Health-related quality of life with sacituzumab govitecan in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the phase III TROPiCS-02 trial.

BACKGROUND: The TROPiCS-02 study (NCT03901339) demonstrated that sacituzumab govitecan (SG) has superior clinical outcomes over treatment of physician's choice (TPC) chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Here, we present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) findings from this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible adults with HR+/HER2- mBC who previously received a taxane, endocrine-based therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and 2-4 lines of chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until progression or unacceptable toxicity. PROs were assessed at baseline and on day 1 of each cycle, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EQ-5D-5L, and PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). RESULTS: Compared to TPC, overall least square mean change from baseline was significantly better for SG for physical functioning and dyspnea, but worse for diarrhea. Time to first clinically meaningful worsening or death was significantly longer for SG in global health status/quality of life, physical functioning, fatigue, emotional functioning, dyspnea, insomnia, and financial difficulties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS, but longer for TPC in diarrhea. Few patients in both arms reported experiencing any worsening to level 3 or 4 treatment-related symptomatic events during treatment, as assessed by 16 PRO-CTCAE items, except for diarrhea frequency and amount of hair loss, which favored TPC. CONCLUSIONS: SG was associated with an HRQoL benefit in most symptoms and functioning, compared with TPC. This supports the favorable profile of SG as a treatment option for patients with pretreated HR+/HER2- mBC.

Overall survival with sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TROPiCS-02): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit over chemotherapy in the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial in patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+ and HER2-) metastatic breast cancer with limited treatment options. Here, we report the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival and endpoints by trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) expression and other variables. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial, which took place in 91 centres across North America (the USA and Canada) and Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine). Patients had confirmed HR+ and HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer and had received at least one previous endocrine therapy, a taxane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in any setting and two to four previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (previously reported and not included in this analysis), and secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes. Overall survival was assessed using stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression. Trop-2 expression was assessed in tumour tissue by immunohistochemistry. In the statistical testing hierarchy, ORR and patient-reported outcomes were tested sequentially if overall survival was significant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03901339. FINDINGS: At the data cutoff date of July 1, 2022, 543 of 776 screened patients were randomly assigned between May 30, 2019, and April 5, 2021, with 272 patients in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 271 patients in the chemotherapy group. With a 12·5-month (IQR 6·4-18·8) median follow-up, 390 deaths occurred among 543 patients. Overall survival was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy (median 14·4 months [95% CI 13·0-15·7] vs 11·2 months [10·1-12·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·96; p=0·020); survival benefit was consistent across Trop-2 expression-level subgroups. ORR was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy (57 [21%] patients vs 38 [14%]; odds ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·03-2·56]; p=0·035), as was time to deterioration of global health status and quality of life (median 4·3 months vs 3·0 months; HR 0·75 [0·61-0·92]; p=0·0059) and fatigue (median 2·2 months vs 1·4 months; HR 0·73 [0·60-0·89]; p=0·0021). The safety profile of sacituzumab govitecan was consistent with previous studies (including the TROPiCS-02 primary analysis and the ASCENT trial). One fatal adverse event (septic shock caused by neutropenic colitis) was determined to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. INTERPRETATION: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit over chemotherapy, with a 3·2-month median overall survival improvement and a manageable safety profile. These data support sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+ and HER2- metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Serum IGF-1 Scores and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III IMbrave150 Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Purpose: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A (CTP-A) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the standard criterion for active therapy and clinical trial enrollment. We hypothesized that insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) derived scores may provide improved survival prediction over CTP classification. This study aimed to evaluate the potential prognostic and predictive effects of IGF-1 derived scores in the phase III IMbrave150 study. Patients and Methods: Baseline and on-treatment serum IGF-1 levels from 371 patients were subjected to central analysis. Patients' IGF-1 score (1/2/3) and IGF-CTP score (A/B/C) were determined based on pre-specified cutoffs. Outcomes were analyzed by baseline and by on-treatment changes of the IGF-1 and IGF-CTP scores within and between the two treatment arms. The interaction between these scores and outcomes was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Baseline IGF-CTP score (A vs B/C) showed prognostic significance for OS in both the atezolizumab-bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.56; P<0.001) and sorafenib (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.65; P=0.002) arms. Baseline IGF-1 score (1 vs 2/3) also showed prognostic significance for OS in both the atezolizumab-bevacizumab (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20-0.55; P<0.001) and sorafenib (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.89; P=0.02) arms. HRs for PFS were consistent with those for OS. No significant predictive effects were observed for either score between the two arms. Kinetic analysis revealed that patients with increased IGF-1 score (1-> 2/3) at 3 weeks post treatment had shorter OS than patients with stable IGF-1 score of 1 in both the atezolizumab-bevacizumab (HR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.56-8.77; P=0.003) and sorafenib (HR, 5.83; 95% CI, 1.88-18.12; P=0.0023) arms. Conclusion: Baseline and kinetic change of IGF-CTP and IGF-1 scores are independent prognostic factors for patients with unresectable HCC treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab or sorafenib. These novel scores may provide improved patient stratification in future HCC clinical trials. IMbrave150 ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer is treated with sequential single-agent chemotherapy with poor outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload targeting trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, an epithelial antigen expressed in breast cancer. METHODS: In this global, randomized, phase III study, SG was compared with physician's choice chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in endocrine-resistant, chemotherapy-treated HR+/HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive SG (n = 272) or chemotherapy (n = 271). The median age was 56 years, 95% had visceral metastases, and 99% had a prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, with three median lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Primary end point was met with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.83; P = .0003]). The median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 7.0) with SG and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 4.4) with chemotherapy; the PFS at 6 and 12 months was 46% (95% CI, 39 to 53) v 30% (95% CI, 24 to 37) and 21% (95% CI, 15 to 28) v 7% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median overall survival (first planned interim analysis) was not yet mature (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .14). Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (SG v chemotherapy) were neutropenia (51% v 38%) and diarrhea (9% v 1%). CONCLUSION: SG demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit over chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and limited treatment options.

Molecular correlates of clinical response and resistance to atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)) and bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)) combination therapy has become the new standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, potential predictive biomarkers and mechanisms of response and resistance remain less well understood. We report integrated molecular analyses of tumor samples from 358 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) enrolled in the GO30140 phase 1b or IMbrave150 phase 3 trial and treated with atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, atezolizumab alone or sorafenib (multikinase inhibitor). Pre-existing immunity (high expression of CD274, T-effector signature and intratumoral CD8+ T cell density) was associated with better clinical outcomes with the combination. Reduced clinical benefit was associated with high regulatory T cell (Treg) to effector T cell (Teff) ratio and expression of oncofetal genes (GPC3, AFP). Improved outcomes from the combination versus atezolizumab alone were associated with high expression of VEGF Receptor 2 (KDR), Tregs and myeloid inflammation signatures. These findings were further validated by analyses of paired pre- and post-treatment biopsies, in situ analyses and in vivo mouse models. Our study identified key molecular correlates of the combination therapy and highlighted that anti-VEGF might synergize with anti-PD-L1 by targeting angiogenesis, Treg proliferation and myeloid cell inflammation.

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results from Older Adults Enrolled in the IMbrave150 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Introduction: The efficacy of systemic first-line treatments in older adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been well-studied. We compared the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment in younger versus older patients with unresectable HCC. Methods: This global, phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) recruited patients aged ≥18 years with locally advanced metastatic or unresectable HCC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and Child-Pugh class A liver function who had not previously received systemic therapy for liver cancer. Patients received either 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were the incidence of adverse events and time to deterioration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This subgroup analysis evaluated safety and efficacy endpoints in patients <65 years, ≥65 to <75 years, and ≥75 years. Results: Of 501 patients, 165 patients were randomized to sorafenib and 336 were randomized to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (175 patients <65 years; 106 patients ≥65 to <75 years; 55 patients ≥75 years). Across all age groups, patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had longer median OS (<65: 18.0 vs. 12.2 months [HR, 0.57; 95% CI: 0.40-0.82]; ≥65 to <75: 19.4 vs. 14.9 months [HR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.52-1.23]; ≥75: 24.0 vs. 18.0 months [HR, 0.72, 95% CI: 0.37-1.41]) and PFS than those receiving sorafenib. Time to deterioration for multiple PROs was delayed for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, including older adults. There were no clinically meaningful differences in toxicity between age groups. Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is safe and effective in adults <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75. Treatment was well-tolerated even in elderly patients.

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.

IMbrave 151: a randomized phase II trial of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are heterogenous, highly aggressive tumors that harbor a dismal prognosis for which more effective treatments are needed. The role of cancer immunotherapy in BTC remains to be characterized. The tumor microenvironment (TME) of BTC is highly immunosuppressed and combination treatments are needed to promote effective anticancer immunity. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drives immunosuppression in the TME by disrupting antigen presentation, limiting T-cell infiltration, or potentiating immune-suppressive cells. Many VEGF-regulated mechanisms are thought to be relevant to repressed antitumor immunity in BTC, making dual targeting of VEGF and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 pathways a rational approach. Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (Gem/Cis) can also modulate anticancer immunity through overlapping and complementary mechanisms to those regulated by VEGF. Anti-PD-L1/VEGF inhibition, coupled with chemotherapy, may potentiate antitumor immunity leading to enhanced clinical benefit. METHODS: IMbrave 151 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international phase II study to evaluate atezolizumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor) in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and cisplatin) and bevacizumab (an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody) as a first-line treatment for advanced BTC. Approximately 150 patients with previously untreated, advanced BTC will be randomized to either Arm A (atezolizumab + bevacizumab + Gem/Cis) or Arm B (atezolizumab + placebo + Gem/Cis). Randomization is stratified by the presence of metastatic disease, primary tumor location, and geographic region. The primary efficacy endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety and patient reported outcomes (PROs). Tissue, blood, and stool samples will be collected at baseline and on-treatment in order to perform correlative biomarker analyses. DISCUSSION: IMbrave 151 represents the first randomized study to evaluate combined PD-L1/VEGF blockade on a chemotherapy backbone in BTC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT identifier: NCT04677504; EUDRACT number: 2020-003759-14.

Characterization of response to atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from the IMbrave150 trial.

BACKGROUND: IMbrave150 is a phase III trial that assessed atezolizumab + bevacizumab (ATEZO/BEV) versus sorafenib (SOR) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and demonstrated a significant improvement in clinical outcomes. Exploratory analyses characterized objective response rate (ORR), depth (DpR), and duration of response (DoR), and patients with a complete response (CR). METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ATEZO (1200 mg) + BEV (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or oral SOR (400 mg) twice daily. Tumors were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) and HCC-modified RECIST (mRECIST). ORR by prior treatment and largest baseline liver lesion size, DoR, time to response (TTR), and complete response (TTCR) were analyzed. RESULTS: For both criteria, responses favored ATEZO/BEV versus SOR regardless of prior treatment and in patients with lesions ≥3 cm. Median TTR was 2.8 months per RECIST 1.1 (range: 1.2-12.3 months) and 2.8 months per mRECIST (range: 1.1-12.3 months) with ATEZO/BEV. Patients receiving ATEZO/BEV had a greater DpR, per both criteria, across baseline liver lesion sizes. Characteristics of complete responders were similar to those of the intent-to-treat population. In complete responders receiving ATEZO/BEV per mRECIST versus RECIST 1.1, respectively, median TTCR was shorter (5.5 vs. 7.0 months), mean baseline sum of lesion diameter was longer (5.0 [SD, 5.1] vs. 2.6 [SD, 1.4] cm), and mean largest liver lesion size was larger (4.8 [SD, 4.2] vs. 2.3 [SD, 1.0] cm). CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the improved ORR, DpR, and CR rates with ATEZO/BEV in unresectable HCC.

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.

Atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (GO30140): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: Dual blockade of PD-L1 and VEGF has enhanced anticancer immunity through multiple mechanisms and augmented antitumour activity in multiple malignancies. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone and combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: GO30140 is an open-label, multicentre, multiarm, phase 1b study that enrolled patients at 26 academic centres and community oncology practices in seven countries worldwide. The study included five cohorts, and the two hepatocellular carcinoma cohorts, groups A and F, are described here. Inclusion criteria for these two groups included age 18 years and older; histologically, cytologically, or clinically (per American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria) confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma that was not amenable to curative treatment; no previous systemic treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. In group A, all patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks. In group F, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or atezolizumab alone by interactive voice-web response system using permuted block randomisation (block size of two) and stratification factors of geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; and baseline α-fetoprotein concentration. Primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate in all patients who received the combination treatment for group A and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population in group F, both assessed by an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. In both groups, safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715531, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: In group A, 104 patients were enrolled between July 20, 2016, and July 31, 2018, and received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 12·4 months (IQR 8·0-16·2), 37 (36%; 95% CI 26-46) of 104 patients had a confirmed objective response. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (13 [13%]) and proteinuria (seven [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 25 (24%) patients and treatment-related deaths in three (3%) patients (abnormal hepatic function, hepatic cirrhosis, and pneumonitis). In group F, 119 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monotherapy) between May 18, 2018, and March 7, 2019. With a median follow-up of 6·6 months (IQR 5·5-8·5) for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 6·7 months (4·2-8·2) for the atezolizumab monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 3·6-7·4) versus 3·4 months (1·9-5·2; hazard ratio 0·55; 80% CI 0·40-0·74; p=0·011). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in group F were hypertension (in three [5%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group) and proteinuria (in two [3%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (12%) patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and two (3%) patients in the atezolizumab monotherapy group. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our study shows longer progression-free survival with a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alone in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma not previously treated with systemic therapy. Therefore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab might become a promising treatment option for these patients. This combination is being compared with standard-of-care sorafenib in a phase 3 trial. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

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.).

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Phase II Study of Onartuzumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Placebo Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: Efficacy, Safety, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor and O6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase Biomarker Analyses.

Purpose Bevacizumab regimens are approved for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma in many countries. Aberrant mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) expression has been reported in glioblastoma and may contribute to bevacizumab resistance. The phase II study GO27819 investigated the monovalent MET inhibitor onartuzumab plus bevacizumab (Ona + Bev) versus placebo plus bevacizumab (Pla + Bev) in recurrent glioblastoma. Methods At first recurrence after chemoradiation, bevacizumab-naïve patients with glioblastoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive Ona (15 mg/kg, once every 3 weeks) + Bev (15 mg/kg, once every 3 weeks) or Pla + Bev until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival by response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria. Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. Exploratory biomarker analyses correlated efficacy with expression levels of MET ligand hepatocyte growth factor, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation, and glioblastoma subtype. Results Among 129 patients enrolled (Ona + Bev, n = 64; Pla + Bev, n = 65), baseline characteristics were balanced. The median progression-free survival was 3.9 months for Ona + Bev versus 2.9 months for Pla + Bev (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.56; P = .7444). The median overall survival was 8.8 months for Ona + Bev and 12.6 months for Pla + Bev (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.37; P = .1389). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 38.5% of patients who received Ona + Bev and 35.9% of patients who received Pla + Bev. Exploratory biomarker analyses suggested that patients with high expression of hepatocyte growth factor or unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase may benefit from Ona + Bev. Conclusion There was no evidence of further clinical benefit with the addition of onartuzumab to bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab plus placebo in unselected patients with recurrent glioblastoma in this phase II study; however, further investigation into biomarker subgroups is warranted.

The association between malnutrition and the incidence of malaria among young HIV-infected and -uninfected Ugandan children: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: In sub-Saharan Africa, malnutrition and malaria remain major causes of morbidity and mortality in young children. There are conflicting data as to whether malnutrition is associated with an increased or decreased risk of malaria. In addition, data are limited on the potential interaction between HIV infection and the association between malnutrition and the risk of malaria. METHODS: A cohort of 100 HIV-unexposed, 203 HIV-exposed (HIV negative children born to HIV-infected mothers) and 48 HIV-infected children aged 6 weeks to 1 year were recruited from an area of high malaria transmission intensity in rural Uganda and followed until the age of 2.5 years. All children were provided with insecticide-treated bed nets at enrolment and daily trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole prophylaxis (TS) was prescribed for HIV-exposed breastfeeding and HIV-infected children. Monthly routine assessments, including measurement of height and weight, were conducted at the study clinic. Nutritional outcomes including stunting (low height-for-age) and underweight (low weight-for-age), classified as mild (mean z-scores between -1 and -2 during follow-up) and moderate-severe (mean z-scores < -2 during follow-up) were considered. Malaria was diagnosed when a child presented with fever and a positive blood smear. The incidence of malaria was compared using negative binomial regression controlling for potential confounders with measures of association expressed as an incidence rate ratio (IRR). RESULTS: The overall incidence of malaria was 3.64 cases per person year. Mild stunting (IRR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.46, p = 0.008) and moderate-severe stunting (IRR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.48, p = 0.02) were associated with a similarly increased incidence of malaria compared to non-stunted children. Being mildly underweight (IRR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.95-1.25, p = 0.24) and moderate-severe underweight (IRR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.86-1.46, p = 0.39) were not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of malaria compared to children who were not underweight. There were no significant interactions between HIV-infected, HIV-exposed children taking TS and the associations between malnutrition and the incidence of malaria. CONCLUSIONS: Stunting, indicative of chronic malnutrition, was associated with an increased incidence of malaria among a cohort of HIV-infected and -uninfected young children living in an area of high malaria transmission intensity. However, caution should be made when making causal inferences given the observational study design and inability to disentangle the temporal relationship between malnutrition and the incidence of malaria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00527800.

Effect of nutritional status on response to treatment with artemisinin-based combination therapy in young Ugandan children with malaria.

The relationship between malnutrition and malaria in young children is under debate, and no studies evaluating the association between malnutrition and response to artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) have been published. We evaluated the association between malnutrition and response to antimalarial therapy in Ugandan children treated with ACTs for repeated episodes of malaria. Children aged 4 to 12 months diagnosed with uncomplicated malaria were randomized to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) or artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and followed for up to 2 years. All HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children received trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis (TS). The primary exposure variables included height-for-age and weight-for-age z scores. Outcomes included parasite clearance at days 2 and 3 and risk of recurrent parasitemia after 42 days of follow-up. Two hundred ninety-two children were randomized to DP or AL, resulting in 2,013 malaria treatments. Fewer than 1% of patients had a positive blood smear by day 3 (DP, 0.2%; AL, 0.6% [P = 0.18]). There was no significant association between height-for-age or weight-for-age z scores and a positive blood smear 2 days following treatment. For children treated with DP but not on TS, decreasing height-for-age z scores of <-1 were associated with a higher risk of recurrent parasitemia than a height-for-age z score of >0 (hazard ratio [HR] for height-for-age z score of <-1 and ≥-2 = 2.89 [P = 0.039]; HR for height-for-age z score of <-2 = 3.18 [P = 0.022]). DP and AL are effective antimalarial therapies in chronically malnourished children in a high-transmission setting. However, children with mild to moderate chronic malnutrition not taking TS are at higher risk for recurrent parasitemia and may be considered a target for chemoprevention.

The effect of varying analytical methods on estimates of anti-malarial clinical efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Analytical approaches for the interpretation of anti-malarial clinical trials vary considerably. The aim of this study was to quantify the magnitude of the differences between efficacy estimates derived from these approaches and identify the factors underlying these differences. METHODS: Data from studies conducted in Africa and Thailand were compiled and the risk estimates of treatment failure, adjusted and unadjusted by genotyping, were derived by three methods (intention to treat (ITT), modified intention to treat (mITT) and per protocol (PP)) and then compared. RESULTS: 29 clinical trials (15 from Africa and 14 from Thailand) with a total of 65 treatment arms (38 from Africa and 27 from Thailand) were included in the analysis. Of the 15,409 patients enrolled, 2,637 (17.1%) had incomplete follow up for the unadjusted analysis and 4,489 (33.4%) for the adjusted analysis. Estimates of treatment failure were consistently higher when derived from the ITT or PP analyses compared to the mITT approach. In the unadjusted analyses the median difference between the ITT and mITT estimates was greater in Thai studies (11.4% [range 2.1-31.8]) compared to African Studies (1.8% [range 0-11.7]). In the adjusted analyses the median difference between PP and mITT estimates was 1.7%, but ranged from 0 to 30.9%. The discrepancy between estimates was correlated significantly with the proportion of patients with incomplete follow-up; p < 0.0001. The proportion of studies with a major difference (> 5%) between adjusted PP and mITT was 28% (16/57), with the risk difference greater in African (37% 14/38) compared to Thai studies (11% 2/19). In the African studies, a major difference in the adjusted estimates was significantly more likely in studies in high transmission sites (62% 8/13) compared to studies in moderate transmission sites (24% 6/25); p = 0.035. CONCLUSION: Estimates of anti-malarial clinical efficacy vary significantly depending on the analytical methodology from which they are derived. In order to monitor temporal and spatial trends in anti-malarial efficacy, standardized analytical tools need to be applied in a transparent and systematic manner.

Effect of selenium and vitamin e supplementation on plasma protein carbonyl levels in patients with arsenic-related skin lesions.

An estimated 35 million people in Bangladesh have been chronically exposed to arsenic in drinking water and are at risk of an array of adverse health conditions. The mechanisms of arsenic toxicity have not been well established; however, oxidative stress has been one commonly proposed pathway. In this study, we evaluated the effect of antioxidant supplementation on plasma protein oxidation among patients with arsenical skin lesions participating in a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of vitamin E and selenium. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments arms (vitamin E, selenium, combination, or placebo) and were treated for a 6-mo period. We observed a dose-dependent increase in adjusted protein carbonyl levels by arsenic exposure status in the pretreatment samples, although trends were not statistically significant. Following the 6-mo intervention, there was a decrease in protein carbonyl levels in each treatment group, although no resultant decrease was significantly different from that seen in the placebo group. Although we did not see a notable effect of selenium or vitamin E supplementation on changes in protein carbonyl levels, these preliminary data demonstrate a feasible methodological approach for the assessment of plasma protein carbonyls in relation to environmental toxicants in a human population and their potential use as endpoints in intervention trials.

Association between arsenic exposure from drinking water and plasma levels of soluble cell adhesion molecules.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies of cardiovascular disease risk factors and appropriate biomarkers in populations exposed to a wide range of arsenic levels are a public health research priority. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the relationship between inorganic arsenic exposure from drinking water and plasma levels of soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1) and soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), both markers of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation, in an arsenic-exposed population in Araihazar, Bangladesh. METHODS: The study participants included 115 individuals with arsenic-related skin lesions participating in a 2 x 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of vitamin E and selenium supplementation. Arsenic exposure status and plasma levels of sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1 were assessed at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline well arsenic, a long-term measure of arsenic exposure, was positively associated with baseline levels of both sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1 and with changes in the two markers over time. At baseline, for every 1-mug/L increase in well arsenic there was an increase of 0.10 ng/mL [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00-0.20] and 0.33 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.15-0.51) in plasma sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1, respectively. Every 1-microg/L increase in well arsenic was associated with a rise of 0.11 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.01-0.22) and 0.17 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.00-0.35) in sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1 from baseline to follow-up, respectively, in spite of recent changes in urinary arsenic as well as vitamin E and selenium supplementation during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate an effect of chronic arsenic exposure from drinking water on vascular inflammation that persists over time and also suggest a potential mechanism underlying the association between arsenic exposure and cardiovascular disease.

Changes in gene expression profiles in response to selenium supplementation among individuals with arsenic-induced pre-malignant skin lesions.

The molecular basis and downstream targets of oral selenium supplementation in individuals with elevated risk of cancer due to chronic exposure from environmental carcinogens has been largely unexplored. In this study, we investigated genome-wide differential gene expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from individuals with pre-malignant arsenic (As)-induced skin lesions before and after 6 months daily oral supplementation of 200 microg L-selenomethionine. The Affymetrix GeneChip Human 133A 2.0 array, containing probes for 22,277 gene transcripts, was used to assess gene expression. Three different normalization methods, RMA (robust multi-chip analysis), GC-RMA and PLIER (Probe logarithmic intensity error), were applied to explore differentially expressed genes. We identified a list of 28 biologically meaningful, significantly differentially expressed genes. Genes up-regulated by selenium supplementation included TNF, IL1B, IL8, SOD2, CXCL2 and several other immunological and oxidative stress-related genes. When mapped to a biological association network, many of the differentially expressed genes were found to regulate functional classes such as fibroblast growth factor, collagenase, matrix metalloproteinase and stromelysin-1, and thus, considered to affect cellular processes like apoptosis, proliferation and others. Many of the significantly up-regulated genes following selenium-supplementation were previously found by us to be down-regulated in a different set of individuals with As-induced skin lesions compared to those without. In conclusion, findings from this study may elucidate the biological effect of selenium supplementation in humans. Additionally, this study suggests that long-term selenium supplementation may revert some of the gene expression changes presumably induced by chronic As exposure in individuals with pre-malignant skin lesions.

A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the effects of vitamin E and selenium on arsenic-induced skin lesions in Bangladesh.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether supplementation of vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol), selenium (L-selenomethionine), or their combination improves arsenical skin lesions. METHODS: A 2 x 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial among 121 men and women chronically exposed to arsenic in drinking water was conducted in rural Bangladesh. Participants were randomized to one of four treatment arms: vitamin E, selenium, vitamin E and selenium (combination), or placebo and were treated for 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, the average skin lesion scores were 2.23, 2.26, and 2.63 and at follow-up, the average skin lesion scores went down to 2.00, 2.06, and 2.47 in those receiving vitamin E, selenium, and the combination, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with vitamin E and selenium, either alone or in combination, slightly improved skin lesion status, although the improvement was not statistically significant.