Mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance to CDK4/CDK6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treatment.

Cell cycle dysregulation is a hallmark of cancer that promotes eccessive cell division. Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) and cyclin-dependent kinase 6 (CDK6) are key molecules in the G1-to-S phase cell cycle transition and are crucial for the onset, survival, and progression of breast cancer (BC). Small-molecule CDK4/CDK6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) block phosphorylation of tumor suppressor Rb and thus restrain susceptible BC cells in G1 phase. Three CDK4/6i are approved for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC in combination with endocrine therapy (ET). Though this has improved the clinical outcomes for survival of BC patients, there is no established standard next-line treatment to tackle drug resistance. Recent studies suggest that CDK4/6i can modulate other distinct effects in both BC and breast stromal compartments, which may provide new insights into aspects of their clinical activity. This review describes the biochemistry of the CDK4/6-Rb-E2F pathway in HR+ BC, then discusses how CDK4/6i can trigger other effects in BC/breast stromal compartments, and finally outlines the mechanisms of CDK4/6i resistance that have emerged in recent preclinical studies and clinical cohorts, emphasizing the impact of these findings on novel therapeutic opportunities in BC.

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.

Molecular Markers of Response to Anti-PD1 Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Single-agent anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors convey outstanding clinical benefits in a small fraction (∼20%) of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but the molecular mechanisms determining response are unknown. To fill this gap, we herein analyze the molecular and immune traits of aHCC in patients treated with anti-PD1. METHODS: Overall, 111 tumor samples from patients with aHCC were obtained from 13 centers before systemic therapies. We performed molecular analysis and immune deconvolution using whole-genome expression data (n = 83), mutational analysis (n = 72), and histologic evaluation with an endpoint of objective response. RESULTS: Among 83 patients with transcriptomic data, 28 were treated in frontline, whereas 55 patients were treated after tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) either in second or third line. Responders treated in frontline showed upregulated interferon-γ signaling and major histocompatibility complex II-related antigen presentation. We generated an 11-gene signature (IFNAP), capturing these molecular features, which predicts response and survival in patients treated with anti-PD1 in frontline. The signature was validated in a separate cohort of aHCC and >240 patients with other solid cancer types where it also predicted response and survival. Of note, the same signature was unable to predict response in archival tissue of patients treated with frontline TKIs, highlighting the need for fresh biopsies before immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: Interferon signaling and major histocompatibility complex-related genes are key molecular features of HCCs responding to anti-PD1. A novel 11-gene signature predicts response in frontline aHCC, but not in patients pretreated with TKIs. These results must be confirmed in prospective studies and highlights the need for biopsies before immunotherapy to identify biomarkers of response.

HCC EV ECG score: An extracellular vesicle-based protein assay for detection of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The sensitivity of current surveillance methods for detecting early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is suboptimal. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are promising circulating biomarkers for early cancer detection. In this study, we aim to develop an HCC EV-based surface protein assay for early detection of HCC. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Tissue microarray was used to evaluate four potential HCC-associated protein markers. An HCC EV surface protein assay, composed of covalent chemistry-mediated HCC EV purification and real-time immuno-polymerase chain reaction readouts, was developed and optimized for quantifying subpopulations of EVs. An HCC EV ECG score, calculated from the readouts of three HCC EV subpopulations ( E pCAM + CD63 + , C D147 + CD63 + , and G PC3 + CD63 + HCC EVs), was established for detecting early-stage HCC. A phase 2 biomarker study was conducted to evaluate the performance of ECG score in a training cohort ( n  = 106) and an independent validation cohort ( n  = 72).Overall, 99.7% of tissue microarray stained positive for at least one of the four HCC-associated protein markers (EpCAM, CD147, GPC3, and ASGPR1) that were subsequently validated in HCC EVs. In the training cohort, HCC EV ECG score demonstrated an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.99) for distinguishing early-stage HCC from cirrhosis with a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 90%. The AUROCs of the HCC EV ECG score remained excellent in the validation cohort (0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99) and in the subgroups by etiology (viral: 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00; nonviral: 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99). CONCLUSION: HCC EV ECG score demonstrated great potential for detecting early-stage HCC. It could augment current surveillance methods and improve patients' outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combination immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been tested in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), leading to objective response rates of 15-20%, mostly without a significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Furthermore, approximately 30% of HCC exhibits intrinsic resistance to ICIs. In the absence of predictive biomarkers to identify patients likely to benefit most from immunotherapy, research has moved to exploring combinations with potential activity in broader patient populations. Basket trials, including cohorts of patients with HCC, and early phase studies tested the combination of ICIs with anti-angiogenic agents as well as the combination of two different ICIs. The promising results that were achieved provided the rationale for the following phase III trials, which tested the combination of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies with bevacizumab, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. Positive results from the IMbrave150 trial led to the practice-changing approval of atezolizumab-bevacizumab, the first regimen to demonstrate improved survival in the front-line setting since the approval of sorafenib. More recently, the HIMALAYA trial demonstrated the superiority of durvalumab-tremelimumab (STRIDE regimen) over sorafenib, establishing a new first-line option. In contrast, inconsistent results have been achieved with combinations of ICIs and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, with only one phase III trial showing an OS benefit. The rapid evolution of the therapeutic landscape for patients with advanced HCC has left many unanswered questions that will need to be addressed by future research. These include the choice and sequencing of treatments, identification of biomarkers, combinations with locoregional therapies, and development of new immunotherapy agents. This review summarises the scientific rationale and available clinical data for combination immunotherapy in advanced HCC.

Overall survival and objective response in advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A subanalysis of the REFLECT study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Validated surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) are important for expediting the clinical study and drug-development processes. Herein, we aimed to validate objective response as an independent predictor of OS in individuals with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving systemic anti-angiogenic therapy. METHODS: We investigated the association between objective response (investigator-assessed mRECIST, independent radiologic review [IRR] mRECIST and RECIST v1.1) and OS in REFLECT, a phase III study of lenvatinib vs. sorafenib. We conducted landmark analyses (Simon-Makuch) of OS by objective response at 2, 4, and 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: Median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI 18.6-24.5) for responders (investigator-assessed mRECIST) vs. 11.9 months (95% CI 10.7-12.8) for non-responders (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76; p <0.001). Objective response by IRR per mRECIST and RECIST v1.1 supported the association with OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.51-0.72; p <0.001 and HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.39-0.65; p <0.001, respectively). OS was significantly prolonged for responders vs. non-responders (investigator-assessed mRECIST) at the 2-month (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76; p <0.001), 4-month (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.80; p <0.001), and 6-month (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86; p <0.001) landmarks. Results were similar when assessed by IRR, with both mRECIST and RECIST v1.1. An exploratory multivariate Cox regression analysis identified objective response by investigator-assessed mRECIST (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.44-0.68; p <0.0001) and IRR-assessed RECIST v1.1 (HR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.64; p <0.0001) as independent predictors of OS in individuals with unresectable HCC. CONCLUSIONS: Objective response was an independent predictor of OS in individuals with unresectable HCC in REFLECT; additional studies are needed to confirm surrogacy. Participants achieving a complete or partial response by mRECIST or RECIST v1.1 had significantly longer survival vs. those with stable/progressive/non-evaluable disease. GOV NUMBER: NCT01761266. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: This analysis of data taken from a completed clinical trial (REFLECT) looked for any link between objective response and overall survival time in individuals with unresectable HCC receiving anti-angiogenic treatments. Significantly longer median overall survival was found for responders (21.6 months) vs. non-responders (11.9 months). Overall survival was also significantly longer for responders vs. non-responders (based on objective response status at 2, 4, and 6 months) in the landmark analysis. Our results indicate that objective response is an independent predictor of overall survival in this setting, confirming its validity as a rapid marker of efficacy that can be applied in phase II trials; however, further validation is required to determine is validity for other systemic treatments (e.g. immunotherapies), or as a surrogate of overall survival.

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed encouraging antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b trial involving patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In a global, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received systemic treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or sorafenib until unacceptable toxic effects occurred or there was a loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed at an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 336 patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group and 165 patients in the sorafenib group. At the time of the primary analysis (August 29, 2019), the hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab-bevacizumab as compared with sorafenib was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.79; P<0.001). Overall survival at 12 months was 67.2% (95% CI, 61.3 to 73.1) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab and 54.6% (95% CI, 45.2 to 64.0) with sorafenib. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.3) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.6) in the respective groups (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.5% of 329 patients who received at least one dose of atezolizumab-bevacizumab and in 55.1% of 156 patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib. Grade 3 or 4 hypertension occurred in 15.2% of patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group; however, other high-grade toxic effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab resulted in better overall and progression-free survival outcomes than sorafenib. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.).

Prolonging the life of people with metastatic breast cancer in routine clinical practice by adding palbociclib to an aromatase inhibitor from a real-world database analysis: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article about a study called "P-REALITY X" that was published in the medical journal npj Breast Cancer in October 2022. "P-REALITY X" stands for Palbociclib REAl-world first-LIne comparaTive effectiveness studY eXtended. This study used information from a database to look at whether adding a second treatment (palbociclib) to an aromatase inhibitor (AI) helped people with a certain type of breast cancer to live longer. The type of breast cancer is metastatic hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor-negative breast cancer, also called HR-positive (or HR+)/HER2-negative (or HER2-) breast cancer. The study used information from the Flatiron Database. This database contains unidentified health care information collected from people seen by doctors in the USA. Only data from people who did not participate in a clinical trial were used. When people are treated outside of a clinical trial, this is called the real-world setting, or routine clinical practice. In clinical trials, people lived longer without their disease worsening if they were treated with palbociclib plus an AI versus being treated with an AI only. Based on the results of clinical trials, treatment with palbociclib plus an AI is already approved and recommended for people with HR+/HER2- breast cancer. This study looked at whether people lived longer if they were treated with palbociclib plus an AI versus being treated with an AI only in routine clinical practice as well. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: This study showed that, in routine clinical practice, people treated with the medicine palbociclib plus an AI lived longer than people treated with only an AI. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the continued use of palbociclib plus an AI as the standard first medicine to be given to people with metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05361655 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Nivolumab versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 459): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1-2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7-28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7-25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9-18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9-17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72-1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related. INTERPRETATION: First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: IMbrave150 demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab led to significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at the primary analysis (after a median 8.6 months of follow-up). We present updated data after 12 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: Patients with systemic treatment-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily in this open-label, phase III study. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS by independently assessed RECIST 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rates and exploratory subgroup efficacy analyses. This is a post hoc updated analysis of efficacy and safety. RESULTS: From March 15, 2018, to January 30, 2019, 501 patients (intention-to-treat population) were randomly allocated to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 336) or sorafenib (n = 165). On August 31, 2020, after a median 15.6 (range, 0-28.6) months of follow-up, the median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive p <0.001). The median PFS was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.6) and 4.3 (95% CI 4.0-5.6) months in the respective treatment groups (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81; descriptive p < 0.001). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 and 72 (46%) of 156 safety-evaluable patients in the respective groups, and treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. CONCLUSION: After longer follow-up, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab maintained clinically meaningful survival benefits over sorafenib and had a safety profile consistent with the primary analysis. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03434379. LAY SUMMARY: The primary analysis of IMbrave150 showed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had significantly greater benefits than sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but survival data were not yet mature. At this updated analysis done 12 months later, median overall survival was 5.8 months longer with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than sorafenib, and the severity profile of treatment-related side effects remained similar. These updated results confirm atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Ramucirumab for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Elevated Alpha Fetoprotein Following Non-Sorafenib Systemic Therapy: An Expansion Cohort of REACH-2.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab is indicated for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL following sorafenib. Here, we prospectively studied ramucirumab following non-sorafenib systemic therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, non-comparative cohort of REACH-2 enrolled patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class-A liver disease, and AFP ≥400 ng/mL who had received 1-2 lines of therapy, excluding sorafenib or chemotherapy. Ramucirumab was administered 8 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate (RECIST v1.1), time to progression, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported outcomes. Final analysis occurred after all enrolled patients completed ≥3 treatment cycles or discontinued treatment. RESULTS: Between April 27, 2018, and March 29, 2021, 47 patients were treated at 21 investigative sites in Asia, Europe, and USA. The most frequently reported grade ≥3 adverse events, regardless of causality, were hypertension (11%), proteinuria (6%), hyponatremia (6%), and AST increased (6%). Two patients died from adverse events (myocardial infarction and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage), deemed related to treatment. Median progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival were 1.7 months, 2.8 months, and 8.7 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 10.6% with a median duration response of 8.3 months. Median time to deterioration in FHSI-8 total score was 4.4 months. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab demonstrated consistent and meaningful clinical activity with no new safety signals following non-sorafenib therapies in patients with advanced HCC and AFP ≥400 ng/mL. This represents one of the first sequencing studies for patients with advanced HCC not treated with sorafenib.

Circulating Tumor Cell-Based Messenger RNA Scoring System for Prognostication of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Translating Tissue-Based Messenger RNA Profiling Into a Noninvasive Setting.

Numerous studies in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have proposed tissue-based gene signatures for individualized prognostic assessments. Here, we develop a novel circulating tumor cell (CTC)-based transcriptomic profiling assay to translate tissue-based messenger RNA (mRNA) signatures into a liquid biopsy setting for noninvasive HCC prognostication. The HCC-CTC mRNA scoring system combines the NanoVelcro CTC Assay for enriching HCC CTCs and the NanoString nCounter platform for quantifying the HCC-CTC Risk Score (RS) panel in enriched HCC CTCs. The prognostic role of the HCC-CTC RS was assessed in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) HCC cohort (n = 362) and validated in an independent clinical CTC cohort (n = 40). The HCC-CTC RS panel was developed through our integrated data analysis framework of 8 HCC tissue-based gene signatures and identified the top 10 prognostic genes (discoidin domain receptor tyrosine kinase 1 [DDR1], enoyl-CoA hydratase and 3-hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase [EHHADH], androgen receptor [AR], lumican [LUM], hydroxysteroid 17-beta dehydrogenase 6[HSD17B6], prostate transmembrane protein, androgen induced 1 [PMEPA1], tsukushi, small leucine rich proteoglycan [TSKU], N-terminal EF-hand calcium binding protein 2 [NECAB2], ladinin 1 [LAD1], solute carrier family 27 member 5 [SLC27A5]) highly expressed in HCC with low expressions in white blood cells. The panel accurately discriminated overall survival in TCGA HCC cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.9). The combined use of the scoring system and HCC-CTC RS panel successfully distinguished artificial blood samples spiked with an aggressive HCC cell type, SNU-387, from those spiked with PLC/PRF/5 cells (P = 0.02). In the CTC validation cohort (n = 40), HCC-CTC RS remained an independent predictor of survival (HR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.5-21.3; P = 0.009) after controlling for Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, and CTC enumeration count. Our study demonstrates a novel interdisciplinary approach to translate tissue-based gene signatures into a liquid biopsy setting. This noninvasive approach will allow real-time disease profiling and dynamic prognostication of HCC.

Evolution of Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Despite being one of the leading causes of cancer death globally, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has historically not been the focus of novel drug development. That has changed in the past several years, with the results from a number of hallmark phase 3 studies in advanced HCC. In HCC, immune-oncology approaches have garnered much attention; there is still a need to better understand criteria for patient selection and to optimize combination strategies to maximize the potential of these approaches. The next generation of studies will aim at translating our increased understanding of tumor biology into clinical trial design.

Patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave150): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2-10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88-100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80-100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88-100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89-100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16-0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46-0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34-0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45-0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46-0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55-1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: -3·29 (SD 17·56) versus -5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, -4·02 (19·42) versus -9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and -3·77 (12·82) versus -7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. INTERPRETATION: Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit-risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Comparative effectiveness of first-line palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in US real-world clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Findings from randomized clinical trials may have limited generalizability to patients treated in routine clinical practice. This study examined the effectiveness of first-line palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone on survival outcomes in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treated in routine clinical practice in the USA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective observational analysis of electronic health records within the Flatiron Health Analytic Database. A total of 1430 patients with ≥ 3 months of follow-up received palbociclib plus letrozole or letrozole alone in the first-line setting between February 3, 2015, and February 28, 2019. Stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) was used to balance baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. RESULTS: After sIPTW adjustment, median follow-up was 24.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 14.2-34.9) in the palbociclib group and 23.3 months (IQR, 12.7-34.3) in those taking letrozole alone. Palbociclib combination treatment was associated with significantly longer median rwPFS compared to letrozole alone (20.0 vs 11.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.69; P < 0.0001). Median OS was not reached in the palbociclib group and was 43.1 months with letrozole alone (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.82; P = 0.0002). The 2-year OS rate was 78.3% in the palbociclib group and 68.0% with letrozole alone. A propensity score matching analysis showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In this "real-world" population of patients with HR+/HER2- MBC, palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy was associated with improved survival outcomes compared with patients treated with letrozole alone in the first-line setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04176354.

Health-related quality-of-life impact of pembrolizumab versus best supportive care in previously systemically treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: KEYNOTE-240.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure and prognostic indicator in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 (NCT02702401) assessed the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC in patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib. This study presents the results of a prespecified exploratory analysis of patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its HCC supplement (EORTC QLQ-HCC18) electronically at baseline; at weeks 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18; and then every 9 weeks until 1 year or end of treatment, and at the 30-day safety follow-up visit. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 271 and 127 patients randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. From baseline to week 12, changes in both scores were similar between pembrolizumab and placebo; global health status/QoL scores were stable. The proportions of patients who improved, remained stable, or deteriorated across all functional domain and symptom scores were generally similar between pembrolizumab and placebo. Time to deterioration was similar between the 2 arms based on the prespecified analysis of EORTC QLQ-HCC18 domains of abdominal swelling, fatigue, and pain. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab preserved HRQoL during treatment for advanced HCC. Combined with efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-240, these findings support a positive benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab in a second-line treatment setting for patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib.

Serum alpha-fetoprotein and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with ramucirumab.

BACKGROUND: Post hoc analyses assessed the prognostic and predictive value of baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), as well as clinical outcomes by AFP response or progression, during treatment in two placebo-controlled trials (REACH, REACH-2). METHODS: Serum AFP was measured at baseline and every three cycles. The prognostic and predictive value of baseline AFP was assessed by Cox regression models and Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot method. Associations between AFP (≥ 20% increase) and radiographic progression and efficacy were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline AFP was confirmed as a continuous (REACH, REACH-2; p < 0.0001) and dichotomous (≥400 vs. <400 ng/ml; REACH, p < 0.01) prognostic factor, and was predictive for ramucirumab survival benefit in REACH (p = 0.0042 continuous; p < 0.0001 dichotomous). Time to AFP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.513; p < 0.0001) and radiographic (HR 0.549; p < 0.0001) progression favoured ramucirumab. Association between AFP and radiographic progression was shown for up to 6 (odds ratio [OR] 5.1; p < 0.0001) and 6-12 weeks (OR 1.8; p = 0.0065). AFP response was higher with ramucirumab vs. placebo (p < 0.0001). Survival was longer in patients with an AFP response than patients without (13.6 vs. 5.6 months, HR 0.451; 95% confidence interval, 0.354-0.574; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: AFP is an important prognostic factor and a predictive biomarker for ramucirumab survival benefit. AFP ≥ 400 ng/ml is an appropriate selection criterion for ramucirumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, REACH (NCT01140347) and REACH-2 (NCT02435433).