A multicenter, prospective, non-interventional real-world study to assess the effectiveness of mecapegfilgrastim in preventing neutropenia in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mecapegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor has been approved for reducing the incidence of infection, particularly febrile neutropenia (FN), in China. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a multicenter prospective observational study to examine the safety and effectiveness of mecapegfilgrastim in preventing neutropenia in gastrointestinal patients receiving the chemotherapy, including S-1/capecitabine-based regimens or the fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI)/fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)/fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) regimens. METHOD: Five hundred and sixty-one gastrointestinal patients from 40 sites across China, between May 2019 and November 2021, were included. The administration of mecapegfilgrastim was prescribed at the discretion of local physicians. RESULTS: The most common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of any grade for all patients was increased white blood cells (2.9%). Grade 3/4 ADRs were observed for anemia (0.2%), decreased white blood cells (0.2%), and decreased neutrophil count (0.2%). Among the 116 patients who received S-1/capecitabine-based chemotherapy throughout all cycles, ADRs of any grade included anemia (1.7%), myalgia (0.9%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (0.9%). No grade 3/4 ADRs were observed. In 414 cycles of patients who underwent S-1/capecitabine-based regimens, only one (0.2%) cycle experienced grade 4 neutropenia. In the FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOXIRI, and FOLFOX chemotherapy regimens, grade 4 neutropenia occurred in one (2.7%) of 37 cycles, four (4.7%) of 85 cycles, and two (1.2%) of 167 cycles, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, mecapegfilgrastim has proven effective in preventing severe neutropenia in gastrointestinal patients following chemotherapy. This includes commonly used moderate or high-risk FN regimens or regimens containing S1/capecitabine, all of which have demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety profiles.

A Phase 3 Study of Pembrolizumab versus Placebo for Previously Treated Patients from Asia with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Health-Related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-394.

Introduction: KEYNOTE-394 showed pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate with manageable safety versus placebo for patients from Asia with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We present results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: HRQoL was evaluated using the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaires. Key HRQoL endpoints were least squares mean (LSM) score changes from baseline to week 12 and time to deterioration (TTD) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL. p values were one-sided and nominal without adjustment for multiplicity. Results: The HRQoL population included patients randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n = 298) and placebo (n = 152). From baseline to week 12, a greater decline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score was observed with placebo (LSM, -8.4; 95% CI: -11.7 to -5.1) versus pembrolizumab (-4.0; 95% CI: -6.4 to -1.6; difference vs. placebo: 4.4; 95% CI: 0.5-8.4; nominal p = 0.0142). Similarly, a greater decline in the EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale score was observed with placebo (-6.9; 95% CI: -9.4 to -4.5) versus pembrolizumab (-2.7; 95% CI: -4.5 to -1.0; difference vs. placebo: 4.2; 95% CI: 1.2-7.2; nominal p = 0.0030). TTD in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score was similar between arms (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.25; nominal p = 0.1993). Conclusion: Patients receiving placebo showed a greater decline in HRQoL than those receiving pembrolizumab. Combined with efficacy and safety data from KEYNOTE-394 and the global KEYNOTE-240 and KEYNOTE-224 trials, our data support the clinically meaningful benefit and manageable tolerability of pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): updated overall survival from a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis. METHODS: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235. FINDINGS: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%]). INTERPRETATION: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Hetrombopag for the management of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with advanced solid tumors: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) increases the risk of bleeding, necessitates chemotherapy dose reductions and delays, and negatively impacts prognosis. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hetrombopag for the management of CIT in patients with advanced solid tumors. Design: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study. Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors who experienced a chemotherapy delay of ⩾7 days due to thrombocytopenia (platelet count <75 × 109/L) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral hetrombopag at an initial dose of 7.5 mg once daily or a matching placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as patients resuming chemotherapy within 14 days (platelet count ⩾100 × 109/L) and not requiring a chemotherapy dose reduction of ⩾15% or a delay of ⩾4 days or rescue therapy for two consecutive cycles. Results: Between 9 October 2021 and 5 May 2022, 60 patients were randomized, with 59 receiving ⩾1 dose of assigned treatment (hetrombopag/placebo arm, n = 28/31). The proportion of treatment responders was significantly higher in the hetrombopag arm than in the placebo arm [60.7% (17/28) versus 12.9% (4/31); difference of proportion: 47.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 26.0-69.3); odds ratio = 10.44 (95% CI: 2.82-38.65); p value (nominal) based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel: <0.001)]. During the double-blind treatment period, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 35.7% (10/28) of patients with hetrombopag and 38.7% (12/31) of patients on placebo. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were decreased neutrophil count [35.7% (10/28) versus 35.5% (11/31)] and decreased white blood cell count [17.9% (5/28) versus 19.4% (6/31)]. Serious AEs were reported in 3.6% (1/28) of patients with hetrombopag and 9.7% (3/31) of patients with placebo. Conclusion: Hetrombopag is an effective and well-tolerated alternative for managing CIT in patients with solid tumors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03976882.

Bemarituzumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment in East Asian patients with FGFR2b-overexpressing locally advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer: subgroup of FIGHT final analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the FIGHT study (NCT03694522) bemarituzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody selective for fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), plus mFOLFOX6 showed clinically meaningful efficacy in patients with FGFR2b-positive (2+/3+ membranous staining by immunohistochemistry) locally advanced unresectable/metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal cancer (G/GEJC). A meaningful proportion of patients in FIGHT were enrolled in East Asia, reflecting global epidemiology of G/GEJC. METHODS: This subgroup analysis of the global, phase 2, double-blind FIGHT study included all patients enrolled in East Asian sites. Patients were randomized 1:1 to bemarituzumab-mFOLFOX6 (15 mg/kg and one 7.5 mg/kg dose on cycle 1, day 8) or matching placebo-mFOLFOX6. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety. Efficacy was evaluated after a minimum follow-up of 24 months. RESULTS: The East Asian subgroup comprised 89 patients (57% of overall study population); 45 were randomized to bemarituzumab-mFOLFOX6 and 44 to placebo-mFOLFOX6. Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 12.9 months (8.8-17.9) with bemarituzumab-mFOLFOX6 and 8.2 months (5.6-10.3) with placebo-mFOLFOX6 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87); median OS (95% CI) was 24.7 months (13.8-33.1) vs 12.9 months (9.3-21.4), respectively (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.96). Treatment benefit was more pronounced in patients with FGFR2b-positive G/GEJC in ≥ 10% of tumor cells. No new safety signals were reported. CONCLUSION: In East Asian patients with FGFR2b-positive advanced/metastatic G/GEJC enrolled in the global FIGHT study, bemarituzumab-mFOLFOX6 showed clinically meaningful outcomes over placebo-mFOLFOX6.

Fruquintinib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel for gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: the randomized phase 3 FRUTIGA trial.

The vascular endothelial growth factor pathway plays a key role in the pathogenesis of gastric cancer. In the multicenter, double-blind phase 3 FRUTIGA trial, 703 patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who progressed on fluorouracil- and platinum-containing chemotherapy were randomized (1:1) to receive fruquintinib (an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1/2/3; 4 mg orally, once daily) or placebo for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week off, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1/8/15 per cycle). The study results were positive as one of the dual primary endpoints, progression-free survival (PFS), was met (median PFS, 5.6 months in the fruquintinib arm versus 2.7 months in the placebo arm; hazard ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.68; P < 0.0001). The other dual primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was not met (median OS, 9.6 months versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.13; P = 0.6064). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia and anemia. Fruquintinib plus paclitaxel as a second-line treatment significantly improved PFS, but not OS, in Chinese patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and could potentially be another treatment option for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03223376 .

PHOCUS: A Phase 3, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Sequential Treatment with Pexa-Vec (JX-594) and Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Introduction: Intratumoral administration of pexa-vec (pexastimogene devacirepvec), an oncolytic and immunotherapeutic vaccinia virus, given to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is associated with both local and distant tumor responses. We hypothesized subsequent treatment with sorafenib could demonstrate superior efficacy. Methods: This random phase III open-label study evaluated the sequential treatment with pexa-vec followed by sorafenib compared to sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and no prior systemic treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival, overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: The study was conducted at 142 sites in 16 countries. From December 30, 2015, to the interim analysis on August 2, 2019, 459 patients were randomly assigned (pexa-vec plus sorafenib: 234, sorafenib: 225). At the interim analysis, the median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.89, 14.95) in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib arm and 14.0 months (95% CI: 11.01, 18.00) in the sorafenib arm. This led to the early termination of the study. The median TTP was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.77, 2.96) and 4.2 months (95% CI: 2.92, 4.63); ORR was 19.2% (45 patients) and 20.9% (47 patients); and DCR was 50.0% (117 patients) and 57.3% (129 patients) in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib and sorafenib arms, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 117 (53.7%) patients in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib and 77 (35.5%) patients in the sorafenib arm. Liver failure was the most frequently reported in both groups. Conclusion: Sequential pexa-vec plus sorafenib treatment did not demonstrate increased clinical benefit in advanced HCC and fared worse compared to sorafenib alone. The advent of the added value of checkpoint inhibitors should direct any further development of oncolytic virus therapy strategies.

Reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation following camrelizumab monotherapy or combination therapy for multi-cancers: a large-scale pooled analysis of 10 studies in China.

Background: Skin toxicities are the most common adverse events related to immunotherapy, such as reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP) following treatment with the anti-programmed cell death-1 antibody camrelizumab. Objective: This study aimed to comprehensively analyze the clinical features and prognostic value of RCCEP in patients with malignancies who received camrelizumab alone (Camre) or in combination with the angiogenesis-targeted agent apatinib (Camre-Apa) or chemotherapy (Camre-Chemo). Design: A large-scale pooled analysis. Methods: Individual patient-level data were derived from 10 clinical trials of camrelizumab monotherapy, camrelizumab plus apatinib, or camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 1305). Results: RCCEP occurred in 77.0% (516/670) of patients with Camre, 23.6% (70/296) with Camre-Apa, and 67.8% (230/339) with Camre-Chemo. Most RCCEP lesions were grade 1 or 2 in severity. The median time to onset was 0.8 months [interquartile range (IQR), 0.6-1.2] with Camre, 5.0 months (IQR, 2.7-8.0) with Camre-Apa, and 1.6 months (IQR, 1.0-4.2) with Camre-Chemo; and the median duration was 4.8 months (IQR, 2.6-8.8), 4.4 months (IQR, 1.7-8.9), and 7.2 months (IQR, 4.1-14.3), respectively. In all the three groups, patients with RCCEP showed significantly better clinical outcomes compared with those without [objective response rate: 23.8% versus 1.9% with Camre, 48.6% versus 21.2% with Camre-Apa, and 78.7% versus 54.1% with Camre-Chemo; median progression-free survival: 3.2 versus 1.7 months (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.36), 10.2 versus 4.5 months (HR = 0.39), and 12.7 versus 7.3 months (HR = 0.38); median overall survival: 13.3 versus 3.8 months (HR = 0.34), 29.2 versus 13.5 months (HR = 0.46), and not reached versus 12.8 months (HR = 0.19); all p < 0.0001]. Conclusion: Although RCCEP occurred frequently with camrelizumab, most lesions were mild and self-limiting. The occurrence of RCCEP was strongly associated with the antitumor activity and survival of camrelizumab, both as monotherapy and in combination therapy.

A phase IV study to evaluate the safety of fruquintinib in Chinese patients in real-world clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Fruquintinib is approved in China for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who progressed after 2 lines of chemotherapy. This postmarketing study was conducted to evaluate the safety of fruquintinib in the Chinese population, including previously treated patients with advanced CRC and other solid tumors. METHODS: Patients in the first cycle of fruquintinib or expected to start fruquintinib within a week were enrolled. Fruquintinib was administrated according to the label or per physicians' discretion. Patient characteristics and safety information were collected at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months after consent (or 30 days after the last dose). RESULTS: Overall, 3005 patients enrolled between April 24, 2019 and September 27, 2022. All enrolled patients received at least one dose of fruquintinib. Most patients had metastases at baseline. The median age was 60 years. More than half (64.0%) of the patients started fruquintinib at 5 mg, and the median treatment exposure was 2.7 months. Nearly one-third (32.5%) of patients with CRC received fruquintinib with concomitant antineoplastic agents. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to dose modification were reported in 626 (20.8%) patients, and 469 (15.6%) patients experienced TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation. The most common grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were hypertension (6.6%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (2.2%), and platelet count decreased (1.0%). Combination therapy did not lead to excessive toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of fruquintinib in the real world was generally consistent with that in clinical studies, and the incidence of TEAEs was numerically lower than known VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor-related AEs. Fruquintinib exhibited manageable safety and tolerability in Chinese patients in the real-world setting.

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.

Bemarituzumab as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: final analysis of the randomized phase 2 FIGHT trial.

BACKGROUND: We report the final results of the randomized phase 2 FIGHT trial that evaluated bemarituzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody selective for fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with FGFR2b-positive (2 + /3 + membranous staining by immunohistochemistry), HER-2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC). METHODS: Patients received bemarituzumab (15 mg/kg) or placebo once every 2 weeks with an additional bemarituzumab (7.5 mg/kg) or placebo dose on cycle 1 day 8. All patients received mFOLFOX6. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety. Efficacy was evaluated after a minimum follow-up of 24 months. RESULTS: In the bemarituzumab-mFOLFOX6 (N = 77) and placebo-mFOLFOX6 (N = 78) arms, respectively, 59.7% and 66.7% of patients were FGFR2b-positive in ≥ 10% of tumor cells. The median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 9.5 months (7.3-13.7) with bemarituzumab-mFOLFOX6 and 7.4 months (5.7-8.4) with placebo-mFOLFOX6 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI 0.49-1.08); median OS (95% CI) was 19.2 (13.6-24.2) and 13.5 (9.3-15.9) months, respectively (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.52-1.14). Observed efficacy in FGFR2b-positive GC in ≥ 10% of tumor cells was: PFS: HR 0.43 (95% CI 0.26-0.73); OS: HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.31-0.85). No new safety findings were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In FGFR2b-positive advanced GC, the combination of bemarituzumab-mFOLFOX6 led to numerically longer median PFS and OS compared with mFOLFOX6 alone. Efficacy was more pronounced with FGFR2b overexpression in ≥ 10% of tumor cells. Confirmatory phase 3 trials are ongoing (NCT05052801, NCT05111626). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03694522.

Activity of Tepotinib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma With High-Level MET Amplification: Preclinical and Clinical Evidence.

PURPOSE: MET amplification (METamp) has been reported in 1%-5% of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and may be sensitive to MET inhibition. Tepotinib, a selective MET inhibitor, has shown promising activity in HCC with MET overexpression. We investigated the preclinical and clinical activity of tepotinib in HCC with METamp (MET gene copy number [GCN] ≥5), including high-level METamp (MET GCN ≥10). METHODS: Preclinical antitumor activity of tepotinib 100 mg/kg (orally, days 1-5, every 7 days, 3-5 weeks; 3-12 replicates) was evaluated according to METamp status, as determined using the nCounter platform (NanoString), in 37 HCC patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) in immunodeficient mice. Clinical outcomes were evaluated in patients with METamp by fluorescence in situ hybridization who received tepotinib 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) in two phase Ib/II trials in HCC with MET overexpression. RESULTS: Across the PDX models, tepotinib induced complete or near-complete tumor regression in the only two models with high-level METamp. Median tumor volume reductions were 100% and 99.8% in models with MET GCN 47.1 and 44.0, respectively. Across the two clinical trials, 15/121 patients had METamp. Disease control was achieved by 11/15 patients with METamp (complete response [CR], n = 1; partial response [PR], n = 4; stable disease [SD], n = 6) and 4/4 with high-level METamp (CR, n = 1; PR, n = 2; SD, n = 1). All three patients with high-level METamp and objective response received treatment for >1 year, including one patient who received first-line tepotinib for >6 years. CONCLUSION: High-level METamp may be an oncogenic driver in HCC that is sensitive to MET inhibitors such as tepotinib.

Expert Consensus on Pathological Diagnosis of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (2022 version).

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) can originate from the large bile duct group (segment bile ducts and area bile ducts), small bile duct group (septal bile ducts and interlobular bile ducts), and terminal bile duct group (bile ductules and canals of Hering) of the intrahepatic biliary tree, which can be histopathological corresponding to large duct type iCCA, small duct type iCCA and iCCA with ductal plate malformation pattern, and cholangiolocarcinoma, respectively. The challenge in pathological diagnosis of above subtypes of iCCA falls in the distinction of cellular morphologies, tissue structures, growth patterns, invasive behaviors, immunophenotypes, molecular mutations, and surgical prognoses. For these reasons, this expert consensus provides nine recommendations as a reference for standardizing and refining the diagnosis of pathological subtypes of iCCA, mainly based on the 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System.

Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO): Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in both developed and developing countries. The incidence of pancreatic cancer in China accounts for about a quater of the global incidence, and the epidemiological characteristics and therapeutic strategies differ due to social, economic, cultural, environmental, and public health factors. Non-domestic guidelines do not reflect the clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment patterns of Chinese patients. Thus, in 2018, the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) organized a panel of senior experts from all sub-specialties within the field of pancreatic oncology to compile the Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. The guidelines were made based on both the Western and Eastern clinical evidence and updated every one or two years. The experts made consensus judgments and classified evidence-based recommendations into various grades according to the regional differences, the accessibility of diagnostic and treatment resources, and health economic indexes in China. Here we present the latest version of the guidelines, which covers the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of pancreatic cancer. The guidelines might standardize the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer in China and will encourage oncologists to design and conduct more clinical trials about pancreatic cancer.

Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced biliary tract cancer have a poor prognosis, and first-line standard of care (gemcitabine plus cisplatin) has remained unchanged for more than 10 years. The TOPAZ-1 trial evaluated durvalumab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer or with recurrent disease 1:1 to receive durvalumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 685 patients were randomly assigned to durvalumab (n=341) or placebo (n=344) with chemotherapy. As of data cutoff, 198 patients (58.1%) in the durvalumab group and 226 patients (65.7%) in the placebo group had died. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.021). The estimated 24-month overall survival rate was 24.9% (95% CI, 17.9 to 32.5) for durvalumab and 10.4% (95% CI, 4.7 to 18.8) for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; P=0.001). Objective response rates were 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo. The incidences of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 75.7% and 77.8% with durvalumab and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus chemotherapy and showed improvements versus placebo plus chemotherapy in prespecified secondary end points including progression-free survival and objective response rate. The safety profiles of the two treatment groups were similar. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03875235.)

Tremelimumab plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte­associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti­programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)