Role of the prognostic nutritional index in predicting survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab

INTRODUCTION

The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) is a multiparametric score introduced by Onodera based on the blood levels of lymphocytes and albumin in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms. Regarding hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its prognostic role has been demonstrated in patients treated with sorafenib and lenvatinib. The aim of this real-world study is to investigate the association between clinical outcomes and PNI in patients being treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

METHODS

The overall cohort of this multicentric study included 871 consecutive HCC patients from 4 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line therapy. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin concentration (g/dL) + 0.005 × peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3).

RESULTS

For only 773 patients, data regarding lymphocyte counts and albumin levels were available, so only these patients were included in the final analysis. The cut-off point of the PNI was determined to be 41 by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. 268 patients (34.7%) were categorized as the PNI-low group, while the remaining 505 (65.3%) patients as the PNI-high group. At the univariate analysis, high PNI was associated with longer overall survival (OS) (22.5 vs. 10.1 months, HR 0.34, p < 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs. 5.8 months, HR 0.63, p < 0.01) compared to patients with low PNI. At the multivariate analysis, high versus low PNI resulted as an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.49 , p < 0.01) and PFS (HR 0.82, p = 0.01). There was no difference in objective response rate (ORR) between the two groups (high 26.1% vs. low 19.8%, p = 0.09), while disease control rate (DCR) was significantly higher in the PNI-high group (76.8% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

PNI is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS in HCC patients on first-line treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Association of immune-related adverse events with the outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a tremendous activity in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but a consistent fraction of patients does not respond. Prognostic/predictive markers are needed. Despite previous investigations in other tumor types, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have not been well evaluated in patients with MSI-H cancers treated with ICIs.

METHODS

We conducted an international cohort study at tertiary cancer centers collecting clinic-pathological features from 331 patients with MSI-H mCRC treated with ICIs. Of note, the irAEs were summarized using a 'burden score' constructed in a way that the same score value could be obtained by cumulating many low-grade irAEs or few high-grade irAEs; as a result, the lower the burden the better. Clearly, the irAE burden is not a baseline information, thus it was modeled as a time-dependent variable in univariable and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Among 331 patients, irAEs were reported in 144 (43.5%) patients. After a median follow-up time of 29.7 months, patients with higher burden of skin, endocrine and musculoskeletal irAEs (the latter two's effect was confirmed at multivariable analysis) had longer overall survival (OS), as opposed to gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, liver, renal and other irAEs, which showed an harmful effect. Similar results were observed for progression-free survival (PFS). Based on the results retrieved from organ-specific irAEs, 'aggregated' burden scores were developed to distinguish 'protective' (endocrine and musculoskeletal) and 'harmful' (gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, hepatic) irAEs showing prognostic effects on OS and PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that not all irAEs could exert a protective effect on oncologic outcome. An easy-to-use model for ICIs toxicity (burden score of protective and harmful irAEs) may be used as surrogate marker of response.

Survival trends over 20 years in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma: Results from a national retrospective analysis of 922 cases in Italy

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare group of tumors that involve the hepatic biliary tree. Prognosis for patients with cholangiocarcinoma remains dismal. Herein, we present survival trends over a long time period spanning almost 20 years in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma receiving systemic chemotherapy. We retrospectively analyzed a large multicenter dataset of cholangiocarcinoma outpatients evaluated in 14 centers within the Cholangiocarcinoma Italian Group Onlus (Gruppo Italiano Colangiocarcinoma Onlus, G.I.C.O.) between 2000 and 2017 (first-line), and 2002 and 2017 (second-line). Three time periods were considered: 2000-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2017. A total of 922 patients (51.19% male) with cholangiocarcinoma undergoing first-line therapy were evaluated. The median durations of follow-up for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 37 and 57 months, respectively. PFS at 12 months in the three periods of starting first-line therapy was similar, ranging from 11.71% to 15.25%. OS at 12 months progressively improved (38.30%, 44.61% and 49.52%, respectively), although the differences were not statistically significant after adjusting for age, disease status, and primary tumor site. A total of 410 patients (48.5% male) underwent second-line chemotherapy. The median durations of follow-up for PFS and OS were 47.6 and 41.90 months, respectively. An OS of 24.3%, 32.3%, and 33.1% was observed in 2002-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2017, respectively. Despite incremental benefits across years, our clinical experience confirms that modest overall advances have been achieved with first- and second-line chemotherapy in advanced cholangiocarcinoma. Efforts should focus on the identification of patients who derive the greatest benefit from treatment.

Antigen rapid diagnostic test monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND

Routine testing for cancer patients not presenting COVID-19-related symptoms and fully vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 prior to cancer treatment is controversial.

METHODS

In this retrospective study we evaluated whether antigen-rapid-diagnostic-test (Ag-RDT) monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in a large cohort of consecutive asymptomatic (absence of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat or nasal congestion) and fully vaccinated cancer patients enrolled in a short period during cancer treatment has an impact on the therapeutic path of cancer patients.

RESULTS

From December 27, 2021, to February 11, 2022, 2439 cancer patients were screened through Ag-RDT for SARS-CoV-2 before entering the hospital for systemic treatment. Fifty-three patients (2.17%) tested positive, of whom 7 (13.2%) subsequently developed COVID-related symptoms, generally mild. Cancer treatment was discontinued, as a precaution, in 49 patients (92.5%) due to the test positivity.

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 screening in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients during systemic treatment appeared to be not cost-effective: the low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and the low percentage of overt associated infection do not seem proportional to the direct costs (nursing work for swabs, costs of materials and patient monitoring) and indirect costs (dedicated rooms, extension of waiting times for patients and oncologists in delivering therapy as well as its discontinuation in the positive ones). It can, on the other hand, be detrimental when systemic cancer treatment is suspended as a precaution. Given the small number of patients testing positive and the rapid and favorable trend of the infection, it is recommended to always consider continuing systemic oncological treatment, especially when this impacts patient survival as in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

The evolving strategies for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: A narrative review and expert opinion

Gastric cancer (GC) is recognized as one of the most common deadly malignancies worldwide and about 40-50% of patients present at diagnosis with an unresectable disease due to a locally advanced or already metastatic condition. Recently, therapeutic options for management of metastatic GC (mGC) have been approved allowing a potential improvement of patient cancer treatment response and also an establishment of a continuum of care for this aggressive disease. This report is the result of a literature review by an expert panel. The aim of this document is to provide evidence, wherever it is lacking, to provide expert opinion directed at strategic management of mGC, and in particular aspect at practical management where appropriate guidelines are not available. Treatment landscape with new therapeutic strategies for third line and beyond, role of imaging, prognostic factors, symptoms, and markers as well as the importance of multidisciplinary approach particularly the nutritional aspects are discussed.

Case report: Complete pathologic response with first-line immunotherapy combination in a young adult with massive liver dissemination of mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: Immunological and molecular profiling

The current level of evidence for immunotherapy in previously untreated microsatellite unstable metastatic colorectal cancer is based on recent pieces of evidence of few studies that demonstrated durable response and clinical benefit, in terms of objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival in this subgroup of patients. On the basis of combinatorial immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, we report the exceptional case of a complete pathological response in a 21-year-old woman presenting a clinically aggressive stage IV colorectal cancer with massive nodal and liver involvement. Extensive molecular analyses based on whole genome next-generation DNA sequencing, RNA sequencing, fluorescent multiplex immunohistochemistry, and flow cytometry provided a detailed description of tumoral and immunological characteristics of this noteworthy clinical case.

Molecular profile and its clinical impact of IDH1 mutated versus IDH1 wild type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

IDH1-mutated cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are an interesting group of neoplasia with particular behavior and therapeutic implications. The aim of the present work is to highlight the differences characterizing IDH1m and IDH1wt CCAs in terms of genomic landscape. 284 patients with iCCA treated for resectable, locally advanced or metastatic disease were selected and studied with the FOUNDATION Cdx technology. A comparative genomic analysis and survival analyses for the most relevant altered genes were performed between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients. Overall, 125 patients were IDH1m and 122 IDH1wt. IDH1m patients showed higher mutation rates compared to IDH1wt in CDKN2B and lower mutation rates in several genes including TP53, FGFR2, BRCA2, ATM, MAP3K1, NOTCH2, ZNF703, CCND1, NBN, NF1, MAP3KI3, and RAD21. At the survival analysis, IDH1m and IDH1wt patients showed no statistically differences in terms of survival outcomes, but a trend in favor of IDH1wt patients was observed. Differences in prognostic values of the most common altered genes were reported. In surgical setting, in IDH1m group the presence of CDKN2A and CDKN2B mutations negatively impact DFS, whereas the presence of CDKN2A, CDKN2B, and PBRM1 mutations negatively impact OS. In advanced setting, in the IDH1m group, the presence of KRAS/NRAS and TP53 mutations negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 and PIK3CA mutations negatively impact OS; in the IDH1wt group, only the presence of MTAP mutation negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 mutation negatively impact OS. We highlighted several molecular differences with distinct prognostic implications between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients.

Simultaneous care in oncology: Assessment of benefit in relation to symptoms, sex, and age in 753 patients

BACKGROUND

Early activation of palliative care for patients with advanced cancer is central in the treatment trajectory. At the Veneto Institute of Oncology, a simultaneous-care outpatient clinic (SCOC) has been active since 2014, where patients are evaluated by an oncologist together with a palliative care team. Recently, we reported on consecutive patients admitted at SCOC from 2018 to 2021 in terms of appropriateness, process, and outcome indicators. Here, we report further analysis in the same group of 753 patients, evaluating other parameters and the correlation between symptom intensity, gender, age, and survival.

METHODS

SCOC data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Among the patients, 42.2% were women, and the median age was 68 years, with 46.7% of patients aged ≥70 years. The most prevalent disease type was gastrointestinal cancer (75.2%), and 90.9% of the patients had metastatic disease. The median score for the distress thermometer was 4; the vast majority of the patients (98.6%) reported physical problems, and 69.4% presented emotional issues. Younger women demonstrated a significantly greater median distress than other patients (p=0.0018). Almost all symptoms had a higher prevalence on the 0-3 Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) score, except for fatigue. About 43.8% of the patients received systemic anticancer treatment (SAT) in the last 60 days of life, 15.0% of whom received SAT in the last month and 3.1% in the last 2 weeks. For some symptoms, women frequently had more ESAS >3. Pain and nausea were significantly less reported by older patients compared with younger adults. Men had a lower risk of having MUST score ≥ 2 (p=0.0311). Men and older patients showed a lower prognosis awareness (p=0.0011 and p=0.0049, respectively). Older patients received less SAT within the last 30 days of life (p=0.0006) and had death risk decreased by 20.0%.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified two subgroups of patients with advanced cancer who require special attention and support due to important symptoms' burden detected by Patient Reported Outcome Measures tests: women and younger adults. These categories of patients require special attention and should be provided early access at SCOC. The role of an oncologist remains crucial to intercept all patients in need of early palliative care and balancing trade-offs of anticancer treatment in advanced metastatic disease.

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.

Isatuximab plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I/II, open-label, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are no data on its efficacy in solid tumors. This phase I/II study (NCT03637764) assessed the safety and activity of isatuximab plus atezolizumab (Isa + Atezo), an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with immunotherapy-naive solid tumors: epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), glioblastoma (GBM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Phase I assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every week for 3 weeks followed by once every 3 weeks + atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks. Phase II used a Simon's two-stage design to assess the overall response rate or progression-free survival rate at 6 months (GBM cohort). Interim analysis was carried out at 6 months following first dose of the last enrolled patient in each cohort. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers were tested for CD38, PD-L1, tumor-infiltrating immune cells, and FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME).

RESULTS

Overall, 107 patients were treated (EOC, n = 18; GBM, n = 33; HCC, n = 27; SCCHN, n = 29). In phase I, Isa + Atezo showed an acceptable safety profile, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and RP2D was confirmed. Most patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with ≤48.5% being grade ≥3. The most frequent TEAE was infusion reactions. The study did not continue to stage 2 based on prespecified targets. Tumor-infiltrating CD38+ immune cells were reduced and almost cleared after treatment. Isa + Atezo did not significantly modulate Tregs or PD-L1 expression in the TME.

CONCLUSIONS

Isa + Atezo had acceptable safety and tolerability. Clinical pharmacodynamic evaluation revealed efficient target engagement of isatuximab via treatment-mediated reduction of CD38+ immune cells in the TME. Based on clinical data, CD38 inhibition does not improve responsiveness to PD-L1 blockade in these patients.

RNF43 mutations predict response to anti-BRAF/EGFR combinatory therapies in BRAFV600E metastatic colorectal cancer

Anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy was recently approved for the treatment of metastatic BRAF^V600E colorectal cancer (mCRC^BRAF-V600E). However, a large fraction of patients do not respond, underscoring the need to identify molecular determinants of treatment response. Using whole-exome sequencing in a discovery cohort of patients with mCRC^BRAF-V600E treated with anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy, we found that inactivating mutations in RNF43, a negative regulator of WNT, predict improved response rates and survival outcomes in patients with microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumors. Analysis of an independent validation cohort confirmed the relevance of RNF43 mutations to predicting clinical benefit (72.7% versus 30.8%; P = 0.03), as well as longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio (HR), 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12–0.75; P = 0.01) and overall survival (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10–0.71; P = 0.008), in patients with MSS-RNF43^mutated versus MSS-RNF43^wild-type tumors. Microsatellite-instable tumors invariably carried a wild-type-like RNF43 genotype encoding p.G659fs and presented an intermediate response profile. We found no association of RNF43 mutations with patient outcomes in a control cohort of patients with MSS-mCRC^BRAF-V600E tumors not exposed to anti-BRAF targeted therapies. Overall, our findings suggest a cross-talk between the MAPK and WNT pathways that may modulate the antitumor activity of anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy and uncover predictive biomarkers to optimize the clinical management of these patients.

The presence of inactivating mutations in RNF43, a negative regulator of WNT, in tumor cells predicts improved response rates and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic BRAF^V600E colorectal cancer treated with anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy.