RESUMO
BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the global, phase III HIMALAYA study in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) improved overall survival (OS) vs. sorafenib; durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib. HBV is the predominant HCC aetiology in most of Asia vs. HCV or nonviral aetiologies in Western countries and Japan. This analysis evaluated safety and efficacy outcomes for STRIDE and durvalumab monotherapy vs. sorafenib, in HIMALAYA participants enrolled in Asia, excluding Japan. METHODS: In HIMALAYA, participants were randomised to STRIDE, durvalumab, or sorafenib. The Asian subgroup in this analysis included participants enrolled in Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. OS, objective response rate (ORR; per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and safety were assessed in the Asian subgroup and in an exploratory subgroup of participants in Hong Kong and Taiwan. RESULTS: The Asian subgroup included 479 participants randomised to STRIDE (n=156), durvalumab (n=167), or sorafenib (n=156). OS was improved for STRIDE vs. sorafenib (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89]). The OS HR for durvalumab vs. sorafenib was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.06). In Hong Kong and Taiwan (n=141), OS HRs for STRIDE vs. sorafenib and durvalumab vs. sorafenib were 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.37-1.08), respectively. In the Asian subgroup, ORR (including unconfirmed responses) was numerically higher for STRIDE (28.2%) and durvalumab (18.6%) vs. sorafenib (9.0%), and Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were numerically lower for STRIDE (19.9%) and durvalumab (13.3%) vs. sorafenib (30.5%). CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE improved outcomes vs. sorafenib in the Asian subgroup. These results support the benefits of STRIDE for participants with uHCC globally, including the Asia-Pacific region. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03298451 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: The global, phase III HIMALAYA study found that the STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) regimen improved overall survival (OS), including long-term OS, vs. sorafenib, and that durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, there are differences in the aetiology and clinical practices related to HCC in parts of Asia, compared to Western countries and Japan, which could lead to differences in treatment outcomes between these regions. The results of this analysis demonstrate the benefits of STRIDE for participants in the Asia-Pacific region, consistent with the full, global study population. Overall, these findings continue to support the use of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.
RESUMO
Background and Aims: Nivolumab was the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is locally effective and may enhance the effectiveness of immunotherapy. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of concurrent nivolumab and EBRT in HCC with macrovascular invasion. Methods: In this phase II multicenter trial, patients with HCC and macrovascular invasion were concurrently treated with intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and EBRT, followed by maintenance nivolumab until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety, and secondary endpoints were overall survival, time-to-progression, objective response rate, and disease control rate. Results: Between January 2020 and June 2021, 50 patients (male 84%, median age 62.5) were enrolled; 47 (94.0%) and 13 (26.0%) with portal (Vp1/2, n = 21; Vp3, n = 23; Vp4, n = 3) and hepatic vein invasion, respectively. Patients received EBRT (median dose: 50 [IQR 43-50] Gy) after the first nivolumab dose. The median number of nivolumab doses was 8.5. Median PFS was 5.6 (90% CI 3.6-9.9) months. Median overall survival and time-to-progression were 15.2 (90% CI 10.8-19.6) and 5.6 (90% CI 3.6-9.9) months, respectively. The objective response rate and disease control rate were 36.0% and 74.0%, respectively. The median duration of response was 9.9 months. Of 35 patients with follow-up data, 23 received subsequent systemic treatment, including atezolizumab-bevacizumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, and regorafenib. Treatment-related any grade adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 40 (80.0%) and 6 (12.0%) patients, respectively. Common treatment-related AEs included pruritus (38.0%) and rash (16.0%), with no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion: Concurrent nivolumab therapy and EBRT showed encouraging PFS with acceptable safety in patients with advanced HCC and macrovascular invasion. Impact and implications: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, the standard care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), show relatively poor therapeutic effects in patients with advanced HCC and macrovascular invasion. In this investigator-initiated phase II study, we, for the first time, show that concurrent external beam radiation therapy with nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, led to encouraging progression-free survival in patients with HCC and macrovascular invasion. The concurrent treatment was tolerable without significant safety concerns. Further randomized studies investigating the combination of immunotherapy and external beam radiation therapy are required. ClinicalTrialsgov identifier: NCT04611165.
RESUMO
Importance: Whether patients with Child-Pugh class B (CP-B) cancer with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) benefit from active anticancer treatment vs best supportive care (BSC) is debated. Objective: To evaluate the association of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies vs BSC with overall survival (OS) of patients with uHCC and CP-B liver dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter, international clinical case series examined data of patients with CP-B with uHCC who were receiving first-line ICI-based regimens from September 2017 to December 2022 whose data were extracted from an international consortium and compared with a cohort of patients with CP-B receiving BSC. Patients were treated in tertiary care centers across Europe, US, and Asia in routine clinical practice. After applying the inclusion criteria, 187 and 156 patients were left in the ICI and BSC groups, respectively. The propensity score was calculated for the following variables: age, alpha-fetoprotein levels, Child-Pugh score, extrahepatic spread, portal vein tumor thrombosis, cirrhosis, ascites, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Exposures: Patients in the ICI group received first-line systemic therapy with either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) (n = 141) or nivolumab (n = 46). Main Outcomes and Measures: OS in the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) populations was the main outcome, and it was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method; univariable Cox regression test was used to make comparisons between the 2 groups. Results: The median age was 66 (IQR, 61-72) and 73 (IQR, 66-81) years in the ICI (33 women [18%]) and BSC groups (41 women [26%]), respectively. In the IPTW populations, median OS was significantly longer in the ICI group (7.50 months; 95% CI, 5.62-11.15) compared with BSC (4.04 months; 95% CI, 3.03-5.03; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80; P < .001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that ICI exposure was associated with a reduction of approximately 50% in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.86; P < .001), and the presence of portal vein tumor thrombosis, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of greater than 1, and alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or greater were associated with increased risk of death. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this case series provide comparative evidence of improved survival in association with ICI treatment compared with BSC in patients with uHCC with CP-B liver dysfunction.