α-FAtE: A new predictive score of response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib can be alternatively used as first-line systemic treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no direct comparison of the two regimens has been performed in randomized clinical trials, making the identification of baseline differential predictors of response of major relevance to tailor the best therapeutic option to each patient. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of real-world AB-treated HCC patients were analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses to find potential prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). Significant variables were incorporated in a composite score (α-FAtE) and it was tested for specificity and sensitivity in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and in multivariate analysis for OS. The score was applied in uni- and multivariate analyses for OS of a comparable lenvatinib-treated HCC population. Finally, comparison between treatments was performed in patients with low and high α-FAtE scores and predictivity estimated by interaction analysis. Time-to-progression (TTP) was a secondary endpoint. OS of AB-treated HCC patients was statistically longer in those with α-fetoprotein <400 ng/mL (HR 0.62, p = .0407), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) <125 IU/L (HR 0.52, p = .0189) and eosinophil count ≥70/µL (HR 0.46, p = .0013). The α-FAtE score was generated by the sum of single points attributed to each variable among the above reported. In ROC curve analysis, superior sensitivity and specificity were achieved by the score compared to individual variables (AUC 0.794, p < .02). Patients with high score had longer OS (HR 0.44, p = .0009) and TTP (HR 0.34, p < .0001) compared to low score if treated with AB, but not with lenvatinib. Overall, AB was superior to lenvatinib in high score patients (HR 0.55, p = .0043) and inferior in low score ones (HR 1.75, p = .0227). At interaction test, low α-FAtE score resulted as negative predictive factor of response to AB (p = .0004). In conclusion, α-FAtE is a novel prognostic and predictive score of response to first-line AB for HCC patients that, if validated in prospective studies, could drive therapeutic choice between lenvatinib and AB.

Impact of body mass index on the prognosis of unresectable HCC patients receiving first-line Lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

INTRODUCTION: Overweight is a negative prognostic factor in the general population in the long term. However, the role of body mass index (BMI) in the short-mid term in advanced tumours is unclear. The present analysis investigates the role of BMI weight classes in a large sample of patients affected by HCC and receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line treatment. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The cohort included consecutive patients affected by BCLC-c and BCLC-B HCC patients from a multicenter international study group who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line therapy. Population was stratified according to the BMI in under-, over- and normal-weight according to the conventional thresholds. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive impact of BMI in patients affected by advanced or intermediate HCC. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analysed with log-rank tests. RESULTS: 1292 consecutive patients with HCC were analysed. 466 (36%) patients were treated with lenvatinib and 826 (64%) patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab arm, 510 (62%) patients were normal-weight, 52 (6%) underweight and 264 (32%) overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients, whereas no differences were found between normal-weight versus overweight. Multivariate analysis confirmed that underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0-2.8; p = .0323). In the lenvatinib arm, 26 patients (5.6%) were categorized as underweight, 256 (54.9%) as normal-weight, and 184 (39.5%) as overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, no significant differences were found between normal-weight versus underweight and between normal-weight versus overweight, which was confirmed at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our analysis highlighted a prognostic role of BMI in a cohort of patients with advanced HCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, while no prognostic role for low BMI was apparent in patients who received lenvatinib.

Role of the Prognostic Nutritional Index in Predicting Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab.

INTRODUCTION: The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) is a multiparametric score introduced by Onodera based on the blood levels of lymphocytes and albumin in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms. Regarding hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its prognostic role has been shown in patients treated with sorafenib and lenvatinib. The aim of this real-world study was to investigate the association between clinical outcomes and PNI in patients being treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. METHODS: The overall cohort of this multicentric study included 871 consecutive HCC patients from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line therapy. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin concentration (g/dL) + 0.005 × peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3). RESULTS: Data regarding lymphocyte counts and albumin levels were available for 773 patients; therefore, these patients were included in the final analysis. The cut-off point of the PNI was determined to be 41 by receiver operating characteristic analysis. 268 patients (34.7%) were categorized as the PNI-low group, while the remaining 505 (65.3%) patients as the PNI-high group. At the univariate analysis, high PNI was associated with longer overall survival (OS) (22.5 vs. 10.1 months, HR 0.34, p <0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs. 5.8 months, HR 0.63, p <0.01) compared to patients with low PNI. At the multivariate analysis, high versus low PNI resulted as an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.49, p <0.01) and PFS (HR 0.82, p = 0.01). There was no difference in objective response rate between the two groups (high 26.1% vs. low 19.8%, p = 0.09), while disease control rate was significantly higher in the PNI-high group (76.8% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: PNI is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS in HCC patients on first-line treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

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

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

Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib as first-line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: A multi-institutional matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Hepatocarcinoma (HCC) is an important health problem worldwide. Recently, the REFLECT trial demonstrated the non-inferiority of Lenvatinib compared to Sorafenib in I line setting, thus leading to the approval of new first-line standard of care, along with Sorafenib. AIMS AND METHODS: With aim to evaluate the optimal choice between Sorafenib and Lenvatinib as primary treatment in clinical practice, we performed a multicentric analysis with the propensity score matching on 184 HCC patients. RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) were 15.2 and 10.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.0 and 4.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with Lenvatinib showed a 36% reduction of death risk (p = 0.0156), a 29% reduction of progression risk (p = 0.0446), a higher response rate (p < 0.00001) and a higher disease control rate (p = 0.002). Sorafenib showed to be correlated with more hand-foot skin reaction and Lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. We highlighted the prognostic role of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase and eosinophils for Sorafenib. Conversely, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) resulted prognostic in Lenvatinib arm. Finally, we highlighted the positive predictive role of albumin > Normal Value (NV), ECOG > 0, NLR < 3, absence of Hepatitis C Virus positivity, and presence of portal vein thrombosis in favor of Lenvatinib arm. Eosinophil < 50 and ECOG > 0 negatively predicted the response to Sorafenib. CONCLUSION: SLenvatinib showed to better perform in a real-word setting compared to Sorafenib. More researches are needed to validate the predictor factors of response to Lenvatinib rather than Sorafenib.

Role of the prognostic nutritional index in predicting survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with regorafenib.

AIM: A link has been established between malnutrition, immunological status, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) has been recognized as a prognostic indicator in early-stage HCC and in patients treated with first-line therapy. However, to date, the role of the PNI in HCC patients treated with regorafenib has not been reported. METHODS: We undertook a multicentric analysis on a cohort of 284 patients affected by advanced HCC treated with regorafenib. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin concentration (g/dl) + 0.005 × peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3 ). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the association between PNI and survival outcomes. RESULTS: A PNI cut-off value of 44.45 was calculated by a receiver operating characteristic analysis. The median overall survival was 12.8 and 7.8 months for patients with high (>44.45) and low (≤44.45) PNI, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.77; p = 0.0002). In the univariate and multivariate analyses, low PNI value and increased serum bilirubin level emerged as independent prognostic factors for overall survival. No differences were found between high and low PNI in terms of progression-free survival (p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: If validated, the PNI could represent an easy-to-use prognostic tool able to guide the clinical decision-making process in HCC patients treated with regorafenib.

Prognostic Impact of Preoperative Nutritional Risk in Patients Who Undergo Surgery for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional derangements are common hallmarks of pancreatic cancer (PC). Their early detection and management are usually overlooked in routine practice. This study aimed to explore preoperative nutritional status and its prognostic value in patients undergoing surgery for PC. METHODS: Data from 73 patients who underwent surgery for PC from November 2015 to January 2018 at the General and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona Hospital, Verona, Italy, were retrospectively evaluated. The Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS)-2002 was used to evaluate the preoperative nutritional risk. Body composition was assessed using bioimpedance vectorial analysis (BIVA) on the day prior to surgery. The effect of clinical, pathological, and nutritional characteristics on overall survival (OS) was investigated using a Cox and logistic regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Most patients (80.8%) were at preoperative risk of malnutrition (NRS-2002 ≥ 3) despite a mean BMI of 24.1 kg/m2(± 4.3). Twenty-four patients (32.9%) received neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery. Preoperative NRS-2002 was significantly higher in this subset of patients (p = 0.026), with a significant difference by chemotherapy regimens (in favor of FOLFIRINOX, p = 0.035). In a multivariate analysis, the only independent prognostic factor for OS was the NRS-2002 score (HR 5.24, p = 0.013). Particularly, the likelihood of 2-year survival was higher in NRS < 3 (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms that preoperative malnutrition has a detrimental impact on OS in PC patients undergoing radical surgery for PC. Careful preoperative nutritional evaluation of PC patients should be mandatory, especially in those who are candidates for neoadjuvant therapy.

Phytosome complex of curcumin as complementary therapy of advanced pancreatic cancer improves safety and efficacy of gemcitabine: Results of a prospective phase II trial.

A large body of biomedical evidence indicates that activation of Nrf2 by curcumin increases the nucleophilic tone and damps inflammation cumulatively supporting the malignant phenotype. Conversely, genetic analyses suggest a possible oncogenic nature of constitutive Nrf2 activation since an increased nucleophilic tone is alleged increasing chemoresistance of cancer cells. Aiming to contribute to solve this paradox, this study addressed the issue of safety and efficacy of curcumin as complementary therapy of gemcitabine on pancreatic cancer. This was a single centre, single arm prospective phase II trial. Patients received gemcitabine and Meriva®, a patented preparation of curcumin complexed with phospholipids. Primary endpoint was response rate, secondary endpoints were progression free survival, overall survival, tolerability and quality of life. Analysis of inflammatory biomarkers was also carried out. Fifty-two consecutive patients were enrolled. Forty-four (13 locally advanced and 31 metastatic) were suitable for primary endpoint evaluation. Median age was 66 years (range 42-87); 42 patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. The median number of treatment cycle was 4.5 (range 2-14). We observed 27.3% of response rate and 34.1% of cases with stable disease, totalizing a disease control rate of 61.4%. The median progression free survival and overall survival were 8.4 and 10.2 months, respectively. Higher IL-6 and sCD40L levels before treatment were associated to a worse overall survival (p < 0.01). Increases in sCD40L levels after 1 cycle of chemotherapy were associated with a reduced response to the therapy. Grade 3/4 toxicity was observed (neutropenia, 38.6%; anemia, 6.8%). There were no significant changes in quality of life during therapy. In conclusion, the complementary therapy to gemcitabine with phytosome complex of curcumin is not only safe but also efficiently translate in a good response rate in first line therapy of advanced pancreatic cancer.

What do cancer patients experience of the simultaneous care clinic? Results of a cross-sectional study on patient care satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Veneto Institute of Oncology has activated a simultaneous care outpatient clinic (SCOC) in which cancer patients with advanced-stage cancer are evaluated by oncologist and palliative care specialists. This cross-sectional study investigated patients' perceptions of the quality of this service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ad-hoc self-administered questionnaire, developed by SCOC team, was used to assess the satisfaction of patients admitted at SCOC consultation. The questionnaire, in addition to the socio-demographic questions, contains eight questions with the Likert scale: time dedicated, feel listened to, feel understood, feel free to speak openly and to express doubts and concerns, feeling about information and indication received, level of empathy of health care and quality of the relationship, level of professional/quality of performance and utility of consultation, and one open-ended question. The questionnaire has been proposed to all 174 consecutively admitted patients at SCOC. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-two patients filled in the questionnaire: 66.7% were male, median age was 71 years, 88.3% had metastatic disease. The time dedicated to SCOC consultation was judged more than adequate (55%) or adequate (35%) by 90% of subjects. Patients completely satisfied about being listened to were 92.5%, with 80.9% being completely satisfied with understanding of their issues and 92% with the freedom to speak and express doubts. Usefulness of the SCOC was rated as excellent by 40% and good by 54.4% of patients. No statistically significant differences were observed in the responses to the questions by gender, age (< or ≥70 years old) and type of tumor. CONCLUSION: Our study shows high levels of satisfactions after SCOC consultation in advanced cancer subjects. Patients' feedback confirmed that SCOC model was effective in helping them during their treatment journey and decision at the end of life. This study encouraged us to enhance our practice of SCOC consultation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A joint evaluation of patients living with cancer by oncologist and palliative care team (SCOC-embedded model), has shown to enhance patients' experience/satisfaction with care-such as listening, understanding, receiving information, symptom control, and decision about future, independently of age, gender, and kind of tumor.

Multicenter phase I/II trial of gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The prognosis of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) is still poor, and new strategies improving patients' outcome are needed. In our trial we investigated safety and activity of nab-paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line systemic treatment for patients with advanced BTC. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, dose-escalation, single-arm phase I/II trial, patients were accrued into cohorts of 3 patients and dose escalation was performed following the standard 3 + 3 rule. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free from progression at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability of the combination; progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); objective response rate (ORR); duration of response. RESULTS: Between July 2017 and December 2020, 67 patients were treated. Among the 10 patients in the phase I, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and dose level 2 was defined as recommended phase II dose for the phase II part. At data cutoff, the 6-month PFS rate was 49.1 % (95 % CI 40.8-57.5 %) with 28 patients out of 57 free from progression or death at 6 months. Median PFS was 6.3 months (95 % CI 3.6-10.1) and median OS was 12.4 months (95 % CI 8-23). ORR was 20.89 %. Most common grade 3 and grade 1-2 drug-related adverse events were neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Triple chemotherapy demonstrated a favorable safety profile. However, the study did not meet its primary endpoint. Future studies will clarify the benefit of chemotherapy combinations in different settings. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03943043.

Incidence and Predictors of Esophagogastric Varices Bleeding in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Lenvatinib.

Introduction: Lenvatinib is indicated for the forefront treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), but its use may be limited by the risk of esophagogastric varices (EGV) bleeding. This study assessed the prevalence, predictors, and complications of EGV in aHCC patients treated with lenvatinib. Methods: In this multicenter international retrospective study, cirrhotic patients treated with lenvatinib for aHCC, were enrolled if upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy was available within 6 months before treatment. Primary endpoint was the incidence of EGV bleeding during lenvatinib therapy; secondary endpoints were predictors for EGV bleeding, prevalence, and risk factors for the presence of EGV and high-risk EGV at baseline, as well as impact of EGV bleeding on patients' survival. Results: 535 patients were enrolled in the study (median age: 72 years, 78% male, 63% viral etiology, 89% Child-Pugh A, 16% neoplastic portal vein thrombosis [nPVT], 56% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-C): 234 had EGV (44%), 70 (30%) were at high risk and 59 were on primary prophylaxis. During lenvatinib treatment, 17 patients bled from EGV (3 grade 5), the 12-month cumulative incidence being 3%. The only baseline independent predictor of EGV bleeding was the presence of baseline high-risk EGV (hazard ratio: 6.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.23-21.57, p = 0.001). In these patients the 12-month risk was 17%. High-risk varices were independently associated with Child-Pugh B score (odds ratio [OR]: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.08-4.17, p = 0.03), nPVT (OR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.40-4.61, p = 0.002), and platelets <150,000/µL (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.35-4.50, p = 0.003). Conclusion: In hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with lenvatinib, the risk of EGV bleeding was mostly low but significant only in patients with high-risk EGV at baseline.

Adverse Events as Potential Predictive Factors of Activity in Patients with Advanced HCC Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: In the context of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with systemic therapy, the correlation between the appearance of adverse events (AEs) and reported efficacy outcomes is well-known and widely investigated. From other pathological settings, we are aware of the prognostic and predictive value of the occurrence of immune-related AEs in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective multicenter real-world study aims to investigate the potential prognostic value of AEs in patients with HCC treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 823 patients from five countries (Italy, Germany, Portugal, Japan, and the Republic of Korea). RESULTS: Of the patients, 73.3% presented at least one AE during the study period. The most common AEs were proteinuria (29.6%), arterial hypertension (27.2%), and fatigue (26.0%). In all, 17.3% of the AEs were grade (G) 3. One death due to bleeding was reported. The multivariate analysis confirmed the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 [versus G ≥ 2; hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.90; p < 0.01] and immunotoxicity G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.70; 95% CI 0.24-0.99; p = 0.04) as independent prognostic factors for overall survival, and the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.43-0.95; p = 0.01), diarrhea (yes versus no; HR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.85; p = 0.01), fatigue (yes versus no; HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.65-0.95; p < 0.01), arterial hypertension G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.87; p < 0.01), and proteinuria (yes versus no; HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98; p = 0.03) as independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated for other therapies, there is also a correlation between the occurrence of AEs and outcomes for patients with HCC for the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Role of Immune Microenvironment in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Could It Be Considered a Predictor of Prognosis?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by a highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). The aim of this study is to determine the potential significant TME immune markers of long-term survival. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients with a diagnosis of resectable PDAC having undergone upfront surgery. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining using tissue microarray for PD-L1, CD3, CD4, CD8, FOXP3, CD20, iNOS and CD163 was performed in order to characterize the TME. The primary endpoint was long-term survival, defined as the Overall Survival > 24 months from surgery. RESULTS: A total of 38 consecutive patients were included, and 14 (36%) of them were long-term survivors. Long-term survivors showed a higher density of CD8+ lymphocytes intra- and peri-acinar (p = 0.08), and a higher CD8/FOXP3 intra- and peri-tumoral ratio (p = 0.05). A low density of intra- and peri-tumoral FOXP3 infiltration is a good predictor of long-term survival (p = 0.04). A significant association of the low density of intra- and peri-tumoral tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) iNOS+ with long-term survival was detected (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the retrospective nature and small sample size, our study showed that the high infiltration of CD8+ lymphocytes and low infiltration of FOXP3+ and TAMs iNOS+ are predictors of good prognosis. A preoperative assessment of these potential immune markers could be useful and determinant in the staging process and in PDAC management.

Updated survival outcomes with ivosidenib in patients with previously treated IDH1-mutated intrahepatic-cholangiocarcinoma: an Italian real-world experience.

Background: The results of the phase III ClarIDHy trial led to the FDA approval of ivosidenib as a therapeutic option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) harboring isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. We recently published the first data on the use of ivosidenib in a real-world setting. Objective: Here we report the updated survival results of 11 patients with locally advanced or metastatic IDH1-mutated CCA who received ivosidenib in clinical practice. Patients and methods: Patients treated with ivosidenib as second- and third-line treatments for advanced CCA have been collected with the aim to evaluate the survival outcomes. A molecular study has been performed by next generation sequencing essay. Results: Overall, 11 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 13.7 months, median progression-free survival from the start of treatment with ivosidenib was 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.0-5.8), whereas median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI: 6.6-15.0) regardless of treatment line. Disease control rate was 63%, with two patients achieving a partial response (18%). Eighteen percent of patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse events (AEs), but no grade ⩾3 was reported. The most frequently observed grade 2 AEs were prolonged QT interval and hypomagnesemia. A molecular profiling was performed on 8 out of 11 patients, highlighting TP53, BAP1, CDKN2A, and CDKN2B as the most common co-altered genes in these patients. Conclusion: The present update confirms the results of our previous real-world experience on the use of ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated CCA. Real-world evidence on larger numbers of patients is needed to confirm our findings.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point. RESULTS: The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Clinical outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-world study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting. METHODS: Overall cohort included Western and Eastern hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea). RESULTS: 1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p < 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p = 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child-Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis, α-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR.

Survival outcomes from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus Lenvatinib in Child Pugh B unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The best first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class B remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to perform a real-world analysis on a large sample of patients with unresectable HCC with CP B treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib. METHODS: The study population included patients affected by advanced (BCLC-C) or intermediate (BCLC-B) HCC patients not suitable for locoregional therapies from both the Western and Eastern world (Italy, Germany, Republic of Korea and Japan), who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib as first-line treatment. All the study population presented a CP class of B. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of CP B patients treated with Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analyzed with log-rank tests. Finally, an interaction test was performed for the main baseline clinical characteristics. RESULTS: 217 CP B HCC patients were enrolled in the study: 65 (30%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and 152 (70%) received lenvatinib. The mOS for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.6-16.0), compared to 8.2 months (95% CI 6.3-10.2) for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib: HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p = 0.0050). No statistically significant differences were highlighted in terms of mPFS. The multivariate analysis confirmed that patients receiving Lenvatinib as first-line treatment have a significantly longer OS compared to patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.29-3.25, p = 0.0023). By evaluating the cohort of patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, we found that Child B patients with ECOG PS 0, or BCLC B stage or ALBI grade 1 were those who had benefited from the treatment thus showing survival outcomes no significantly different compared to those receiving Lenvatinib. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests for the first time a major benefit from Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in a large cohort of patients with CP B class HCC.

Real-World Data for Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How Does Adherence to the IMbrave150 Trial Inclusion Criteria Impact Prognosis?

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently been approved as a new first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). OBJECTIVE: We performed a real-world study to evaluate the impact of the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria on the safety and efficacy of treatment outside of clinical trials. METHODS: We analyzed patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC from four different countries. No specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, except for the absence of previous systemic therapies for HCC. The entire population was split into two groups according to concordance with the inclusion criteria as reported in the IMbrave150 trial in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, and safety and efficacy in the two groups of patients were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 766 patients were included in the analysis: 561/766 (73%) in the 'IMbrave150-in' group and 205/766 (27%) in the 'IMbrave150-out' group. Median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 16.3 versus 14.3 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.65; p < 0.0001] and 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99; p = 0.0431) in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients included in the 'IMbrave150-in' group had significantly longer OS compared with patients included in the 'IMbrave150-out' group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47-0.97; p = 0.0195). In 'IMbrave150-in' patients, the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade was not associated with OS, whereas in 'IMbrave150-out' patients, those with ALBI grade 1 reported a significant benefit in terms of OS compared with those with ALBI grade 2 (16.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR 4.40, 95% CI 2.40-8.08; p > 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were reported in the 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' groups in terms of safety profile. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria favorably impacts the prognosis of patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Among patients who did not meet the IMbrave150 inclusion criteria, those with ALBI grade 1 could benefit from the treatment.

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

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

Could Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Surgical Resection Be the New Standard of Care in Pancreatic Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), intended as induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by radio-chemotherapy (RCT), has been taking hold in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the role of TNT followed by curative surgery. METHODS: Eligible studies were those reporting on patients with PDAC undergoing curative surgery after TNT. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 1080 patients with PDAC who had undergone TNT were analyzed. The most common IC regimen was Gemcitabine (N 620, 57%). Toxicity during IC varied from 14% to 51%. Disease progression during IC varied from 3% to 25%. 607 (62%) patients underwent curative surgery after IC + CRT. In meta-analysis, the available data on lymph node metastases radicality and 2 years OS had better results in favor of TNT groups (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20-2.60, p = 0.004 and OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19-3.47, p = 0.01 and OR 1.64, CI 1.09-2.47, p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of the studies, different selection criteria, and non-negligible drop-out rate, TNT demonstrated a potential superiority to NAT without CRT in oncological and pathological outcomes, even if the main differences seem to depend on the IC regimen.