Immunotherapy in Biliary Tract Cancers: Current Standard-of-Care and Emerging Strategies.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs), comprising intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma as well as gallbladder adenocarcinoma, continue to be challenging to manage. Conventional chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease are limited in both options and benefits, and more effective perioperative regimens are also needed. Over the last decade, immunotherapy has had a profound impact on the management of many solid tumor types, particularly in using immune checkpoint inhibition to enable a tumor-directed T cell response. Immunotherapy administered on its own has had limited utility in BTCs, in part due to a hostile immune microenvironment and the relative infrequency of biomarker-based tumor-agnostic indications for immunotherapy. However, immunotherapy in conjunction with chemotherapy, molecularly targeted therapies, and/or anti-angiogenic therapies has gained traction, supported by evidence that these agents can impart favorable immunomodulatory effects on the tumor microenvironment. The TOPAZ-1 trial led to the first BTC-specific immunotherapy approval, establishing the combination of durvalumab with gemcitabine and cisplatin as the preferred first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic disease. Recently, the KEYNOTE-966 trial showed positive results for the combination of pembrolizumab with gemcitabine and cisplatin in the same setting, adding further evidence for the addition of immune checkpoint inhibition to the standard chemotherapy backbone. Meanwhile, advances in the molecular profiling of BTCs has contributed to the recent proliferation of molecularly targeted therapeutics for the subset of BTCs harboring alterations in IDH1, FGFR2, MAP kinase signaling, HER2, and beyond, and there has been great interest in investigating combinations of these agents with immunotherapy. Emerging immunotherapy strategies beyond immune checkpoint inhibition are also being studied in BTCs, and these include immunostimulatory receptor agonists, Wnt signaling modulators, adoptive cell therapy, and cancer vaccines. A large number of trials are underway to explore promising new combinations and immune-targeted strategies, offering opportunities to expand the role of immunotherapy in BTC management in the near future.

Phase I/II sequencing study of azacitidine, epacadostat, and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), an interferon-inducible enzyme, contributes to tumor immune intolerance. Immune checkpoint inhibition may increase interferon levels; combining IDO1 inhibition with immune checkpoint blockade represents an attractive strategy. Epigenetic agents trigger interferon responses and may serve as an immunotherapy priming method. We evaluated whether epigenetic therapy plus IDO1 inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade confers clinical benefit to patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: ECHO-206 was a Phase I/II study where treatment-experienced patients with advanced solid tumors (N = 70) received azacitidine plus an immunotherapy doublet (epacadostat [IDO1 inhibitor] and pembrolizumab). Sequencing of treatment was also assessed. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability (Phase I), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or pharmacologically active dose (PAD; Phase I), and investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Phase II). RESULTS: In Phase I, no dose-limiting toxicities were reported, the MTD was not reached; a PAD was not determined. ORR was 5.7%, with four partial responses. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (42.9%) and nausea (42.9%). Twelve (17.1%) patients experienced ≥1 fatal AE, one of which (asthenia) was treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: Although the azacitidine-epacadostat-pembrolizumab regimen was well tolerated, it was not associated with substantial clinical response in patients with advanced solid tumors previously exposed to immunotherapy.

Catching Those Who Fall Through the Cracks: Integrating a Follow-Up Process for Emergency Department Patients with Incidental Radiologic Findings.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Abnormal findings unrelated to the indication for testing are identified on emergency department (ED) imaging studies. We report the design and implementation of an electronic health record-based interdisciplinary referral system and our experience from the first 13 months of ensuring that patients with incidental radiology findings were connected with the appropriate outpatient surveillance. METHODS: Our informatics team standardized the contemporaneous reporting of critical radiology alerts using our ED trackboard and created a companion follow-up request form for the treating ED clinicians to complete. The forms were routed to nurse case managers, who arranged follow-ups based on the findings and clinical significance. The primary outcome was the proportion of ED patient visits with identified incidental findings that had documented communication of the incidental findings and surveillance plans. RESULTS: Over the first 13 months after implementation, 932 ED patient visits had critical radiology alert referrals, for a total of 982 incidental findings. The primary outcome (confirmed post-ED communication and documented follow-up plan) was attained in 888 (95.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 93.9% to 96.6%) ED patient visits with confirmed post-ED communication and documented follow-up plans. The team was unable to contact or confirm follow-up with 44 (4.7%, 95% CI 3.4 to 6.1) patients by telephone or through the health care system's electronic communication tools. CONCLUSION: We report the implementation of a standardized notification and referral system for ED patients with incidental radiology findings. The development of a reliable notification and follow-up system is an important patient safety intervention given the opportunity to potentially identify undiagnosed malignancies.

External Validation of a Clinical Score for Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors Under Consideration for Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy.

Importance: Despite the benefit of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WD NETs), no clinical metric to anticipate benefit from the therapy for individual patients has been previously defined. Objective: To assess whether the prognostic ability of the clinical score (CS) could be validated in an external cohort of patients with WD NETs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study's analysis included patients with WD NETs who were under consideration for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with lutetium-177 (177Lu)-dotatate between March 1, 2016, and March 17, 2020. The original cohort included patients from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. The validation cohort included patients from Ochsner Medical Center, Markey Cancer Center, and Rush Medical Center. Patients with paragangliomas, pheochromocytomas and neuroblastomas were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from June to November 2021. Exposures: PRRT with 177Lu-dotatate or alternate therapies such as everolimus, sunitinib, or capecitabine plus temozolomide. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) and was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method; a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for primary tumor site, tumor grade, and number of PRRT doses administered was used to analyze association between CS and outcomes. Results: A total of 126 patients (median age [IQR] age: 63.6 [52.9-70.7] years; 64 male individuals) were included in the validation cohort, and the combined cohort (validation and original cohorts combined) had a total of 248 patients (median [IQR] patient age: 63.3 [53.3-70.3] years; 126 male individuals). In the validation cohort, on multivariable analysis, for each 2-point increase in CS, PFS decreased significantly (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.64-4.16). After finding an association of the CS with PFS in the validation cohort, the original and validation cohorts were combined into the cohort for this analysis. On multivariable analysis, for each 2-point increase in CS, PFS decreased significantly (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.89-3.36). Conclusions and Relevance: Increases in CS were associated with worsening PFS in the validation cohort, validating findings from the original cohort. These findings suggest that the CS, to our knowledge, represents the first clinical metric to estimate anticipated benefit from PRRT for patients with WD NETs and may be a clinical tool for patients being considered for PRRT.

First-in-Human PET Imaging and Estimated Radiation Dosimetry of l-[5-11C]-Glutamine in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Altered metabolism is a hallmark of cancer. In addition to glucose, glutamine is an important nutrient for cellular growth and proliferation. Noninvasive imaging via PET may help facilitate precision treatment of cancer through patient selection and monitoring of treatment response. l-[5-11C]-glutamine (11C-glutamine) is a PET tracer designed to study glutamine uptake and metabolism. The aim of this first-in-human study was to evaluate the radiologic safety and biodistribution of 11C-glutamine for oncologic PET imaging. Methods: Nine patients with confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer underwent PET/CT imaging. Patients received 337.97 ± 44.08 MBq of 11C-glutamine. Dynamic PET acquisitions that were centered over the abdomen or thorax were initiated simultaneously with intravenous tracer administration. After the dynamic acquisition, a whole-body PET/CT scan was acquired. Volume-of-interest analyses were performed to obtain estimates of organ-based absorbed doses of radiation. Results:11C-glutamine was well tolerated in all patients, with no observed safety concerns. The organs with the highest radiation exposure included the bladder, pancreas, and liver. The estimated effective dose was 4.46E-03 ± 7.67E-04 mSv/MBq. Accumulation of 11C-glutamine was elevated and visualized in lung, brain, bone, and liver metastases, suggesting utility for cancer imaging. Conclusion: PET using 11C-glutamine appears safe for human use and allows noninvasive visualization of metastatic colon cancer lesions in multiple organs. Further studies are needed to elucidate its potential for other cancers and for monitoring response to treatment.

Multicenter randomized phase II trial of atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib in biliary tract cancers.

BACKGROUNDMEK inhibitors have limited activity in biliary tract cancers (BTCs) as monotherapy but are hypothesized to enhance responses to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition.METHODSThis open-label phase II study randomized patients with BTC to atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) as monotherapy or in combination with cobimetinib (MEK inhibitor). Eligible patients had unresectable BTC with 1 to 2 lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting, measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status less than or equal to 1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).RESULTSSeventy-seven patients were randomized and received study therapy. The trial met its primary endpoint, with a median PFS of 3.65 months in the combination arm versus 1.87 months in the monotherapy arm (HR 0.58, 90% CI 0.35-0.93, 1-tail P = 0.027). One patient in the combination arm (3.3%) and 1 patient in the monotherapy arm (2.8%) had a partial response. Combination therapy was associated with more rash, gastrointestinal events, CPK elevations, and thrombocytopenia. Exploratory analysis of tumor biopsies revealed enhanced expression of antigen processing and presentation genes and an increase in CD8/FoxP3 ratios with combination treatment. Patients with higher baseline or lower fold changes in expression of certain inhibitory ligands (LAG3, BTLA, VISTA) on circulating T cells had evidence of greater clinical benefit from the combination.CONCLUSIONThe combination of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib prolonged PFS as compared with atezolizumab monotherapy, but the low response rate in both arms highlights the immune-resistant nature of BTCs.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT03201458.FUNDINGNational Cancer Institute (NCI) Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN); F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.; NCI, NIH (R01 CA228414-01 and UM1CA186691); NCI's Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Gastrointestinal Cancers (P50 CA062924); NIH Center Core Grant (P30 CA006973); and the Passano Foundation.

Immune-Related Adverse Events and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Efficacy in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer with Food and Drug Administration-Approved Indications for Immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-related adverse event (IRAE) onset may represent a clinical biomarker for anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody response based on emerging evidence from patients with various advanced malignancies. This phenomenon has not been previously reported in a multidisease cohort of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications to receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis of 76 patients with GI cancer who had received anti-PD-1 antibodies for FDA-approved indications. The primary and secondary outcomes of the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients based upon IRAE presence, respectively. PFS and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method; a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for IRAE onset, patient age, and enrolling institution was used to analyze outcomes. RESULTS: Median PFS and OS were prolonged in patients who experienced IRAEs compared with those who did not experience them (PFS: not reached [NR] vs. 3.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.3, p < .001]; OS: NR vs. 7.4 months [HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, p < .001]). Among patients who experienced IRAEs, there were no significant differences in PFS and OS by either initial IRAE severity, management, or time to onset. CONCLUSION: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer who experienced IRAEs while on anti-PD-1 antibodies demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and OS compared with their counterparts who did not develop IRAEs. Although these findings add to results from studies in other tumor types, larger prospective studies are needed prior to clinical adoption of IRAE onset as a biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Predictive clinical biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitor response have been understudied in the field of immuno-oncology. Immune-related adverse event onset appears to be one such biomarker. Across tumor types, immune-related adverse event onset has been associated with response to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies. The results of this study demonstrate this for the first time in patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies. Before immune-related adverse event onset can be adopted clinically as a predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response, however, larger prospective studies are needed to better understand the nuances between immune-related adverse event characteristics (severity, site, management, timing of onset) and immune checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness.

Fatal hepatic necrosis after nivolumab as a bridge to liver transplant for HCC: Are checkpoint inhibitors safe for the pretransplant patient?

Nivolumab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) currently in phase 3 clinical trials for hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety of ICIs in recipients of organ allotransplant is unclear, and several reports of fatal alloimmune injury after posttransplant ICI use have been published. We present the first published case of nivolumab used in the pretransplant setting for HCC resulting in fatal acute hepatic necrosis in the immediate postoperative period from a profound immune reaction likely propagated by nivolumab. Further investigation and significant caution are needed in the evaluation of patients awaiting transplant who are receiving ICI therapy.

Second-line chemotherapy in advanced biliary cancers: A retrospective, multicenter analysis of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy is the established first-line regimen for advanced biliary cancer (ABC), there is no standard second-line therapy. This study evaluated current practice and outcomes for second-line chemotherapy in patients with ABC across 3 US academic medical centers. METHODS: Institutional registries were reviewed to identify patients who had received second-line chemotherapy for ABC from April 2010 to March 2015 along with their demographics, diagnoses and staging, treatment histories, and clinical outcomes. Overall survival from the initiation of second-line chemotherapy (OS2) was estimated with Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: This study identified 198 patients with cholangiocarcinoma (intrahepatic [61.1%] or extrahepatic [14.1%]) or gallbladder carcinoma (24.8%); 52% received at least 3 lines of systemic chemotherapy. The median OS2 was 11 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8-13.1 months). The median OS2 for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was 13.4 months (95% CI, 10.7-17.8 months), which was longer than that for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (6.8 months; 95% CI, 5-10.6 months) or gallbladder carcinoma (9.4 months; 95% CI, 7.2-12.3 months; P = .018). The median time to second-line treatment failure was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.7 months), and it was similar across tumor locations (P = .60). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of patients with ABC treated across 3 academic medical centers after the failure of first-line chemotherapy, the time to treatment failure on standard therapies was short, although the median OS2 was longer than has been reported previously, and more than half of the patients received additional lines of treatment. This multicenter collaboration represents the largest cohort studied to date of second-line chemotherapy for ABC and provides a contemporary benchmark for future clinical trials.

Perioperative Gemcitabine + Erlotinib Plus Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ACOSOG Z5041 (Alliance) Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable interest in a neoadjuvant approach for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study evaluated perioperative gemcitabine + erlotinib (G+E) for resectable PDAC. METHODS: A multicenter, cooperative group, single-arm, phase II trial was conducted between April 2009 and November 2013 (ACOSOG Z5041). Patients with biopsy-confirmed PDAC in the pancreatic head without evidence of involvement of major mesenteric vessels (resectable) were eligible. Patients (n = 123) received an 8-week cycle of G+E before and after surgery. The primary endpoint was 2-year overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints included toxicity, response, resection rate, and time to progression. Resectability was assessed retrospectively by central review. The study closed early due to slow accrual, and no formal hypothesis testing was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 114 patients were eligible, consented, and initiated protocol treatment. By central radiologic review, 97 (85%) of the 114 patients met the protocol-defined resectability criteria. Grade 3+ toxicity was reported in 60% and 79% of patients during the neoadjuvant phase and overall, respectively. Twenty-two of 114 (19%) patients did not proceed to surgery; 83 patients (73%) were successfully resected. R0 and R1 margins were obtained in 67 (81%) and 16 (19%) resected patients, respectively, and 54 patients completed postoperative G+E (65%). The 2-year OS rate for the entire cohort (n = 114) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31-50), with a median OS of 21.3 months (95% CI 17.2-25.9). The 2-year OS rate for resected patients (n = 83) was 52% (95% CI 41-63), with a median OS of 25.4 months (95% CI 21.8-29.6). CONCLUSIONS: For resectable PDAC, perioperative G+E is feasible. Further evaluation of neoadjuvant strategies in resectable PDAC is warranted with more active systemic regimens.

Evolving Landscape of Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Breakthroughs, Toxicities, and Future Frontiers.

The incidence and death rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are rising. For more than a decade, the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib was the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved systemic therapy for HCC. However, since 2017, five additional agents have been approved in the first- or second-line setting. Although this represents an incredible victory for the field, there are no clear guidelines for agent selection on the basis of either patient or tumor characteristics. Here, we review the available systemic therapy options for advanced HCC and reported clinical data for each. We outline each agent's unique toxicity profile, potential impact on patient quality of life, monitoring recommendations, and supportive strategies. Last, we review molecular and immunologic classifications of HCC as well as preclinical data that may serve as a basis for future biomarker enriched clinical trials to enable precision oncology care in HCC.

Phase I study combining the aurora kinase a inhibitor alisertib with mFOLFOX in gastrointestinal cancer.

Overexpression and cellular mis-localization of aurora kinase A (AURKA) in gastrointestinal cancers results in chromosomal instability, activation of multiple oncogenic pathways, and inhibition of pro-apoptotic signaling. Inhibition of AURKA causes mitotic delays, severe chromosome congression, and activation of p53/p73 leading to cell death. Our preclinical data showed cooperative activity with the AURKA inhibitor alisertib and platinum agents in cell lines and xenografts, and suggested an optimal treatment window. Therefore, this study was designed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of alisertib in combination with modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX), as this is a standard platinum-based therapy for gastrointestinal cancers. Standard 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, where the starting dose of alisertib was 10 mg twice daily (Days 1-3), with leucovorin (400 mg/m2) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) on Day 2 followed by continuous 46-h 5-FU (2400 mg/m2) infusion on Days 2-4 in 14-day cycles. Fourteen patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers were enrolled and two doses explored; two patients were not evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and replaced. Two patients experienced DLTs at 20 mg of alisertib (Grade 3 fatigue (n = 2); Grade 3 nausea, vomiting, dehydration with hospitalization (n = 1)). MTD was 10 mg alisertib with 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin and 2400 mg/m2 5-FU. Most frequent toxicities were nausea (57%), diarrhea, fatigue, neuropathy, and vomiting (43%), and anorexia and anemia (36%); most were Grade 1-2. One patient with colorectal cancer had a partial response of 12 evaluable patients, and four patients had stable disease. Alisertib in combination with mFOLFOX did not demonstrate unexpected side effects, but the regimen was only tolerable at the lowest dose investigated.

Correction to: Phase I study combining the aurora kinase a inhibitor alisertib with mFOLFOX in gastrointestinal cancer.

The authors would like to note that the investigator affiliations have been corrected to reflect the actual affiliations of each author. The authors would also like to note an amendment to the first name of the second author. Nilo Azad was changed to reflect the full name of the author, which is Nilofer S. Azad as shown above. The original article has been corrected.

A Phase II Study of Ganetespib as Second-line or Third-line Therapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Heat shock protein 90 regulates multiple signaling proteins involved in key pathways of pancreatic cancer pathogenesis. Ganetespib binds to heat shock protein 90 and interferes with its binding to client proteins thus leading to inactivation and degradation of the signaling proteins that promote cancer progression. This phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of ganetespib in patients with refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer (rMPC). METHODS: Patients with rMPC received 175 mg/m ganetespib intravenously once weekly for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles. Primary endpoint was disease control rate at 8 weeks, with a goal of 70%. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Simon's 2-stage design was used to assess futility and efficacy. Ganetespib was considered inactive if ≤8 patients among the first 15 treated had disease control after 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were treated on study. Grade 3 treatment-related toxicities were diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and hyponatremia. Disease control rate at 8 weeks was 28.6%, and median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.58 months and 4.57 months, respectively. Early stopping rules for lack of clinical efficacy led to study closure. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent ganetespib was tolerable with only modest disease control in rMPC. This disease is resistant to chemotherapy, and given the emerging data in lung and rectal cancers, as well as in pancreatic cancer cell lines, suggesting improved activity of ganetespib in combination with cytotoxic agents, studies combining this agent with chemotherapy in rMPC are more likely to yield success.

Dual Src and EGFR inhibition in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: phase I results : A phase I clinical trial.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains a major therapeutic challenge, as the poor (<8%) 5-year survival rate has not improved over the last three decades. Our previous preclinical data showed cooperative attenuation of pancreatic tumor growth when dasatinib (Src inhibitor) was added to erlotinib (EGFR inhibitor) and gemcitabine. Thus, this study was designed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose of the triplet combination. Standard 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, starting with daily oral doses of 70 mg dasatinib and 100 mg erlotinib with gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15 (800 mg/m2) of a 28-day cycle (L0). Nineteen patients were enrolled, yet 18 evaluable for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). One DLT observed at L0, however dasatinib was reduced to 50 mg (L-1) given side effects observed in the first two patients. At L-1, a DLT occurred in 1/6 patients and dose was re-escalated to L0, where zero DLTs reported in next four patients. Dasatinib was escalated to 100 mg (L1) where 1/6 patients experienced a DLT. Although L1 was tolerable, dose escalation was stopped as investigators felt L1 was within the optimal therapeutic window. Most frequent toxicities were anemia (89%), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (79%), fatigue (79%), nausea (79%), elevated alanine aminotransferase (74%), lymphopenia (74%), leukopenia (74%), neutropenia (63%), and thrombocytopenia (63%), most Grade 1/2. Stable disease as best response was observed in 69% (9/13). Median progression-free and overall survival was 3.6 and 8 months, respectively. Dasatinib, erlotinib, and gemcitabine was safe with manageable side effects, and with encouraging preliminary clinical activity in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Local Arterial Therapies in the Management of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma present with intermediate to advanced disease, where curative therapies are no longer an option. These patients with intermediate to advanced disease represent a heterogeneous population with regard to tumor burden, liver function, and performance status. While the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system offers guidelines for the management of these patients, strict adherence to these guidelines may limit treatment options for these patients. Several locoregional therapies exist for these patients, including conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE), transarterial embolization (TAE), drug-eluting embolization (DEE), and radioembolization. Evidence is also emerging for the role of radiation therapy including most notably stereotactic body radiation therapy and proton therapy, although at the current time, clinical trial participation is encouraged. While cTACE is traditionally recommended for BCLC B disease, both cTACE and radioembolization are increasingly used for patients with intermediate disease, as well as in select patients with BCLC A and C disease. TAE and DEE are limited in their use currently, due to lack of clear survival benefits or clinical advantages over cTACE. While several studies have demonstrated similar OS between cTACE and radioembolization, radioembolization provides a longer time to progression and fewer toxicities compared to cTACE. This is particularly relevant in the setting of advanced BCLC B and early BCLC C disease, where patients may have limited reserve. Radioembolization also has additional roles as an alternative to ablation, inducing liver hypertrophy, treating patients with PVT, and downstaging lesions to transplant. Ongoing studies will further define the role of locoregional treatment potentially in combination with and in light of developments in systemic therapy.

Phase II study of the Multikinase inhibitor of angiogenesis, Linifanib, in patients with metastatic and refractory colorectal cancer expressing mutated KRAS.

Background Targeting angiogenesis in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) has been one of the many factors prolonging survival. Bevacizumab was the first agent to demonstrate this, but even after progression on bevacizumab, continued VEGF-inhibition continues to improve survival. Combining epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies with standard frontline therapies have also improved clinical outcomes, yet the improved benefit is not observed in patients with mutant KRAS. Thus, an unmet medical need exists to develop additional therapeutic options for patients with KRAS mutant CRC. Methods Patients received the anti-angiogenic agent linifanib at the recommended phase II dose of 17.5 mg. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), with a goal of 10%. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Simon's optimal two-stage design was used to assess futility. Linifanib was considered inactive if two or fewer patients among the first 30 achieved an objective response. Results Thirty patients were enrolled on study. Grade 3 treatment-related toxicities occurring in at least two patients were fatigue, hypertension, proteinuria, diarrhea, nausea, oral pain, vomiting, thrombocytopenia, and arthralgia. Although no responses were observed, 63.5% of patients achieved stable disease. The median PFS and OS were 4.7 months and 9.5 months, respectively. Stopping rules for lack of clinical efficacy led to study closure. Conclusion Despite observing zero responses, a majority of patients had stable disease and eight patients had stable disease lasting longer than 5 months. These results suggest that linifanib has some anti-tumor activity in KRAS mutant metastatic and refractory CRC.

A phase I trial investigating pulsatile erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in advanced biliary tract cancers.

Advanced biliary tract cancers (ABTC) are among the deadliest malignancies with limited treatment options after progression on standard-of-care chemotherapy, which includes gemcitabine (GEM) and oxaliplatin (OX). The epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib has been explored in ABTC with modest efficacy. Erlotinib given continuously may antagonize the action of chemotherapy against cycling tumor cells, but pulsatile dosing of erlotinib with chemotherapy may improve efficacy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of pulsatile erlotinib with GEMOX. This was a single-institution phase Ib study that enrolled adult patients with unresectable or metastatic biliary tract, pancreas, duodenal, or ampullary carcinomas that have not received any prior treatment for their disease. Dose escalation followed a standard 3 + 3 design, and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were any treatment-related, first course non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 toxicity, except nausea/vomiting, or grade 4 hematologic toxicity. A dose expansion cohort in ABTC was treated at the MTD. Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and 4 dose levels were explored. The MTD was erlotinib 150 mg + GEM 800 mg/m2 + OX 85 mg/m2. DLTs were diarrhea and anemia. Most frequent toxicities were nausea (78 %), fatigue (71 %), neuropathy (68 %), and diarrhea (61 %), predominantly grade 1-2. In the ABTC patients, the objective response and disease control rates were 29 % and 94 %, respectively, and median overall survival was 18 months. Erlotinib plus GEMOX was well tolerated. Encouraging anti-tumor activity was seen as evidenced by a high disease control rate and longer median OS than standard chemotherapy in the patients with ABTC.

Current Progress in Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Biliary Cancers.

PURPOSE: Biliary tract cancers (BTC) remain one of the poorest groups of malignancies in terms of long-term survival, with only limited success in improvements by the use of systemic chemotherapy and our current repertoire of molecularly targeted therapies. Treatments that aim to adapt the patient's own immune system to target cancer cell have shown tremendous promise in treating solid tumors such as melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, and there are many recently completed and ongoing studies looking to move immunotherapy into the treatment of BTC. We review here both preclinical and early clinical studies of immune therapies for BTC, including autologous cell transfer, vaccinations, and immunomodulatory approaches (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors). METHODS: Published abstracts and articles from peer-reviewed journals as well as ongoing trial information were obtained from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov. RESULTS: The use of immune-mediated or immunomodulatory therapies in BTC are supported by observations that many chronic inflammatory states are associated with their development. Although success in treating BTC by the active manipulation of the immune system has been limited to date, we note many recent and ongoing areas of preclinical and clinical investigation that may translate to further clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: As we continue to follow subgroup analyses and results from specific studies that include BTC patients, we will hopefully be able to combine these with focused preclinical investigations providing further rationale for future trial success in treating BTC.