Durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): updated overall survival from a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis. METHODS: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235. FINDINGS: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%]). INTERPRETATION: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Evaluating Debio 1347 in Patients with FGFR Fusion-Positive Advanced Solid Tumors from the FUZE Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase II Basket Trial.

PURPOSE: This multicenter phase II basket trial investigated the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of Debio 1347, an investigational, oral, highly selective, ATP-competitive, small molecule inhibitor of FGFR1-3, in patients with solid tumors harboring a functional FGFR1-3 fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible adults had a previously treated locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic biliary tract (cohort 1), urothelial (cohort 2) or other histologic cancer type (cohort 3). Debio 1347 was administered at 80 mg once daily, continuously, in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, pharmacokinetics, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Between March 22, 2019 and January 8, 2020, 63 patients were enrolled and treated, 30 in cohort 1, four in cohort 2, and 29 in cohort 3. An unplanned preliminary statistical review showed that the efficacy of Debio 1347 was lower than predicted and the trial was terminated. Three of 58 evaluable patients had partial responses, representing an ORR of 5%, with a further 26 (45%) having stable disease (≥6 weeks duration). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22 (35%) of 63 patients, with the most common being hyperphosphatemia (13%) and stomatitis (5%). Two patients (3%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Debio 1347 had manageable toxicity; however, the efficacy in patients with tumors harboring FGFR fusions did not support further clinical evaluation in this setting. Our transcriptomic-based analysis characterized in detail the incidence and nature of FGFR fusions across solid tumors.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, randomised, double-blind phase 3 TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was associated with significant improvements in overall survival compared with placebo, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in people with advanced biliary tract cancer at the pre-planned intermin analysis. In this paper, we present patient-reported outcomes from TOPAZ-1. METHODS: In TOPAZ-1 (NCT03875235), participants aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and one or more measurable lesions per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the durvalumab group or the placebo group using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. Participants received 1500 mg durvalumab or matched placebo intravenously every 3 weeks (on day 1 of the cycle) for up to eight cycles in combination with 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine and 25 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Thereafter, participants received either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy intravenously every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by disease status (initially unresectable vs recurrent) and primary tumour location (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs gallbladder cancer). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed as a secondary outcome in all participants who completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's 30-item Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the 21-item Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Quality of Life Module (QLQ-BIL21). We calculated time to deterioration-ie, time from randomisation to an absolute decrease of at least 10 points in a patient-reported outcome that was confirmed at a subsequent visit or the date of death (by any cause) in the absence of deterioration-and adjusted mean change from baseline in patient-reported outcomes. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2019, and Dec 11, 2020, 685 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 341 to the durvalumab group and 344 to the placebo group. Overall, 345 (50%) of participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Data for the QLQ-C30 were available for 318 participants in the durvalumab group and 328 in the placebo group (median follow-up 9·9 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·1]). Data for the QLQ-BIL21 were available for 305 participants in the durvalumab group and 322 in the placebo group (median follow-up 10·2 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·3]). The proportions of participants in both groups who completed questionnaires were high and baseline scores were mostly similar across treatment groups. For global health status or quality of life, functioning, and symptoms, we noted no difference in time to deterioration or adjusted mean changes from baseline were observed between groups. Median time to deterioration of global health status or quality of life was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6 to 8·9) in the durvalumab group and 6·7 months (5·6 to 7·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·12]). The adjusted mean change from baseline was 1·23 (95% CI -0·71 to 3·16) in the durvalumab group and 0·35 (-1·63 to 2·32) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin did not have a detrimental effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results suggest that durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin is a tolerable treatment regimen in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib plus placebo for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-002): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapies have improved the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is still a need to further enhance overall survival in first-line advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib versus lenvatinib plus placebo in the first-line setting for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-002), patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child Pugh class A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no previous systemic treatment were enrolled at 172 global sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a central interactive voice-response system (block size of 4) to receive lenvatinib (bodyweight <60 kg, 8 mg/day; bodyweight ≥60 kg, 12 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or lenvatinib plus placebo. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, macrovascular portal vein invasion or extrahepatic spread or both, α-fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Dual primary endpoints were overall survival (superiority threshold at final overall survival analysis, one-sided p=0·019; final analysis to occur after 532 events) and progression-free survival (superiority threshold one-sided p=0·002; final analysis to occur after 571 events) in the intention-to-treat population. Results from the final analysis are reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03713593, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2019, and April 28, 2020, of 1309 patients assessed, 794 were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=395) or lenvatinib plus placebo (n=399). Median age was 66·0 years (IQR 57·0-72·0), 644 (81%) of 794 were male, 150 (19%) were female, 345 (43%) were Asian, 345 (43%) were White, 22 (3%) were multiple races, 21 (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 (3%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 13 (2%) were Black or African American, and 46 (6%) did not have available race data. Median follow up as of data cutoff for the final analysis (June 21, 2022) was 32·1 months (IQR 29·4-35·3). Median overall survival was 21·2 months (95% CI 19·0-23·6; 252 [64%] of 395 died) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 19·0 months (17·2-21·7; 282 [71%] of 399 died) with lenvatinib plus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·71-1·00; stratified log-rank p=0·023). As of data cutoff for the progression-free survival final analysis (April 5, 2021), median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·4-8·4; 270 events occurred [42 deaths; 228 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 8·0 months (6·3-8·2; 301 events occurred [36 deaths; 265 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus placebo (HR 0·87; 95% CI 0·73-1·02; stratified log-rank p=0·047). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (69 [17%] of 395 patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group vs 68 [17%] of 395 patients) in the lenvatinib plus placebo group), increased aspartate aminotransferase (27 [7%] vs 17 [4%]), and diarrhoea (25 [6%] vs 15 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome [n=1 each] and hepatic encephalopathy [n=2]) and in three (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus placebo group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage, hepatorenal syndrome, and cerebrovascular accident [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: In earlier studies, the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shown promising clinical activity; however, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not meet prespecified significance for improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus lenvatinib plus placebo. Our findings do not support a change in clinical practice. FUNDING: Eisai US, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck.

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

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

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

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

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.

Tremelimumab plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Tremelimumab/Durvalumab for Hepatocellular CarcinomaThis trial examined overall survival (OS) with tremelimumab plus durvalumab, durvalumab alone, or sorafenib in untreated patients with hepatocellular cancer who were not candidates for locoregional therapy. Median OS increased significantly by 2.5 months (16.4 vs. 13.8) with single-dose tremelimumab plus durvalumab treatment every 4 weeks versus sorafenib alone.

Ensartinib vs Crizotinib for Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Ensartinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system efficacy for patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: To compare ensartinib with crizotinib among patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not received prior treatment with an ALK inhibitor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial conducted in 120 centers in 21 countries enrolled 290 patients between July 25, 2016, and November 12, 2018. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to ensartinib, 225 mg once daily, or crizotinib, 250 mg twice daily. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was blinded independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included systemic and intracranial response, time to central nervous system progression, and overall survival. Efficacy was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population as well as a prespecified modified ITT (mITT) population consisting of patients with central laboratory-confirmed ALK-positive NSCLC. RESULTS: A total of 290 patients (149 men [51.4%]; median age, 54 years [range, 25-90 years]) were randomized. In the ITT population, the median PFS was significantly longer with ensartinib than with crizotinib (25.8 [range, 0.03-44.0 months] vs 12.7 months [range, 0.03-38.6 months]; hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]; log-rank P < .001), with a median follow-up of 23.8 months (range, 0-44 months) for the ensartinib group and 20.2 months (range, 0-38 months) for the crizotinib group. In the mITT population, the median PFS in the ensartinib group was not reached, and the median PFS in the crizotinib group was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.9-16.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.66; log-rank P < .001). The intracranial response rate confirmed by a blinded independent review committee was 63.6% (7 of 11) with ensartinib vs 21.1% (4 of 19) with crizotinib for patients with target brain metastases at baseline. Progression-free survival for patients without brain metastases was not reached with ensartinib vs 16.6 months with crizotinib as a result of a lower central nervous system progression rate (at 12 months: 4.2% with ensartinib vs 23.9% with crizotinib; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.63; P = .001). Frequencies of treatment-related serious adverse events (ensartinib: 11 [7.7%] vs crizotinib: 9 [6.1%]), dose reductions (ensartinib: 34 of 143 [23.8%] vs crizotinib: 29 of 146 [19.9%]), or drug discontinuations (ensartinib: 13 of 143 [9.1%] vs crizotinib: 10 of 146 [6.8%]) were similar, without any new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, ensartinib showed superior efficacy to crizotinib in both systemic and intracranial disease. Ensartinib represents a new first-line option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02767804.

Pembrolizumab Plus Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy in Patients With Unresectable, Locally Advanced, Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase 2 KEYNOTE-799 Nonrandomized Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Administration of pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiation therapy (cCRT) may provide treatment benefit to patients with locally advanced, stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment outcomes and safety of pembrolizumab plus cCRT in stage III NSCLC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The phase 2, nonrandomized, 2-cohort, open-label KEYNOTE-799 study enrolled patients between November 5, 2018, and July 31, 2020, from 52 academic facilities and community-based institutions across 10 countries. As of October 28, 2020, median (range) follow-up was 18.5 (13.6-23.8) months in cohort A and 13.7 (2.9-23.5) months in cohort B. Of 301 patients screened, 216 eligible patients with previously untreated, unresectable, and pathologically/radiologically confirmed stage IIIA/IIIB/IIIC NSCLC with measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in cohort A (squamous/nonsquamous) received 1 cycle (3 weeks) of carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 6 mg/mL/min), paclitaxel (200 mg/m2), and pembrolizumab (200 mg), followed by carboplatin (AUC 2 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (45 mg/m2) once weekly for 6 weeks and 2 cycles of pembrolizumab plus standard thoracic radiotherapy. Patients in cohort B (nonsquamous) received 3 cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2), pemetrexed (500 mg/m2), and pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks and thoracic radiotherapy in cycles 2 and 3. Patients received 14 additional cycles of pembrolizumab. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary end points were objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and incidence of grade 3 to 5 pneumonitis. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients received treatment in cohort A (76 men [67.9%]; median [range] age, 66.0 [46-90] years; 66 patients [58.9%] with programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-L1] tumor proportion score ≥1%) and 102 patients received treatment in cohort B (62 men [60.8%]; median [range] age, 64.0 [35-81] years; 40 patients [39.2%] with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥1%). Objective response rate was 70.5% (79 of 112; 95% CI, 61.2%-78.8%) in cohort A and 70.6% (72 of 102; 95% CI, 60.7%-79.2%) in cohort B. Median duration of response was not reached, but 79.7% and 75.6%, respectively, had response duration of 12 months or longer. Grade 3 or higher pneumonitis occurred in 9 of 112 patients (8.0%) in cohort A and 7 of 102 (6.9%) in cohort B. Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 72 of 112 (64.3%) and 51 of 102 (50.0%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this phase 2, nonrandomized, 2-cohort study suggest promising antitumor activity of pembrolizumab plus cCRT and manageable safety in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced, stage III NSCLC.

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.

Revisiting multiple erroneous genetic testing results and clinical misinterpretations in a patient with Li-Fraumeni syndrome: lessons for translational medicine.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients undergo sophisticated laboratory testing, which requires proper interpretation and interaction between different specialists. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a patient with an extensive family history of cancer, who was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and two lung cancer lumps by the age of 40 years. She submitted a lung cancer specimen to a genetic profiling service, which reported the presence of the EGFR mutation (a combination of G719S and L833V substitutions) and the TP53 с.322_327del (p.G108_F109del) mutation in the tumor tissue. Possible therapeutic options were discussed at a medical conference, where one of the discussants raised a concern that the identified TP53 mutation may not necessarily be somatic, but reflect the germ-line status of the gene. Review of clinical records and follow-up dialog with the patient revealed, that she previously provided her blood for DNA analysis in two laboratories. The first laboratory utilized a custom NGS assay and did not detect the TP53 mutation, instead pointed to a potential pathogenic significance of the MSH6 c.2633 T > C (p.V878A) allele. The second laboratory revealed the TP53 с.322_327del (p.G108_F109del) allele but stated in the written report that it has an unknown pathogenic significance. To resolve the possible uncertainty regarding the role of the TP53 с.322_327del (p.G108_F109del) variant, we suggested that the patient invite her second cousin for genetic testing, as she was affected by neuroblastoma at the age of 3 years. This analysis revealed the presence of the same TP53 variant. CONCLUSION: We provide point-by-point discussion, reviewing multiple laboratory mistakes and clinical misinterpretations occurred with this patient. This case report exemplifies the need to involve rigorous clinical expertise in the daily practice of medical laboratory facilities.

Health-related quality-of-life impact of pembrolizumab versus best supportive care in previously systemically treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: KEYNOTE-240.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure and prognostic indicator in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 (NCT02702401) assessed the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC in patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib. This study presents the results of a prespecified exploratory analysis of patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its HCC supplement (EORTC QLQ-HCC18) electronically at baseline; at weeks 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18; and then every 9 weeks until 1 year or end of treatment, and at the 30-day safety follow-up visit. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 271 and 127 patients randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. From baseline to week 12, changes in both scores were similar between pembrolizumab and placebo; global health status/QoL scores were stable. The proportions of patients who improved, remained stable, or deteriorated across all functional domain and symptom scores were generally similar between pembrolizumab and placebo. Time to deterioration was similar between the 2 arms based on the prespecified analysis of EORTC QLQ-HCC18 domains of abdominal swelling, fatigue, and pain. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab preserved HRQoL during treatment for advanced HCC. Combined with efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-240, these findings support a positive benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab in a second-line treatment setting for patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib.

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.).

Pembrolizumab As Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS: Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION: In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.

Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 152 sites in 21 countries, adults with HCC who tolerated sorafenib (≥400 mg/day for ≥20 of last 28 days of treatment), progressed on sorafenib, and had Child-Pugh A liver function were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system and stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and α-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily during weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774344. FINDINGS: Between May 14, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, 843 patients were screened, of whom 573 were enrolled and randomised (379 to regorafenib and 194 to placebo; population for efficacy analyses), and 567 initiated treatment (374 received regorafenib and 193 received placebo; population for safety analyses). Regorafenib improved overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·50-0·79; one-sided p<0·0001); median survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·1-12·1) for regorafenib versus 7·8 months (6·3-8·8) for placebo. Adverse events were reported in all regorafenib recipients (374 [100%] of 374) and 179 (93%) of 193 placebo recipients. The most common clinically relevant grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent events were hypertension (57 patients [15%] in the regorafenib group vs nine patients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (34 patients [9%] vs nine patients [5%]), and diarrhoea (12 patients [3%] vs no patients). Of the 88 deaths (grade 5 adverse events) reported during the study (50 patients [13%] assigned to regorafenib and 38 [20%] assigned to placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafenib group and two (1%) in the placebo group, including two patients (1%) with hepatic failure in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. Future trials should explore combinations of regorafenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafenib and regorafenib. FUNDING: Bayer.