Immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Does the sequence matter?

INTRODUCTION: Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is currently the first line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, there are many patients who may not be able to receive combination therapy due to underlying comorbidities or resource limitations. For these patients, systemic treatment options include single agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or ICI monotherapy. However, whether an optimal sequence of systemic therapy exists remains unknown. We aim to explore the impact of sequencing of TKI and ICI therapy in terms of response rates and to examine the safety of their use in sequential order. METHODS: Patients with aHCC treated with both ICI and TKI between December 30, 2013 and June 13, 2018 were retrospectively identified. Patients were classified into two groups: those who received TKI in the first-line (TKI1), followed by ICI (ICI2) and those who received ICI (ICI1) in the first-line followed by TKI (TKI2). The primary objective of the study was to identify differences in objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR), as evaluated based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumor v1.1 for TKI1, TKI2, ICI1, and ICI2. Secondary objectives included comparison of progression free survival (PFS) for each line of therapy, overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Twenty-seven and 23 patients were classified into group 1 and 2, respectively. Objective response rates of TKI1 and TKI2 were 3.8% and 17.6%, respectively (p = .28); DCR to TKI1 versus TKI2 was 23.1% versus 35.3% (p = .49). ORRs of ICI1 and ICI2 were 8.7% and 14.3%, respectively (p = .66); DCR to ICI2 versus ICI1 was 56.5% versus 42.9% (p = .37). Median PFS was not significant between TKI1 and TKI2 (PFS 3.06 versus 1.61 months, p = .097) as well as between ICI2 and ICI1 (PFS 1.84 versus 2.37 month, p = .32). Median OS was also not significantly different between both groups (OS 20.63 versus 13.93 months, p = .20) on univariable and multivariable analysis (OS adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.07, 95% CI .83-5.18, p = .118). The proportion of patients who experienced adverse events of any grade was similar in both groups (TKI1 59.3% versus TKI2 52.2%; ICI1 78.3% versus ICI2 70.4%). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the sequence of TKI versus ICI therapy in patients with aHCC may not matter, given similar efficacy and toxicity profile when either agent is received in the first or second-line setting. This finding is of value in the real-world setting, where patients may be frail or have comorbidities that render them unable to tolerate combination therapy (ICI and TKI/anti-VEGF). For these patients, sequential exposure to both classes of drugs (ICI and TKI) may be a suitable option.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on choice of central venous access device for delivery of chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Ensuring reliable central venous access with the fewest complications is vital for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of different types of central venous access devices (CVADs) for patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 20, 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing the various CVADs (ie, nontunneled central venous catheters [CVCs], peripherally inserted CVCs [PICCs], totally implantable venous access ports [TIVAPs], and tunneled CVCs). RESULTS: A total of 11 eligible randomized controlled trials of 2585 patients were identified. TIVAPs were associated with a lower odds of overall complications, device removal due to complications, and thrombotic and mechanical complications compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.69; OR, 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.93; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62; and OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.95, respectively). Tunneled CVCs were associated with a higher odds of overall complications, device removal due to complications, and infective complications compared with TIVAPs (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.30-2.17; OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.34-4.73; and OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.14-3.90, respectively). The ranking probability using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values indicated that TIVAPs had the lowest probability of overall complications, removal due to complications, and thrombotic complications. CONCLUSIONS: TIVAPs were found to be superior in terms of complications and quality of life compared with other CVADs, without compromising cost-effectiveness, and should be considered the standard of care for patients receiving chemotherapy.

Impact of Immune-Related Adverse Events on Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) has been associated with enhanced efficacy with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). It remains unknown whether such an association exists in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). This study aims to evaluate the association between irAEs and ICI efficacy in patients with aHCC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on patients with aHCC who received at least one dose of an ICI between May 2015 and November 2019 at the National Cancer Centre Singapore. The primary study objectives were to compare the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with and without irAEs. Complementary multivariable landmark analyses were performed at the 6-week and 12-week landmarks. Data cutoff was December 31, 2020. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-eight patients were included. Median age was 69 years, 85.7% were male, 57.7% had hepatitis B infection, 60.7% had ECOG 0, and 78.0% had Child-Pugh A liver cirrhosis. 82.7% received ICI monotherapy, while 17.3% received ICI in combination. Development and severity of irAE were correlated with survival. The median PFS for grade ≥3 irAE versus grades 1-2 irAE versus no irAE was 8.5 versus 3.6 versus 1.3 mths (p < 0.001). The median OS for grade ≥3 irAE versus grades 1-2 irAE versus no irAE was 26.9 versus 14.0 versus 4.6 mths (p < 0.001). Patients with ≥2 irAEs had a significantly longer OS on multivariable analysis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]0.35, p < 0.001). The presence of grade ≥3 irAEs was associated with a significantly longer OS on the multivariable analysis at the 6-week landmark (aHR0.34, p = 0.030) and 12-week landmark (aHR0.28, p = 0.011). The use of systemic corticosteroids in patients with irAE was associated with a trend toward a longer OS (20.7 vs. 14.3 mths, p = 0.064). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the presence of all-grade irAEs may be a potential prognostic biomarker in patients with aHCC treated with ICI. Patients with more severe irAEs and multisystem involvement have better prognosis. The prompt use of systemic corticosteroids to treat patients with irAEs is key to ensure the best long-term outcomes for these patients.

Learning during the pandemic: Perspectives of medical students in Singapore.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted medical education, particularly affecting clinical-year students. Educational institutions often had to halt, shorten or impose significant restrictions on their hospital rotations due to strict infection control and social-distancing guidelines implemented in tertiary healthcare institutions, as well as manpower and logistical constraints amid the pandemic. Thus, distance-based learning platforms such as online lectures and case-based teaching were increasingly adopted in place of bedside and face-to-face tutorials. While interactive virtual case-based discussions are generally useful in imparting clinical reasoning skills to medical students, they are unfortunately not able to fully replicate the experience of clerking, examining and managing real patients in the wards, which is a quintessential process towards building clinical acumen and attaining core clinical competencies. Therefore, for final year medical students who are preparing for their Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) examinations, many are naturally concerned by how learning in this "new normal" may affect their ability to make the transition to become competent junior doctors. As such, we seek to share our learning experiences as the first batch of medical students to have completed our entire final year of clinical education amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and offer 4 practical suggestions to future batches of students on how to adapt and optimise clinical learning under these circumstances: actively engaging in virtual learning, making the most of every clinical encounter, learning how to construct peer teaching/practice sessions, and maintaining physical and psychological well-being.