Plain language summary of the HIMALAYA study: tremelimumab and durvalumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of results from a phase 3 clinical study called HIMALAYA. HIMALAYA looked at treatment with one dose of a medication called tremelimumab combined with multiple doses of a medication called durvalumab (the STRIDE regimen) or multiple doses of durvalumab alone. These treatments were compared with a medication called sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is a type of liver cancer that is difficult to treat because it is often diagnosed when it is unresectable, meaning it can no longer be removed with surgery. Sorafenib has been the main treatment for unresectable HCC since 2007. However, people who take sorafenib may experience side effects that can reduce their quality of life, so alternative medicines are being trialed. Tremelimumab and durvalumab are types of drugs called immunotherapies, and they both work in different ways to help the body's immune system fight cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took STRIDE lived longer than participants who took sorafenib, whilst participants who took durvalumab alone lived a similar length of time as participants who took sorafenib. Participants who took STRIDE or durvalumab had a lower relative risk of experiencing worsening in their quality of life than participants who took sorafenib. The side effects that participants who received STRIDE or durvalumab experienced were expected for these types of treatments and could mostly be managed. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, STRIDE is more effective than sorafenib for people with unresectable HCC.

Tremelimumab plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte­associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti­programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)

Translational relevance of baseline peripheral blood biomarkers to assess the efficacy of anti-programmed cell death 1 use in solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: This study is an overall clinical analysis of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) antibodies used in a single institution, emphasizing the role of baseline peripheral blood markers as a prognostic or predictor biomarker of immunotherapy. METHODS: Sixty-one patients were retrospectively analyzed from hospital medical records. The endpoint of this study was death from any cause and the survival time was calculated from the date of start of immunotherapy to the date of death. Descriptive and survival statistics was performed using SPSS version 23. Cutoff values for baseline biomarkers (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR], neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio [NER], and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio [LMR]) were obtained using cutp function of Evaluate Cutpoints software (R survMisc package). Pearson and Pearman correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship of peripheral blood biomarkers. RESULTS: Nighty-eight percent of the study population had Stage IV disease and total median overall survival postanti-PD1 therapy was 10.7 months. Patients receiving more than 5 doses of anti-PD1 therapy (12.6 m vs. 4.4 m, P < 0.001) and used in front lines (18.9 m vs. 10.7 m vs. 10.1 m vs. 2.8 m in first line, second line, third line, and >3 lines, respectively, P = 0.049) were found to have an impact in overall survival. Pembrolizumab showed a better survival compared to nivolumab (17.4 m vs. 8.2 m, P = 0.049) in our study. Among baseline biomarkers assessed, NLR (cutoff - 2.81, P = 0.003) and LMR (cutoff - 5.76, P = 0.017) has shown a statistically significant relationship with immunotherapy response. NER (cutoff - 24.32, P = 0.051) and PLR (cutoff - 190.8, P = 0.072) were also found to exhibit a strong relationship with anti-PD1 therapy response. NLR exhibits a statistically significant positive correlation with PLR (r = 0.917 P < 0.001) and NER (r = 0.400 P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Real-life data analysis of anti-PD1 use for solid cancers highlights that baseline NLR, PLR, NER, and LMR have a significant role as immunotherapy biomarkers. However, larger studies are required to further prove the specificity and sensitivity.

Landscape of clinically actionable mutations in breast cancer 'A cohort study'.

Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease. Numerous chemotherapeutic agents are available for early stage or advanced/metastatic breast cancer to provide maximum benefit with minimum side effects. However, the clinical outcome of patients with the same clinical and pathological characteristics and treated with similar treatments may show major differences and a vast majority of patients still develop treatment resistance and eventually succumb to disease. It remains an unmet need to identify specific molecular defects, new biomarkers to enable clinicians to adopt individualized treatment for every patient in terms of endocrine, chemotherapy or targeted therapy which will improve clinical outcomes in BC. Our study aimed to identify frequent hotspot mutation profile in BC by targeted deep sequencing in cancer-related genes using Illumina Truseq amplicon/Swift Accel-Amplicon panel and MiSeq technology in an IRB-approved prospective study in a CLIA compliant laboratory. All the cases had pathology review for stage, histological type, hormonal status and Ki-67. Data was processed using Strand NGS™. Mutations identified in the tumor were assessed for 'actionability' i.e. response to therapy and impact on prognosis.