Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment.

Objective

To investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022.

Intervention

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety.

Results

A total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib.

Conclusions and Relevance

In RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and combination therapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A multi-center real-world retrospective study

To parallelly compare the efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy (tislelizumab), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (gemcitabine and cisplatin), and neoadjuvant combination therapy (tislelizumab + GC) in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and explore the efficacy predictors, we perform a multi-center, real-world cohort study that enrolls 253 patients treated with neoadjuvant treatments (combination therapy: 98, chemotherapy: 107, and immunotherapy: 48) from 15 tertiary hospitals. We demonstrate that neoadjuvant combination therapy achieves the highest complete response rate and pathological downstaging rate compared with neoadjuvant immunotherapy or chemotherapy. We develop and validate an efficacy prediction model consisting of pretreatment clinical characteristics, which can pinpoint candidates to receive neoadjuvant combination therapy. We also preliminarily reveal that patients who achieve pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatments plus maximal transurethral resection of the bladder tumor may be safe to receive bladder preservation therapy. Overall, this study highlights the benefit of neoadjuvant combination therapy based on tislelizumab for MIBC.

Tislelizumab in Asian patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma

Tislelizumab, an anti‐programmed death protein‐1 (PD‐1) monoclonal antibody, was engineered to minimize binding to the FcγR on macrophages to abrogate antibody‐dependent phagocytosis, a mechanism of T‐cell clearance and potential resistance to anti‐PD‐1 therapy. This single‐arm phase 2 trial (NCT04004221/CTR20170071) assessed the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tislelizumab in patients with PD‐L1‐positive urothelial carcinoma who progressed during/following platinum‐containing therapy and had no prior PD‐(L)1 inhibitor treatment. Patients were considered PD‐L1 positive if ≥ 25% of tumor/immune cells expressed PD‐L1 when using the VENTANA™ PD‐L1 (SP263) assay. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review committee. As of September 16, 2019, 113 patients had a median study follow‐up time of 9.4 mo. Most patients (76%) had visceral metastases, including 24% with liver and 23% with bone metastases. Among 104 efficacy‐evaluable patients, confirmed objective response rate was 24% (95% confidence interval, 16, 33), including 10 complete and 15 partial responses. Median duration of response was not reached. Among 25 responders, 17/25 (68%) had ongoing responses. Median progression‐free survival and overall survival times were 2.1 and 9.8 mo, respectively. The most common treatment‐related adverse events were anemia (27%) and pyrexia (19%). Anemia (7%) and hyponatremia (5%) were the only grade 3‐4 treatment‐related adverse events and occurred in ≥ 5% of patients. Three investigator‐assessed deaths were considered to be possibly related to study treatment (hepatic failure, n = 2; respiratory arrest, n = 1). Tislelizumab demonstrated meaningful clinical benefits in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic PD‐L1‐positive urothelial carcinoma and had a manageable safety profile.