Association between treatment-emergent hypertension and survival with lenvatinib treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the REFLECT study.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable and/or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Lenvatinib achieved promising clinical benefits in REFLECT but was associated with clinically significant treatment-emergent hypertension (CSTE-HTN, a grouped term), a common class effect of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of CSTE-HTN on the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in HCC. METHODS: Patients from REFLECT who received lenvatinib (n = 476) were stratified according to CSTE-HTN. Tumors were assessed by mRECIST. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using landmark analyses at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients in the lenvatinib arm developed CSTE-HTN, and 264 did not. CSTE-HTN first occurred at 3.7 weeks (median); the worst grade CSTE-HTN occurred at 4.1 weeks (median). No patients had life-threatening CSTE-HTN and/or died due to CSTE-HTN. Median OS was numerically longer in patients with versus without CSTE-HTN (at 4 weeks: 16.3 vs. 11.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.621-1.004; at 8 weeks: 13.5 vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.696-1.089). Median PFS was similar between patients with and without CSTE-HTN (at 4 weeks: 6.6 vs. 6.4 months; HR, 0.887; 95% CI, 0.680-1.157; at 8 weeks: 5.7 vs. 6.4 months; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.84-1.41). Objective response rate was numerically higher in patients with (48.6%) versus without CSTE-HTN (34.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, CSTE-HTN was associated with improved OS but not PFS. CSTE-HTN did not impair the outcomes of patients with HCC treated with lenvatinib when detected early and managed appropriately.

Outcomes in the Asian subgroup of the phase III randomised HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the global, phase III HIMALAYA study in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) improved overall survival (OS) vs. sorafenib; durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib. HBV is the predominant HCC aetiology in most of Asia vs. HCV or nonviral aetiologies in Western countries and Japan. This analysis evaluated safety and efficacy outcomes for STRIDE and durvalumab monotherapy vs. sorafenib, in HIMALAYA participants enrolled in Asia, excluding Japan. METHODS: In HIMALAYA, participants were randomised to STRIDE, durvalumab, or sorafenib. The Asian subgroup in this analysis included participants enrolled in Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. OS, objective response rate (ORR; per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and safety were assessed in the Asian subgroup and in an exploratory subgroup of participants in Hong Kong and Taiwan. RESULTS: The Asian subgroup included 479 participants randomised to STRIDE (n=156), durvalumab (n=167), or sorafenib (n=156). OS was improved for STRIDE vs. sorafenib (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89]). The OS HR for durvalumab vs. sorafenib was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.06). In Hong Kong and Taiwan (n=141), OS HRs for STRIDE vs. sorafenib and durvalumab vs. sorafenib were 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.37-1.08), respectively. In the Asian subgroup, ORR (including unconfirmed responses) was numerically higher for STRIDE (28.2%) and durvalumab (18.6%) vs. sorafenib (9.0%), and Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were numerically lower for STRIDE (19.9%) and durvalumab (13.3%) vs. sorafenib (30.5%). CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE improved outcomes vs. sorafenib in the Asian subgroup. These results support the benefits of STRIDE for participants with uHCC globally, including the Asia-Pacific region. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03298451 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: The global, phase III HIMALAYA study found that the STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) regimen improved overall survival (OS), including long-term OS, vs. sorafenib, and that durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, there are differences in the aetiology and clinical practices related to HCC in parts of Asia, compared to Western countries and Japan, which could lead to differences in treatment outcomes between these regions. The results of this analysis demonstrate the benefits of STRIDE for participants in the Asia-Pacific region, consistent with the full, global study population. Overall, these findings continue to support the use of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

Interaction of base excision repair gene polymorphism and estrogen-DNA adducts in breast cancer risk among East Asian women.

PURPOSE: In East Asia, the incidence of breast cancer has been increasing rapidly, particularly among premenopausal women. An elevated ratio of estrogen-DNA adducts was linked to a higher risk of breast cancer. The present study explored the influence of the interaction between base excision repair (BER) gene polymorphisms and estrogen-DNA adducts on breast cancer risk. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study comprising healthy volunteers and individuals with benign breast disease (control arm, n = 176) and patients with invasive carcinoma or carcinoma in situ (case arm, n = 177). Genotyping for BER-related genes, including SMUG1, OGG1, ERCC5, and APEX1, was performed. A logistic regression model, incorporating interactions between gene polymorphisms, estrogen-DNA adduct ratio, and clinical variables, was used to identify the risk factors for breast cancer. RESULTS: Univariate analysis indicated marginal associations between breast cancer risk and APEX1 rs1130409 T > G (P = 0.057) and APEX1 rs1760944 T > G (P = 0.065). Multivariate regression analysis revealed significant associations with increased breast cancer risk for APEX1_rs1130409 (GT/GG versus TT) combined with a natural logarithmic value of the estrogen-DNA adduct ratio (estimated OR 1.164, P = 0.023) and premenopausal status with an estrogen-DNA adduct ratio > 2.93 (estimated OR 2.433, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: APEX1_rs1130409 (GT/GG versus TT) polymorphisms, which are related to decreased BER activity, combined with an increased ratio of estrogen-DNA adducts, increase the risk of breast cancer in East Asian women.

Cyclin dependent kinase 9 inhibition reduced programmed death-ligand 1 expression and improved treatment efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma.

The anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody is a standard therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Tumor expression of PD-L1 can be induced upon stimulus. Because cyclin-dependent kinase 9 (CDK9) inhibition reduces the expression of inducible proteins, we explored the influence of CDK9 inhibition on PD-L1 expression in HCC cells. We found that PD-L1 expression was low in HCC cells; however, IFN-γ treatment increased this expression. CDK9 inhibitors AZD4573 and atuveciclib reduced the IFN-γ induced PD-L1 expression in a dose-dependent manner. CDK9 knockdown yielded similar results, but CDK9 overexpression reversed the influence of the CDK9 inhibitors. In the orthotopic mouse model, mice treated with a CDK9 inhibitor and an anti-PD-L1 antibody had significantly smaller tumors and exhibited longer survival than mice treated with either agent. In conclusion, CDK9 inhibition could reduce the expression of PD-L1 in HCC cells. Using both CDK9 inhibitors and anti-PD-L1 antibodies is more effective than using either agent alone.

Changes in Posttreatment Spleen Volume Associated with Immunotherapy Outcomes for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Purpose: We investigated whether spleen volume (SV) changes were associated with treatment outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received immunotherapy or first-line sorafenib. Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced HCC who underwent immunotherapy or first-line sorafenib at our institute were retrospectively analyzed. CT was used to measure SV before and within 3 months of treatment initiation. Tumor assessment followed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The association between SV change and tumor response or progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: The immunotherapy group comprised 143 patients (124 men, mean age, 59.8 years ± 11.2 [standard deviation]), while the sorafenib group had 57 (47 men, mean age, 59.6 years ± 9.9). SV increased in 108 (75.5%) immunotherapy and 21 (36.8%) sorafenib patients. In the immunotherapy group, patients with increased SV were more likely than those with decreased SV to have a higher disease control rate (76.9% vs 57.1%, p = 0.024) and durable clinical benefit (52.8% vs 25.7%, p = 0.005). It was also associated with extended PFS in the immunotherapy group in both the univariate (p = 0.028) and multivariate (p = 0.014) analysis. By contrast, in the sorafenib group, an increased in SV was not associated with treatment response but was presumably associated with reduced PFS (p = 0.072) in the multivariate analysis. After IPTW adjustment, the increase in SV remained a significant predictor for DCB and PFS in the immunotherapy group. Conclusion: Most patients exhibited an increase in SV after the initiation of immunotherapy, which may be used to predict response and prognosis. However, this association was not observed in patients who received sorafenib.

The study provides significant evidence that an increase in spleen volume is associated with better treatment outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing immunotherapy. These findings offer oncologists a new potential biomarker for optimizing treatment strategies. Specifically, increased spleen volume could be used to predict higher rates of disease control and durable clinical benefits, allowing for more personalized care.

Impact of Bevacizumab Being Skipped due to Adverse Events of Special Interest for Bevacizumab in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: An Exploratory Analysis of the Phase III IMbrave150 Study.

Introduction: The phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as the global standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis examined the impact of bevacizumab interruption due to bevacizumab adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Methods: Patients in IMbrave150 who were randomized to atezolizumab + bevacizumab and received treatment for ≥6 months (to reduce immortal time bias) were included in group A-1 if bevacizumab had ever been skipped due to bevacizumab AESIs or to group A-2 otherwise. Efficacy analyses included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by whether bevacizumab was skipped (group A-1 vs. A-2). PFS was evaluated per independent review facility (IRF)-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and HCC-modified RECIST (IRF-HCC mRECIST). Safety was also evaluated. Results: Of the 210 patients who received ≥6 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab, 69 were assigned to group A-1 and 141 to A-2. At data cutoff (August 20, 2020), hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.69) for group A-1 versus A-2. HR for PFS was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.55) per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1 and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.59; 15.5 vs. 9.7 months) per IRF-HCC mRECIST for group A-1 versus A-2. Safety profiles for atezolizumab and bevacizumab were largely similar between groups. More group A-1 patients had grade 3/4 adverse events. A separate analysis investigating the impact of immortal time bias in patients who received ≥3 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab supported the appropriateness of the ≥6-month landmark analysis. Discussion/Conclusion: Efficacy was similar between patients who skipped bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs and those who did not. Although this comparison was nonrandomized and exploratory, results suggest that skipping bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs did not considerably impact the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab.

Improved outcomes of localized diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at the Waldeyer ring in comparison to the sinonasal area in the rituximab era.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the head-and-neck area primarily involves the Waldeyer ring (WR) and sinonasal area (SN). However, the differential clinical outcomes between patients with WR-DLBCL and those with SN-DLBCL in the rituximab era remain unclear. METHODS: To avoid confounding factors contributed by advanced DLBCL with WR and SN involvement, we assessed the clinical outcomes of patients with stage I/II WR-DLBCL and SN-DLBCL and compared them with those having corresponding stages of DLBCL in the lymph nodes but without other extranodal involvement (LN-DLBCL) in the same period. We compared the patients' clinical characteristics, treatment modalities, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) among the three subgroups. RESULTS: We analyzed 67, 15, and 106 patients with WR-DLBCL, SN-DLBCL, and LN-DLBCL, respectively, between January 2000 and December 2019. All patients received front-line rituximab-based regimens, and > 80% received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone-based regimens. More patients with SN-DLBCL had revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) score 3 (27%) when compared with those with WR-DLBCL (7%) and those with LN-DLBCL (10%, p = 0.181). Patients with WR-DLBCL, LN-DLBCL, and SN-DLBCL had 5-year EFS and OS rates of 80.7%, 59.5%, and 41.9% (p = 0.021) and 83.7%, 70.8%, and 55.8% (p = 0.032), respectively. Compared to patients with LN-DLBCL, those with WR-DLBCL also had a significantly favorable 5-year EFS rate (p = 0.021) and 5-year OS rate (p = 0.023). Three of the 15 patients with SN-DLBCL experienced lymphoma recurrence in the brain after front-line treatment. In multivariate analyses, R-IPI scores of 1-2 and 3 served as significantly poor prognostic factors for patients with poor EFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients with LN-DLBCL, patients with WR-DLBCL receiving front-line rituximab-based treatments had favorable clinical outcomes; however, patients with SN-DLBCL had worse clinical outcomes. Further studies on molecular prognostic factors and treatment strategies for SN-DLBCL are warranted.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes From the Phase III HIMALAYA Study of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: In the phase III HIMALAYA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), the Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) regimen significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib, and durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), a secondary outcome from HIMALAYA, are reported here. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive STRIDE, durvalumab, or sorafenib. PROs were assessed (preplanned secondary outcome) using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire and the 18-item HCC module. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline and improvement rate in global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), functioning, and disease-related symptoms were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 1,171 participants were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389) and were evaluable for PRO assessments. Across treatment arms, compliance rates for PROs were >77% at baseline and >70% overall. Baseline scores were comparable across treatment arms. TTD in GHS/QoL, physical functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and abdominal pain was numerically longer for both STRIDE and durvalumab versus sorafenib. Clinically meaningful deterioration in PROs was not observed in any treatment arm. However, TTD in nausea and abdominal swelling was numerically longer for STRIDE versus sorafenib, and the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in GHS/QoL, role, emotional and social functioning, and disease-related symptoms was greater with STRIDE and durvalumab versus sorafenib. PROs with STRIDE and durvalumab were generally similar. CONCLUSION: Compared with sorafenib, STRIDE and durvalumab were associated with clinically meaningful, patient-centered GHS/QoL, functioning, and symptom benefits in people with uHCC. These findings support the benefits of the STRIDE regimen compared with sorafenib for a diverse population reflective of the global uHCC population.

Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Alone vs Preceded by Bevacizumab, Etoposide, and Cisplatin for Untreated Brain Metastases From Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The incidence of brain metastasis is increasing in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Treatments to extend the control of brain metastasis are urgently required. Objective: To investigate whether the addition of an induction treatment of bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEEP) improves brain-specific progression-free survival (PFS) after whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, randomized, multicenter clinical trial assessed patients with brain metastases from breast cancer (BMBC) in Taiwan from September 9, 2014, to December 24, 2018, with survival follow-up until December 31, 2021. Key inclusion criteria included metastatic brain tumors not suitable for focal treatment, WBRT naivety, age 20 to 75 years, and at least 1 measurable brain metastatic lesion. The primary end point was brain-specific PFS, with an expected hazard ratio of 0.60, a 2-sided α ≤ .20, and power of 0.8. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 to the experimental arm, which involved 3 cycles of BEEP followed by WBRT, or the control arm, which involved WBRT alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the determination of brain-specific PFS by local investigators according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, the initiation of other brain-directed treatment after WBRT, or death. Other key end points included brain-specific objective response rate after 8 weeks of BEEP treatment or WBRT and 8-month brain-specific PFS rate, PFS, and overall survival. Results: A total of 118 patients with BMBC were randomized, with the intention-to-treat cohort comprising 112 patients. The median age was 56 years (range, 34-71 years), and 61 patients (54.5%) had ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-positive disease. The median (range) brain-specific PFS was 8.1 (0.3-29.5) vs 6.5 (0.9-25.5) months in the experimental and control arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.44-1.13; P = .15; significant at predefined α ≤ .20). The brain-specific objective response rate at 2 months was not significantly different (BEEP treatment vs WBRT, 41.9% vs 52.6%), but the 8-month brain-specific PFS rate was significantly higher in the experimental group (48.7% vs 26.3%; P = .03). Adverse events were generally manageable with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings show that induction BEEP before WBRT may improve the control of BMBC compared with using upfront WBRT, which could address an unmet need for an effective systemic treatment for intractable brain and extracranial metastases from metastatic breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02185352.

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.)