Characteristics of patients with longer treatment period of lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A post-hoc analysis of post-marketing surveillance study in Japan.

Patient profiles suitable for long-term lenvatinib treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) are yet to be fully understood. This post-hoc analysis aimed to identify such patient characteristics and explore the impact of treatment duration and relative dose intensity (RDI) on treatment outcomes. The data were obtained from 703 patients in a multicenter, prospective cohort study in Japan. Lenvatinib-naïve patients with uHCC were enrolled between July 2018 and January 2019 and were followed up for 12 months. Moreover, patients were dichotomized using the median treatment duration into the longer- (≥177 days; n = 352) or shorter-treatment (<177 days; n = 351) groups. The longer-treatment group often had better performance status, lower Child-Pugh score and better modified albumin-bilirubin grade than the shorter treatment group (p<0.05 for all). The objective response rate (47.6% vs. 28.2%; p<0.001) and disease control rate (92.4% vs. 60.2%; p<0.001) were both significantly higher in the longer-treatment groups than in the shorter-treatment groups. The proportion of patients with any adverse drug reactions was generally similar between the two treatment groups. Within the longer-treatment group, the disease control rate was high regardless of dose modification (i.e., RDI <100% vs. ≥100% during the initial 177 days) (91.2% vs. 98.0%). In conclusion, patients with longer treatment tended to have better overall conditions. Lenvatinib dose modifications at the physician's discretion, considering the balance between effectiveness and safety, may contribute to the long-term treatment.

Effect of cancer cachexia on first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a claims database study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome leading to progressive functional impairment. How cachexia affects the treatment course of chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer has not been well understood. METHODS: This is an exploratory, retrospective, observational cohort study using the Japanese medical claims database from Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. The study population included patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in whom first-line FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) was initiated between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2020. In this study, we defined patients with cancer cachexia as those who had a weight loss of ≥ 5% in the preceding 6 months. The primary outcome was time-to-treatment failure (TTF). The observation period was six months from the initiation of first-line FFX or GnP treatment. RESULTS: A total of 1897 patients (421 patients into the cachexia group; 1476 patients into the non-cachexia group) were analyzed in this study. The median TTF was 121 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-146) in the cachexia group and 143 days (95% CI 134-152) in the non-cachexia group. The hazard ratio for TTF of the cachexia versus non-cachexia group was 1.136 (95% CI 0.979-1.319). The median number of doses was two doses fewer in the cachexia group than in the non-cachexia group for both FFX and GnP. CONCLUSION: Cancer cachexia was suggested to be associated with shorter TTF and a reduced number of doses in patients with pancreatic cancer who received first-line FFX or GnP treatment. Clinical Trial Registration clinicaltrials.jp: UMIN000045820.

Safety Profile and Adverse Event Management for Futibatinib, An Irreversible FGFR1-4 Inhibitor: Pooled Safety Analysis of 469 Patients.

PURPOSE: Futibatinib, a covalently-binding inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)1-4 gained approval for the treatment of refractory, advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) harboring an FGFR2 fusion/other rearrangement. An integrated analysis was performed to evaluate safety and provide guidance on the management of futibatinib-associated adverse events (AEs) in patients with unresectable/metastatic tumors, including iCCA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from three global phase I or II studies of futibatinib (NCT02052778; JapicCTI-142552) were pooled. AEs were graded per NCI CTCAE v4.03, where applicable. Safety was analyzed for patients receiving any futibatinib starting dose (overall population) and in those receiving the approved starting dose of 20 mg once every day. RESULTS: In total, 469 patients with one of 33 known tumor types were analyzed, including 318 patients who received futibatinib 20 mg every day. AEs of clinical interest (AECI; any grade/grade ≥3) in the overall population included hyperphosphatemia (82%/19%), nail disorders (27%/1%), hepatic AEs (27%/11%), stomatitis (19%/3%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES; 13%/3%), rash (9%/0%), retinal disorders (8%/0%), and cataract (4%/1%). Median time to onset of grade ≥3 AECIs ranged from 9 days (hyperphosphatemia) to 125 days (cataract). Grade ≥3 hyperphosphatemia, hepatic AEs, PPES, and nail disorders resolved to grade ≤2 within a median of 7, 7, 8, and 28 days, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs were rare (2%), and no treatment-related deaths occurred. AE management included phosphate-lowering medication and dose adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Futibatinib showed a consistent and manageable safety profile across patients with various tumor types. AECIs were mostly reversible with appropriate clinical management.

A Phase 2, Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Trial of Transarterial Chemoembolization Therapy in Combination Strategy with Lenvatinib in Patients with Unresectable Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: TACTICS-L Trial.

Introduction: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the standard treatment for unresectable intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but recurrence after TACE is common. The present phase 2, prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial, the TACTICS-L trial, investigated the efficacy and safety of TACE plus lenvatinib (LEN), a drug that more strongly promotes vascular normalization and has a better objective response rate (ORR) than sorafenib (jRCTs031180074). Methods: Participants were patients with HCC who had not previously received systemic therapy, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy, or immunotherapy and who were ineligible for resection or percutaneous ablation therapy. LEN was to be administered 14-21 days before the first TACE, stopped 2 days before TACE, and resumed 3 days after TACE. Key inclusion criteria were unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A liver function, 0-2 prior TACE sessions, tumor size ≤10 cm, number of tumors ≤10, and ECOG performance status 0-1. Key exclusion criteria were vascular invasion and extrahepatic spread. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECICL, and secondary endpoints were time to untreatable progression, ORR, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 62 HCC patients were enrolled in this trial. The median age was 72 years, 77.4% of patients were men, and 95.2% had PS 0. The primary endpoint of median PFS was 28.0 months (90% confidence interval [CI] 25.1-31.0) after a minimum 24 months of follow-up. The secondary endpoint of median OS was not reached (90% CI 35.5 months-NR). LEN-TACE achieved a high response rate and high complete response (CR) rate (4 weeks after the first TACE: ORR 79.0%, CR rate 53.2%; best response: ORR 88.7%, CR rate 67.7%) by RECICL. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed that the characteristics of responders/nonresponders (ORR and CR rate) were similar and that LEN-TACE would be effective in all subgroups, including the population in whom TACE alone would be less likely to be curative (e.g., patients with the non-simple nodular type or a high tumor burden). The relative dose intensity of LEN before the first TACE was important for achieving higher CR rate/ORR by LEN-TACE. No new safety concerns were observed. Conclusion: The results of this trial provide encouraging evidence, supporting the efficacy and favorable safety profile of LEN-TACE in patients who are ineligible for locoregional therapy.

A Retrospective Study of Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Refractory to Gemcitabine Monotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX), termed GnP, which is limited, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) who show good tolerance to GEM monotherapy prior to being refractory to it. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with locally advanced or metastatic PC who received GEM followed by GnP between December 2014 and March 2019, regardless of the treatment line. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients who received GnP after becoming refractory to GEM were included in this study. Eight patients were included in the nab-PTX-naïve group, seven of whom were treated with GEM monotherapy as first-line chemotherapy, and one was refractory to GEM monotherapy after modified FOLFIRINOX treatment. The other six patients were included in the nab-PTX reintroduction group. In this group, all patients received GnP followed by GEM maintenance therapy to prevent adverse events, such as peripheral neuropathy and fatigue. Two patients in the nab-PTX-naïve group showed partial response and none in the reintroduction group; median progression-free survival was 7.6 and 1.4 months and median overall survival was 9.4 and 6.2 months, respectively. In the safety analysis, grade 3 anemia and peripheral neuropathy were observed in one patient in the nab-PTX reintroduction group, while the remaining adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSION: GnP is safe and effective even in patients with GEM-refractory PC, and GEM treatment followed by GnP can be an effective treatment option for patients with nab-PTX-naïve PC.

Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin in older patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The global phase 3 NAPOLI -1 trial of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit from using liposomal irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV) after treatment with gemcitabine (GEM) compared to 5-FU/LV alone. However, the efficacy and safety of this regimen in older patients are not well studied. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study to compare the therapeutic efficacy of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV between older and younger patients with cutoff ages of 70 and 75 years, respectively. We included patients with a prior history of one or more GEM-based regimens for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC and were treated with nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients, 54 (47.0%) and 24 (20.9%) were aged ≥ 70 and ≥ 75 years, respectively. The median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) of the entire cohort were 8.5 and 3.6 months, respectively. No significant differences were observed in OS and PFS hazard ratios using age cutoffs of 70 (P = 0.90 and 0.99, respectively) and 75 (P = 0.90 and 0.76, respectively) years. Additionally, no significant differences were found in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) between patients aged ≥ 70 and < 70 years or those aged ≥ 75 and < 75 years. Other than hematological toxicity, no trAEs higher than Grade 4 were observed in either age group. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV for patients with PDAC are not significantly different for those aged ≥ 70 years compared to younger patients.

Early Tumor Shrinkage and Depth of Response as Predictors of Survival for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis of JCOG1113.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) reflect outcomes of chemotherapy in various cancers. This study evaluated the association of ETS and DpR with clinical outcomes using data from JCOG1113, which demonstrated the non-inferiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) to gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) for chemotherapy-naïve advanced biliary tract cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 354 (289 with measurable target lesions) patients enrolled in JCOG1113 were divided into ETS-unachieved and ETS-achieved groups (≥20% tumor reduction at week 6) and DpR-low and DpR-high groups (≥40% maximum shrinkage) until 12 weeks after enrollment. The impact of ETS and DpR on survival outcome was evaluated using the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: The proportions of patients in the ETS-achieved and DpR-high groups were similar between the 2 treatment arms. The hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the ETS-achieved group were 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.93) and 0.60 (95%CI, 0.44-0.81), respectively. The HRs of PFS and OS for the DpR-high group were 0.67 (95%CI, 0.48-0.94) and 0.64 (95%CI, 0.46-0.90), respectively. In the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis, most patients in the ETS-achieved group in the GC arm did not experience disease progression after 12 weeks from the landmark. CONCLUSION: As on-treatment markers, ETS and DpR were effective tools. ETS was clinically useful, because it can be used to evaluate the outcomes of treatment early at a specific time.

Feasibility of S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy after major hepatectomy for biliary tract cancers: An exploratory subset analysis of JCOG1202.

INTRODUCTION: Major hepatectomy (MH) may produce the impaired liver function and affect the feasibility of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of early period after the surgery, but there have not been detailed investigations. JCOG1202 (UMIN000011688) is a randomized phase III trial demonstrating the superiority of adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer (BTC). The aim of this study is to examine the influence of MH for BTC on adjuvant S-1. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the total 424 patients, 207 received S-1 (S-1 arm) while the remaining 217 were not. We compared MH with non-major hepatectomy (NMH) for BTC. RESULTS: In the S-1 arm, 42 had undergone MH, and 165 had undergone NMH. MH had similar pretreatment features to NMH, including the proportion of biliary reconstruction, to NMH, except for a lower platelet count (17.7 vs. 23.4 × 104/mm3, p < 0.0001) and lower serum albumin level (3.5 vs. 3.8 g/dL, p < 0.0001). The treatment completion proportion tended to be lower for MH than for NMH (59.5 % vs. 75.8 %; risk ratio, 0.786 [95 % confidence interval, 0.603-1.023], p = 0.0733), and the median dose intensity was lower as well (88.7 % vs. 99.6 %, p = 0.0358). The major reasons for discontinuation were biliary tract infections and gastrointestinal disorders after MH. The frequency of grade 3-4 biliary tract infection was 19.0 % in MH vs. 4.2 % in NMH. CONCLUSION: The treatment completion proportion and dose intensity were lower in MH than in NMH. Caution should be exercised against biliary tract infections and gastrointestinal disorders during adjuvant S-1 after MH for BTC.

Optimal first-line treatment strategies of systemic therapy for unresectable gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors based on the opinions of Japanese experts.

There are several options for systemic therapy of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NEN), including somatostatin analogues (SSA), molecular-targeted agents, cytotoxic agents, and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. However, the effectiveness of each agent varies according to the primary site. Although SSA and everolimus are key drugs used for systemic therapy of neuroendocrine tumors arising from the gastrointestinal tract (GI-NET), the optimal strategy for selecting among these modalities remains unexplored. Japanese experts on GI-NET discussed and determined optimal first-line treatment strategies based on the results of previously reported pivotal trials. The consensus was reached that tumor aggressiveness and prognosis can be predicted using hepatic tumor load and Ki-67 labeling index, which are thought to be clinically important factors when selecting systemic therapy for unresectable GI-NET. SSA therapy is considered appropriate for patients with a low hepatic tumor load and low Ki-67 value and everolimus for those with contraindications to SSA therapy. There was also agreement that the treatment strategy should be determined according to whether the origin is in the midgut, considering the biological differences. Based on this strategy, the experts have tentatively created treatment maps and applied them in representative cases of unresectable GI-NET. Japanese experts proposed tentative maps for optimal first-line treatment in patients with unresectable GI-NET. Further investigation is warranted to validate the usefulness of these maps.

Plain language summary of the HIMALAYA study: tremelimumab and durvalumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of results from a phase 3 clinical study called HIMALAYA. HIMALAYA looked at treatment with one dose of a medication called tremelimumab combined with multiple doses of a medication called durvalumab (the STRIDE regimen) or multiple doses of durvalumab alone. These treatments were compared with a medication called sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is a type of liver cancer that is difficult to treat because it is often diagnosed when it is unresectable, meaning it can no longer be removed with surgery. Sorafenib has been the main treatment for unresectable HCC since 2007. However, people who take sorafenib may experience side effects that can reduce their quality of life, so alternative medicines are being trialed. Tremelimumab and durvalumab are types of drugs called immunotherapies, and they both work in different ways to help the body's immune system fight cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took STRIDE lived longer than participants who took sorafenib, whilst participants who took durvalumab alone lived a similar length of time as participants who took sorafenib. Participants who took STRIDE or durvalumab had a lower relative risk of experiencing worsening in their quality of life than participants who took sorafenib. The side effects that participants who received STRIDE or durvalumab experienced were expected for these types of treatments and could mostly be managed. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, STRIDE is more effective than sorafenib for people with unresectable HCC.

A Multicenter Survey on Eligibility for a Randomized Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resected Biliary Tract Cancer (JCOG1202, ASCOT).

BACKGROUND: The Adjuvant S-1 for Cholangiocarcinoma Trial (JCOG1202, [ASCOT]) was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial aimed at investigating the efficacy and safety of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with S-1 for resected biliary tract cancer (BTC). This trial reported that overall survival was prolonged with AC compared with observation. METHODS: With the aim of increasing enrollment, the present survey biannually recorded the number of patients eligible for enrollment into ASCOT and reasons for ineligibility among patients who had undergone surgery for BTC from April 2015 to September 2017 at 36 institutions participating in ASCOT. RESULTS: Of 2039 patients who underwent surgery for BTC, 211 (10.3%) were already enrolled, 166 (8.1%) were eligible but had not been enrolled, and 1662 (81.5%) were ineligible. Among ineligible patients, the predominant reasons for ineligibility were patient refusal (n = 332, 20.0%), pathologic stage (pT1N0; n = 248, 14.9%), age (≥ 81 years; n = 196, 11.8%), and prolonged postoperative complications (n = 176, 10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing surgery for BTC are a heterogeneous cohort comprising patients with earlier pathologic stage, advanced age, and prolonged postoperative complications. These factors should be considered during the design of future clinical trials of perioperative treatments for resectable BTC.

Is surgical resection justified for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with distant abdominal organ metastasis? A position paper by experts in pancreatic surgery at the Joint Meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) & the Japan Pancreas Society (JPS) 2022 in Kyoto.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a typical refractory malignancy, and many patients have distant organ metastases at diagnosis, such as liver metastasis and peritoneal dissemination. The standard treatment for unresectable PDAC with distant organ metastasis (UR-M) is chemotherapy, but the prognosis remained poor. However, with recent dramatic developments in chemotherapy, the prognosis has gradually improved, and some patients have experienced marked shrinkage or disappearance of their metastatic lesions. With this trend, attempts have been made to resect a small number of metastases (so-called oligometastases) in combination with the primary tumor or to resect the primary and metastatic tumor in patients with a favorable response to anti-cancer treatment after a certain period of time (so-called conversion surgery). An international consensus meeting on surgical treatment for UR-M PDAC was held during the Joint Congress of the 26th Meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) and the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Japan Pancreas Society (JPS) in Kyoto in July 2022. The presenters showed their indications for and results of surgical treatment for UR-M PDAC and discussed their advantages and disadvantages with the experts. Although these reports were limited to a small number of patients, findings suggest that these surgical treatments for patients with UR-M PDAC who have had a significant response to chemotherapy may contribute to a prognosis of prolonged survival. We hope that this article summarizing the discussion and agreements at the meeting will serve as the basis for future trials and guidelines.

Comprehensive review of undifferentiated carcinoma of the pancreas: from epidemiology to treatment.

Undifferentiated carcinoma (UC) of the pancreas is a rare subtype of pancreatic cancer displaying no definitive direction of differentiation. UC has been reported as a highly aggressive malignant neoplasm, with a median overall survival of <1 year, except for several surgical series. On the other hand, UC tissue sometimes contains non-neoplastic osteoclast-like giant cells (OGCs), and such cases have been reported to have relatively longer survival. Thus, the World Health Organization (WHO) classification histologically distinguishes UC with OGCs (UCOGCs) from UC, and UCs were subclassified into three subtypes: anaplastic UC, sarcomatoid UC and carcinosarcoma. However, still less is known about UC due to its rarity, and such situations lead to further difficulties in treatment for UC. To date, only surgical resection can offer curative treatment for patients with UC, and no clear evidence for chemotherapy exists for them. However, a retrospective cohort study and case reports showed that relatively promising results paclitaxel-containing regimens for treatment of patients with unresectable UC. Furthermore, high programmed cell death protein 1 expression has been reported in sarcomatoid UCs and UCOGCs, and promising responses to anti-programmed death-ligand 1 therapy have been described in case reports of UCOGCs. Recent advances in chemotherapeutic agents and molecular technologies are opening up the possibilities for expanded treatments.

Effect of systemic inflammatory response on induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: an exploratory subgroup analysis on systemic inflammatory response in JCOG1106.

OBJECTIVE: JCOG1106, a randomized phase II trial conducted to compare chemoradiotherapy (S-1 concurrent radiotherapy) with (Arm B) or without (Arm A) induction chemotherapy using gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, showed a more favorable long-term survival in Arm A. This study was aimed at exploring whether some subgroups classified by the systemic inflammatory response might derive greater benefit from either treatment. METHODS: All subjects eligible for JCOG1106 were included in this analysis (n = 51/49 in Arm A/B). This exploratory subgroup analysis was performed by Cox regression analysis to investigate the impact of the systemic inflammatory response, as assessed based on the serum C-reactive protein, serum albumin (albumin), Glasgow Prognostic Score and derived neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, at the baseline on overall survival. P values <0.1 for the interaction were regarded as denoting significant association. RESULTS: Glasgow prognostic score showed significant treatment interactions for overall survival. Hazard ratios of Arm B to Arm A were 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-2.23) in the Glasgow Prognostic Score 0 (C-reactive protein ≤10 mg/L and albumin ≥35 g/L) (n = 44/34 in Arm A/B) and 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-1.50) in the Glasgow Prognostic Score 1/2 (C-reactive protein >10 mg/L and/or albumin <35 g/L) (n = 7/15) (P-interaction = 0.06). C-reactive protein alone and albumin alone also showed significant treatment interactions for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Survival benefits of induction chemotherapy in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer were observed in patients with elevated Glasgow Prognostic Score, high C-reactive protein and low albumin. These results suggest that systemic inflammatory response might be considered to apply induction chemotherapy preceding chemoradiotherapy.

Evaluation of Irinotecan and Trifluridine/Tipiracil as Fourth-line Treatments After Third-line Nivolumab for Advanced Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Irinotecan and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) are fourth-line treatment options after third-line nivolumab for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, the efficacy and safety of irinotecan and FTD/TPI in the fourth-line setting after third-line nivolumab remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan and FTD/TPI in the fourth-line setting after third-line nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 137 AGC patients treated with nivolumab as third-line treatment in our institute between October 2017 and July 2021. Of these, we recruited 19 AGC patients who initiated irinotecan and 23 AGC patients who initiated FTD/TPI in the fourth-line setting until September 2021. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 5.83 months for irinotecan and 6.31 months for FTD/TPI. Median time-to-treatment failure was 2.07 months for irinotecan and 1.64 months for FTD/TPI. While the frequency of all-grade diarrhea was higher in irinotecan (36% vs. 17%), grade ≥3 neutropenia tended to be higher in FTD/TPI (21% vs. 35%). CONCLUSION: Irinotecan and FTD/TPI may be clinically useful as fourth-line treatments after nivolumab.

Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers, which arise from the intrahepatic or extrahepatic bile ducts and the gallbladder, generally have a poor prognosis and are rising in incidence worldwide. The standard-of-care treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer is chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Because most biliary tract cancers have an immune-suppressed microenvironment, immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a low objective response rate. We aimed to assess whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin would improve outcomes compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: KEYNOTE-966 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 175 medical centres globally. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; had previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer; had disease measurable per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles). Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, disease stage, and site of origin in block sizes of four. The primary endpoint of overall survival was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoint of safety was evaluated in the as-treated population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2019, and June 8, 2021, 1564 patients were screened for eligibility, 1069 of whom were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (pembrolizumab group; n=533) or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (placebo group; n=536). Median study follow-up at final analysis was 25·6 months (IQR 21·7-30·4). Median overall survival was 12·7 months (95% CI 11·5-13·6) in the pembrolizumab group versus 10·9 months (9·9-11·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·72-0·95]; one-sided p=0·0034 [significance threshold, p=0·0200]). In the as-treated population, the maximum adverse event grade was 3 to 4 in 420 (79%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 400 (75%) of 534 in the placebo group; 369 (70%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 367 (69%) in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 to 4. 31 (6%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 49 (9%) in the placebo group died due to adverse events, including eight (2%) in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group who died due to treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Based on a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin without any new safety signals, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin could be a new treatment option for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.