Liver transplantation plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with permanently unresectable colorectal liver metastases (TransMet): results from a multicentre, open-label, prospective, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing efficacy of chemotherapy, permanently unresectable colorectal liver metastases are associated with poor long-term survival. We aimed to assess whether liver transplantation plus chemotherapy could improve overall survival. METHODS: TransMet was a multicentre, open-label, prospective, randomised controlled trial done in 20 tertiary centres in Europe. Patients aged 18-65 years, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score 0-1, permanently unresectable colorectal liver metastases from resected BRAF-non-mutated colorectal cancer responsive to systemic chemotherapy (≥3 months, ≤3 lines), and no extrahepatic disease, were eligible for enrolment. Patients were randomised (1:1) to liver transplantation plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, using block randomisation. The liver transplantation plus chemotherapy group underwent liver transplantation for 2 months or less after the last chemotherapy cycle. At randomisation, the liver transplantation plus chemotherapy group received a median of 21·0 chemotherapy cycles (IQR 18·0-29·0) versus 17·0 cycles (12·0-24·0) in the chemotherapy alone group, in up to three lines of chemotherapy. During first-line chemotherapy, 64 (68%) of 94 patients had received doublet chemotherapy and 30 (32%) of 94 patients had received triplet regimens; 76 (80%) of 94 patients had targeted therapy. Transplanted patients received tailored immunosuppression (methylprednisolone 10 mg/kg intravenously on day 0; tacrolimus 0·1 mg/kg via gastric tube on day 0, 6-10 ng/mL days 1-14; mycophenolate mofetil 10 mg/kg intravenously day 0 to <2 months and switch to everolimus 5-8 ng/mL), and postoperative chemotherapy, and the chemotherapy group had continued chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival analysed in the intention to treat and per-protocol population. Safety events were assessed in the as-treated population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02597348), and accrual is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 18, 2016, and July 5, 2021, 94 patients were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population, with 47 in the liver transplantation plus chemotherapy group and 47 in the chemotherapy alone group. 11 patients in the liver transplantation plus chemotherapy group and nine patients in the chemotherapy alone group did not receive the assigned treatment; 36 patients and 38 patients in each group, respectively, were included in the per-protocol analysis. Patients had a median age of 54·0 years (IQR 47·0-59·0), and 55 (59%) of 94 patients were male and 39 (41%) were female. Median follow-up was 59·3 months (IQR 42·4-60·2). In the intention-to-treat population, 5-year overall survival was 56·6% (95% CI 43·2-74·1) for liver transplantation plus chemotherapy and 12·6% (5·2-30·1) for chemotherapy alone (HR 0·37 [95% CI 0·21-0·65]; p=0·0003) and 73·3% (95% CI 59·6-90·0) and 9·3% (3·2-26·8), respectively, for the per-protocol population. Serious adverse events occurred in 32 (80%) of 40 patients who underwent liver transplantation (from either group), and 69 serious adverse events were observed in 45 (83%) of 54 patients treated with chemotherapy alone. Three patients in the liver transplantation plus chemotherapy group were retransplanted, one of whom died postoperatively of multi-organ failure. INTERPRETATION: In selected patients with permanently unresectable colorectal liver metastases, liver transplantation plus chemotherapy with organ allocation priority significantly improved survival versus chemotherapy alone. These results support the validation of liver transplantation as a new standard option for patients with permanently unresectable liver-only metastases. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

Organoids for Functional Precision Medicine in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) are promising tumor avatars that could enable ex vivo drug tests to personalize patients' treatments in the frame of functional precision oncology. However, clinical evidence remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate whether PDOs can be implemented in clinical practice to benefit patients with advanced refractory pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: During 2021 to 2022, 87 patients were prospectively enrolled in an institutional review board-approved protocol. Inclusion criteria were histologically confirmed PDAC with the tumor site accessible. A panel of 25 approved antitumor therapies (chemogram) was tested and compared to patient responses to assess PDO predictive values and map the drug sensitivity landscape in PDAC. RESULTS: Fifty-four PDOs were generated from 87 pretreated patients (take-on rate, 62%). The main PDO mutations were KRAS (96%), TP53 (88%), and CDKN2A/B (22%), with a 91% concordance rate with their tumor of origin. The mean turnaround time to chemogram was 6.8 weeks. In 91% of cases, ≥1 hit was identified (gemcitabine (n = 20 of 54), docetaxel (n = 18 of 54), and vinorelbine (n = 17 of 54), with a median of 3 hits/patient (range, 0-12). Our cohort included 34 evaluable patients with full clinical follow-up. We report a chemogram sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 92.9%. The overall response rate and progression-free survival were higher when patients received a hit treatment as compared to patients who received a nonhit drug (as part of routine management). Finally, we leveraged our PDO collection as a platform for drug validation and combo identification. We tested anti-KRASG12D (MRTX1133), alone or combined, and identified a specific synergy with anti-EGFR therapies in KRASG12D variants. CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest prospective study aiming at implementing PDO-based functional precision oncology and identify very robust predictive values in this clinical setting. In a clinically relevant turnaround time, we identify putative hits for 91% of patients, providing unexpected potential survival benefits in this very aggressive indication. Although this remains to be confirmed in interventional precision oncology trials, PDO collection already provides powerful opportunities for drugs and combinatorial treatment development.

Clinical and molecular features of early onset pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a major health burden and may become the second cause of death by cancer in developed countries. The incidence of early-onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC, defined by an age at diagnosis <50 years old) is increasing. Here, we conducted a study of all PDAC patients followed at our institution. Patients were classified as EOPC or non-early onset (nEOPC, >50). Eight hundred and seventy eight patients were included, of which 113 EOPC, exhibiting a comparable performance status. EOPC were more often diagnosed at the metastatic stage (70.0% vs 58.3%) and liver metastases were more prevalent at diagnosis (60.2% vs. 43.9%). The median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis was 18.1 months, similar between EOPC and nEOPC. Among patients who underwent surgery, recurrence-free survival was similar between age groups. Among metastatic patients, first line progression free survival was similar but EOPC received more treatment lines (72.3% vs. 58.1% received ≥2 lines). Regarding molecular alterations, the mean tumor mutational burden (TMB) was lower in EOPC (1.42 vs. 2.95 mut/Mb). The prevalence of KRAS and BRCA1/2 mutations was similar, but EOPC displayed fewer alterations in CNKN2A/B. Fifty eight patients (18.6%) had actionable alterations (ESCAT I-III) and 31 of them received molecularly matched treatments. On the transcriptomic level, despite its clinical aggressiveness, EOPC was less likely to display a basal-like phenotype. To conclude, EOPC were diagnosed more frequently at the metastatic stage. OS and 1st line PFS were similar to nEOPC. EOPC displayed specific molecular features, such as a lower TMB and fewer alterations in CDKN2A/B.

COLUMBIA-1: a randomised study of durvalumab plus oleclumab in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab in metastatic microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the addition of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) and oleclumab (anti-CD73) to standard-of-care treatment (FOLFOX and bevacizumab) enhances the anti-tumour effect in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: COLUMBIA-1 (NCT04068610) was a Phase Ib (feasibility; Part 1)/Phase II (randomised; Part 2) trial in patients with treatment-naïve microsatellite stable mCRC. Patients in Part 2 were randomised to receive standard-of-care (control arm) or standard-of-care plus durvalumab and oleclumab (experimental arm). Primary objectives included safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Seven patients were enrolled in Part 1 and 52 in Part 2 (n = 26 in each arm). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) occurred in 80.8% and 65.4% of patients in the control and experimental arms of Part 2, respectively, with 26.9% and 46.3% experiencing serious TEAEs. The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was numerically higher in the experimental arm compared with the control arm (61.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 40.6-79.8] vs 46.2% [95% CI, 26.6-66.6]) but did not meet the statistically significant threshold in either arm. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of FOLFOX and bevacizumab in combination with durvalumab and oleclumab was manageable; however, the efficacy results do not warrant further development of this combination in patients with microsatellite stable mCRC. REGISTRATION: NCT04068610.

Fruquintinib versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (FRESCO-2): an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of effective systemic therapy options for patients with advanced, chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) 1, 2, and 3, in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (FRESCO-2) at 124 hospitals and cancer centres across 14 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) with histologically or cytologically documented metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who had received all current standard approved cytotoxic and targeted therapies and progressed on or were intolerant to trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive fruquintinib (5 mg capsule) or matched placebo orally once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day cycles, plus best supportive care. Stratification factors were previous trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both, RAS mutation status, and duration of metastatic disease. Patients, investigators, study site personnel, and sponsors, except for selected sponsor pharmacovigilance personnel, were masked to study group assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. A non-binding futility analysis was done when approximately one-third of the expected overall survival events had occurred. Final analysis occurred after 480 overall survival events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04322539, and EudraCT, 2020-000158-88, and is ongoing but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2020, and Dec 2, 2021, 934 patients were assessed for eligibility and 691 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive fruquintinib (n=461) or placebo (n=230). Patients had received a median of 4 lines (IQR 3-6) of previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease, and 502 (73%) of 691 patients had received more than 3 lines. Median overall survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-8·2) in the fruquintinib group versus 4·8 months (4·0-5·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·55-0·80; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 286 (63%) of 456 patients who received fruquintinib and 116 (50%) of 230 who received placebo; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the fruquintinib group included hypertension (n=62 [14%]), asthenia (n=35 [8%]), and hand-foot syndrome (n=29 [6%]). There was one treatment-related death in each group (intestinal perforation in the fruquintinib group and cardiac arrest in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Fruquintinib treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful benefit in overall survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. These data support the use of fruquintinib as a global treatment option for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Ongoing analysis of the quality of life data will further establish the clinical benefit of fruquintinib in this patient population. FUNDING: HUTCHMED.

Patient-derived organoids identify an apico-basolateral polarity switch associated with survival in colorectal cancer.

The metastatic progression of cancer remains a major issue in patient treatment. However, the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying this process remain unclear. Here, we use primary explants and organoids from patients harboring mucinous colorectal carcinoma (MUC CRC), a poor-prognosis histological form of digestive cancer, to study the architecture, invasive behavior and chemoresistance of tumor cell intermediates. We report that these tumors maintain a robust apico-basolateral polarity as they spread in the peritumoral stroma or organotypic collagen-I gels. We identified two distinct topologies - MUC CRCs either display a conventional 'apical-in' polarity or, more frequently, harbor an inverted 'apical-out' topology. Transcriptomic analyses combined with interference experiments on organoids showed that TGFß and focal adhesion signaling pathways are the main drivers of polarity orientation. Finally, we show that the apical-out topology is associated with increased resistance to chemotherapeutic treatments in organoids and decreased patient survival in the clinic. Thus, studies on patient-derived organoids have the potential to bridge histological, cellular and molecular analyses to decrypt onco-morphogenic programs and stratify cancer patients. This article has an associated First Person interview with the first author of the paper.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous arterial port Implantation for Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 40% of patients with colorectal cancer will develop liver metastases. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) represents a valuable treatment option, with curative, palliative, or adjuvant intent. The aim of our study was to describe technical considerations, safety, and oncological outcomes of patients receiving HAIC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent percutaneous hepatic arterial port placement in our institution between 2004 and 2021 were included in this retrospective analysis. Demographic, anatomical and technical data were collected. Tumor response was assessed using RECIST 1.1. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for overall survival (OS) and hepatic progression-free survival (PFS). Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients (median age, 58.6 years [interquartile range (IQR): 49.5-65.4]; 208 men [57.8%]) were included. Percutaneous hepatic arterial port placement was successful in 87.9% of cases, resulting in 379 port placements (431 attempts). Overall, 394 HAIC courses were delivered, mostly oxaliplatin-based (94.7%), with a median of 6 cycles per course (IQR: 3-8). AEs (all grades) were observed in 42.0% of ports (grade IIIb-V: 1.1%). Most port dysfunctions could be resolved, resulting in a 73.1% rate of HAIC resumption, without impact on OS. Median OS was 22 months (IQR: 18-24), and median hepatic PFS was 11 months (IQR: 9.5-13). Tumor downstaging allowed surgery in 35.6% of patients, with significantly longer median OS than non-operated patients (39 months [IQR: 33-79] versus 14 months [IQR: 12-16], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This retrospective cohort study demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of percutaneous hepatic arterial port placement with an impact on survival for selected patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Percutaneous hepatic arterial port placement is feasible, safe and effective with an impact on the survival of selected patients. KEY POINTS: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy provides promising tumor response and overall survival, especially in cases of resection/ablation. Total complication rate of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy port use is high, but serious complications are rare. Port revision is often necessary but allows the resumption of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy without affecting overall survival.

A plain language summary of the results from the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 study of zanidatamab in participants with HER2-amplified biliary tract cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Researchers wanted to study whether the research drug zanidatamab could help people with a type of cancer called biliary tract cancer. In some people, biliary tract cancer cells make extra copies of a gene called HER2 (also called ERBB2). This is known as being HER2-amplified. Zanidatamab is an antibody designed to destroy cancer cells that have higher-than-normal HER2 protein or gene levels. Zanidatamab is currently under research and is not yet approved for any diseases. Participants in this phase 2b clinical study had tumors that were HER2-amplified and at the advanced or metastatic stage. Participants also had cancer which had become worse after previous chemotherapy or had side effects that were too bad to continue chemotherapy. They also had to meet other requirements to be enrolled. Researchers measured the amount of HER2 protein in the tumor samples of the participants who were enrolled. There were 80 participants with tumors that were both HER2 amplified and had higher-than-normal HER2 protein amounts (considered to be 'HER2-positive'). There were 7 participants with tumors that were HER2-amplified, but had little-to-no levels of the HER2 protein (considered to be 'HER2-low'). All participants in the study were treated with zanidatamab and no other cancer treatments once every 2 weeks. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: In the HER2-positive group, 33 of 80 (41%) participants had their tumors shrink by 30% or more of their original size. In half of these participants, their tumors did not grow for 13 months or longer. No participant in the HER2-low group had their tumors shrink by 30% or more. In total, 63 of 87 participants (72%) had at least one side effect believed to be related to zanidatamab treatment. Most side effects were mild or moderate in severity. No participant died from complications related to zanidatamab. Diarrhea was one of the more common side effects and was experienced by 32 of 87 participants (37%). Side effects related to receiving zanidatamab through the vein, such as chills, fever, or high blood pressure, were experienced by 29 of 87 participants (33%). WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The results of this study support the potential for zanidatamab as a new therapy for people with HER2-positive biliary tract cancer after they had already received chemotherapy. More research is occurring to support these results.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04466891 (HERIZON-BTC-01 study).

The HERIZON-BTC-01 study revealed zanidatamab as a potentially effective treatment for HER2-positive biliary tract cancer after standard chemotherapy fails. Read more in the lay summary by @hardingjjmd, @DrShubhamPant, and coauthors. #BiliaryTractCancer #HER2 #zanidatamab.

Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy with hepatic arterial versus intravenous infusion in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin, a major drug in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), is responsible for cumulative, dose-limiting peripheral neuropathy (PN). Whether the hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) route can limit oxaliplatin-induced PN in comparison with the intravenous (IV) route has not been specifically explored so far. METHODS: We compared the frequency and severity of PN in oxaliplatin-naive patients with mCRC included in trials that evaluated treatment with oxaliplatin administered either by HAI (ACCORD 04, CHOICE, OSCAR, and PACHA-01 trials) or by IV route (FFCD 2000-05 trial). We retrieved anonymized, prospectively collected data from trial databases for the ACCORD 04, CHOICE, and FFCD 2000-05 trials and through a review of Gustave Roussy patients' electronic medical records for PACHA-01 and OSCAR trials. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically significant PN (grades 2 to 4) according to the cumulative dose of oxaliplatin received. Secondary endpoints were time to onset of neuropathy as a function of the cumulative dose of oxaliplatin, discontinuation of oxaliplatin for neurotoxicity, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 363 patients were included (IV, 300; HAI, 63). In total, 180 patients in the IV group (60%) and 30 patients in the HAI group (48%) developed clinically significant PN, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.23). No difference was shown in the time to onset of PN either (p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: The administration of oxaliplatin HAI rather than IV in the treatment of mCRC does not reduce the incidence, precocity, and severity of PN.

Zanidatamab for HER2-amplified, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (HERIZON-BTC-01): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: HER2 is overexpressed or amplified in a subset of biliary tract cancer. Zanidatamab, a bispecific antibody targeting two distinct HER2 epitopes, exhibited tolerability and preliminary anti-tumour activity in HER2-expressing or HER2 (also known as ERBB2)-amplified treatment-refractory biliary tract cancer. METHODS: HERIZON-BTC-01 is a global, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2b trial of zanidatamab in patients with HER2-amplified, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer with disease progression on previous gemcitabine-based therapy, recruited at 32 clinical trial sites in nine countries in North America, South America, Asia, and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with HER2-amplified biliary tract cancer confirmed by in-situ hybridisation per central testing, at least one measurable target lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were assigned into cohorts based on HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) score: cohort 1 (IHC 2+ or 3+; HER2-positive) and cohort 2 (IHC 0 or 1+). Patients received zanidatamab 20 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate in cohort 1 as assessed by independent central review. Anti-tumour activity and safety were assessed in all participants who received any dose of zanidatamab. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466891, is ongoing, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 87 patients were enrolled in HERIZON-BTC-01: 80 in cohort 1 (45 [56%] were female and 35 [44%] were male; 52 [65%] were Asian; median age was 64 years [IQR 58-70]) and seven in cohort 2 (five [71%] were male and two [29%] were female; five [71%] were Asian; median age was 62 years [IQR 58-77]). At the time of the data cutoff (Oct 10, 2022), 18 (21%) patients (17 in cohort 1 and one in cohort 2) were continuing to receive zanidatamab; 69 (79%) discontinued treatment (radiographic progression in 64 [74%] patients). The median duration of follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 9·4-17·2). Confirmed objective responses by independent central review were observed in 33 patients in cohort 1 (41·3% [95% CI 30·4-52·8]). 16 (18%) patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events; the most common were diarrhoea (four [5%] patients) and decreased ejection fraction (three [3%] patients). There were no grade 4 treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Zanidatamab demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit with a manageable safety profile in patients with treatment-refractory, HER2-positive biliary tract cancer. These results support the potential of zanidatamab as a future treatment option in HER2-positive biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Zymeworks, Jazz, and BeiGene.

Phase Ib/II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Binimetinib (MEK162) Plus Panitumumab for Mutant or Wild-Type RAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Activating RAS gene mutations occur in approximately 55% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and are associated with poorer clinical outcomes due to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) blockade resistance. Combined EGFR and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibition may extend response to EGFR inhibition and overcome acquired resistance. This phase Ib/II dose escalation trial evaluated the safety and activity of dual inhibition with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) and panitumumab (EGFR inhibitor [EGFRi]) in patients with RAS mutant or BRAF wild type (WT)/RAS WT mCRC. METHODS: Phase Ib dose escalation started with binimetinib 45 mg twice daily plus panitumumab 6 mg/kg administered every 2 weeks. In the phase II study, patients with measurable mCRC were enrolled into 4 groups based on previous anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy and RAS mutational status. RESULTS: No patients in the phase Ib portion (n = 10) had a response; 70% of patients had stable disease. In the phase II portion (n = 43), overall response rate (ORR, confirmed) was 2.3% with one partial response in the RAS WT group, DCR was 30.2%, and median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95%CI, 1.6-3.3). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event, with the most common being diarrhea (71.7%), vomiting (52.8%), nausea (50.9%), fatigue (49.1%), dermatitis acneiform (43.4%), and rash (41.5%). Most patients required treatment interruption or dose reduction due to difficulties tolerating treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of binimetinib and panitumumab had substantial toxicity and limited clinical activity for patients with mutant or WT RAS mCRC, independent of EGFRi treatment history (Trial registration: NCT01927341).

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

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

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches in pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pancreatic cancer treatment remains a challenging problem for surgeons and oncologists. This review aims to summarize the current advances on adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment approaches for resectable pancreatic cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent phase III randomized trials of adjuvant therapy showed improvement of overall survival in both experimental and control groups. Effectiveness of adjuvant therapy in specific subgroups as elderly patients, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, stage I, and DNA damage repair gene germline variants has been reported. Completion of all cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy is confirmed as an independent prognostic factor. Adjuvant chemotherapy remains underutilized, mainly because of early recurrence, prolonged recovery, or older age older than 75 years. So, neoadjuvant treatment is a logical approach to administer systemic treatment to more patients. Meta-analysis did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit of neoadjuvant treatments in resectable pancreatic cancer, and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from available randomized controlled trials. Upfront surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy should still be considered a standard approach in resectable pancreatic cancer. SUMMARY: Adjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX remains the standard of care in fit patients with resected pancreatic cancer, and limited high-level evidence support the use of neoadjuvant therapy in upfront resectable pancreatic cancer.

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

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

Streptozotocin, 1982-2022: Forty Years from the FDA's Approval to Treat Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

In May 1982, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of streptozotocin to treat pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (panNETs). Thus, this year marks 40 years since that landmark date. This review of streptozotocin to treat panNETs is intended to commemorate this anniversary. A historical perspective of the chemical structure, pharmacokinetics, and mechanism of action of streptozotocin is followed by data from prospective and retrospective clinical studies. The last section of the review addresses the latest aspects and takes note of the prospects that lie ahead on the future horizon of the use of streptozotocin to treat panNETs, including ongoing clinical trials.

Oxaliplatin and 5-Fluorouracil in Advanced Well-Differentiated Digestive Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Multicenter National Retrospective Study from the French Group of Endocrine Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Oxaliplatin-based regimens have shown promising antitumor activity in digestive neuroendocrine tumors (NETs); however, the available data are limited. Our aim was to assess the efficacy of FOLFOX (association of 5-fluorouracil with oxaliplatin) in a large series of patients with advanced digestive NETs. METHODS: All patients with advanced digestive well-differentiated NETs treated with at least 3 cycles of FOLFOX between January 2004 and December 2018 in 12 centers from the French Group of Endocrine Tumors were included. Tumor response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival, as well as prognostic factors, were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five patients were included. Primary tumor locations were pancreas (n = 89), small intestine (n = 40), unknown with no evidence for lung primary (n = 13), stomach (n = 7), and rectum (n = 6). Median Ki-67 was 10%, and 65% of the tumors were grade 2. The partial response rate was 30% for pancreatic NETs, 12.5% for small intestine NETs, 38.5% for unknown primary NETs, 14% for gastric NETs, and 17% for rectal NETs. Significant prognostic factors for poor PFS after FOLFOX were progressive disease at the beginning of treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.83, p = 0.007), hepatic involvement superior to 50% (HR = 2.67, p = 0.0001), and rectal primary tumor location (HR = 2.6, p = 0.0036). Among pancreatic NETs, insulinomas had a better median PFS (22 months) than other pancreatic NETs (9 months, p = 0.026) and showed a high rate (8/9) of serum glucose normalization. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX shows a promising antitumor activity in advanced digestive NETs. Rapid symptomatic response is observed in metastatic insulinomas.

Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with advanced solid tumors receiving anti-VEGF agents: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Kinase inhibitors (KI) and antibodies targeting the VEGF pathway are approved in a broad spectrum of cancers and associated with an increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events (TE). The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban is increasing in cancer patients, but limited data are available for patients receiving anti-VEGF agents. METHODS: To assess safety of DOAC with concomitant anti-VEGF agents, a retrospective chart review of all patients receiving concomitantly DOAC and anti-VEGF agents was performed from 2013 to 2020 in our center. Data on demographics, safety, and time on treatment were collected. Main outcome was safety (bleeding and thromboembolic events). RESULTS: Of 92 patients (median age 66 years (IQR: 59-72)), 40 were treated with KI and 52 with bevacizumab. The most frequent primary tumor sites were colon/rectum (24%), kidney (21%), ovary (13%), lung (11%), soft tissue sarcoma (10%), and thyroid (9%); 2% had brain metastases. Apixaban 5 mg bid (n = 41) or rivaroxaban 20 mg daily (n = 51) were given for TE (65%), atrial fibrillation (32%), or other indications (3%). The median duration of concomitant treatment was 4.8 months (95%CI: 0.7-50.0) with bevacizumab and 11.7 months (95%CI: 0.1-53.8) with KI. Grade ≥ 3 bleeding events occurred in 5 patients (5%): 4 patients receiving bevacizumab (one grade 5 upper digestive tract bleeding and three grade 3 rectal or vaginal hemorrhages) and 1 patient under cabozantinib for kidney cancer with endobronchial metastasis (grade 3 hemoptysis). Grade ≥ 3 TE occurred in 8 patients (9%): 7 patients receiving bevacizumab (including one grade 5 pulmonary embolism), and one patient receiving sunitinib (grade 3 pulmonary embolism). Median time-to-event (bleeding or thrombotic event) was not reached (NR) (95%CI: 76.9-NR) for KI and 86.9 months (95%CI: 42.9-148.0) for bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In our experience, the use of DOAC was safe in selected patients treated with KI, but unclear with bevacizumab. More data are needed to endorse guidelines in this specific group of patients.

Acute Abdominal Complications in Deeply Neutropenic Onco-Hematology Patients: A Retrospective Series of 105 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Acute abdominal complications (AAC) in patients with deep neutropenia (DN) is challenging to manage because of the expected influence of AAC on oncological prognosis and higher surgical complication rate in a period of DN. In practice, these parameters are difficult to appreciate. This study reported our experience in managing these patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated in our tertiary care cancer center between 2010 and 2020 who developed AAC in the context of a DN were retrospectively analyzed. AAC was defined as an infection (intra-abdominal, perineal, or cutaneous), bowel obstruction, or intra-abdominal hemorrhage. FINDINGS: Among 105 patients, 18 (17%) required emergent surgery (group 1), 34 patients had a complication requiring surgical oversight (group 2), and 53 patients had a non-surgical etiology (group 3). Fifteen patients underwent surgery in the group 1, three in group 2, and one in group 3. Overall, 28 patients died during hospitalization. Mortality was statistically different between the groups (p = 0·01), with a higher rate in group 1 (n = 9/18, 50%) than in group 2 (n = 11/34, 32%) and group 3 (n = 8/53, 15%). All groups together had a median overall survival (OS) of 14 months and disease-free survival (DFS) of 10 months. OS was not comparable between the groups, and the median length of survival in group 1 was 6 months versus 8 months in group 2 and 23 months in group 3. In group 1, five patients (5/18, 28%) did not relapse at the end of the follow-up compared to 13 in group 2 (13/34, 38%) and 25 in group 3 (25/53, 47%). After discharge, OS and DFS were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: The advent of an AAC necessitating surgery in the context of DN is a deadly event associated with a 50% mortality; nonetheless, in case of unpostponable emergencies, surgery can provide long-term survival in selected patients.

Patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave150): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2-10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88-100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80-100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88-100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89-100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16-0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46-0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34-0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45-0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46-0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55-1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: -3·29 (SD 17·56) versus -5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, -4·02 (19·42) versus -9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and -3·77 (12·82) versus -7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. INTERPRETATION: Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit-risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Post-Radiation Grade 3 Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: A New Entity?

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors have a 14% increased risk of developing a malignancy compared with the general population. Second radiation-induced malignancies with different histologies have been described in different organs. Based on individual observations, we hypothesized that neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) could arise in irradiated organs. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of Gustave Roussy database of NEC patients (small cell lung cancer excluded) diagnosed as a second cancer, we looked for the frequency of grade 3 NEC that arose in patients who had received previous radiation therapy for a first cancer. Radiation therapy for the first cancer, dose, location of radiation therapy, pathological characteristics, overall survival, and response to treatment of secondary NEC were analyzed. RESULTS: From January 1995 to December 2017, 847 cases of NEC were seen at Gustave Roussy. Among them, 95 (11.2%) patients had a history of previous malignancy of which 36 (4%) had been treated with radiation therapy. Out of these 36 patients, 12 (1.4% of all NEC patients) developed a NEC within the previous irradiated organ (median dose of 50 Gy, range 36-67.5). Most frequent first cancers were breast cancer (n = 4) and Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 3). NEC arose within a median time of 21.7 years (range 5.1-36.4) from radiation in the thorax (n = 5), digestive tract (n = 3), and other sites. Five large cell NEC, 3 small cell NEC, 1 mixed neuroendocrine neoplasm and 3 not otherwise specified NEC were diagnosed. Ten patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis; median overall survival was 37.8 months (95% CI [17.6 to NA]). Three patients (25%) achieved complete response with multimodal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: NEC can arise from previously irradiated organs and may have a better outcome in this setting. Other risk factors should be investigated to explain the high rate of previous cancer in this population of neuroendocrine neoplasm.