Outcome prioritization and preferences among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with cancer facing competing treatments must prioritize between various outcomes. This study assessed health outcome prioritization among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer. Patients completed three validated outcome prioritization tools: 1) Health Outcomes Tool: prioritizes outcomes (survival, independence, symptoms) using a visual analog scale; 2) Now vs. Later Tool: rates the importance of quality of life at three times-today versus 1 or 5 years in the future; and 3) Attitude Scale: rates agreement with outcome-related statements. The authors measured the proportion of patients prioritizing various outcomes and evaluated their characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (median [range] age 71 [65-88], 68% with metastatic disease) were included. On the Health Outcomes Tool, 60.7% prioritized survival over other outcomes. Having localized disease was associated with choosing survival as top priority. On the Now vs. Later Tool, 50% gave equal importance to current versus future quality of life. On the Attitude Scale, 53.4% disagreed with the statement "the most important thing to me is living as long as I can, no matter what my quality of life is"; and 82.2% agreed with the statement "it is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible". CONCLUSION: Although survival was the top priority for most participants, some older individuals with cancer prioritize other outcomes, such as cognition and function. Clinicians should elicit patient-defined priorities and include them in decision-making.

Adjuvant Chemoradiation in Resected Biliary Adenocarcinoma: Evaluation of SWOG S0809 with a Large National Database.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of adjuvant radiation therapy in resected biliary cancer. Supporting evidence for use comes mainly from the small SWOG S0809 trial, which demonstrated an overall median survival of 35 months. We aimed to use a large national database to evaluate the use of adjuvant chemoradiation in resected extrahepatic bile duct and gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we selected patients from 2004 to 2017 with pT2-4, pN0-1, M0 extrahepatic bile duct or gallbladder adenocarcinoma with either R0 or R1 resection margins, and examined factors associated with overall survival (OS). We examined OS in a cohort of patients mimicking the SWOG S0809 protocol as a large validation cohort. Lastly, we compared patients who received chemotherapy only with patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation using entropy balancing propensity score matching. RESULTS: Overall, 4997 patients with gallbladder or extrahepatic bile duct adenocarcinoma with available survival information meeting the SWOG S0809 criteria were selected, 469 of whom received both adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Median OS in patients undergoing chemoradiation was 36.9 months, and was not different between primary sites (p = 0.841). In a propensity score matched cohort, receipt of adjuvant chemoradiation had a survival benefit compared with adjuvant chemotherapy only (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.95; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Using a large national database, we support the findings of SWOG S0809 with a similar median OS in patients receiving chemoradiation. These data further support the consideration of adjuvant multimodal therapy in resected biliary cancers.

IMbrave152/SKYSCRAPER-14: a Phase III study of atezolizumab, bevacizumab and tiragolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is a standard of care, first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Myeloid and T regulatory cells are key immunosuppressive cell types within the hepatic tumor microenvironment associated with clinical resistance to atezolizumab and bevacizumab therapy for HCC and overall poor prognosis. Therapeutic targeting of TIGIT, which is highly expressed in these cells, with tiragolumab may overcome the immunosuppressive environment and improve clinical benefit, a hypothesis supported by positive efficacy signals in the Phase Ib/II MORPHEUS-Liver study. This paper describes the rationale and design of IMbrave152/SKYSCRAPER-14, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III study comparing atezolizumab and bevacizumab with tiragolumab or placebo in patients with HCC and no prior systemic treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05904886 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

This research study is designed to test a new treatment combination for liver cancer, specifically for patients whose cancer cannot be removed with surgery or has spread. The treatment involves three medications: atezolizumab, bevacizumab and tiragolumab.Atezolizumab and bevacizumab are already used together as a standard treatment for liver cancer. Tiragolumab is designed to block the TIGIT receptor, which is normally involved in holding back the immune cells that would attack the tumor. Because tiragolumab may restore the immune response against the tumor, adding tiragolumab might make the treatment more effective.The study is being done worldwide and includes patients who have not received any previous systemic treatment for their advanced liver cancer. Patients participating in the study will be randomly placed into two groups. One group will receive the new combination of three medications, while the other group will receive the standard treatment of two medications plus a placebo (a treatment with no active ingredient). The main goal is to see if the new combination helps patients live longer and slows the cancer's growth compared with the standard treatment. Safety and how patients feel during the treatment are also important parts of the study.

Acute cancer-related symptoms and concerns among patients receiving chemotherapy: current state of the science.

PURPOSE: This study provides an updated evaluation of the prevalence and severity of acute cancer-related symptoms and quality of life (QOL) concerns among patients treated with emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients were recruited to a larger, multi-site observational study prior to starting chemotherapy. Participants completed sociodemographic questionnaires and clinical data were abstracted via medical record review. Symptoms and QOL were assessed 5 days after starting moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General assessed QOL concerns. Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events evaluated symptoms. Symptoms were considered severe when participants responded "severe" or "very severe." RESULTS: Participants (N = 1174) were on average 58 ± 13 years, mostly female (73%), non-Hispanic (89%), and White (87%). Most participants were diagnosed with breast (38.1%), gynecological (20%), and gastrointestinal (17.1%) cancer. The most common QOL concerns of any severity were fatigue (94%), anhedonia (89%), dissatisfaction with QOL (86%), and sleep disturbance (86%). The most common severe QOL concerns were anhedonia (44%), fatigue (40%), and inability to work (38%). Decreased appetite (74%), pain (71%), and constipation (70%) were the most common symptoms of any severity, as well as most common severe symptoms (13%, 18%, and 18%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Herein, updates are provided in regard to QOL concerns and symptoms reported by patients in the days after chemotherapy and demonstrates that concerns and symptoms have shifted in the last decade.

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.).

A dose escalation/expansion study evaluating dose, safety, and efficacy of the novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor surufatinib, which inhibits VEGFR 1, 2, & 3, FGFR 1, and CSF1R, in US patients with neuroendocrine tumors.

Surufatinib, is a potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1-3; fibroblast growth factor receptor-1; colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor. This Phase 1/1b escalation/expansion study in US patients with solid tumors evaluated 5 once daily (QD) surufatinib doses (3 + 3 design) to identify maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), and evaluate safety and efficacy at the RP2D in 4 disease-specific expansion cohorts including pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [pNET] and extrapancreatic NETs [epNET]. MTD and RP2D were 300 mg QD (escalation [n = 35]); 5 patients (15.6%) (Dose Limiting Toxicity [DLT] Evaluable Set [n = 32]) had DLTs. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional. Estimated progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 11 months were 57.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.7, 78.2) and 51.1% (95% CI: 12.8, 80.3) for pNET and epNET expansion cohorts, respectively. Median PFS was 15.2 (95% CI: 5.2, not evaluable) and 11.5 (95% CI: 6.5,11.5) months. Response rates were 18.8% and 6.3%. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (both cohorts) were fatigue (46.9%), hypertension (43.8%), proteinuria (37.5%), diarrhea (34.4%). Pharmacokinetics, safety, and antitumor efficacy of 300 mg QD oral surufatinib in US patients with pNETs and epNETs are consistent with previously reported studies in China and may support applicability of earlier surufatinib studies in US patients. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02549937.

Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Treatments for Resectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an update on the developments of adjuvant and neoadjuvant liver-directed and systemic therapy options for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. RECENT FINDINGS: Data on liver-directed treatment in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings are sparse and results are conflicting; many studies suggest that optimizing patient selection criteria is a key milestone required to improve study design and clinical benefit to patients. Systemic treatment options are primarily focused on investigation of anti-PD-1/L1 immunotherapeutic agents, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Numerous clinical trials in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings are in progress. Exploration of liver-directed and systemic treatment options for adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for this patient population.

Metagenomics and chemotherapy-induced nausea: A roadmap for future research.

Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can reduce patients' quality of life and may result in premature discontinuation of chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting are commonly grouped together, research has shown that antiemetics are clinically effective against chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) but less so against chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). Nausea remains a problem for up to 68% of patients who are prescribed guideline-consistent antiemetics. Despite the high prevalence of CIN, relatively little is known regarding its etiology independent of CIV. This review summarizes a metagenomics approach to the study and treatment of CIN with the goal of encouraging future research. Metagenomics focuses on genetic risk factors and encompasses both human (ie, host) and gut microbial genetic variation. Little work to date has focused on metagenomics as a putative biological mechanism of CIN. Metagenomics has the potential to be a powerful tool in advancing scientific understanding of CIN by identifying new biological pathways and intervention targets. The investigation of metagenomics in the context of well-established demographic, clinical, and patient-reported risk factors may help to identify patients at risk and facilitate the prevention and management of CIN.

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.

An Expert, Multidisciplinary Perspective on Best Practices in Biomarker Testing in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive malignancy that arises from the intrahepatic biliary tree and is associated with a poor prognosis. Until recently, the treatment landscape of advanced/metastatic iCCA has been limited primarily to chemotherapy. In recent years, the advent of biomarker testing has identified actionable genetic alterations in 40%-50% of patients with iCCA, heralding an era of precision medicine for these patients. Biomarker testing using next-generation sequencing (NGS) has since become increasingly relevant in iCCA; however, several challenges and gaps in standard image-guided liver biopsy and processing have been identified. These include variability in tissue acquisition relating to the imaging modality used for biopsy guidance, the biopsy method used, number of passes, needle choice, specimen preparation methods, the desmoplastic nature of the tumor, as well as the lack of communication among the multidisciplinary team. Recognizing these challenges and the lack of evidence-based guidelines for biomarker testing in iCCA, a multidisciplinary team of experts including interventional oncologists, a gastroenterologist, medical oncologists, and pathologists suggest best practices for optimizing tissue collection and biomarker testing in iCCA.

Risk Factors for Hospitalizations Among Older Adults with Gastrointestinal Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (≥65 years) with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers who receive chemotherapy are at increased risk of hospitalization caused by treatment-related toxicity. Geriatric assessment (GA) has been previously shown to predict risk of toxicity in older adults undergoing chemotherapy. However, studies incorporating the GA specifically in older adults with GI cancers have been limited. This study sought to identify GA-based risk factors for chemotherapy toxicity-related hospitalization among older adults with GI cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a secondary post hoc subgroup analysis of two prospective studies used to develop and validate a GA-based chemotherapy toxicity score. The incidence of unplanned hospitalizations during the course of chemotherapy treatment was determined. RESULTS: This analysis included 199 patients aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of GI cancer (85 colorectal, 51 gastric/esophageal, and 63 pancreatic/hepatobiliary). Sixty-five (32.7%) patients had ≥1 hospitalization. Univariate analysis identified sex (female), cardiac comorbidity, stage IV disease, low serum albumin, cancer type (gastric/esophageal), hearing deficits, and polypharmacy as risk factors for hospitalization. Multivariable analyses found that patients who had cardiac comorbidity (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.42) were significantly more likely to be hospitalized. CONCLUSION: Cardiac comorbidity may be a risk factor for hospitalization in older adults with GI cancers receiving chemotherapy. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to examine the relationship between GA measures and hospitalization in this vulnerable population.

Patient-Defined Goals and Preferences Among Adults With Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences (quantity vs quality of life; present vs future health) have not been investigated in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). The goal of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate patient values toward treatment goals and competing health outcomes among adults with NETs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with well-differentiated, grade 1 or 2, advanced NETs starting a new systemic therapy completed 4 tools: (1) Health Outcomes Tool, which ranks the importance of 4 outcomes (survival, function/independence, freedom from pain, freedom from symptoms); (2) Attitude Scale, which identifies the extent to which patients agree with statements related to health outcomes; (3) Now versus Later Tool, which ranks the relative importance of quality of life (QoL) now versus 1 and 5 years from now; and (4) Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire, which identifies the amount of information the patient prefers to receive about their disease and treatment, the patient's treatment goal, the patient's perception of the physician's treatment goal, and self-reported health status. RESULTS: We recruited 60 patients with NETs (50.0% aged ≥65 years; 96.7% with stage IV disease). Primary tumor locations included the gastrointestinal tract (41.7%), pancreas (30.0%), and lung (21.7%). A plurality of patients reported maintaining independence as their most important health outcome (46.7%), followed by survival (30.0%), freedom from pain (11.7%), and freedom from symptoms (11.7%). A total of 67% of patients agreed with the statement, "I would rather live a shorter life than lose my ability to take care of myself"; 85.0% agreed with the statement, "It is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible." When asked to choose between current QoL versus QoL 1 year or 5 years in the future as more important, 48.3% and 40.0% of patients valued their QoL 1 year and 5 years in the future, respectively, more than their current QoL. Only 51.7% of patients believed their physician's treatment goals aligned with their own. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with NETs strongly value independence over survival. More communication between patients with NETs and their physicians is needed to ensure that patient preferences are incorporated into treatment plans.

A multicenter, phase Ib/II, open-label study of tivozanib with durvalumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (DEDUCTIVE).

Durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, is part of an immunotherapeutic drug class shown to have prolonged survival benefit in patients with advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Tivozanib is a potent and selective VEGFR 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. While these medications have both demonstrated single-agent activity in HCC and have been combined safely with other therapies, there is no data on their concurrent therapeutic effects. In the phase Ib DEDUCTIVE trial, the combination of tivozanib plus durvalumab is evaluated for safety and tolerability. Here, the design of and rationale for this trial in both treatment naive patients and those who progress on atezolizumab and bevacizumab for advanced or metastatic HCC are described. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03970616.

Diet quality indices and changes in cognition during chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: No evidence-based prevention strategies currently exist for cancer-related cognitive decline (CRCD). Although patients are often advised to engage in healthy lifestyle activities (e.g., nutritious diet), little is known about the impact of diet on preventing CRCD. This secondary analysis evaluated the association of pre-treatment diet quality indices on change in self-reported cognition during chemotherapy. METHODS: Study participants (n = 96) completed the Block Brief Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) before receiving their first infusion and the PROMIS cognitive function and cognitive abilities questionnaires before infusion and again 5 days later (i.e., when symptoms were expected to be their worst). Diet quality indices included the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), Alternate Mediterranean Diet (aMED), and a low carbohydrate diet index and their components. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic and clinical variables and diet indices. Residualized change models were computed to examine whether diet was associated with change in cognitive function and cognitive abilities, controlling for age, sex, cancer type, treatment type, depression, and fatigue. RESULTS: Study participants had a mean age of 59 ± 10.8 years and 69% were female. Although total diet index scores did not predict change in cognitive function or cognitive abilities, higher pre-treatment ratio of aMED monounsaturated/saturated fat was associated with less decline in cognitive function and cognitive abilities at 5-day post-infusion (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher pre-treatment ratio of monounsaturated/saturated fat intake was associated with less CRCD early in chemotherapy. Results suggest greater monounsaturated fat and less saturated fat intake could be protective against CRCD during chemotherapy.

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.

A Comparison of Liver-Directed Therapy and Systemic Therapy for the Treatment of Liver Metastases in Patients with Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Analysis of the California Cancer Registry.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases treated with liver-directed therapy (LDT) to those treated with systemic therapy (ST) in a statewide cancer database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients with metastatic gastrointestinal tract neuroendocrine tumors treated with either LDT or ST alone between the years 2000-2012 in the California Cancer Registry. Overall survival and disease-specific survival were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis and propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (ST, n = 87 and LDT, n = 67) were studied. The median overall survival and disease-specific survival for patients that received ST was 29 and 35 months versus 51 and >60 months for patients that received LDT. On multivariate analysis, LDT and the resection of the primary tumor were associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, P = .002; HR 0.43, P = .001). Non-white race, Medicaid/uninsured status, and the presence of lung metastases were associated with poor survival (HR 1.76, P = .014; HR 2.29, P = .009; and HR 1.79, P = .031). Propensity score matching demonstrated an improvement in disease-specific survival for LDT compared to ST (HR 0.53, P = .036). The improvement in overall survival on propensity score matching did not achieve statistical significance (HR 0.70, P = .199). CONCLUSIONS: LDT is associated with improved overall and disease-specific survival as compared to ST in patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases. Further investigation is needed to determine whether combination or sequential treatment can improve outcomes in this population.

Outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy for cholangiocarcinoma: A review of existing evidence assessing treatment response and R0 resection rate.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) has not been shown to gain significant improvements in survival. Factors contributing to suboptimal treatment response include aggressive disease biology and late clinical presentation. When feasible, surgical resection is the first line of treatment. Yet, recurrence remains high and long-term survival is rare. Neoadjuvant therapy is an appealing approach, with oncologic advantages in allowing the treatment of occult systemic disease and selection of patients most likely to benefit from radical surgery. However, given the surgery-first treatment paradigm for CCA, there is a paucity of data supporting neoadjuvant therapy. This review summarizes the current evidence on treatment response and margin-negative (R0) resection rate associated with neoadjuvant therapy for CCA.

Lymphovascular Invasion Predicts Lymph Node Involvement in Small Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETS) are increasing in incidence, and prognostic factors continue to evolve. The benefit of lymphadenectomy for p-NETS ≤2 cm remains unclear. We sought to determine the significance of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) for small p-NETS. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with p-NETS ≤2 cm and with ≥1 evaluated lymph node (LN), years 2004-2015. Demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of LN positivity. RESULTS: Among 2,499 patients identified, tumor location was delineated as the head (26%), body (18%), tail (38%), or unspecified (18%); 74% were well-differentiated versus 10% moderate, 2% poor, and 14% unknown. LVI occurred in 11%. A median of 9 LNs were evaluated; overall positivity was 18%. Mean survival was significantly longer in node-negative patients (115 vs. 95 months, log-rank p < 0.0001). LVI was the strongest predictor of node involvement (OR 10.4, p < 0.0001) when controlling for tumor size, grade, and location. Subset analysis of patients with known LVI status, grade, location, and mitoses found that LVI was more likely in the setting of moderate-to-high tumor grade, 1-2 cm size, pancreatic head location, and high mitotic rate. Among patients with ≥2 of these 4 factors, 25% were node-positive. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of LVI was the strongest predictor of node positivity. LVI on endoscopic biopsy should prompt resection and regional LN dissection to fully stage patients with small p-NETS. Patients with other high-risk factors should also be considered for resection and regional lymphadenectomy.

Molecular Targets, Pathways, and Therapeutic Implications for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents one of the leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. While significant advances have been made for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the past few years, the prognosis remains poor and effective biomarkers to guide selection of therapies remain noticeably absent. However, several targeted therapies have been approved in the past few years that have improved the outlook for this disease. In this review, we will highlight the recent therapies approved for the treatment of advanced HCC and discuss promising therapeutic options, targets, and pathways for drug development and consideration for future clinical trials.

Resection of the Primary Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumor Improves Survival With or Without Liver Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine outcomes of primary tumor resection in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors across all primary tumor sites. BACKGROUND: Primary tumor resection (PTR) may offer a survival benefit in metastatic gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs); however, few studies have examined the effect of primary site and grade on resection and survival. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients with metastatic GI-NETs at presentation between 2005 and 2011 using the California Cancer Registry (CCR) dataset merged with California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) inpatient longitudinal database. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate (MV) analyses were performed using the Pearson Chi-squared tests and Cox proportional hazard, respectively. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 854 patients with GI-NET metastases on presentation underwent 392 PTRs. Liver metastases occurred in 430 patients; 240 received liver treatment(s). PTR improved OS in patients with untreated metastases (median survival 10 vs 38 months, P < 0.001). On MV analysis adjusted for demographics, tumor stage, grade, chemotherapy use, Charlson comorbidity index, primary tumor location, or treatment of liver metastases, PTR with/without liver treatment improved OS in comparison to no treatment [hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, P < 0.001 and 0.39, P < 0.001, respectively]. PTR offered a survival benefit across all grades (low-grade, HR 0.38, P = 0.002 and high-grade, HR 0.62, P = 0.025) CONCLUSION:: PTR in GI-NET is associated with a better survival, with or without liver treatment, irrespective of grade. This study supports the resection of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic GI-NETs, independent of liver treatment.