Effectiveness and safety of continuous low-molecular-weight heparin versus switching to direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thrombosis.

Given the existing uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT), we conducted a comprehensive population-based cohort study utilizing electronic health database in Hong Kong. A total of 4356 patients with CAT between 2010 and 2022 were included, with 1700 (39.0%) patients switching to DOAC treatment. Compared to continuous LMWH treatment, switching to DOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to venous thromboembolism (HR: 0.49 [95% CI = 0.35-0.68]) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.67 [95% CI = 0.61-0.74]), with no significant difference in major bleeding (HR: 1.04 [95% CI = 0.83-1.31]) within six months. These findings provide reassurance regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from LMWH to DOACs among patients with CAT, including vulnerable patient groups.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer: A large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). To understand this combination's real-world efficacy and tolerability, we conducted a global multicenter retrospective analysis of its first-line treatment outcomes. METHODS: We included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin at 39 sites in 11 countries (Europe, the United States, and Asia). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 666 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 15.1 months and median PFS was 8.2 months. The investigator-assessed overall response rate was 32.7 %, with stable disease in 45.2 % of patients. High baseline CEA levels, ECOG PS > 0, metastatic disease, and NLR > 3 were associated with poor survival. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92.9 % of patients (grade >2: 46.6 %). Immune-related AEs (irAEs) occurred in 20.0 % (grade >2: 2.5 %). Three deaths (0.5 %) were deemed treatment-related, none linked to immunotherapy. Common irAEs were rash (8.2 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2), itching (10.3 % all grades; 0.2 % grade >2), and hypothyroidism (5.1 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2). Durvalumab discontinuation rate due to AEs was 1.5 %. ESMO-recommended genes were analyzed and no outcome differences were found. A comparative analysis with a historical cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy alone confirmed the positive survival impact of durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine. CONCLUSION: This first global real-world analysis largely confirmed the TOPAZ-1 findings, supporting gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab as a first-line standard of care for patients with advanced BTC.

Organ-specific responses to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicentre, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monotherapy triggers various responses by each organ. In advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), while extrahepatic lesions demonstrate objective response rates (ORR) of 20%-40%, only 10% of intrahepatic lesions respond. Although first-line atezolizumab/bevacizumab has shown survival benefits in advanced HCC, organ-specific responses remain unexplored. Therefore, we aimed to assess organ-specific responses in patients with advanced HCC receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, observational study included patients who received first-line atezolizumab/bevacizumab for advanced HCC. Patients with Child-Pugh class A, measurable tumour lesions and serial imaging available for response evaluation were eligible. RESULTS: Between May 2020 and June 2021, 131 patients (median age: 62) from three cancer referral institutions were included. Ninety-one had hepatitis B (69.5%), 108 were at Barcelona clinic liver cancer stage C (82.4%), and 78 had extrahepatic metastasis (59.5%). After a median follow-up of 10.1 months, median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-9.2), median overall survival remained unreached (95% CI, range unavailable) and the ORR was 29.0%. Among 270 individual tumour lesions, the liver was the most commonly involved organ (n = 158). Atezolizumab/bevacizumab induced ORR of 27.8%, 42.2%, 29.1% and 21.0% for liver, lymph nodes, lungs and other sites, respectively. The organ-specific response rate for intrahepatic tumours decreased with increasing size (35.6%: <5 cm, 15.0%: ≥ 5 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike anti-PD-1 monotherapy, atezolizumab/bevacizumab demonstrated favourable responses in intrahepatic lesions, comparable to those in extrahepatic lesions, and may potentially overcome the immune-tolerant hepatic microenvironment in patients with advanced HCC.

Multicentre phase II trial of cabozantinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Prospective data on treatment after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. We conducted a phase II multicentre study on cabozantinib after ICI treatment in HCC. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, single-arm, clinical trial involving academic centres in Hong Kong and Korea. Key eligibility criteria included diagnosis of HCC, refractoriness to prior ICI-based treatment, and Child-Pugh A liver function. A maximum of two prior lines of therapy were allowed. All patients were commenced on cabozantinib at 60 mg/day. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were recruited from Oct 2020 to May 2022; 27 and 20 patients had received one and two prior therapies, respectively. Median follow-up was 11.2 months. The median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 3.3-5.3). The median overall survival (OS) was 9.9 months (95% CI 7.3-14.4), and the 1-year OS rate was 45.3%. Partial response and stable disease occurred in 3 (6.4%) and 36 (76.6%) patients, respectively. When used as a second-line treatment (n = 27), cabozantinib was associated with a median PFS and OS of 4.3 (95% CI 3.3-6.7) and 14.3 (95% CI 8.9-NR) months, respectively. The corresponding median PFS and OS were 4.3 (95% CI 3.3-11.0) and 14.3 (95% CI 9.0-NR) months, respectively, for those receiving ICI-based regimens with proven benefits (n = 17). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia (6.4%). The median dose of cabozantinib was 40 mg/day. The number of prior therapies was an independent prognosticator (one vs. two; hazard ratio = 0.37; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib demonstrated efficacy in patients who had received prior ICI regimens; survival data for second-line cabozantinib following first-line ICI regimens provide a reference for future clinical trial design. The number of prior lines of treatment may be considered a stratification factor in randomised studies. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Prospective data on systemic treatment following prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. This phase II clinical trial provides efficacy and safety data on cabozantinib in patients who had received prior ICI-based treatment. Exploratory analyses showed that the performance of cabozantinib differed significantly when used as a second- or third-line treatment. The above data could be used as a reference for clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials on subsequent treatment lines following ICIs. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04588051.

Recent Advances in Systemic Therapy for Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Background: The incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCCA) is rising around the world. The disease is becoming a major global health issue. Conventionally, most patients with cholangiocarcinoma present with advanced disease and systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. This review discusses recent advances in systemic treatments for patients with IHCCA. Summary: The addition of durvalumab to a gemcitabine plus cisplatin regimen has significantly improved overall survival in the phase 3 TOPAZ-1 trial and is currently recommended as a standard first-line treatment. The phase 3 ABC-06 and phase 2b NIFTY trials have shown the benefit of second-line fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidine plus nanoliposomal irinotecan, respectively. They have provided a treatment option for patients without actionable alterations who progressed to first-line therapy. For patients with actionable genomic alterations, including FGFR2 rearrangement, IDH1 mutation, BRAF mutation, and ERBB2 amplification, targeted agents have shown encouraging efficacy in several phase 2-3 trials, and are recommended as subsequent treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are being investigated for the treatment of previously treated patients, although only a small proportion of patients showed durable responses. Key Messages: Recent advances in systemic treatments have improved clinical outcomes in patients with advanced IHCCA. However, most patients eventually show resistance to the treatment, and tumor progression occurs within a year. Indeed, there should be further efforts to improve the outcomes of patients with advanced IHCCA.

A phase Ib/II trial of capmatinib plus spartalizumab vs. spartalizumab alone in patients with pretreated hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & aims: This phase Ib/II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of capmatinib in combination with spartalizumab or spartalizumab alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Eligible patients who had progressed or were intolerant to sorafenib received escalating doses of capmatinib 200 mg, 300 mg, and 400 mg twice a day (bid) plus spartalizumab 300 mg every 3 weeks (q3w) in the phase Ib study. Once the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was determined, the phase II study commenced with randomised 1:1 treatment with either capmatinib + spartalizumab (n = 32) or spartalizumab alone (n = 30). Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability (phase Ib) and investigator-assessed overall response rate per RECIST v1.1 for combination vs. single-agent arms using a Bayesian logistic regression model (phase II). Results: In phase Ib, the RP2D for capmatinib in combination with spartalizumab was determined to be 400 mg bid. Dose-limiting toxicity consisting of grade 3 diarrhoea was reported in one patient at the capmatinib 400 mg bid + spartalizumab 300 mg q3w dose level. The primary endpoint in the phase II study was not met. The observed overall response rate in the capmatinib + spartalizumab arm was 9.4% vs. 10% in the spartalizumab arm. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs, ≥20%) were nausea (37.5%), asthenia and vomiting (28.1% each), diarrhoea, pyrexia, and decreased appetite (25.0% each) in the combination arm; TRAEs ≥10% were pruritus (23.3%), and rash (10.0%) in the spartalizumab-alone arm. Conclusion: Capmatinib at 400 mg bid plus spartalizumab 300 mg q3w was established as the RP2D, with manageable toxicities and no significant safety signals, but the combination did not show superior clinical activity compared with spartalizumab single-agent treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib. Impact and implications: Simultaneous targeting of MET and programmed cell death protein 1 may provide synergistic clinical benefit in patients with advanced HCC. This is the first trial to report a combination of capmatinib (MET inhibitor) and spartalizumab (programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) as second-line treatment after sorafenib for advanced HCC. The combination did not show superior clinical activity compared with spartalizumab single-agent treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib. The results indicate that there is a clear need to identify a reliable predictive marker of response for HCC and to identify patients with HCC that would benefit from the combination of checkpoint inhibitor +/- targeted therapy. Clinical trial number: NCT02795429.

Dual CTLA-4 and PD-1 checkpoint blockade using CS1002 and CS1003 (nofazinlimab) in patients with advanced solid tumors: A first-in-human, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody (CS1002) as monotherapy and in combination with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody (CS1003) in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. METHODS: The phase 1 study involved phase 1a monotherapy dose-escalation (part 1) and phase 1b combination therapy dose escalation (part 2) and expansion (part 3). Various dosing schedules of CS1002 (0.3, 1, or 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, or 3 mg/kg every 9 weeks) were evaluated with 200 mg CS1003 every 3 weeks in part 3. RESULTS: Parts 1, 2, and 3 included a total of 13, 18, and 61 patients, respectively. No dose-limiting toxicities or maximum tolerated doses were observed. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 30.8%, 83.3%, and 75.0% of patients in parts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were experienced by 15.4%, 50.0%, and 18.3% of patients in each part. Of 61 patients evaluable for efficacy, 23 (37.7%) achieved objective responses in multiple tumor types. Higher objective response rates were observed with conventional and high-dose CS1002 regimens (1 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 3 mg/kg every 9 weeks) compared to low-dose CS1002 (0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks) in microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient tumors, melanoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma (50.0% vs. 58.8%, 14.3% vs. 42.9%, and 0% vs. 16.7%). CONCLUSION: CS1002, as monotherapy, and in combination with CS1003, had a manageable safety profile across a broad dosing range. Promising antitumor activities were observed in patients with immune oncology (IO)-naive and IO-refractory tumors across CS1002 dose levels when combined with CS1003, supporting further evaluation of this treatment combination for solid tumors. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: CS1002 is a human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 monoclonal antibody that blocks the interaction of CTLA-4 with its ligands and increases T-cell activation/proliferation. CS1003, now named nofazinlimab, is a humanized, recombinant IgG4 monoclonal antibody that blocks the interaction between human PD-1 and its ligands. In this original article, we determined the safety profile of CS1002 as monotherapy and in combination with CS1003. Furthermore, we explored the antitumor activity of the combination in anti-programmed cell death protein (ligand)-1 (PD-[L]1)-naive microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) pan tumors, and anti-PD-(L)1-refractory melanoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CS1002 in combination with CS1003 had manageable safety profile across a broad dosing range and showed promising antitumor activities across CS1002 dose levels when combined with CS1003. This supports further assessment of CS1002 in combination with CS1003 for the treatment of solid tumors.

Genomic origin, fragmentomics, and transcriptional properties of long cell-free DNA molecules in human plasma.

Recent studies have revealed an unexplored population of long cell-free DNA (cfDNA) molecules in human plasma using long-read sequencing technologies. However, the biological properties of long cfDNA molecules (>500 bp) remain largely unknown. To this end, we have investigated the origins of long cfDNA molecules from different genomic elements. Analysis of plasma cfDNA using long-read sequencing reveals an uneven distribution of long molecules from across the genome. Long cfDNA molecules show overrepresentation in euchromatic regions of the genome, in sharp contrast to short DNA molecules. We observe a stronger relationship between the abundance of long molecules and mRNA gene expression levels, compared with short molecules (Pearson's r = 0.71 vs. -0.14). Moreover, long and short molecules show distinct fragmentation patterns surrounding CpG sites. Leveraging the cleavage preferences surrounding CpG sites, the combined cleavage ratios of long and short molecules can differentiate patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from non-HCC subjects (AUC = 0.87). We also investigated knockout mice in which selected nuclease genes had been inactivated in comparison with wild-type mice. The proportion of long molecules originating from transcription start sites are lower in Dffb-deficient mice but higher in Dnase1l3-deficient mice compared with that of wild-type mice. This work thus provides new insights into the biological properties and potential clinical applications of long cfDNA molecules.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): final results of a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the COSMIC-312 trial was to evaluate cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib in patients with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the initial analysis, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus sorafenib. Here, we report the pre-planned final overall survival analysis and updated safety and efficacy results following longer follow-up. METHODS: COSMIC-312 was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done across 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were eligible. Patients must have had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), and adequate marrow and organ function, including Child-Pugh class A liver function; those with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were ineligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) using a web-based interactive response system to a combination of oral cabozantinib 40 mg once daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks, oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, or oral single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib: progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1, as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee, in the first 372 randomly assigned patients (previously reported) and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib. The secondary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib versus sorafenib. Outcomes in all randomly assigned patients, including final overall survival, are presented. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to combination treatment, 217 to sorafenib, and 188 to single-agent cabozantinib, and included in all efficacy analyses. 704 (84%) patients were male and 133 (16%) were female. 824 of these patients received at least one dose of study treatment and were included in the safety population. Median follow-up was 22·1 months (IQR 19·3-24·8). Median overall survival was 16·5 months (96% CI 14·5-18·7) for the combination treatment group and 15·5 months (12·2-20·0) for the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [0·78-1·24]; stratified log-rank p=0·87). Median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (99% CI 5·7-8·2) for the combination treatment group, 4·3 months (2·9-6·1) for the sorafenib group, and 5·8 months (99% CI 5·4-8·2) for the single-agent cabozantinib group (HR 0·74 [0·56-0·97] for combination treatment vs sorafenib; HR 0·78 [99% CI 0·56-1·09], p=0·05, for single-agent cabozantinib vs sorafenib). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 281 (66%) of 429 patients in the combination treatment group, 100 (48%) of 207 patients in the sorafenib group, and 108 (57%) of 188 patients in the single-agent cabozantinib group; the most common were hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (36 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs 16 [9%]), aspartate aminotransferase increased (42 [10%] vs eight [4%] vs 17 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increased (40 [9%] vs six [3%] vs 13 [7%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 223 (52%) patients in the combination treatment group, 84 (41%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 87 (46%) patients in the single agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related deaths 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%) in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and four (2%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group (asthenia, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sepsis, and gastric perforation). INTERPRETATION: First-line cabozantinib plus atezolizumab did not improve overall survival versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The progression-free survival benefit of the combination versus sorafenib was maintained, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Achievement of Complete Response and Drug-Free Status by Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Combined with or without Curative Conversion in Patients with Transarterial Chemoembolization-Unsuitable, Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Proof-Of-Concept Study.

Introduction: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy is extremely effective in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a response rate of 44%, as reported in the IMbrave150 trial. When tumor shrinkage is obtained, achieving complete response (CR) is possible in many cases using curative conversion with resection, ablation, or superselective transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with curative intent. This concept, i.e., curative conversion by combining systemic therapy and locoregional therapy, has not been reported before. This multicenter proof-of-concept study was conducted to show the value of curative conversion in immunotherapy-treated intermediate-stage HCC meeting TACE-unsuitable criteria. Methods: This study included 110 consecutive Child-Pugh A patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for unresectable and TACE-unsuitable intermediate-stage HCC at seven centers in Japan. CR rate, drug-free rate, time to CR, change in liver function, efficacy in positron emission tomography (PET)-positive HCC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed in patients who achieved CR using resection, ablation, superselective TACE with curative intent following atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab alone. Results: Clinical or pathological CR was achieved in 38 patients (35%) (median observation period: 21.2 months). The modalities of curative conversion in 35 patients were as follows: resection, 7; ablation, 13; and superselective TACE, 15. Three patients achieved clinical CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy alone. Among the 38 CR patients, 25 achieved drug-free status. PFS was not reached, and 3 patients experienced recurrence after reaching CR. Regarding OS, there were no deaths in any of the CR patients. The albumin-bilirubin score did not deteriorate after locoregional therapy or resection. Of seven PET-positive patients who achieved CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab followed by curative conversion, five achieved drug-free status. Conclusion: The achievement of CR rate by curative conversion in patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the preceding therapy for unresectable and TACE-unsuitable intermediate-stage HCC was 35%. Overall, 23% of patients achieved drug-free status and no recurrence was observed from this patient subgroup with CR and drug-free status. Thus, achieving CR and/or drug-free status should be a therapeutic goal for patients with intermediate-stage HCC without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread.

Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Longer Term Follow-Up from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 Trial.

Introduction: KEYNOTE-240 showed a favorable benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with sorafenib-treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, prespecified statistical significance criteria for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) superiority were not met at the final analysis. Outcomes based on an additional 18 months of follow-up are reported. Methods: Adults with sorafenib-treated advanced HCC were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), assessed per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, and safety. Results: 413 patients were randomized (pembrolizumab, n = 278; placebo, n = 135). As of July 13, 2020, median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 39.6 (31.7-48.8) months for pembrolizumab and 39.8 (31.7-47.8) months for placebo. Estimated OS rates (95% CI) were 17.7% (13.4-22.5%) for pembrolizumab and 11.7% (6.8-17.9%) for placebo at 36 months. The estimated PFS rate (95% CI) for pembrolizumab was 8.9% (5.3-13.6%) and 0% for placebo at 36 months. ORR (95% CI) was 18.3% (14.0-23.4%) for pembrolizumab and 4.4% (1.6-9.4%) for placebo. Immune-mediated hepatitis events did not increase with follow-up. No viral hepatitis flare events were reported. Conclusion: With extended follow-up, pembrolizumab continued to maintain improvement in OS and PFS and was associated with a consistent adverse event profile compared with placebo in patients with sorafenib-treated advanced HCC. Although KEYNOTE-240 did not meet prespecified statistical significance criteria at the final analysis, these results together with the antitumor activity of second-line pembrolizumab observed in KEYNOTE-224 and the statistically significant and clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits of second-line pembrolizumab in patients from Asia observed in KEYNOTE-394 reinforce the clinical activity of pembrolizumab in previously treated patients with advanced HCC.

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.

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (CARES-310): a randomised, open-label, international phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with an anti-angiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been shown to improve overall survival versus anti-angiogenic therapy alone in advanced solid tumours, but not in hepatocellular carcinoma. Therefore, a clinical study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab plus the VEGFR2-targeted TKI rivoceranib (also known as apatinib) versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, international phase 3 trial (CARES-310) was done at 95 study sites across 13 countries and regions worldwide. Patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received any systemic treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either camrelizumab 200 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus rivoceranib 250 mg orally once daily or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. Randomisation was done via a centralised interactive response system. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival, as assessed by the blinded independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. We report the findings from the prespecified primary analysis for progression-free survival and interim analysis for overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03764293). FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2019, and March 24, 2021, 543 patients were randomly assigned to the camrelizumab-rivoceranib (n=272) or sorafenib (n=271) group. At the primary analysis for progression-free survival (May 10, 2021), median follow-up was 7·8 months (IQR 4·1-10·6). Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with camrelizumab-rivoceranib versus sorafenib (5·6 months [95% CI 5·5-6·3] vs 3·7 months [2·8-3·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·41-0·65]; one-sided p<0·0001). At the interim analysis for overall survival (Feb 8, 2022), median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 9·1-18·7). Median overall survival was significantly extended with camrelizumab-rivoceranib versus sorafenib (22·1 months [95% CI 19·1-27·2] vs 15·2 months [13·0-18·5]; HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·80]; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (102 [38%] of 272 patients in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group vs 40 [15%] of 269 patients in the sorafenib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (33 [12%] vs 41 [15%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase (45 [17%] vs 14 [5%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (35 [13%] vs eight [3%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 66 (24%) patients in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group and 16 (6%) in the sorafenib group. Treatment-related death occurred in two patients: one patient in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group (ie, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome) and one patient in the sorafenib group (ie, respiratory failure and circulatory collapse). INTERPRETATION: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, presenting as a new and effective first-line treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals and Elevar Therapeutics.

The Hong Kong consensus statements on unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: narrative review and update for 2021.

Background and Objective: Hong Kong, like many parts of Asia, faces a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) caused by high endemic rates of hepatitis B virus infection. Hong Kong clinicians have developed a high level of expertise in HCC treatment across surgical, transarterial, ablative, radiotherapeutic and systemic modalities. This publication summarizes the latest evidence-based recommendations on how these modalities should be used. Methods: In two meetings held in 2020, a multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, oncologists and interventional radiologists performed a narrative review of evidence on the management of HCC, with an emphasis on treatment of HCC not amenable to surgical resection. Close attention was paid to new evidence published since the previous version of these statements in 2018. Key Content and Findings: The expert panel has formulated 60 consensus statements to guide the staging and treatment of unresectable HCC. Since the previous version of these statements, considerable additions have been made to the recommendations on use of targeted therapies and immunotherapies because of the large volume of new evidence. Conclusions: Our consensus statements offer guidance on how to select HCC patients for surgical or non-surgical treatment and for choosing among non-surgical modalities for patients who are not candidates for resection. In particular, there is a need for more evidence to aid physicians in the selection of second-line systemic therapies, as currently most data are limited to patients with disease progression on first-line sorafenib.

The evolving role of lenvatinib at the new era of first-line hepatocellular carcinoma treatment.

Emergence of multi-targeted kinase inhibitors (MTIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the landscape of management in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combination therapy involving ICI has superseded sorafenib as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC due to their superior response rates and survival benefits based on recently published phase III trials. However, the role of first-line lenvatinib remains uncertain as no prospective trials have compared its efficacy with ICI in advanced HCC. Several retrospective studies have shown that first-line lenvatinib may not be inferior to ICI combination. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests that ICI treatment is associated with inferior treatment outcome in non-viral HCC patients, questioning the supremacy of ICI treatment in all patients and rendering first-line lenvatinib as a potential preferred treatment option. Furthermore, in high-burden intermediate-stage HCC, accumulating evidence supports first-line lenvatinib, or in combination with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), as a preferred treatment option over TACE alone. In this Review, we describe the latest evidence surrounding the evolving role of first-line lenvatinib in HCC.

Fragmentation landscape of cell-free DNA revealed by deconvolutional analysis of end motifs.

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentation is nonrandom, at least partially mediated by various DNA nucleases, forming characteristic cfDNA end motifs. However, there is a paucity of tools for deciphering the relative contributions of cfDNA cleavage patterns related to underlying fragmentation factors. In this study, through non-negative matrix factorization algorithm, we used 256 5' 4-mer end motifs to identify distinct types of cfDNA cleavage patterns, referred to as "founder" end-motif profiles (F-profiles). F-profiles were associated with different DNA nucleases based on whether such patterns were disrupted in nuclease-knockout mouse models. Contributions of individual F-profiles in a cfDNA sample could be determined by deconvolutional analysis. We analyzed 93 murine cfDNA samples of different nuclease-deficient mice and identified six types of F-profiles. F-profiles I, II, and III were linked to deoxyribonuclease 1 like 3 (DNASE1L3), deoxyribonuclease 1 (DNASE1), and DNA fragmentation factor subunit beta (DFFB), respectively. We revealed that 42.9% of plasma cfDNA molecules were attributed to DNASE1L3-mediated fragmentation, whereas 43.4% of urinary cfDNA molecules involved DNASE1-mediated fragmentation. We further demonstrated that the relative contributions of F-profiles were useful to inform pathological states, such as autoimmune disorders and cancer. Among the six F-profiles, the use of F-profile I could inform the human patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. F-profile VI could be used to detect individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. F-profile VI was more prominent in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma undergoing chemoradiotherapy. We proposed that this profile might be related to oxidative stress.

Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers, which arise from the intrahepatic or extrahepatic bile ducts and the gallbladder, generally have a poor prognosis and are rising in incidence worldwide. The standard-of-care treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer is chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Because most biliary tract cancers have an immune-suppressed microenvironment, immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a low objective response rate. We aimed to assess whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin would improve outcomes compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: KEYNOTE-966 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 175 medical centres globally. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; had previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer; had disease measurable per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles). Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, disease stage, and site of origin in block sizes of four. The primary endpoint of overall survival was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoint of safety was evaluated in the as-treated population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2019, and June 8, 2021, 1564 patients were screened for eligibility, 1069 of whom were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (pembrolizumab group; n=533) or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (placebo group; n=536). Median study follow-up at final analysis was 25·6 months (IQR 21·7-30·4). Median overall survival was 12·7 months (95% CI 11·5-13·6) in the pembrolizumab group versus 10·9 months (9·9-11·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·72-0·95]; one-sided p=0·0034 [significance threshold, p=0·0200]). In the as-treated population, the maximum adverse event grade was 3 to 4 in 420 (79%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 400 (75%) of 534 in the placebo group; 369 (70%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 367 (69%) in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 to 4. 31 (6%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 49 (9%) in the placebo group died due to adverse events, including eight (2%) in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group who died due to treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Based on a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin without any new safety signals, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin could be a new treatment option for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.