Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): final results of a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the COSMIC-312 trial was to evaluate cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib in patients with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the initial analysis, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus sorafenib. Here, we report the pre-planned final overall survival analysis and updated safety and efficacy results following longer follow-up. METHODS: COSMIC-312 was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done across 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were eligible. Patients must have had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), and adequate marrow and organ function, including Child-Pugh class A liver function; those with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were ineligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) using a web-based interactive response system to a combination of oral cabozantinib 40 mg once daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks, oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, or oral single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib: progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1, as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee, in the first 372 randomly assigned patients (previously reported) and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib. The secondary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib versus sorafenib. Outcomes in all randomly assigned patients, including final overall survival, are presented. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to combination treatment, 217 to sorafenib, and 188 to single-agent cabozantinib, and included in all efficacy analyses. 704 (84%) patients were male and 133 (16%) were female. 824 of these patients received at least one dose of study treatment and were included in the safety population. Median follow-up was 22·1 months (IQR 19·3-24·8). Median overall survival was 16·5 months (96% CI 14·5-18·7) for the combination treatment group and 15·5 months (12·2-20·0) for the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [0·78-1·24]; stratified log-rank p=0·87). Median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (99% CI 5·7-8·2) for the combination treatment group, 4·3 months (2·9-6·1) for the sorafenib group, and 5·8 months (99% CI 5·4-8·2) for the single-agent cabozantinib group (HR 0·74 [0·56-0·97] for combination treatment vs sorafenib; HR 0·78 [99% CI 0·56-1·09], p=0·05, for single-agent cabozantinib vs sorafenib). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 281 (66%) of 429 patients in the combination treatment group, 100 (48%) of 207 patients in the sorafenib group, and 108 (57%) of 188 patients in the single-agent cabozantinib group; the most common were hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (36 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs 16 [9%]), aspartate aminotransferase increased (42 [10%] vs eight [4%] vs 17 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increased (40 [9%] vs six [3%] vs 13 [7%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 223 (52%) patients in the combination treatment group, 84 (41%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 87 (46%) patients in the single agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and four (2%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group (asthenia, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sepsis, and gastric perforation). INTERPRETATION: First-line cabozantinib plus atezolizumab did not improve overall survival versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The progression-free survival benefit of the combination versus sorafenib was maintained, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Biomarker and pharmacodynamic activity of the transforming growth factor-beta (TGFß) inhibitor SAR439459 as monotherapy and in combination with cemiplimab in a phase I clinical study in patients with advanced solid tumors.

SAR439459, a 'second-generation' human anti-transforming growth factor-beta (TGFß) monoclonal antibody, inhibits all TGFß isoforms and improves the antitumor activity of anti-programmed cell death protein-1 therapeutics. This study reports the pharmacodynamics (PD) and biomarker results from phase I/Ib first-in-human study of SAR439459 ± cemiplimab in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT03192345). In dose-escalation phase (Part 1), SAR439459 was administered intravenously at increasing doses either every 2 weeks (Q2W) or every 3 weeks (Q3W) with cemiplimab IV at 3 mg/kg Q2W or 350 mg Q3W, respectively, in patients with advanced solid tumors. In dose-expansion phase (Part 2), patients with melanoma received SAR439459 IV Q3W at preliminary recommended phase II dose (pRP2D) of 22.5/7.5 mg/kg or at 22.5 mg/kg with cemiplimab 350 mg IV Q3W. Tumor biopsy and peripheral blood samples were collected for exploratory biomarker analyses to assess target engagement and PD, and results were correlated with patients' clinical parameters. SAR439459 ± cemiplimab showed decreased plasma and tissue TGFß, downregulation of TGFß-pathway activation signature, modulation of peripheral natural killer (NK) and T cell expansion, proliferation, and increased secretion of CXCL10. Conversion of tumor tissue samples from 'immune-excluded' to 'immune-infiltrated' phenotype in a representative patient with melanoma SAR439459 22.5 mg/kg with cemiplimab was observed. In paired tumor and plasma, active and total TGFß1 was more consistently elevated followed by TGFß2, whereas TGFß3 was only measurable (lower limit of quantitation ≥2.68 pg/mg) in tumors. SAR439459 ± cemiplimab showed expected peripheral PD effects and TGFß alteration. However, further studies are needed to identify biomarkers of response.

Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of benign insulinomas.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has emerged as an alternative nonsurgical treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. The aim of our study was to assess the long-term follow-up of patients treated with EUS-RFA for a sporadic insulinoma in our centre in terms of efficacy, safety and risk of recurrence. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: We retrospectively analysed the data of 11 patients with an insulinoma treated by EUS-RFA in our tertiary centre between June 2018 and April 2022. Clinical and biological, as well as imaging, follow-up was planned at 3, 6, 12 months and then annually. RESULTS: In our series, there were nine women and two men with a median age of 65 years. All tumours were sporadic, with a mean size of 11 mm. The procedure allowed an immediate and complete symptomatic and biological remission in all patients without notable complications. Complete radiological resolution of the tumour after ablation was observed in seven patients, and persistence of an asymptomatic tumour residue was observed in four patients. During the mean follow-up period of 26 months, two patients presented a significant but asymptomatic increase of the tumour residue; a second EUS-RFA session was performed in one patient and the other patient is being closely monitored. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RFA treatment of benign insulinomas provides a long-term complete clinical resolution of hypoglycaemia. A long-term follow-up is essential if residual tumour persists after initial EUS-RFA treatment.

Preoperative treatment with mFOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel +/- isotoxic high-dose stereotactic body Radiation Therapy (iHD-SBRT) for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the STEREOPAC trial): study protocol for a randomised comparative multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment. Surgery is generally followed by postoperative chemotherapy associated with improved survival, yet neoadjuvant therapy is a rapidly emerging concept requiring to be explored and validated in terms of treatment options and oncological outcomes. In this context, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) appears feasible and can be safely integrated into a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) with promising benefits in terms of R0 resection, local control and survival. However, the optimal therapeutic sequence is still not known, especially for borderline resectable PDAC, and the role of adding SBRT to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting needs to be evaluated in randomised controlled trials. The aim of the STEREOPAC trial is to assess the impact and efficacy of adding isotoxic high-dose SBRT (iHD-SBRT) to neoadjuvant mFFX or Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel (Gem/Nab-P) in patients with borderline resectable PDAC. METHODS: This is a randomised comparative multicentre phase II trial, planning to enrol patients (n = 256) diagnosed with a borderline resectable biopsy-confirmed PDAC. Patients will receive 4 cycles of mFFX (or 6 doses of Gem/Nab-P). After full disease restaging, non-progressive patients will be randomised for receiving either 4 additional mFFX cycles (or 6 doses of Gem/Nab-P) (Arm A), or 2 mFFX cycles (or 3 doses of Gem/Nab-P) + iHD-SBRT (35 to 55 Gy in 5 fractions) + 2 mFFX cycles (or 3 doses of Gem/Nab-P) (Arm B). Then curative surgery will be performed followed by adjuvant chemotherapy according to patient's condition. The co-primary endpoints are R0 resection and disease-free survival after the complete sequence strategy. The secondary endpoints include resection rate, overall survival, locoregional failure / distant metastasis free interval, pathologic complete response, toxicity, postoperative complications and quality of life assessment. DISCUSSION: This trial will help define the best neoadjuvant treatment sequence for borderline resectable PDAC and aims to evaluate if a total neoadjuvant treatment integrating iHD-SBRT improves the patients' oncological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrails.gov (NCT05083247) on October 19th, 2021, and in the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) EU CT database (2022-501181-22-01) on July 2022.

A real-world analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in Belgium.

Background: Currently, nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) + 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/LV) is the only approved second-line treatment for patients suffering from metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). However, also other chemotherapeutic regimens are used in this setting and due to the lack of clear real-world data on the efficacy of the different regimens, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment sequence for mPDAC patients. Objectives: To provide information on the safe and efficacious use of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV in clinical practice in Belgium, which is needed for healthcare professionals to estimate the risk-benefit ratio of the intervention. Methods: Medical data of adult patients with mPDAC who were treated with nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV in one of the participating Belgian hospitals were retrospectively collected. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to obtain survival curves to estimate the median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). All other results were presented descriptively. Results: A total of 56 patients [median age at diagnosis: 69 years (range 43 years), 57.1% male] were included. Patients received a median of 5 (range 49 cycles) nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV cycles, extended over 10 weeks (range 130.8 weeks). The median start dose for nal-IRI was 70 mg/m² (range 49.24 mg/m²) and chemotherapy dose reduction and delay occurred in, respectively, 42.8% and 37.5% of the patients. The median OS was 6.8 months (95% CI: 5.6-8.4 months) with a 6-month survival rate of 57.4% and a 1-year survival rate of 27.8% in the overall study population. The median OS for patients treated with nal-IRI as second-line therapy or as later-line treatment was, respectively, 6.8 months (95% CI: 5.9-7.0 months) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.2-no upper limit). In the overall study population, a median PFS of 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.4-4.6 months) and a disease control rate of 48.3%, comprising 30.4% stable disease, 16.1% partial and 1.8% complete response, was observed. The median PFS for patients treated with nal-IRI as second-line therapy was 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-4.8 months) while this was 2.4 months (95% CI: 1.9-9.1 months) for those that received nal-IRI in a later-line treatment. In terms of safety, gastrointestinal problems occurred most (64.3% of the patients) and from all reported treatment emergent adverse events, 39.2% were grade 3 or 4. Conclusion: Nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV is a valuable, effective, and safe sequential treatment option following gemcitabine-based therapy in patients with mPDAC. Trial details: Retrospective study on the efficacy and tolerability of liposomal irinotecan (NALIRI); ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0509506 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05095064?term=naliri&draw=2&rank=2).

Proposal of early CT morphological criteria for response of liver metastases to systemic treatments in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: Alternatives to RECIST.

RECIST 1.1 criteria are commonly used with computed tomography (CT) to evaluate the efficacy of systemic treatments in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and liver metastases (LMs), but their relevance is questioned in this setting. We aimed to explore alternative criteria using different numbers of measured LMs and thresholds of size and density variation. We retrospectively studied patients with advanced pancreatic or small intestine NETs with LMs, treated with systemic treatment in the first-and/or second-line, without early progression, in 14 European expert centers. We compared time to treatment failure (TTF) between responders and non-responders according to various criteria defined by 0%, 10%, 20% or 30% decrease in the sum of LM size, and/or by 10%, 15% or 20% decrease in LM density, measured on two, three or five LMs, on baseline (≤1 month before treatment initiation) and first revaluation (≤6 months) contrast-enhanced CT scans. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were performed to adjust the association between response criteria and TTF on prognostic factors. We included 129 systemic treatments (long-acting somatostatin analogs 41.9%, chemotherapy 26.4%, targeted therapies 31.8%), administered as first-line (53.5%) or second-line therapies (46.5%) in 91 patients. A decrease ≥10% in the size of three LMs was the response criterion that best predicted prolonged TTF, with significance at multivariable analysis (HR 1.90; 95% CI: 1.06-3.40; p = .03). Conversely, response defined by RECIST 1.1 did not predict prolonged TTF (p = .91), and neither did criteria based on changes in LM density. A ≥10% decrease in size of three LMs could be a more clinically relevant criterion than the current 30% threshold utilized by RECIST 1.1 for the evaluation of treatment efficacy in patients with advanced NETs. Its implementation in clinical trials is mandatory for prospective validation. Criteria based on changes in LM density were not predictive of treatment efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at CNIL-CERB, Assistance publique hopitaux de Paris as "E-NETNET-L-E-CT" July 2018. No number was assigned. Approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of University Medical Center Groningen.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Surgical Resection for Treatment of Pancreatic Insulinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is emerging as a safe and effective treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. We aimed to compare EUS-RFA and surgical resection for the treatment of pancreatic insulinoma (PI). METHODS: Patients with sporadic PI who underwent EUS-RFA at 23 centers or surgical resection at 8 high-volume pancreatic surgery institutions between 2014 and 2022 were retrospectively identified and outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis. Primary outcome was safety. Secondary outcomes were clinical efficacy, hospital stay, and recurrence rate after EUS-RFA. RESULTS: Using propensity score matching, 89 patients were allocated in each group (1:1), and were evenly distributed in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, distance between lesion and main pancreatic duct, lesion site, size, and grade. Adverse event (AE) rate was 18.0% and 61.8% after EUS-RFA and surgery, respectively (P < .001). No severe AEs were observed in the EUS-RFA group compared with 15.7% after surgery (P < .0001). Clinical efficacy was 100% after surgery and 95.5% after EUS-RFA (P = .160). However, the mean duration of follow-up time was shorter in the EUS-RFA group (median, 23 months; interquartile range, 14-31 months vs 37 months; interquartile range, 17.5-67 months in the surgical group; P < .0001). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the surgical group (11.1 ± 9.7 vs 3.0 ± 2.5 days in the EUS-RFA group; P < .0001). Fifteen lesions (16.9%) recurred after EUS-RFA and underwent a successful repeat EUS-RFA (11 patients) or surgical resection (4 patients). CONCLUSION: EUS-RFA is safer than surgery and highly effective for the treatment of PI. If confirmed in a randomized study, EUS-RFA treatment can become first-line therapy for sporadic PI.

EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic/peripancreatic tumors and oligometastatic disease: an observational prospective multicenter study.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is an emerging and minimally invasive technique that seems promising for treatment of focal pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate the feasibility, safety, and technical and clinical success of pancreatic and extra-pancreatic EUS-RFA. Patients and methods We prospectively collected clinical and technical data for all patients who underwent EUS-RFA at two Belgian academic centers from June 2018 to February 2022. Feasibility, adverse events (AEs), and follow-up were also assessed. Results Twenty-nine patients were included, accounting for 35 lesions: 10 non-functioning neuroendocrine tumors (29 %), 13 pancreatic insulinomas (37 %), one adenocarcinoma (3 %), and 11 intra-pancreatic and extra-pancreatic metastatic lesions (31 %). Technical success was achieved in 100 % of cases, with a median of three power applications per lesion (interquartile range 2). The majority of patients (59 %) presented no collateral effects, three (10.3 %) developed non-severe acute pancreatitis, and four (14 %) had mild abdominal pain. At 6 months follow-up (n = 25), 36 % of patients showed radiological complete response, 16 % presented a significant partial response and 48 % showed < 50 % decrease in diameter. At 12 months (n = 20), 30 % showed complete necrosis and 15 % > 50 % decrease in diameter. Hypoglycemia related to insulinoma was immediately corrected in all 13 cases, with no recurrence during follow-up. Conclusions EUS-RFA is feasible, safe, and effective for treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic tumors. Larger and longer multicenter prospective studies are warranted to establish its role in management of focal pancreatic lesions and oligometastatic disease. Symptomatic insulinoma currently represent the best indication.

Lanreotide as maintenance therapy after first-line treatment in patients with non-resectable duodeno-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: An international double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised phase II trial - Prodige 31 REMINET: An FFCD study.

BACKGROUND: Following European guidelines, patients with aggressive metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, duodeno-pancreatic (DP) neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) should receive systemic combination chemotherapy until progression. Aggressive disease is defined as progressive and/or symptomatic metastases with or without significant hepatic invasion (>30-50%), and/or bone metastases. METHODS: This academic randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study aims to evaluate lanreotide autogel 120 mg (LAN) as maintenance treatment after at least 2 months of first-line treatment (L1) in aggressive G1-G2 DP-NET. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive LAN or placebo (PBO), every 28 days, until progression or toxicity. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. RESULTS: Among the 118 planned patients, 53 were included. Of these, 81.1% had a G2 tumour, and 90.6% had metastatic disease. L1 therapy consisted of chemotherapy (96.8%). Median duration of L1 was 4.6 months (range: 2.0-7.7). At the time of randomisation, 81.1% of patients had stable disease. Median follow-up was 27.0 months (95% CI: 19.5; 31.2). PFS at 6 months was 73.1% (90% CI: 55.3; 86.6) in LAN versus 54.2% (90% CI: 35.8; 71.8) in PBO. Median PFS was 19.4 months (95% CI: 7.6; 32.6) and 7.6 months (95% CI: 3.0; 9.0), respectively. Median overall survival was 41.9 months in PBO and was not reached in LAN. The toxicity profile was mainly grade 1-2 expected toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The encouraging results of lanreotide autogel 120 mg as a maintenance treatment after L1 in aggressive G1/2 DP-NET should be confirmed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02288377 (clinicaltrials.gov).

TCP post-radioembolization and TCP post-EBRT in HCC are similar and can be predicted using the in vitro radiosensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Tumor equivalent uniform dose (EUD) is proposed as a predictor of patient outcome after liver radioembolization (RE) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and can be evaluated with 90Y-TOF-PET. The aim is to evaluate the correlation between PET-based tumors EUD and the clinical response evaluated with dual molecular tracer (11C-acetate and 18F-FDG) PET/CT post-RE. METHODS: 34 HCC tumors in 22 patients were prospectively evaluated. The metabolic response was characterized by the total lesion metabolism variation (ΔTLM) between baseline and follow-up. This response allowed to compute a tumor control probability (TCP) as a function of the tumor EUD. RESULTS: The absorbed dose response correlation was highly significant (R = 0.72, P < 0.001). With an absorbed dose threshold of 40 Gy, the metabolic response was strongly different in both groups (median response 35% versus 100%, P < 0.001). Post-RE TCP as a function of the EUD was very similar to that observed in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), with TCP values equal to 0.5 and 0.95 for a EUD of 51 Gy and 100 Gy, respectively. The TCP was perfectly predicted by the Poisson model assuming an inter tumor radiosensitivity variation of 30% around the HCC cell in vitro value. CONCLUSIONS: EUD-based 90Y TOF-PET/CT predicts the metabolic response post-RE in HCC assessed using dual molecular PET tracers and provides a similar TCP curve to that observed in EBRT. In vivo and in vitro HCC radiosensitivities are similar. Both TCPs show that a EUD of 100 Gy is needed to control HCC for the three devices (resin spheres, glass spheres, EBRT). Observed absorbed doses achieving this 100 Gy-EUD ranged from 190 to 1800 Gy!

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has shown clinical activity in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumours. The COSMIC-312 trial assessed cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib as first-line systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: COSMIC-312 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to curative or locoregional therapy and previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy at 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were not eligible. Tumours involving major blood vessels, including the main portal vein, were permitted. Patients were required to have measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, adequate organ and marrow function, and Child-Pugh class A. Previous resection, tumour ablation, radiotherapy, or arterial chemotherapy was allowed if more than 28 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) via a web-based interactive response system to cabozantinib 40 mg orally once daily plus atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily, or single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee in the first 372 patients randomly assigned to the combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (progression-free survival intention-to-treat [ITT] population), and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (ITT population). Final progression-free survival and concurrent interim overall survival analyses are presented. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Analyses at data cut-off (March 8, 2021) included the first 837 patients randomly assigned between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, to combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n=432), sorafenib (n=217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n=188). Median follow-up was 15·8 months (IQR 14·5-17·2) in the progression-free survival ITT population and 13·3 months (10·5-16·0) in the ITT population. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (99% CI 5·6-8·3) in the combination treatment group versus 4·2 months (2·8-7·0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 99% CI 0·44-0·91, p=0·0012). Median overall survival (interim analysis) was 15·4 months (96% CI 13·7-17·7) in the combination treatment group versus 15·5 months (12·1-not estimable) in the sorafenib group (HR 0·90, 96% CI 0·69-1·18; p=0·44). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were alanine aminotransferase increase (38 [9%] of 429 patients in the combination treatment group vs six [3%] of 207 in the sorafenib group vs 12 [6%] of 188 in the single-agent cabozantinib group), hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), aspartate aminotransferase increase (37 [9%] vs eight [4%] vs 18 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (35 [8%] vs 17 [8%] vs 16 [9%]); serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (18%) patients in the combination treatment group, 16 (8%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 24 (13%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) patient in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and one (<1%) patient in the single-agent cabozantinib group (gastrointestinal haemorrhage). INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab might be a treatment option for select patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but additional studies are needed. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Optimization of the Clinical Effectiveness of Radioembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Dosimetry and Patient-Selection Criteria.

Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) is part of the treatment strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Strong clinical data demonstrated the effectiveness of this therapy in HCC with a significant improvement in patient outcomes. Recent studies demonstrated a strong correlation between the tumor response and the patient outcome when the tumor-absorbed dose was assessed by nuclear medicine imaging. Dosimetry plays a key role in predicting the clinical response and can be optimized using a personalized method of activity planning (multi-compartmental dosimetry). This paper reviews the main clinical results of SIRT in HCC and emphasizes the central role of dosimetry for improving it effectiveness. Moreover, some patient and tumor characteristics predict a worse outcome, and toxicity related to SIRT treatment of advanced HCC patient selection based on the performance status, liver function, tumor characteristics, and tumor targeting using technetium-99m macro-aggregated albumin scintigraphy can significantly improve the clinical performance of SIRT.

Pembrolizumab Monotherapy for Previously Untreated Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Data from the Open-Label, Phase II KEYNOTE-224 Trial.

PURPOSE: KEYNOTE-224 cohort 1 demonstrated that pembrolizumab was efficacious and tolerable in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. We report results from KEYNOTE-224 (NCT02702414) cohort 2, which enrolled patients with advanced HCC and no prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-224 was an open-label, multicountry phase II trial. Eligible patients in cohort 2 had advanced HCC not amenable or refractory to locoregional therapy and not previously treated with systemic therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤2 years. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by central imaging review per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: Between September 4, 2018, and February 20, 2019, 51 patients were allocated in cohort 2. The median time from the first dose to data cutoff (January 19, 2021) was 27 months (range, 23-29). ORR was 16% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median DOR was 16 months (range, 3-24+), and DCR was 57%. The median PFS was 4 months (95% CI, 2-8), and median TTP was 4 months (95% CI, 3-9). Median OS was 17 months (95% CI, 8-23). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced HCC with no prior systemic therapy, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, promising OS, and had a safety profile consistent with previous observations. These findings support further evaluation of pembrolizumab-based regimens for HCC.

The European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society registry, a tool to assess the prognosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are rare tumours with variable clinical behaviour. Their natural history is ideally best approached in large, multicentre and multinational registries with long-term patients' follow-up. The European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society registry aims to obtain information regarding NEN outcomes and prognostic factors in a European frame. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected data from 7 national NEN registries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain, Switzerland), representing 10,102 patients. Anonymised/pseudonymised data were collected in a secured server. Descriptive statistical methods were applied, as well as Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable analyses for prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: median age of the study population was 60 years (range: 18-102), 48% were female. Common primary tumour sites were pancreas (27%) and small intestine (21%). Stage 4 disease was found in 47% of patients, while 26/10/16% had stage 1/2/3 disease, respectively. Grading (n = 6952) was G1/2/3 in 48/37/15% of the patients, respectively. Surgery was the main treatment, provided to 71% of patients, followed by somatostatin analogues (32%), chemotherapy (20%), Peptide receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) (9%) and targeted therapies (8%). OS at 5 years was 74%, influenced by grade, stage and tissue of origin in multivariate analysis. A Ki67 cut-off value set at 55% within the G3 group allowed to separate 2 groups with a meaningful different OS. CONCLUSION: We report the first analysis of the European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society registry, comprising 10,102 patients with NEN from 7 European countries. This large cohort study describes prognostic factors for the survival of NENs throughout Europe, including primary tumour site, grade, stage and treatment.

ENETS standardized (synoptic) reporting for endoscopy in neuroendocrine tumors.

Despite efforts from various endoscopy societies, reporting in the field of endoscopy remains extremely heterogeneous. Harmonisation of clinical practice in endoscopy has been highlighted by application of many clinical practice guidelines and standards pertaining to the endoscopic procedures and reporting are underlined. The aim of the proposed "standardised reporting" is to (1) facilitate recognition of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) on initial endoscopy, (2) to enable interdisciplinary decision making for treatment by a multidisciplinary team, (3) to provide a basis for a standardised endoscopic follow-up which allows detection of recurrence or progression reliably, (4) to make endoscopic reports on NEN comparable between different units, and (5) to allow research collaboration between NEN centres in terms of consistency of their endoscopic data. The ultimate goal is to improve disease management, patient outcome and reduce the diagnostic burden on the side of the patient by ensuring the highest possible diagnostic accuracy and validity of endoscopic exams and possibly interventions.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Development and external validation of a prediction model for overall survival after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Various prognostic factors are associated with overall survival (OS) after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model for 3-year OS after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA. METHODS: The derivation cohort consisted of all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA in the Netherlands (2009-2016). Clinically relevant variables were selected based on the Akaike information criterion using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, with model performance being assessed by concordance index (C-index) and calibration plots. External validation was performed using patients from the Belgium Cancer Registry (2008-2016), and patients from two university hospitals of Southampton (U.K.) and Verona (Italy). RESULTS: Independent prognostic factors for OS in the derivation cohort of 454 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), pT (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.90) and pN category (pN1: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.32; pN2: HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.63-3.01), resection margin status (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.39-2.29) and tumour differentiation (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.62-2.53). The prediction model was based on these prognostic factors. The optimism-adjusted C-indices were similar in the derivation cohort (0.69), and in the Belgian (0.66) and Southampton-Verona (0.68) validation cohorts. Calibration was accurate in the Belgian validation cohort (slope = 0.93, intercept = 0.12), but slightly less optimal in the Southampton-Verona validation cohort (slope = 0.88, intercept = 0.32). Based on this model, three risk groups with different prognoses were identified (3-year OS of 65.4%, 33.2% and 11.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The prediction model for 3-year OS after resection of dCCA had reasonable performance in both the derivation and geographically external validation cohort. Calibration slightly differed between validation cohorts. The model is readily available via www. pancreascalculator.com to inform patients from Western European countries on their prognosis, and may be used to stratify patients for clinical trials.

Quality of pathology reporting and adherence to guidelines in rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a Belgian national study.

The incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) in the rectum is rising since the introduction of colonoscopy screening programs. Guidelines, such as the European NeuroEndocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) algorithm, are mainly based on expert opinion. The goal of this nationwide study is to gain a better insight into the evolution in pathology reporting and adherence to the ENETS guidelines in Belgium. In Belgium, all NENs have to be reported to the Belgian Cancer Registry. We thoroughly reviewed all available pathology reports, coded as rectal NEN between 2004 and 2015, and reclassified according to World Health Organisation (WHO) classification 2019. To evaluate the adherence to the ENETS guidelines, population-based cancer registry data were linked with the medical procedures of the Belgian Health Insurance database. A total of 670 rectal NEN were retained and 16% of the cases needed reclassification. Annual incidence between 2004 and 2015 tripled from 0,20 to 0,61 per 100.000 inhabitants. Reporting of Ki67 proliferation index ameliorated most, while reporting of tumor size, lymphovascular and perineural invasion remained disappointing. Endoscopic ultrasound was performed in only 36.6% of the cases, while the mostly recommended mode of treatment (endoscopic/surgical/no resection) was followed in the majority of the cases. Incidence of rectal NEN in Belgium increased throughout the years and quality of pathology reporting improved especially after the WHO classification update in 2010. The growing awareness and knowledge among clinicians and pathologists in the community counters the need for centralization.

Joint Belgian recommendation on screening for DPD-deficiency in patients treated with 5-FU, capecitabine (and tegafur).

OBJECTIVES: Fluoropyrimidines such as 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), capecitabine and tegafur are drugs that are often used in the treatment of maliginancies. The enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the first and rate limiting enzyme of 5-FU catabolism. Genetic variations within the DPYD gene (encoding for DPD protein) can lead to reduced or absent DPD activity. Treatment of DPD deficient patients with fluoropyrimidines can result in severe and, rarely, fatal toxicity. Screening for DPD deficiency should be implemented in practice. METHODS: The available methods in routine to screen for DPD deficiency were analyzed and discussed in several group meetings involving members of the oncological, genetic and toxicological societies in Belgium: targeted genotyping based on the detection of 4 DPYD variants and phenotyping, through the measurement of uracil and dihydrouracil/uracil ratio in plasma samples. RESULTS: The main advantage of targeted genotyping is the existence of prospectively validated genotype-based dosing guidelines. The main limitations of this approach are the relatively low sensitivity to detect total and partial DPD deficiency and the fact that this approach has only been validated in Caucasians so far. Phenotyping has a better sensitivity to detect total and partial DPD deficiency when performed in the correct analytical conditions and is not dependent on the ethnic origin of the patient. CONCLUSION: In Belgium, we recommend phenotype or targeted genotype testing for DPD deficiency before starting 5-FU, capecitabine or tegafur. We strongly suggest a stepwise approach using phenotype testing upfront because of the higher sensitivity and the lower cost to society.