allowed if more than 28 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) via a web-based interactive response system to cabozantinib 40 mg orally once daily plus atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily, or single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee in the first 372 patients randomly assigned to the combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (progression-free survival intention-to-treat [ITT] population), and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (ITT population). Final progression-free survival and concurrent interim overall survival analyses are presented. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Analyses at data cut-off (March 8, 2021) included the first 837 patients randomly assigned between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, to combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n=432), sorafenib (n=217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n=188). Median follow-up was 15·8 months (IQR 14·5-17·2) in the progression-free survival ITT population and 13·3 months (10·5-16·0) in the ITT population. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (99% CI 5·6-8·3) in the combination treatment group versus 4·2 months (2·8-7·0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 99% CI 0·44-0·91, p=0·0012). Median overall survival (interim analysis) was 15·4 months (96% CI 13·7-17·7) in the combination treatment group versus 15·5 months (12·1-not estimable) in the sorafenib group (HR 0·90, 96% CI 0·69-1·18; p=0·44). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were alanine aminotransferase increase (38 [9%] of 429 patients in the combination treatment group vs six [3%] of 207 in the sorafenib group vs 12 [6%] of 188 in the single-agent cabozantinib group), hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), aspartate aminotransferase increase (37 [9%] vs eight [4%] vs 18 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (35 [8%] vs 17 [8%] vs 16 [9%]); serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (18%) patients in the combination treatment group, 16 (8%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 24 (13%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) patient in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and one (<1%) patient in the single-agent cabozantinib group (gastrointestinal haemorrhage). INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab might be a treatment option for select patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but additional studies are needed. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: IMbrave150 demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab led to significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at the primary analysis (after a median 8.6 months of follow-up). We present updated data after 12 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: Patients with systemic treatment-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily in this open-label, phase III study. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS by independently assessed RECIST 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rates and exploratory subgroup efficacy analyses. This is a post hoc updated analysis of efficacy and safety. RESULTS: From March 15, 2018, to January 30, 2019, 501 patients (intention-to-treat population) were randomly allocated to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 336) or sorafenib (n = 165). On August 31, 2020, after a median 15.6 (range, 0-28.6) months of follow-up, the median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive p <0.001). The median PFS was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.6) and 4.3 (95% CI 4.0-5.6) months in the respective treatment groups (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81; descriptive p < 0.001). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 and 72 (46%) of 156 safety-evaluable patients in the respective groups, and treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. CONCLUSION: After longer follow-up, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab maintained clinically meaningful survival benefits over sorafenib and had a safety profile consistent with the primary analysis. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03434379. LAY SUMMARY: The primary analysis of IMbrave150 showed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had significantly greater benefits than sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but survival data were not yet mature. At this updated analysis done 12 months later, median overall survival was 5.8 months longer with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than sorafenib, and the severity profile of treatment-related side effects remained similar. These updated results confirm atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Biliary tract cancer.

Biliary tract cancers, including intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma as well as gallbladder cancer, are low-incidence malignancies in most high-income countries, but represent a major health problem in endemic areas; moreover, the incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is rising globally. Surgery is the cornerstone of cure; the optimal approach depends on the anatomical site of the primary tumour and the best outcomes are achieved through management by specialist multidisciplinary teams. Unfortunately, most patients present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Most studies in advanced disease have pooled the various subtypes of biliary tract cancer by necessity to achieve adequate sample sizes; however, differences in epidemiology, clinical presentation, natural history, surgical therapy, response to treatment, and prognosis have long been recognised. Additionally, the identification of distinct patient subgroups harbouring unique molecular alterations with corresponding targeted therapies (such as isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 mutations and fibroblast growth factor receptor-2 fusions in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, among others) is changing the treatment paradigm. In this Seminar we present an update of the causes, diagnosis, molecular classification, and treatment of biliary tract cancer.

Ramucirumab for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Elevated Alpha Fetoprotein Following Non-Sorafenib Systemic Therapy: An Expansion Cohort of REACH-2.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab is indicated for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL following sorafenib. Here, we prospectively studied ramucirumab following non-sorafenib systemic therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, non-comparative cohort of REACH-2 enrolled patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class-A liver disease, and AFP ≥400 ng/mL who had received 1-2 lines of therapy, excluding sorafenib or chemotherapy. Ramucirumab was administered 8 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate (RECIST v1.1), time to progression, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported outcomes. Final analysis occurred after all enrolled patients completed ≥3 treatment cycles or discontinued treatment. RESULTS: Between April 27, 2018, and March 29, 2021, 47 patients were treated at 21 investigative sites in Asia, Europe, and USA. The most frequently reported grade ≥3 adverse events, regardless of causality, were hypertension (11%), proteinuria (6%), hyponatremia (6%), and AST increased (6%). Two patients died from adverse events (myocardial infarction and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage), deemed related to treatment. Median progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival were 1.7 months, 2.8 months, and 8.7 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 10.6% with a median duration response of 8.3 months. Median time to deterioration in FHSI-8 total score was 4.4 months. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab demonstrated consistent and meaningful clinical activity with no new safety signals following non-sorafenib therapies in patients with advanced HCC and AFP ≥400 ng/mL. This represents one of the first sequencing studies for patients with advanced HCC not treated with sorafenib.

Evolution of Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Despite being one of the leading causes of cancer death globally, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has historically not been the focus of novel drug development. That has changed in the past several years, with the results from a number of hallmark phase 3 studies in advanced HCC. In HCC, immune-oncology approaches have garnered much attention; there is still a need to better understand criteria for patient selection and to optimize combination strategies to maximize the potential of these approaches. The next generation of studies will aim at translating our increased understanding of tumor biology into clinical trial design.

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.

Health-related quality-of-life impact of pembrolizumab versus best supportive care in previously systemically treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: KEYNOTE-240.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure and prognostic indicator in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 (NCT02702401) assessed the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC in patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib. This study presents the results of a prespecified exploratory analysis of patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its HCC supplement (EORTC QLQ-HCC18) electronically at baseline; at weeks 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18; and then every 9 weeks until 1 year or end of treatment, and at the 30-day safety follow-up visit. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 271 and 127 patients randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. From baseline to week 12, changes in both scores were similar between pembrolizumab and placebo; global health status/QoL scores were stable. The proportions of patients who improved, remained stable, or deteriorated across all functional domain and symptom scores were generally similar between pembrolizumab and placebo. Time to deterioration was similar between the 2 arms based on the prespecified analysis of EORTC QLQ-HCC18 domains of abdominal swelling, fatigue, and pain. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab preserved HRQoL during treatment for advanced HCC. Combined with efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-240, these findings support a positive benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab in a second-line treatment setting for patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib.

Serum alpha-fetoprotein and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with ramucirumab.

BACKGROUND: Post hoc analyses assessed the prognostic and predictive value of baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), as well as clinical outcomes by AFP response or progression, during treatment in two placebo-controlled trials (REACH, REACH-2). METHODS: Serum AFP was measured at baseline and every three cycles. The prognostic and predictive value of baseline AFP was assessed by Cox regression models and Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot method. Associations between AFP (≥ 20% increase) and radiographic progression and efficacy were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline AFP was confirmed as a continuous (REACH, REACH-2; p < 0.0001) and dichotomous (≥400 vs. <400 ng/ml; REACH, p < 0.01) prognostic factor, and was predictive for ramucirumab survival benefit in REACH (p = 0.0042 continuous; p < 0.0001 dichotomous). Time to AFP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.513; p < 0.0001) and radiographic (HR 0.549; p < 0.0001) progression favoured ramucirumab. Association between AFP and radiographic progression was shown for up to 6 (odds ratio [OR] 5.1; p < 0.0001) and 6-12 weeks (OR 1.8; p = 0.0065). AFP response was higher with ramucirumab vs. placebo (p < 0.0001). Survival was longer in patients with an AFP response than patients without (13.6 vs. 5.6 months, HR 0.451; 95% confidence interval, 0.354-0.574; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: AFP is an important prognostic factor and a predictive biomarker for ramucirumab survival benefit. AFP ≥ 400 ng/ml is an appropriate selection criterion for ramucirumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, REACH (NCT01140347) and REACH-2 (NCT02435433).

Dual Programmed Death Receptor-1 and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-2 Blockade Promotes Vascular Normalization and Enhances Antitumor Immune Responses in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Activation of the antitumor immune response using programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) blockade showed benefit only in a fraction of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combining PD-1 blockade with antiangiogenesis has shown promise in substantially increasing the fraction of patients with HCC who respond to treatment, but the mechanism of this interaction is unknown. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We recapitulated these clinical outcomes using orthotopic-grafted or induced-murine models of HCC. Specific blockade of vascular endothelial receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) using a murine antibody significantly delayed primary tumor growth but failed to prolong survival, while anti-PD-1 antibody treatment alone conferred a minor survival advantage in one model. However, dual anti-PD-1/VEGFR-2 therapy significantly inhibited primary tumor growth and doubled survival in both models. Combination therapy reprogrammed the immune microenvironment by increasing cluster of differentiation 8-positive (CD8+ ) cytotoxic T cell infiltration and activation, shifting the M1/M2 ratio of tumor-associated macrophages and reducing T regulatory cell (Treg) and chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2-positive monocyte infiltration in HCC tissue. In these models, VEGFR-2 was selectively expressed in tumor endothelial cells. Using spheroid cultures of HCC tissue, we found that PD-ligand 1 expression in HCC cells was induced in a paracrine manner upon anti-VEGFR-2 blockade in endothelial cells in part through interferon-gamma expression. Moreover, we found that VEGFR-2 blockade increased PD-1 expression in tumor-infiltrating CD4+ cells. We also found that under anti-PD-1 therapy, CD4+ cells promote normalized vessel formation in the face of antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGFR-2 antibody. CONCLUSIONS: We show that dual anti-PD-1/VEGFR-2 therapy has a durable vessel fortification effect in HCC and can overcome treatment resistance to either treatment alone and increase overall survival in both anti-PD-1 therapy-resistant and anti-PD-1 therapy-responsive HCC models.

Pattern of progression in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with ramucirumab.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Radiological progression patterns to first-line sorafenib have been associated with post-progression and overall survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but these associations remain unknown for therapies in second- and later-line settings. This post hoc analysis of REACH and REACH-2 examined outcomes by radiological progression patterns in the second-line setting of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with ramucirumab or placebo. METHODS: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, Child-Pugh A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 or 1 with prior sorafenib were randomized to receive ramucirumab 8mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks. Among 625 patients with ≥1 progression pattern (new extrahepatic lesion [including new macrovascular invasion], new intrahepatic lesion, extrahepatic growth or intrahepatic growth), data were analysed by trial and for pooled individual patient data for REACH-2 and REACH (alpha-fetoprotein ≥400 ng/mL). Cox models evaluated prognostic implications of progression patterns on overall and post-progression survival. RESULTS: Post-progression survival was worse among those with new extrahepatic lesions in REACH (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.51-3.60), REACH-2 (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.72-3.08) and the pooled population (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.12-2.74) compared to other progression patterns. Overall survival was also significantly reduced in those with new extrahepatic lesions across studies. Ramucirumab provided an overall survival benefit across progression patterns, including patients with new extrahepatic lesions (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39-0.80) in the pooled population. CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of new extrahepatic lesions in the second-line setting is a poor prognostic factor for post-progression survival. The benefit of ramucirumab for overall survival was consistent across progression patterns.

Ramucirumab in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Impact of liver disease aetiology.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common complication of chronic liver disease with diverse underlying aetiologies. REACH/REACH-2 were global phase III studies investigating ramucirumab in advanced HCC (aHCC) following sorafenib treatment. We performed an exploratory analysis of outcomes by liver disease aetiology and baseline serum viral load. METHODS: Meta-analysis was conducted in patients with aHCC and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL (N = 542) from REACH/REACH-2 trials. Individual patient-level data were pooled with results reported by aetiology subgroup (hepatitis B [HBV] or C [HCV] and Other). Pre-treatment serum HBV DNA and HCV RNA were quantified using Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model (stratified by study). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms in each subgroup (HBV: N = 225, HCV: N = 127, Other: N = 190). No significant difference in treatment effect by aetiology subgroup was detected (OS interaction P-value = .23). Median OS (ramucirumab vs placebo) in months was 7.7 versus 4.5 (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.99) for HBV, 8.2 versus 5.5 (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55-1.23) for HCV and 8.5 versus 5.4 (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.79) for Other. Ramucirumab showed similar overall safety profiles across subgroups. Worst outcomes were noted in patients with a detectable HBV load. Use of HBV antiviral therapy, irrespective of viral load, was beneficial for survival, liver function and liver-specific adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ramucirumab improved survival across aetiology subgroups with a tolerable safety profile, supporting its use in patients with aHCC and elevated AFP.

Ramucirumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and elevated α-fetoprotein: Outcomes by treatment-emergent ascites.

AIM: The REACH and REACH-2 trials investigated ramucirumab versus placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ascites is common in HCC and is associated with poorer outcomes. This exploratory, pooled meta-analysis of patients with baseline α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/ml investigated outcomes by treatment-emergent (TE) ascites in REACH and REACH-2. METHODS: A pooled meta-analysis of independent patient data for participants (N = 542) with baseline AFP ≥400 ng/ml (stratified by study) from REACH and REACH-2 was carried out. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier estimator, and OS further assessed by Cox models. The effect of TE ascites on OS was evaluated by multivariate Cox models. RESULTS: Treatment-emergent ascites developed in 66 patients (20.9%) in the ramucirumab group and 33 patients (14.8%) in the placebo group. When adjusted for treatment duration, the incidence rates per 100 patient-years of any grade TE ascites were 59.1 and 71.9 for the ramucirumab and placebo groups, respectively, and the incidence of grade ≥3 TE ascites were 13.4 and 19.6, respectively. Treatment-emergent ascites was associated with TE hypoalbuminemia (odds ratio 4.9; 95% confidence interval 2.5-9.3), but not TE proteinuria or hypertension. One patient discontinued ramucirumab treatment due to TE ascites. Ramucirumab treatment improved OS and PFS compared with placebo, irrespective of TE ascites. CONCLUSIONS: When adjusted for treatment duration, the incidence of TE ascites was no higher in patients who received ramucirumab than in those who received placebo. Ramucirumab was well tolerated and provided a survival benefit irrespective of the development of TE ascites.

Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations occur in approximately 13% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, a relatively uncommon cancer with a poor clinical outcome. The aim of this international phase 3 study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ivosidenib (AG-120)-a small-molecule targeted inhibitor of mutated IDH1-in patients with previously treated IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study included patients from 49 hospitals in six countries aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma who had progressed on previous therapy, and had up to two previous treatment regimens for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and a measurable lesion as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) with a block size of 6 and stratified by number of previous systemic treatment regimens for advanced disease to oral ivosidenib 500 mg or matched placebo once daily in continuous 28-day cycles, by means of an interactive web-based response system. Placebo to ivosidenib crossover was permitted on radiological progression per investigator assessment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent central review. The intention-to-treat population was used for the primary efficacy analyses. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of ivosidenib or placebo. Enrolment is complete; this study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02989857. FINDINGS: Between Feb 20, 2017, and Jan 31, 2019, 230 patients were assessed for eligibility, and as of the Jan 31, 2019 data cutoff date, 185 patients were randomly assigned to ivosidenib (n=124) or placebo (n=61). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 6·9 months (IQR 2·8-10·9). Progression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo (median 2·7 months [95% CI 1·6-4·2] vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6]; hazard ratio 0·37; 95% CI 0·25-0·54; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event in both treatment groups was ascites (four [7%] of 59 patients receiving placebo and nine [7%] of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (30%) of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib and 13 (22%) of 59 patients receiving placebo. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo, and ivosidenib was well tolerated. This study shows the clinical benefit of targeting IDH1 mutations in advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma. FUNDING: Agios Pharmaceuticals.

Systemic therapies for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a highly lethal hepatobiliary neoplasm whose incidence is increasing. Largely neglected for decades as a rare malignancy and frequently misdiagnosed as carcinoma of unknown primary, considerable clinical and investigative attention has recently been focused on iCCA worldwide. The established standard of care includes first-line (gemcitabine and cisplatin), second-line (FOLFOX) and adjuvant (capecitabine) systemic chemotherapy. Compared to hepatocellular carcinoma, iCCA is genetically distinct with several targetable genetic aberrations identified to date. Indeed, FGFR2 and NTRK fusions, and IDH1 and BRAF targetable mutations have been comprehensively characterised and clinical data is emerging on targeting these oncogenic drivers pharmacologically. Also, the role of immunotherapy has been examined and is an area of intense investigation. Herein, in a timely and topical manner, we will review these advances and highlight future directions of research.

Is It Time to Reconsider the Milan Criteria for Selecting Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma for Deceased-Donor Liver Transplantation?

Liver transplantation (LT) is considered the optimal treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because it removes tumor as well as the underlying cirrhotic liver. Because of a global organ shortage, LT for patients with HCC is limited to patients with expected survival comparable to that of nonmalignant indications. Therefore, identifying patients with lower rates of HCC recurrence and higher rates of survival is critical. International guidelines have considered the Milan Criteria (MC) the standard for selecting patients with HCC for deceased-donor LT (DDLT). However, several alternative criteria have been reported in the Western world. Interestingly, the two most recent models combining α-fetoprotein level, number of nodules, and size of the largest nodule have been shown to outperform MC in identifying patients with low risk of HCC recurrence or those who will survive for 5 years after liver transplantation. In addition, new models overcome limitations of MC in improving classification of high- versus low-risk patients with HCC for DDLT. These recent scoring systems also provide clinicians with user-friendly tools to better identify patients at lower risk of recurrence. Conclusion: Although most Western countries still select patients based on MC, there is a mounting change in recent practice patterns regarding the selection of patients with HCC for DDLT. Herein, we describe how alternative criteria should lead to reconsideration of MC as it applies to selecting patients with HCC for DDLT in international guidelines.