Combination and Optimal Sequencing of Systemic and Locoregional Therapies in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Proceedings from the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation Research Consensus Panel.

Hepatocellular carcinoma, historically, has had a poor prognosis with very few systemic options. Furthermore, most patients at diagnosis are not surgical candidates. Therefore, locoregional therapy (LRT) has been widely used, with strong data supporting its use. Over the last 15 years, there has been progress in the available systemic agents. This has led to the updated Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm's inclusion of these new systemic agents, with advocacy of earlier usage in those who progress on LRT or have tumor characteristics that make them less likely to benefit from LRT. However, neither the adjunct of LRT nor the specific sequencing of combination therapies is addressed directly. This Research Consensus Panel sought to highlight research priorities pertaining to the combination and optimal sequencing of LRT and systemic therapy, assessing the greatest needs across BCLC stages.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update an evidence-based guideline to assist in clinical decision-making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to update the 2020 guideline on systemic therapy for HCC. The panel updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2023 and updated recommendations. RESULTS: Ten new RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered first-line for patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Where there are contraindications to these therapies, sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab may be offered first-line. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), ramucirumab (for patients with alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] ≥400 ng/mL), durva + treme, or nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with durva + treme, second-line therapy with a TKI is recommended. Following first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be considered for patients who did not have access to these therapies in the first-line setting, and do not have contraindications. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Third-line therapy may be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients with good PS, using one of the agents listed previously that has a nonidentical mechanism of action with previously received therapy. A cautious approach to systemic therapy is recommended for patients with Child-Pugh class B advanced HCC. Further guidance on choosing between options is included within the guideline.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Regorafenib plus nivolumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: the phase 2 RENOBATE trial.

Regorafenib has anti-tumor activity in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) with potential immunomodulatory effects, suggesting that its combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor may have clinically meaningful benefits in patients with uHCC. The multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 RENOBATE trial tested regorafenib-nivolumab as front-line treatment for uHCC. Forty-two patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks and regorafenib 80 mg daily (3-weeks-on/1-week-off schedule). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. The secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). ORR per RECIST version 1.1 was 31.0%, meeting the primary endpoint. The most common adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (38.1%), alopecia (26.2%) and skin rash (23.8%). Median PFS was 7.38 months. The 1-year OS rate was 80.5%, and the median OS was not reached. Exploratory single-cell RNA sequencing analyses of peripheral blood mononuclear cells showed that long-term responders exhibited T cell receptor repertoire diversification, enrichment of genes representing immunotherapy responsiveness in MKI67+ proliferating CD8+ T cells and a higher probability of M1-directed monocyte polarization. Our data support further clinical development of the regorafenib-nivolumab combination as front-line treatment for uHCC and provide preliminary insights on immune biomarkers of response. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04310709 .

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant immunotherapies in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Liver cancer, specifically hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is the sixth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. The development of effective systemic therapies, particularly those involving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has substantially improved the outcomes of patients with advanced-stage HCC. Approximately 30% of patients are diagnosed with early stage disease and currently receive potentially curative therapies, such as resection, liver transplantation or local ablation, which result in median overall survival durations beyond 60 months. Nonetheless, up to 70% of these patients will have disease recurrence within 5 years of resection or local ablation. To date, the results of randomized clinical trials testing adjuvant therapy in patients with HCC have been negative. This major unmet need has been addressed with the IMbrave 050 trial, demonstrating a recurrence-free survival benefit in patients with a high risk of relapse after resection or local ablation who received adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In parallel, studies testing neoadjuvant ICIs alone or in combination in patients with early stage disease have also reported efficacy. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current approaches to manage patients with early stage HCC. We also describe the tumour immune microenvironment and the mechanisms of action of ICIs and cancer vaccines in this setting. Finally, we summarize the available evidence from phase II/III trials of neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches and discuss emerging clinical trials, identification of biomarkers and clinical trial design considerations for future studies.

Overall Survival With Palbociclib Plus Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.PALOMA-2 demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival with palbociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we report results for the secondary end point overall survival (OS). Postmenopausal women (N = 666) with ER+/HER2- ABC without previous systemic therapy for ABC were randomly assigned 2:1 to palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. After a median follow-up of 90.1 months, 405 deaths were observed and 155 patients were known to be alive. The median OS was 53.9 months (95% CI, 49.8 to 60.8) with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 51.2 months (95% CI, 43.7 to 58.9) with placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.18]; stratified one-sided P = .34). An imbalance in the number of patients with unknown survival outcome between the treatment arms (13.3% v 21.2%, respectively) limited interpretation of OS results. With recovered survival data, the median OS was 53.8 (95% CI, 49.8 to 59.2) versus 49.8 months (95% CI, 42.3 to 56.4), respectively (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.12]; one-sided P = .21). OS was not significantly improved with palbociclib plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole.

Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies related to PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 inhibitors across tumor types: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of how the immune system regulates tumor growth has innovated the use of immunotherapeutics to treat various cancers. The impact of such therapies, including programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, on the production of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and their impact on outcomes, is poorly understood. This study aims to evaluate the clinical trial evidence on ADA incidence associated with PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 inhibitors in the treatment of cancer and to assess associations between treatment administered, ADA incidence, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Embase®, Medline®, and EBM Reviews were searched via the OVID® platform on February 15, 2022. Conference proceedings, clinical trial registries, and global regulatory and reimbursement body websites were also searched. Eligible publications included clinical trials enrolling patients receiving cancer treatment with either PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 reporting outcomes including incidence or prevalence of ADAs and the impact of immunogenicity on treatment safety and efficacy. Reference lists of eligible publications were also searched. The review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and evidence quality assessment was conducted using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. RESULTS: After screening 4160 records and reviewing 97 full publications, a total of 34 publications reporting on 68 trials were included. A further 41 relevant clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov and a further 32 from searches of packaging inserts. In total, 141 relevant trials covering 15 different checkpoint inhibitors and 16 different tumor types were included. Across the included trials, atezolizumab was associated with the highest incidence of ADAs (29.6% of 639 patients), followed by nivolumab (11.2% of 2,085 patients). Combination checkpoint inhibitor treatment appeared to increase the rate of ADAs versus monotherapy. Only 17 trials reported on the impact of ADAs on treatment outcomes with mixed results for the impact of ADAs on treatment efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of cancer are immunogenic, with the incidence of treatment-emergent ADAs varying between individual therapies. It remains unclear what impact ADAs have on treatment outcomes.

Critical Appraisal of Guideline Recommendations on Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review.

Importance: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with antiangiogenic agents has revolutionized the treatment landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, due to rapid publication of new studies that attained their predefined primary end points, a lack of robust cross-trial comparison of first-line therapies, and diverging clinical guidelines, no clear-cut treatment flowchart and sequence of therapies are available. This critical analysis of the recommendations for the management of advanced HCC from the main scientific societies in the US and Europe adopted an integrated approach to provide information on the clinical benefit (overall survival and progression-free survival) and safety profile of these therapies using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) score and an ad hoc network meta-analysis. Observations: There is a major consensus among guidelines that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has a primacy as the recommended first-line treatment of choice in advanced HCC. On progression after immunotherapy-containing regimens and for patients with contraindications for immunotherapies, most guidelines maintain the established treatment hierarchy, recommending lenvatinib or sorafenib as the preferred options, followed by either regorafenib, cabozantinib, or ramucirumab. Thus far, the first-line immune-based regimen of tremelimumab plus durvalumab has been integrated only in the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidance document and the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and has particular utility for patients with a high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Overall, in the first-line setting, both atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sintilimab plus IBI305 (a bevacizumab biosimilar) and durvalumab plus tremelimumab received the highest ESMO-MCBS score of 5, indicating a substantial magnitude of clinical benefit. In a network meta-analysis, no significant differences in overall survival were found among the various combination regimens. However, the newly reported combination of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was associated with a significantly higher risk of treatment-related adverse events compared with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (relative risk, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.25-2.03; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This narrative review found that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is regarded as the primary standard of care for advanced HCC in the first-line setting. These findings from integrating the recommendations from scientific societies' guidelines for managing advanced HCC along with new data from cross-trial comparisons may aid clinicians in decision-making and guide them through a rapidly evolving and complex treatment landscape.

The effects of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy to treat advanced breast cancer: a plain language summary of a study using the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trial results.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article that reported results of a study using data from two phase 3 clinical trials called "PALOMA-2" and "PALOMA-3." Both PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trials included women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. HR+/HER2- breast cancer means the breast cancer cells of these women have receptors for female sex hormones and little or no HER2 receptors. Both PALOMA trials tested the effect of adding a medication called palbociclib (brand name, Ibrance®) to a hormone therapy. Hormone therapy, also known as endocrine therapy, is a treatment that blocks or removes hormones that cause cancer cells to grow and divide. In both trials, women took endocrine therapy with either palbociclib or a placebo. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THIS STUDY?: The researchers aimed to see if the results from the PALOMA trials were similar for subgroups of women in the 2 trials. The subgroups in the study included women who shared certain features about their cancer or treatment history, for example, women whose cancer had spread to the liver. For each subgroup, the study compared the results from the 2 treatment groups: (1) women who took palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, and (2) women who took placebo plus endocrine therapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS & WHAT DO THEY MEAN?: The same effect was found in all subgroups. Compared with those who took placebo, women who took palbociclib lived longer without their cancer getting worse (growing or spreading). Also, among women who had chemotherapy after stopping the trial treatment, those who took palbociclib started chemotherapy later than those who took placebo. Because palbociclib slows cancer growth and leads to tumor shrinkage, this may have played a part in starting chemotherapy later. These results show that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy is better at slowing the progression of advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer than endocrine therapy alone. This can be said for women with different advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer features and treatment history. Overall, the results support women taking palbociclib with an endocrine therapy if they have advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Single center experience using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on orthotopic liver transplant protocol for unresectable cholangiocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate tolerability, pathologic response, and disease outcomes utilizing pre-operative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CHT) prior to orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) in unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients treated on OLT protocol at a single tertiary center from 2012 to 2019. Patients received pre-operative SBRT (40-50 Gy in 5 fractions) followed by CHT until progression or OLT. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared via log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: 26 patients (84.6% hilar, 15.4% intrahepatic) were identified for analysis. Eight patients (30.8%) patients developed acute toxicity after SBRT, mostly grade 1 nausea. Nine (34.6%) patients underwent OLT of which 4 (44.4%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). Five (55.6%) OLT patients, including 2 pCR, developed recurrence at a median time of 49.9 weeks after OLT. 3-year OS for the OLT and dropout cohort was 75% and 9%, respectively (p < 0.0001). OS in hilar tumors only was statistically different for those that achieved a pCR (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative SBRT is a well-tolerated and effective radiation technique as part of OLT protocol for unresectable CCA and conferred in a pCR rate of 44% within our cohort.

Evolution of Systemic Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

The recognition that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a rising problem globally dates back decades; however, the development of effective medical treatment for the disease has only led to robust improvements in patient outcomes in the recent past. As knowledge evolves and regimens are proven to be more active, the importance of multidisciplinary management in patients with all stages of HCC will become more important to optimize patient outcomes. Key to optimizing patient outcomes is an understanding of the evolution and current role of these therapies in the HCC landscape.

Atezolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Management of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the First-Line Setting: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: In 2020, atezolizumab-bevacizumab became the new standard of care (SOC) for first-line unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, following a decade where sorafenib was the preferred first-line treatment. In the last few years, a number of novel systemic treatments with non-inferiority and superiority to sorafenib have been approved as first-line treatments. Objectives: The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare randomised controlled trial evidence for atezolizumab-bevacizumab with globally relevant pharmacological comparators for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC. Methods: Randomised controlled trials investigating first-line treatment of HCC in adults with no prior systemic treatment were eligible for inclusion into the SLR and were retrieved from Embase, MEDLINE, and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews. Interventions of interest for the NMA included atezolizumab-bevacizumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, durvalumab (including in combination with tremelimumab), cabozantinib (including in combination with atezolizumab), camrelizumab (including in combination with rivoceranib), pembrolizumab (including in combination with lenvatinib), and tislelizumab. Random effects NMA was conducted for survival endpoints within a Bayesian framework with an informative prior distribution for between-study heterogeneity. The hazard ratios for relative treatment effect were estimated with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Results: The SLR identified 49 studies, of which eight formed a connected evidence network permitting the indirect treatment comparison of atezolizumab-bevacizumab with comparators of interest. The indirect comparisons suggested an improved overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus most comparators. All indirect treatment comparison results for atezolizumab-bevacizumab included the null value within the 95% CrI (n = 1) for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusions: The results of the NMA indicate atezolizumab-bevacizumab is associated with superior or comparable OS and PFS together with a manageable safety profile compared with globally relevant comparators in the unresected HCC indication. The findings support that atezolizumab-bevacizumab remains SOC for the management of first-line unresectable HCC patients.

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

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

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

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

Albumin-Bilirubin Grade Analyses of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Phase III IMbrave150 Study.

Introduction: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab showed survival benefit in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) versus sorafenib in the Phase III IMbrave150 study. This exploratory analysis examined the prognostic impact of a baseline albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score. Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve unresectable HCC, ≥1 measurable untreated lesion, and Child-Pugh class A liver function were randomized 2:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg + bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population by ALBI/modified (m)ALBI grade. Time to deterioration (TTD; defined as time to 0.5-point increase from the baseline ALBI score over 2 visits or death) of liver function and safety were investigated. Results: Of 501 enrolled patients, 336 were randomized to receive atezolizumab + bevacizumab (ALBI grade [G] 1: n = 191; G2: n = 144 [mALBI G2a: n = 72, G2b: n = 72]; missing ALBI grade: n = 1) and 165 to sorafenib (ALBI G1: n = 87; G2: n = 78 [mALBI G2a: n = 37; G2b: n = 41]). Median follow-up was 15.6 months. OS and PFS improved with atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with ALBI G1 (OS HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.35, 0.72]; PFS HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.82]). In patients with ALBI G2 or mALBI G2a or G2b, PFS was numerically longer with atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib, but no OS benefit was seen. Median TTD in the intention-to-treat population was 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.0, 11.0) with atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus 8.6 months (95% CI: 6.2, 11.8) with sorafenib (HR: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.65, 1.03]). Safety profiles of atezolizumab and bevacizumab were consistent with previous analyses, regardless of ALBI grade. Conclusion: ALBI grade appeared to be prognostic for outcomes with both atezolizumab + bevacizumab and sorafenib treatment in patients with HCC. Atezolizumab + bevacizumab preserved liver function for a numerically longer duration than sorafenib.

Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment. Objective: To investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022. Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety. Results: A total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib. Conclusions and Relevance: In RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of First-Line CDK4/6-Inhibitors in Post-Menopausal Patients with HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Background: CDK4/6-inhibitors have demonstrated similar efficacy and are considered an effective first-line endocrine treatment of patients with hormone-receptor positive (HR+)/human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Amongst these, palbociclib was first to achieve regulatory approval, followed subsequently by ribociclib and abemaciclib. However, recent updates of overall survival (OS) showed inconsistencies in the OS benefit for palbociclib compared with the other two CDK4/6-inhibitors. With the lack of head-to-head comparison studies, our study sought to compare indirect survival outcomes between CDK4/6-inhibitors in this setting using a novel reconstructive algorithm. Methods: Phase III randomized trials comparing first-line aromatase inhibitor with/without a CDK4/6-inhibitor in post-menopausal patients with HR+/HER2- MBC were identified through systemic review and literature search of online archives of published manuscripts and conference proceedings. A graphical reconstructive algorithm was utilized to retrieve time-to-event data from reported Kaplan-Meier OS and PFS plots to allow for comparison of survival outcomes. Survival analyses were conducted with Cox proportional-hazards model with a shared-frailty term. Results: Three randomized phase III trials-PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2 and MONARCH-3-comprising 1827 patients were included. Indirect pairwise comparisons of all CDK4/6-inhibitors showed no significant PFS differences (all p > 0.05). Likewise, indirect treatment comparison between ribociclib vs. palbociclib (one-stage: HR = 0.903, 95%-CI: 0.746-1.094, p = 0.297), abemaciclib vs. palbociclib (one-stage: HR = 0.843, 95%-CI: 0.690-1.030, p = 0.094) and abemaciclib vs. ribociclib (one-stage: HR = 0.933, 95%-CI: 0.753-1.157, p = 0.528) failed to demonstrate a significant OS difference. Conclusions: Findings from this indirect treatment comparison suggest no significant PFS or OS differences between CDK4/6-inhibitors in post-menopausal patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.

IMbrave150: Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Exploratory Analysis of the Phase III Study.

Introduction: The phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis reports efficacy and safety results in patients with baseline Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B disease. Methods: Patients with systemic treatment-naive unresectable HCC and Child-Pugh class A liver function were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg of atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab or 400 mg of sorafenib. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review facility (IRF)-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 in the BCLC stage B subgroup. Patients in this analysis had BCLC stage B disease at baseline per electronic case report form. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR) and change in the sum of longest diameters (SLD) of target lesions from baseline per IRF RECIST 1.1 and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for HCC. Results: Of 501 enrolled patients, 74 (15%) had BCLC stage B disease at baseline (atezolizumab + bevacizumab, n = 49; sorafenib, n = 24). For this group, median follow-up was 19.7 months. A trend toward improved OS and PFS per IRF RECIST 1.1 was observed with atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib (OS: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 1.34; PFS: HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.12). ORRs per IRF RECIST 1.1 and HCC mRECIST were 43% and 50% with atezolizumab + bevacizumab and 26% and 30% with sorafenib, respectively. Percentage change in SLD of target lesions from baseline per IRF RECIST 1.1 and HCC mRECIST showed durable responses with atezolizumab + bevacizumab treatment. Safety data were consistent with known profiles of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, as seen in the overall study population. Discussion/Conclusion: Efficacy benefits were observed with atezolizumab + bevacizumab in patients with baseline BCLC stage B disease, consistent with the intention-to-treat population.