Regorafenib in previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Impact of prior immunotherapy and adverse events.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Regorafenib demonstrated a clinical benefit for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in the phase III RESORCE trial. Considering the heterogeneity of uHCC and discrepancies in its characteristics between prospective trials and daily practice, real-life evidence is necessary. METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective analysis was performed by the Korean Cancer Study Group. In total, 440 patients who received regorafenib between January 2017 and November 2019 were identified in nine tertiary referral hospitals in Korea. RESULTS: All patients received prior sorafenib, and the median time-to-progression (TTP) on sorafenib was 3.9 months (range, 0.2-71.6). Regorafenib was used as the second, third and fourth to seventh lines of therapy in 305 (69.3%), 115 (26.1%) and 20 (4.5%) patients respectively. According to the RECIST v1.1, the overall response rate was 7.7% (n = 34), and the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.2 (95% CI, 2.8-3.5) and 12.1 (95% CI, 9.7-14.5) months respectively. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were given in 115 patients (26.1%) prior to regorafenib. There were no differences in PFS and OS with regorafenib according to the prior use of ICIs (PFS, P = .61; OS, P = .63). The occurrence of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) was associated with a better OS (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The real-life clinical outcomes of regorafenib for patients who progressed on prior systemic therapy including ICIs were consistent with the phase III trial results. HFSR was significantly associated with better OS with regorafenib.

MET in gastric cancer with liver metastasis: The relationship between MET amplification and Met overexpression in primary stomach tumors and liver metastasis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although MET amplification/overexpression was observed in a subset of gastric cancer (GC) patients, the relationship between MET amplification/overexpression in primary GC and liver metastasis was unclear. METHODS: GC samples and matched liver metastases (N = 47) were analyzed by fluorescence/silver in-situ hybridization (FISH/SISH) and by immunohistochemistry for MET amplification and MET expression, respectively. MET-copy number (CN) and Met expression data from The Cancer Genome Atlas Stomach Adenocarcinoma (TCGA-STAD, N = 356) were also analyzed. RESULTS: Significant overlap existed between MET amplification and Met expression in both primary stomach tumors (P = 0.013) and liver metastasis (P = 0.001). In TCGA-STAD, MET-CN (≥4 copies) and MET expression were also positively correlated (r = 0.761; P = 0.017). Comparative analysis revealed a strong association between MET expression and MET amplification (85% concurrence) in primary stomach tumors and matched liver metastasis. MET status in synchronous liver metastasis (N = 36) was correlated with primary stomach tumors. However, a significant correlation between primary tumors and liver metastases was not observed in patients with metachronous liver metastasis. Survival analyses revealed that both MET amplification and MET overexpression were prognostic of poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MET amplification and Met overexpression were positively correlated in GC. MET status should be re-evaluated in GC patients with liver metastasis, especially for metachronous metastasis.