Four-year overall survival update from the phase III HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus sorafenib; durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for OS. Results reported herein are from a 4-year updated OS analysis of HIMALAYA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants with uHCC and no previous systemic treatment were randomized to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The updated data cut-off was 23 January 2023. OS and serious adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Additionally, baseline characteristics and subsequent therapies were analyzed in long-term survivors (≥36 months beyond randomization).

RESULTS

For STRIDE, durvalumab, and sorafenib, median [95% confidence interval (CI)] follow-up was 49.12 months (46.95-50.17 months), 48.46 months (46.82-49.81 months), and 47.31 months (45.08-49.15 months), respectively. OS hazard ratio (95% CI) for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (0.67-0.92). The 36-month OS rate for STRIDE was 30.7% versus 19.8% for sorafenib. The 48-month OS rate remained higher for STRIDE at 25.2%, versus 15.1% for sorafenib. The long-term OS benefit of STRIDE was observed across clinically relevant subgroups and was further improved in participants who achieved disease control. Long-term survivors with STRIDE (n = 103) included participants across clinically relevant subgroups, and 57.3% (59/103) had no reported subsequent anticancer therapy. No new serious treatment-related AEs occurred with STRIDE from the primary analysis (17.5%; 68/388). Durvalumab maintained OS noninferiority to sorafenib and no late-onset safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

These data represent the longest follow-up to date in phase III studies in uHCC. The unprecedented 3- and 4-year OS rates reinforce the sustained long-term OS benefit of STRIDE versus sorafenib. STRIDE maintained a tolerable yet differentiated safety profile from other current uHCC therapies. Results continue to support the long-term benefits of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

Nivolumab in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: 5-year follow-up from CheckMate 040

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) have a poor prognosis and high mortality. Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with aHCC in the CheckMate 040 study. Five-year follow-up of the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups of CheckMate 040 is presented here.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received nivolumab monotherapy at dose levels of 0.1-10.0 mg/kg (dose-escalation phase) or 3 mg/kg (dose-expansion phase) every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability (dose escalation), and objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) and by investigator as per RECIST version 1.1 (dose expansion).

RESULTS

Eighty sorafenib-naive and 154 sorafenib-experienced patients were treated. Minimum follow-up in both groups was 60 months. ORR as per BICR was 20% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 30%] and 14% (95% CI 9% to 21%) in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Responses occurred regardless of HCC etiology or baseline tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Median overall survival (OS) was 26.6 months (95% CI 16.6-30.6 months) and 15.1 months (95% CI 13.0-18.2 months) in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients, respectively. The 3-year OS rates were 28% in the sorafenib-naive and 20% in the sorafenib-experienced groups; 5-year OS rates were 14% and 12%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 33% and 21% of patients in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Biomarker analyses showed that baseline PD-L1 expression ≥1% was associated with higher ORR and longer OS compared with PD-L1 <1%. In the sorafenib-naive group, patients with OS ≥3 years exhibited higher baseline CD8 T-cell density compared with those with OS <1 year.

CONCLUSION

With 5 years of follow-up, nivolumab monotherapy continued to provide durable clinical benefit with manageable safety in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with aHCC.

Impact of the Lumbar Arteries on Aneurysm Diameter and Type 2 Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is recommended to prevent type 2 endoleak (T2EL). However, the impact of patent lumbar arteries (LAs) on T2ELs and aneurysm diameter has not been elucidated.

METHODS

Fifty-seven consecutive patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between January 2013 and September 2022 and whose IMA had been occluded preoperatively or newly occluded postoperatively were included in the study. Predictive factors for aneurysm sac enlargement, sac shrinkage, and T2EL were investigated.

RESULTS

T2ELs occurred in 22.8% of the patients. The 4-year cumulative incidence rates of sac enlargement and shrinkage were 6.7% and 64.6%, respectively. The number of postoperative patent LAs was identified as a risk factor for T2ELs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.54-12.7, P = 0.0065). The number of postoperative patent LAs was found to be a significant predictor of sac enlargement (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 3.15, 95% CI: 1.43-6.96, P = 0.0045) and shrinkage (AHR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.91, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrated that the number of postoperative patent LAs had a significant impact on the development of T2ELs and the change in aneurysm diameter in patients in whom the IMA was occluded after EVAR.

Two cases of pararenal artery aortic aneurysm treatment after pancreaticoduodenectomy and abdominal aortic aneurysm stent grafting

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis caused by surgical procedures may occur less frequently in surgeries for aortic aneurysm involving the abdominal branch. However, in such cases, the associated mortality rate increases significantly. There have been few reports on abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery after pancreatoduodenectomy; as such the incidence of postoperative pancreatitis remains unclear.

CASE PRESENTATION

Two cases of pararenal artery aortic aneurysm after pancreaticoduodenectomy and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for an abdominal aortic aneurysm are reported. In the first case, a 74-year-old man was diagnosed with abdominal aortic aneurysm and duodenal cancer 6 years earlier and underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy after EVAR. Subsequently, the abdominal aorta expanded to 58 mm at the level of the renal artery proximal to the EVAR site. Graft replacement was performed through a left thoraco-retroperitoneal incision. However, the patient died from acute pancreatitis, believed to be caused by intraoperative manipulation. Given this initial experience, in the second case, a 77-year-old man had undergone a pancreaticoduodenectomy for a gastrointestinal stromal tumor 17 years earlier and EVAR for an abdominal aortic aneurysm 10 years earlier. The abdominal aorta had expanded to 50 mm immediately below the right renal artery on the proximal side of the EVAR. Subsequently, hematuria was noted, and he was diagnosed with right ureteral cancer. Autologous transplantation of the left kidney and EVAR was performed avoiding manipulation of the area around the pancreas and achieved good results. Combined right renal and ureteral resections were performed 20 days after EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

While performing aortic surgery after pancreaticoduodenectomy, surgeons should avoid manipulating tissues around the pancreas.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib in non-viral unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an international propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence suggests that non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might benefit less from immunotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with non-viral advanced HCC, treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, or sorafenib, in 36 centers in 4 countries (Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and UK). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, and OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib. For the primary and secondary endpoints, we carried out the analysis on the whole population first, and then we divided the cohort into two groups: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) population and non-NAFLD/NASH population.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 569 patients received lenvatinib, and 210 patients received sorafenib. In the whole population, multivariate analysis showed that treatment with lenvatinib was associated with a longer OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95; P = 0.0268] and PFS (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; P = 0.002) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the NAFLD/NASH population, multivariate analysis confirmed that lenvatinib treatment was associated with a longer OS (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.84; P = 0.0110) and PFS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.82; P = 0.031) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the subgroup of non-NAFLD/NASH patients, no difference in OS or PFS was observed between patients treated with lenvatinib and those treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. All these results were confirmed following propensity score matching analysis. By comparing patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib, no statistically significant difference in survival was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis conducted on a large number of advanced non-viral HCC patients showed for the first time that treatment with lenvatinib is associated with a significant survival benefit compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in particular in patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in hepatocarcinoma: new insights about its prognostic role in patients treated with lenvatinib

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment remains a big challenge in the field of oncology. The liver disease (viral or not viral) underlying HCC turned out to be crucial in determining the biologic behavior of the tumor, including its response to treatment. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the role of the etiology of the underlying liver disease in survival outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study on a large cohort of patients treated with lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC from both Eastern and Western institutions. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 1232 lenvatinib-treated HCC patients, 453 (36.8%) were hepatitis C virus positive, 268 hepatitis B virus positive (21.8%), 236 nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) correlate (19.2%) and 275 had other etiologies (22.3%). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-6.7 months] and the median overall survival (mOS) was 15.8 months (95% CI 14.9-17.2 months). In the univariate analysis for OS NASH-HCC was associated with longer mOS [22.2 versus 15.1 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85; P = 0.0006]. In the univariate analysis for PFS NASH-HCC was associated with longer mPFS (7.5 versus 6.5 months; HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71-0.99; P = 0.0436). The multivariate analysis confirmed NASH-HCC (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.86; P = 0.0028) as an independent prognostic factor for OS, along with albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, extrahepatic spread, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, portal vein thrombosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and alpha-fetoprotein. An interaction test was performed between sorafenib and lenvatinib cohorts and the results highlighted the positive predictive role of NASH in favor of the lenvatinib arm (P = 0.0047).

CONCLUSION

NASH has been identified as an independent prognostic factor in a large cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated with lenvatinib, thereby suggesting the role of the etiology in the selection of patients for tyrosine kinase treatment. If validated, this result could provide new insights useful to improve the management of these patients.

Prognostic grade for resecting hepatocellular carcinoma: multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is advancing, but a robust prediction model for survival after resection is not available. The aim of this study was to propose a prognostic grading system for resection of HCC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicentre study of patients who underwent first resection of HCC with curative intent between 2000 and 2007. Patients were divided randomly by a cross-validation method into training and validation sets. Prognostic factors were identified using a Cox proportional hazards model. The predictive model was built by decision-tree analysis to define the resection grades, and subsequently validated.

RESULTS

A total of 16 931 patients from 795 hospitals were included. In the training set (8465 patients), four surgical grades were classified based on prognosis: grade A1 (1236 patients, 14.6 per cent; single tumour 3 cm or smaller and anatomical R0 resection); grade A2 (3614, 42.7 per cent; single tumour larger than 3 cm, or non-anatomical R0 resection); grade B (2277, 26.9 per cent; multiple tumours, or vascular invasion, and R0 resection); and grade C (1338, 15.8 per cent; multiple tumours with vascular invasion and R0 resection, or R1 resection). Five-year survival rates were 73.9 per cent (hazard ratio (HR) 1.00), 64.7 per cent (HR 1.51, 95 per cent c.i. 1.29 to 1.78), 50.6 per cent (HR 2.53, 2.15 to 2.98), and 34.8 per cent (HR 4.60, 3.90 to 5.42) for grades A1, A2, B, and C respectively. In the validation set (8466 patients), the grades had equivalent reproducibility for both overall and recurrence-free survival (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This grade is used to predict prognosis of patients undergoing resection of HCC.