A Pilot Study of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Y90 Radioembolization in Subjects With Poor Prognosis Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Combination checkpoint inhibition therapy with yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization represents an emerging area of interest in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCRN GI15-225 is an open-label, single-arm multicenter, pilot study (NCT03099564). METHODS: Eligible patients had poor prognosis, localized HCC defined as having portal vein thrombus, multifocal disease, and/or diffuse disease that were not eligible for liver transplant or surgical resection. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks in conjunction with glass yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization TheraSphere. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: Between October 23, 2017 and November 24, 2020, 29 patients were enrolled: 2 were excluded per protocol. Fifteen of the remaining 27 patients were free of progression at 6 months (55.6%; 95% CI, 35.3-74.5) with median PFS 9.95 months (95% CI, 4.14-15.24) and OS 27.30 months (95% CI, 10.15-39.52). One patient was not evaluable for response due to death; among the remaining 26 patients, ORR was 30.8% (95% CI, 14.3-51.8) and DCR was 84.6% (95% CI, 65.1-95.6). CONCLUSION: In patients with localized, poor prognosis HCC, pembrolizumab in addition to glass Y90 radioembolization demonstrated promising efficacy and safety consistent with prior observations (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03099564; IRB Approved: 16-3255 approved July 12, 2016).

KRAS Mutation Variants and Co-occurring PI3K Pathway Alterations Impact Survival for Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: KRAS variant alleles may have differential biological properties which impact prognosis and therapeutic options in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with advanced PDA who received first-line therapy and underwent blood and/or tumor genomic sequencing at the University of Washington between 2013 and 2020. We examined the incidence of KRAS mutation variants with and without co-occurring PI3K or other genomic alterations and evaluated the association of these mutations with clinicopathological characteristics and survival using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six patients had genomic sequencing data; KRAS mutations were identified in 111 PDA and included the following variants: G12D (43)/G12V (35)/G12R (23)/other (10). PI3K pathway mutations (26% vs. 8%) and homologous recombination DNA repair (HRR) defects (35% vs. 12.5%) were more common among KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R mutated cancers. Patients with KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R cancers had significantly longer overall survival (OS) (HR 0.55) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.58), adjusted for HRR pathway co-mutations among other covariates. Within the KRAS G12R group, co-occurring PI3K pathway mutations were associated with numerically shorter OS (HR 1.58), while no effect was observed on PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PDA harboring KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R mutations have longer survival, but this advantage was offset by co-occurring PI3K alterations. The KRAS/PI3K genomic profile could inform therapeutic vulnerabilities in patients with PDA.

The Treatment Landscape of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The systemic treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has significantly evolved. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated clinical efficacy and more favorable toxicity profiles compared to multikinase inhibitors. Combination therapy with ICIs may provide greater anti-tumor activity compared to ICI monotherapy. This review will discuss the current treatment landscape of advanced HCC, with a focus on recently completed and ongoing trials of ICI combinations, as well as future directions.  RECENT FINDINGS: Atezolizumab/bevacizumab has been approved as first-line therapy in patients with advanced HCC based on its superiority over sorafenib in the pivotal IMbrave150 trial. Similarly, durvalumab/tremelimumab demonstrated an improvement in overall survival compared to sorafenib in the HIMALAYA trial. Other combinations of ICIs with targeted agents and dual immune checkpoint blockade are currently being investigated in large randomized Phase 3 trials for the first-line treatment of HCC. Results of several ICI combination trials have been reported or are anticipated in the next few years and may potentially expand the therapy options in this patient population. Further areas of exploration include the use of ICIs in earlier stages of disease, other immunotherapy approaches such as adoptive T cell therapy, and the identification of predictive biomarkers. These ongoing efforts will likely further improve patient outcomes in the future.

Is There a Difference Between LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 Progression Assessment Using CT Versus MR? A Retrospective, Single-Center, Longitudinal Study of Patients Who Underwent 5082 Radiologic Examinations for Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Over a 43-Month Period.

OBJECTIVE: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has been widely applied to CT and MR liver observations in patients at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated the impact of CT vs MR in upgrading LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 observations using a large cohort of high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal study of CT and MR radiographic reports (June 2013 - February 2017) with an assigned LI-RADS category. A final population of 757 individual scans and 212 high-risk patients had at least one LI-RADS 3 observation. Differences in observation time to progression between modalities were determined using uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Of the 212 patients with a LI-RADS 3 observation, 52 (25%) had progression to LI-RADS 5. Tp ranged from 64 - 818 days (median: 196 days). One hundred and three patients (49%) had MR and 109 patients (51%) had CT as their index study. Twenty-four patients with an MR index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during the follow-up interval, with progression rates of 22% (CI:13%-30%) at 1 year and 29% (CI:17%-40%) at 2 years. Twenty-eight patients with a CT index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during follow-up, with progression rates of 26% (CI:16%-35%) at 1 year and 31% (CI:19%-41%) at 2 years. Progression rates were not significantly different between patients whose LI-RADS 3 observation was initially diagnosed on MR vs CT (HR: 0.81, P = 0.44). DISCUSSION: MR and CT modalities are comparable for demonstrating progression from LI-RADS 3 to 5 for high risk patients.

Radioembolization With Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Randomized, Open-Label, International, Multicenter, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To study the impact of transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization (TARE) in combination with second-line systemic chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). METHODS: In this international, multicenter, open-label phase III trial, patients with CLM who progressed on oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive second-line chemotherapy with or without TARE. The two primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and hepatic PFS (hPFS), assessed by blinded independent central review. Random assignment was performed using a web- or voice-based system stratified by unilobar or bilobar disease, oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line chemotherapy, and KRAS mutation status. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-eight patients from 95 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with or without TARE; this represents the intention-to-treat population and included 215 patients in the TARE plus chemotherapy group and 213 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; 1-sided P = .0013), with a median PFS of 8.0 (95% CI, 7.2 to 9.2) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. The HR for hPFS was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.77; 1-sided P < .0001), with a median hPFS of 9.1 (95% CI, 7.8 to 9.7) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. Objective response rates were 34.0% (95% CI, 28.0 to 40.5) and 21.1% (95% CI, 16.2 to 27.1; 1-sided P = .0019) for the TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Median overall survival was 14.0 (95% CI, 11.8 to 15.5) and 14.4 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 16.4; 1-sided P = .7229) with a HR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.32) for TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Grade 3 adverse events were reported more frequently with TARE (68.4% v 49.3%). Both groups received full chemotherapy dose intensity. CONCLUSION: The addition of TARE to systemic therapy for second-line CLM led to longer PFS and hPFS. Further subset analyses are needed to better define the ideal patient population that would benefit from TARE.

Final Overall Survival Efficacy Results of Ivosidenib for Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma With IDH1 Mutation: The Phase 3 Randomized Clinical ClarIDHy Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) variations occur in up to approximately 20% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In the ClarIDHy trial, progression-free survival as determined by central review was significantly improved with ivosidenib vs placebo. OBJECTIVE: To report the final overall survival (OS) results from the ClarIDHy trial, which aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of ivosidenib (AG-120)-a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1-vs placebo for patients with unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical phase 3 trial was conducted from February 20, 2017, to May 31, 2020, at 49 hospitals across 6 countries among patients aged 18 years or older with cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation whose disease progressed with prior therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ivosidenib, 500 mg, once daily or matched placebo. Crossover from placebo to ivosidenib was permitted if patients had disease progression as determined by radiographic findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival as determined by blinded independent radiology center (reported previously). Overall survival was a key secondary end point. The primary analysis of OS followed the intent-to-treat principle. Other secondary end points included objective response rate, safety and tolerability, and quality of life. RESULTS: Overall, 187 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 33-83 years]) were randomly assigned to receive ivosidenib (n = 126; 82 women [65%]; median age, 61 years [range, 33-80 years]) or placebo (n = 61; 37 women [61%]; median age, 63 years [range, 40-83 years]); 43 patients crossed over from placebo to ivosidenib. The primary end point of progression-free survival was reported elsewhere. Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.8-12.4 months) with ivosidenib vs 7.5 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.1 months) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.56-1.12]; 1-sided P = .09). When adjusted for crossover, median OS with placebo was 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.8-7.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.70]; 1-sided P < .001). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event (≥5%) reported in both groups was ascites (11 patients [9%] receiving ivosidenib and 4 patients [7%] receiving placebo). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events considered ivosidenib related were reported in 3 patients (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Patients receiving ivosidenib reported no apparent decline in quality of life compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial found that ivosidenib was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS benefit vs placebo, despite a high rate of crossover. These data, coupled with supportive quality of life data and a tolerable safety profile, demonstrate the clinical benefit of ivosidenib for patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02989857.

S100P as a marker for poor survival and advanced stage in gallbladder carcinoma.

AIMS: Gallbladder carcinomas usually present in advanced stages and has a dismal prognosis despite modern imaging techniques and aggressive surgical intervention. Identification of biologic markers for early diagnosis and improved therapeutic strategies is thus of paramount importance. S100P has been identified in a variety of malignant neoplasms of the gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary systems, but it is not yet known if S100P expression is associated with clinically-relevant characteristics of gall bladder carcinoma. The aims of the present study were: 1) to investigate the relationship between S100P expression and histological type, grade, tumor-node-metastasis stage, presence of vascular invasion, perineural invasion and necrosis; and 2) to evaluate for any S100P-defined difference in the risk for tumor recurrence or death. METHOD: Immunostains for S100P were performed on 4 tissue microarray blocks containing 91 cases of gall bladder carcinoma. RESULT: The intensity of S100P staining was significantly associated with pathological T stage 4 (p = 0. 0238). Staining intensity ≥3 in ≥25% tumor cells was associated with pathological T stage 4 (p = 0.0005). A higher S100P immunoreactivity score (IRS) was significantly associated with higher TNM stage (p = 0.0341). Age (p = 0.0485), presence of vascular invasion (p = 0.0359), pathological T stage (p = 0.0291) and TNM stage (p = 0.0153) were significantly associated with tumor recurrence. Intense S100P reactivity was associated with decreased overall survival [hazard ratio = 9.614; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.873-49.338; p = 0.0067]. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that S100P over-expression is a potential prognostic marker for gall bladder carcinoma and is significantly associated with advanced tumor stage and poorer survival.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS: Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

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.

Characterization of a whole blood assay for quantifying myeloid-derived suppressor cells.

BACKGROUND: Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) have been found to play an important role in limiting immune responses in cancer. Higher circulating MDSC levels have been associated with greater tumor burden, poorer response to immunotherapy, and poorer survival. Optimal measurement of MDSC levels could provide clinicians with a useful prognostic and/or management tool. METHODS: A whole blood (WB) nine color, 11 parameter flow cytometric assay was designed, utilizing fluorescently-labeled antibodies against CD45, CD3, CD19, CD20, CD56, CD16, HLA-DR, CD33, CD11b, CD14 and CD15, and BD Trucount beads for quantitation. Total MDSC were defined as CD45 + CD3-CD19-CD20-CD56-CD16-HLA-DR-CD33 + CD11b + cells, while the monocytic (M-MDSC) and polymorphonuclear subsets were defined as CD14+ or CD15+, respectively. RESULTS: A novel gating strategy was devised to eliminate granulocytes and improve consistency in gating. Several pre-analytical variables were found to significantly affect MDSC quantitation, including collection tube type and time elapsed between blood collection and testing. Total and M-MDSC levels were a mean of 63% and 73% greater, respectively, with K2EDTA compared to Na+heparin collection tubes (N = 5). In addition, time elapsed at room temperature prior to cell labeling affected MDSC quantitation; by 24 h after blood collection, total and M-MDSC levels were a mean of 26% and 57% lower compared to testing as soon as possible after collection (N = 6). Refrigeration of samples at 4 °C ameliorated time-dependent effects at both 4 and 8 h, but not 24 h after blood collection. To establish normal ranges for this assay, MDSC levels were quantified in 67 healthy subjects (30 male, 37 female) ages 20-93. No significant differences in total or M-MDSC levels were detected for ages ≤60 compared to > 60 (p = 0.5 and p = 0.8, respectively). Finally, assay results demonstrated significantly higher MDSC levels among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (N = 55) compared to age-matched healthy controls (N = 27) for total and M-MDSC (p = 0.006 and 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: MDSC are a heterogenous group of cells, and their quantitation in WB can be affected by a number of pre-analytical variables. Consideration of these factors, and measurement using a material type that has not been manipulated, such as whole blood, is likely to yield the most accurate results.

Derazantinib (ARQ 087) in advanced or inoperable FGFR2 gene fusion-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing has identified actionable genetic aberrations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (iCCA), including the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions. Derazantinib (ARQ 087), an orally bioavailable, multi-kinase inhibitor with potent pan-FGFR activity, has shown preliminary therapeutic activity against FGFR2 fusion-positive iCCA. METHODS: This multicentre, phase 1/2, open-label study enrolled adult patients with unresectable iCCA with FGFR2 fusion, who progressed, were intolerant or not eligible to first-line chemotherapy (NCT01752920). Subjects received derazantinib in continuous daily doses. Tumour response was assessed according to RECIST 1.1 every 8 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (18 women/11 men; median age, 58.7 years), 2 treatment-naive and 27 who progressed after at least one prior systemic therapy, were enrolled. Overall response rate was 20.7%, disease control rate was 82.8%. Estimated median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.04-9.2 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AE) were observed in 27 patients (93.1%, all grades), including asthenia/fatigue (69.0%), eye toxicity (41.4%), and hyperphosphatemia (75.9%). Grade ≥ 3 AEs occurred in 8 patients (27.6%). CONCLUSION: Derazantinib demonstrated encouraging anti-tumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced, unresectable iCCA with FGFR2 fusion who progressed after chemotherapy. A pivotal trial of derazantinib in iCCA is ongoing (NCT03230318).

Biomarker-Driven and Molecular Targeted Therapies for Hepatobiliary Cancers.

The recent accumulation of molecular profiling data for primary hepatobiliary malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary tract cancers, has led to a proliferation of promising therapeutic investigations in recent years. Treatment with pathway-specific targeted inhibitors and immunotherapeutic agents have demonstrated promising early clinical results. Key molecular alterations in common hepatobiliary cancers and ongoing interventional clinical trials of molecularly targeted systemic agents focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary tract cancer are reviewed.

Comparative Effectiveness of Transarterial Embolization and Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of embolization with that of sorafenib in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma as practiced in real-world settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based observational study was conducted with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Patients 65 years old and older with a diagnosis of primary liver cancer between 2007 and 2011 who underwent embolization or sorafenib treatment were identified. Patients were excluded if they had insufficient claims records, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or other primary cancer or had undergone liver transplant or combination therapy. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting models were used to control for selection bias. RESULTS: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 1017 patients. Models showed good balance between treatment groups. Compared with those who underwent embolization, patients treated with sorafenib had significantly higher hazard of earlier death from time of treatment (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.37; p < 0.0001) and from time of cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.39; p < 0.0001). The survival advantage after embolization was seen in both intermediate- and advanced-stage disease. CONCLUSION: This comparative effectiveness study of Medicare patients with hepatocellular carcinoma showed significantly longer overall survival after treatment with embolization than with sorafenib. Because these findings conflict with expert opinion-based guidelines for treatment of advanced-stage disease, prospective randomized comparative trials in this subpopulation would be justified.

Toward consensus reporting of radiation-induced liver toxicity in the treatment of primary liver malignancies: Defining clinically relevant endpoints.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to define the most clinically relevant "nonclassic" radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) endpoints in cirrhotic patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy or proton beam therapy for primary liver cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively collected pretreatment, detailed toxicity (≤6 months posttreatment), and outcomes data from 48 patients. Deaths were examined for association with RILD. Univariate and multivariate Cox models defined significant predictors of overall survival (OS)/RILD-specific survival (RILD-SS). RESULTS: With median follow-up of 13 months, 23 patients (48%) had an increase in Child-Pugh (CP) score (≥2, 25%) and 3 (6%) had ≥G3 transaminase elevation. Of 18 deaths, 6 were potentially ascribed to RILD. Univariate analysis showed that CP score increases of ≥1 and ≥2 and CP class change predicted OS, as did ≥G3 aspartate transaminase (AST) elevation and ≥1 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) AST toxicity grade change. On multivariate analysis, CP score increase of ≥2 and ≥1 CTCAE AST toxicity grade change were the strongest independent nonclassic RILD predictors of OS. For RILD-SS, CP score increases of ≥2, ≥grade 3 CTCAE alanine transaminase, and ≥grade 2 bilirubin elevations were predictive. CONCLUSIONS: Increased CP score ≥2 strongly predicts for both OS and RILD-SS and should be reported in future studies along with transaminase elevations, which are also predictive of outcomes.

HALO 202: Randomized Phase II Study of PEGPH20 Plus Nab-Paclitaxel/Gemcitabine Versus Nab-Paclitaxel/Gemcitabine in Patients With Untreated, Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Purpose Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is characterized by excessive hyaluronan (HA) accumulation in the tumor microenvironment, elevating interstitial pressure and impairing perfusion. Preclinical studies demonstrated pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) degrades HA, thereby increasing drug delivery. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to treatment with PEGPH20 plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (PAG) or nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (AG). Tumor HA levels were measured retrospectively using a novel affinity histochemistry assay. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS; overall) and thromboembolic (TE) event rate. Secondary end points included overall survival, PFS by HA level, and objective response rate. An early imbalance in TE events in the PAG arm led to a clinical hold; thereafter, patients with TE events were excluded and enoxaparin prophylaxis was initiated. Results A total of 279 patients were randomly assigned; 246 had HA data; 231 were evaluable for efficacy; 84 (34%) had HA-high tumors (ie, extracellular matrix HA staining ≥ 50% of tumor surface at any intensity). PFS was significantly improved with PAG treatment overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.00; P = .049) and for patients with HA-high tumors (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.00; P = .048). In patients with HA-high tumors (PAG v AG), the objective response rate was 45% versus 31%, and median overall survival was 11.5 versus 8.5 months (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.61). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events with significant differences between arms (PAG v AG) included muscle spasms (13% v 1%), neutropenia (29% v 18%), and myalgia (5% v 0%). TE events were comparable after enoxaparin initiation (14% PAG v 10% AG). Conclusion This study met its primary end points of PFS and TE event rate. The largest improvement in PFS was observed in patients with HA-high tumors who received PAG. A similar TE event rate was observed between the treatment groups in stage 2 of the trial.

Phase 2 study of combination SPI-1620 with docetaxel as second-line advanced biliary tract cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of SPI-1620, an analogue of endothelin-1, administered in combination with docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). METHODS: Eligible patients received continuous cycles of combination therapy with SPI-1620 (11 µg m-2) and docetaxel (75 mg m-2) intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression (PD) or intolerable toxicity. Tumour response was evaluated using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging every 2 cycles (6 weeks). The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, and overall survival (OS) that were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of the 30 enrolled patients, 25 patients had qualifying events (PD or death), 1 patient was nonevaluable, and 4 patients were censored at the time of their last tumour assessment. Our primary end point of PFS ⩾5 months was not reached. Median PFS was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-2.8), ranging from 0.7 to 8.4 months. The ORR was 10.3% (95% CI: 0.02-0.27). Eleven additional patients achieved stable disease. The OS was 4.87 months. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were febrile neutropenia and neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of docetaxel to SPI-1620 in second-line ABTC did not meet the pre-specified primary end point of PFS ⩾5 months in unselected patient population.

Targeting the Tumor Stroma: the Biology and Clinical Development of Pegylated Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase (PEGPH20).

The tumor stroma is increasingly recognized as a key player in tumorigenesis through its effects on cell signaling, immune responses, and access of therapeutic agents. A major component of the extracellular matrix is hyaluronic acid (HA), which raises the interstitial gel fluid pressure within tumors and reduces drug delivery to malignant cells, and has been most extensively studied in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Pegylated recombinant human hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) is a novel agent that degrades HA and normalizes IFP to enhance the delivery of cytotoxic agents. It has demonstrated promising preclinical results and early clinical evidence of efficacy in the first-line treatment of metastatic PDA with acceptable tolerability. Moreover, intratumoral HA content appears to be a predictive biomarker of response. Phase 2 and 3 trials of PEGPH20 plus chemotherapy are ongoing in metastatic PDA, and it is also being evaluated in other malignancies and in combination with radiation and immunotherapy.

Segmental Yttrium-90 Radioembolization versus Segmental Chemoembolization for Localized Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of a Single-Center, Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Study.

PURPOSE: To compare segmental radioembolization with segmental chemoembolization for localized, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) not amenable to ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-center, retrospective study (2010-2015), 101 patients with 132 tumors underwent segmental radioembolization, and 77 patients with 103 tumors underwent segmental doxorubicin-based drug-eluting embolic or conventional chemoembolization. Patients receiving chemoembolization had worse performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0, 76% vs 56%; P = .003) and Child-Pugh class (class A, 65% vs 52%; P = .053); patients receiving radioembolization had larger tumors (32 mm vs 26 mm; P < .001), more infiltrative tumors (23% vs 9%; P = .01), and more vascular invasion (18% vs 1%; P < .001). Toxicity, tumor response, tumor progression, and survival were compared. Analyses were weighted using a propensity score (PS). RESULTS: Toxicity rates were low, without significant differences. Index and overall complete response rates were 92% and 84% for radioembolization and 74% and 58% for chemoembolization (P = .001 and P < .001). Index tumor progression at 1 and 2 years was 8% and 15% in the radioembolization group and 30% and 42% in the chemoembolization group (P < .001). Median progression-free and overall survival were 564 days and 1,198 days in the radioembolization group and 271 days and 1,043 days in the chemoembolization group (PS-adjusted P = .002 and P = .35; censored by transplant PS-adjusted P < .001 and P = .064). CONCLUSIONS: Segmental radioembolization demonstrates higher complete response rates and local tumor control compared with segmental chemoembolization for HCC, with similar toxicity profiles. Superior progression-free survival was achieved.

Natural Language Processing in Oncology: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Natural language processing (NLP) has the potential to accelerate translation of cancer treatments from the laboratory to the clinic and will be a powerful tool in the era of personalized medicine. This technology can harvest important clinical variables trapped in the free-text narratives within electronic medical records. OBSERVATIONS: Natural language processing can be used as a tool for oncological evidence-based research and quality improvement. Oncologists interested in applying NLP for clinical research can play pivotal roles in building NLP systems and, in doing so, contribute to both oncological and clinical NLP research. Herein, we provide an introduction to NLP and its potential applications in oncology, a description of specific tools available, and a review on the state of the current technology with respect to cancer case identification, staging, and outcomes quantification. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: More automated means of leveraging unstructured data from daily clinical practice is crucial as therapeutic options and access to individual-level health information increase. Research-minded oncologists may push the avenues of evidence-based research by taking advantage of the new technologies available with clinical NLP. As continued progress is made with applying NLP toward oncological research, incremental gains will lead to large impacts, building a cost-effective infrastructure for advancing cancer care.

Phase Ib Study of PEGylated Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase and Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase Ib study evaluated the safety and tolerability of PEGylated human recombinant hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) in combination with gemcitabine (Gem), and established a phase II dose for patients with untreated stage IV metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Objective response rate and treatment efficacy using biomarker and imaging measurements were also evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients received escalating intravenous doses of PEGPH20 in combination with Gem using a standard 3+3 dose-escalation design. In cycle 1 (8 weeks), PEGPH20 was administrated twice weekly for 4 weeks, then once weekly for 3 weeks; Gem was administrated once weekly for 7 weeks, followed by 1 week off treatment. In each subsequent 4-week cycle, PEGPH20 and Gem were administered once weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week off. Dexamethasone (8 mg) was given pre- and post-PEGPH20 administration. Several safety parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and received PEGPH20 at 1.0 (n = 4), 1.6 (n = 4), or 3.0 µg/kg (n = 20), respectively. The most common PEGPH20-related adverse events were musculoskeletal and extremity pain, peripheral edema, and fatigue. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 29%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 5.0 and 6.6 months, respectively. In 17 patients evaluated for pretreatment tissue hyaluronan (HA) levels, median PFS and OS rates were 7.2 and 13.0 months for "high"-HA patients (n = 6), and 3.5 and 5.7 months for "low"-HA patients (n = 11), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PEGPH20 in combination with Gem was well tolerated and may have therapeutic benefit in patients with advanced PDA, especially in those with high HA tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2848-54. ©2016 AACR.