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.

A randomized, multicenter, phase II study of vandetanib monotherapy versus vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus placebo in subjects with advanced biliary tract cancer: the VanGogh study

BACKGROUND

The management of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) is complex due to limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach. This phase II multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vandetanib monotherapy compared with vandetanib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced BTC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to three treatment groups: vandetanib 300 mg monotherapy (V), vandetanib 100 mg plus gemcitabine (V/G), gemcitabine plus placebo (G/P). Vandetanib (300 mg or 100 mg) or placebo was given in single oral daily doses. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was i.v. infused on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, duration of response, performance status and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients (mean age 63.6 years) were recruited at 19 centers across Italy. Median (95% confidence intervals) PFS (days) were 105 (72-155), 114 (91-193) and 148 (71-225), respectively, for the V, V/G and G/P treatment groups, with no statistical difference among them (P = 0.18). No statistical difference between treatments was observed for secondary end points, except ORR, which slightly favored the V/G combination over other treatments. The proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) was similar for the three groups (96.6% in V arm, 91.4% in the V/G arm and 89.3% in the G/P arm).

CONCLUSIONS

Vandetanib treatment did not improve PFS in patients with advanced BTC. The safety profile of vandetanib did not show any additional AEs or worsening of already known AEs.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT00753675.

Sorafenib in patients with Child-Pugh class A and B advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective feasibility analysis

BACKGROUND

Sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class A liver function. There are few prospective data on sorafenib in patients with HCC and CP class B.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A consecutive prospective series of 300 patients with CP class A or B HCC were enrolled in a dual-phase trial to determine survival and safety data according to liver function (class A or B) in patients receiving oral sorafenib 800 mg daily. [Results of this study were presented in part at the ASCO 2012 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, 19-21 January 2012. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl 4): abstract 306.]

RESULTS

Overall progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9, 4.1 and 9.1 months, respectively. For patients with CP class A versus B status, PFS was 4.3 versus 2.1 months, TTP was 4.2 versus 3.8 months and OS was 10.0 versus 3. 8 months. Extrahepatic spread was associated with worse outcomes but taken together with CP class, liver function played a greater role in reducing survival. Adverse events for the two CP groups were similar.

CONCLUSION

Although patients with HCC and CP class B liver function have poorer outcomes than those with CP class A function, data suggest that patients with CP class B liver function can tolerate treatment and may still benefit from sorafenib.

Phase II study of NGR-hTNF, a selective vascular targeting agent (VTA), in previously treated patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

e15500

Background: NGR-hTNF is a VTA exploiting a tumor-homing peptide (NGR) that selectively binds to aminopeptidase N (CD13) overexpressed on tumor blood vessels. In preclinical models, NGR-hTNF has shown potent anti-vascular and antitumor activity, both at low and at high doses. Methods: Patients with recurrent or metastatic HCC were treated with NGR-hTNF given intravenously at 0.8 μg/m2 as 1-hour infusion every 3 weeks (q3w). This phase II trial had a 2-stage design with 16 and a total of 27 patients to be enrolled after first and second stage, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint with reassessment performed q6w according to WHO criteria. Results: 27 patients with progressive disease following prior loco- regional treatment (59%), systemic therapy (56%), or both (33%) were evaluated over 86 cycles (range, 1 to 14). Patient characteristics were: median age 67 years (range, 53 to 79); M/F 21/6; PS 0/1 18/9; Child-Pugh class A/B: 21/6. No grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were observed. Main grade 1–2 toxicities were short-lasting infusion-related constitutional symptoms, including chills (55%). Median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.7–2.9 months). One complete response (4%) lasting 9.0+ months was observed in a sorafenib-refractory patient and one partial response (4%) was reported in a Child-Pugh class B patient. Additionally, a 28% tumor shrinkage was detected in one out of six patients (22%) experiencing stable disease. The median PFS duration in stable or responder patients was 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.7–5.8 months). With a median follow-up of 7.6 months, the overall survival rates at 3 and 6 months were 82% and 60%, respectively. Conclusions: NGR-hTNF given at 0.8 μg/m2 every 3 weeks is well tolerated and appears to have promising antitumor activity in previously treated patients with advanced HCC. The drug will be further developed in this setting and, currently, an additional cohort of 12 patients has been enrolled and treated at same dose with a weekly schedule.

[Table: see text]

A phase II randomized multicenter trial of gefitinib plus FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Gefitinib inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase and preclinical studies indicate that it may enhance CPT-11 cytotoxicity. This randomized phase II trial investigates the feasibility and efficacy of gefitinib and 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to FOLFIRI +/- gefitinib 250 mg daily p.o. Patients randomized to FOLFIRI + gefitinib without disease progression after 6 months continued to receive gefitinib alone until disease progression.

RESULTS

From October 2002 to September 2004, 100 patients were enrolled. Twenty-three patients (47.9%) in the FOLFIRI arm and 23 (45.1%) in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm experienced an objective response. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 8.3 and 18.6 months in the FOLFIRI arm, and 8.3 and 17.1 months in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm, respectively. In the combination arm, grades 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 35 (67.3%) patients versus 25 patients (52.1%) in the FOLFIRI arm; 12 patients (23.1%) withdrew for an adverse event in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm and 5 (10.4%) in the FOLFIRI arm.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that adding gefitinib to FOLFIRI does not improve the efficacy of FOLFIRI regimen. These disappointing results could be related to the high toxicity observed that led to significant dose reductions and delays.

EGFR FISH assay predicts for response to cetuximab in chemotherapy refractory colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Standardized conditions to distinguish subpopulations of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients more and less sensitive to cetuximab therapy remain undefined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in paraffin-embedded tumor blocks from 85 chemorefractory CRC patients treated with cetuximab. Results were analyzed according to different score systems previously reported in colorectal and lung cancers. The primary end point of the study was identification of the EGFR FISH score that best associates with response rate (RR).

RESULTS

Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the cut-off that best discriminated responders versus nonresponders to cetuximab was a mean of 2.92 EGFR gene copies per cell. This model showed sensitivity of 58.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 47.1-70.1) and specificity of 93.3% (95% CI = 80.6-100). EGFR FISH-positive patients (N = 43, 50.6%) had significantly higher RR (P = 0.0001) and significantly longer time to disease progression (P = 0.02) than EGFR FISH negative (N = 42, 49.4%). Other scoring systems resulted less accurate in discriminating patients with the highest likelihood of response to cetuximab therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC patients with high EGFR gene copy number have an increased likelihood to respond to cetuximab therapy. Prospective clinical trials with a careful standardization of assay conditions and pattern interpretation are urgently needed.

Critical evaluation of the role of oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC)

13562

Background: Until recently, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the mainstay of treatment for advanced CRC. In the last years, irinotecan and oxaliplatin have been shown to improve survival in combination with 5-FU. It is unclear if this improvement requires the use of these agents as first-line treatment or their sequential use during the course of disease. Methods: In order to assess the impact on prognosis of the first-line chemotherapy regimen, we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of all patients (pts) with advanced CRC treated at our insitution from May 1997 to December 2003. During this period our standard first-line chemotherapy moved from 5-FU and folinic acid (FA) to FOLFIRI to FOLFOX regimens. We analyzed changes in overall survival over time according to administered treatments. Results: From May 1997 to December 2003, 376 consecutive pts with advanced CRC were treated at our institution, 118 from 1997 to 1999, 135 from 2000 to 2001, 123 from 2002 to 2003. Patient characteristics did not vary over time for the 3 cohorts: median age was 62 years (range 26–83), 58% of pts were male, 72% had single metatastic site, liver was the main disease site (72%). In the first cohort (1997–99) the standard first-line treatment was 5-FU/FA, in the second (2000–01) FOLFIRI, and in the third (2002–03) FOLFOX. The number of pts who underwent 1, 2 o 3 lines of treatment for metastatic disease was similar for the 3 cohorts. The median overall survival was 21.4 months (95% CI 19.3–23.3). As shown below, no statistically significant differences were observed among the cohorts. Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis shows that the use of oxaliplatin and irinotecan has pushed the overall median survival to 21 months. The outcome of pts has been similar during the period 1997–2003 despite the shift in standard first-line treatment from 5-FU/FA to FOLFIRI to FOLFOX. These results are reasonably due to the sequential use of all the active regimens. [Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

18F-FDG PET (PET) does not improve CT scan (CT) accuracy in the evaluation of colorectal cancer liver metastases after chemotherapy

13530

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been successfully used in the treatment of patients (pts) affected by liver metastases from colorectal cancer unsuitable for surgery. We evaluated separately the diagnostic accuracy of PET and CT in this setting in a small series of pts. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data from 19 consecutive pts (12 males, 7 females; median age 62 years; range 41–79) affected by liver metastases from colorectal cancer. All of the pts underwent systemic chemotherapy and were evaluated with PET and CT at the end of the treatment. Whole-body PET scan was performed in 3D mode on a Siemens Ecat Accel LSO full-ring scanner, 60 minutes after the injection of 310–450 MBq of 18F-FDG. Contrast enhanced, 3 phases, liver CT was performed on a Philips Aura single slice system. Chemotherapy regimens were: FOLFOX (13 pts), FOLFIRI (2 pts), 5-FU-FA (2 pts), UFT-CPT-OXA (2 pts). Overall response rate was 68%. Median time interval between end of chemotherapy and CT was 6 wks (range 3–8), between end of chemotherapy and PET was 8 wks (range 5–13) and between end of chemotherapy and surgery was 10 wks (range 6–18). All pts underwent surgery to remove liver metastases and had histological confirmation of the lesions. Results: In 16 evaluable pts, 53 liver lesions were confirmed by histology. The table shows the results on a per-lesion basis. A complete agreement between PET or CT and histology was documented in 3 and 4 pts respectively. Conclusions: These results suggest that PET and CT had sub-optimal diagnostic accuracy in the post-chemotherapy evaluation of liver lesions from colorectal cancer. Moreover, the combined use of the two imaging techniques does not significantly increase the sensitivity of CT. Further data are needed to evaluate the metabolic changes induced by chemotherapy which may be the cause for inaccurate PET findings. [Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.