Randomized phase I/II study of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor peptide vaccines for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted peptide vaccines for the immunization of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had responded to transarterial chemoembolization. METHODS: Twenty-two patients were randomized 1:1 to receive VEGFR-targeted peptides or placebo. The primary end-point was the safety assessment of the immunization. The secondary end-points were evaluation of immunological responses and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: No severe adverse events were induced by the study agents. Among the 12 patients in the vaccine group, a VEGFR1-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) response was induced in eight (66.7%) patients and a VEGFR2-specific CTL response was induced in 10 (83.3%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 4.8 and 52.0 months, respectively, in the vaccine group, and 2.7 and 21.8 months, respectively, in the placebo group. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups (PFS p = 0.925, OS p = 0.190). When divided into two groups according to immunoreactivity, the median PFS of patients with and without a strong immune response to VEGFR1 were 7.4 and 2.7 months, and that to VEGFR2 were 10.6 and 2.7 months, respectively; there were significant differences according to the immune response. CONCLUSIONS: Immunotherapy with peptide vaccines targeting VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 was well tolerated with no serious adverse events. It also effectively induced peptide-specific CTLs in patients with unresectable HCC.

Optimal management of lenvatinib therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma by balancing the therapeutic effect with the relative dose intensity.

AIMS: We aimed to assess the optimal management of first or later-line lenvatinib therapy (LEN) for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), by clarifying the difference of degree between relative dose intensity (RDI) to achieve objective response (OR) and disease control (DC) by aiming at stable disease (SD), taking dose modifications into consideration. METHODS: One hundred uHCC patients who received LEN in first- or later-line settings, between April 2018 and December 2020 in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. The factors associated with overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), OR and DC were assessed. The optimal cut-off values of RDI 4 weeks after initiation of LEN (RDI during cycle 1) and total RDI (RDI during all cycles) to predict achievement of OR and DC by aiming at SD were determined by receiver operator curve analysis. RESULTS: Achievement of OR and SD were favorable factors for OS (HR, 0.080 and 0.20) and TTP (HR, 0.052 and 0.073), with progressive disease defined as the reference. RDI ≥ 0.8 during cycle 1 and RDI ≥ 0.4 during cycle 1 contributed to achievement of OR (odds ratio, 3.28) and DC (odds ratio, 4.85), respectively. Experience of dose interruption was associated with a favorable TTP (HR, 0.58). The therapeutic line of LEN did not contribute to OS, TTP or best response. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve OR and SD for a favorable outcome of first- or later-line LEN, high and moderate early-phase RDI are required, respectively. The degree of RDI during LEN and tolerance need compatible by dose modifications.

Therapeutic Modifications without Discontinuation of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Therapy Are Associated with Favorable Overall Survival and Time to Progression in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

We retrospectively evaluated the impact of therapeutic modifications of atezolizumab (Atezo) plus bevacizumab (Bev) therapy (Atezo/Bev), including the interruption or discontinuation of both Atezo and Bev, and the reduction or discontinuation of Bev, on the outcome of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) (median observation period: 9.40 months). One hundred uHCC from five hospitals were included. Therapeutic modifications without discontinuation of both Atezo and Bev (n = 46) were associated with favorable overall survival (median not reached; hazard ratio (HR): 0.23) and time to progression (median: 10.00 months; HR: 0.23) with no therapeutic modification defined as the reference. In contrast, the discontinuation of both Atezo and Bev without other therapeutic modifications (n = 20) was associated with unfavorable overall survival (median: 9.63 months; HR: 2.72) and time to progression (median: 2.53 months; HR: 2.78). Patients with modified albumin-bilirubin grade 2b liver function (n = 43) or immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (n = 31) discontinued both Atezo and Bev without other therapeutic modifications more frequently (30.2% and 35.5%, respectively) than those with modified albumin-bilirubin grade 1 (10.2%) and without irAEs (13.0%). Patients with objective response (n = 48) experienced irAEs more frequently (n = 21) than those without (n = 10) (p = 0.027). Avoiding the discontinuation of both Atezo and Bev without other therapeutic modifications may be the optimal management of uHCC.