A phase II/III randomized clinical trial of CisPlatin plUs Gemcitabine and Nabpaclitaxel (GAP) as pReoperative chemotherapy versus immediate resection in patIents with resecTable BiliarY Tract Cancers (BTC) at high risk for recurrence: PURITY study

BACKGROUND

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare and lethal cancers, with a 5-year survival inferior to 20%(1-3). The only potential curative treatment is surgical resection. However, despite complex surgical procedures that have a remarkable risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality, the 5-year survival rate after radical surgery (R0) is 20-40% and recurrence rates are up to ~ 75%(4-6). Up to ~ 40% of patients relapse within 12 months after resection, and half of these patient will recur systemically(4-6). There is no standard of care for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in resectable BTC, but retrospective reports suggest its potential benefit (7, 8).

METHODS

PURITY is a no-profit, multicentre, randomized phase II/III trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the combination of gemcitabine, cisplatin and nabpaclitaxel (GAP) as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable BTC at high risk for recurrence. Primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant GAP followed by surgery as compared to upfront surgery, in terms of 12-month progression-free survival for the phase II part and of progression free survival (PFS) for the phase III study. Key Secondary objectives are event free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival, (RFS), overall survival (OS), R0/R1/R2 resection rate, quality of life (QoL), overall response rate (ORR), resectability. Safety analyses will include toxicity rate and perioperative morbidity and mortality rate. Exploratory studies including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in archival tumor tissues and longitudinal ctDNA analysis are planned to identify potential biomarkers of primary resistance and prognosis.

DISCUSSION

Considering the poor prognosis of resected BTC experiencing early tumor recurrence and the negative prognostic impact of R1/R2 resections, PURITY study is based on the rationale that NAC may improve R0 resection rates and ultimately patients' outcomes. Furthermore, NAC should allow early eradication of microscopic distant metastases, undetectable by imaging but already present at the time of diagnosis and avoid mortality and morbidity associated with resection for patients with rapid progression or worsening general condition during neoadjuvant therapy. The randomized PURITY study will evaluate whether patients affected by BTC at high risk from recurrence benefit from a neoadjuvant therapy with GAP regimen as compared to immediate surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PURITY is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06037980) and EuCT(2023-503295-25-00).

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): final results of a randomised phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the COSMIC-312 trial was to evaluate cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib in patients with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the initial analysis, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus sorafenib. Here, we report the pre-planned final overall survival analysis and updated safety and efficacy results following longer follow-up.

METHODS

COSMIC-312 was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done across 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were eligible. Patients must have had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), and adequate marrow and organ function, including Child-Pugh class A liver function; those with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were ineligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) using a web-based interactive response system to a combination of oral cabozantinib 40 mg once daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks, oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, or oral single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib: progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1, as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee, in the first 372 randomly assigned patients (previously reported) and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib. The secondary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib versus sorafenib. Outcomes in all randomly assigned patients, including final overall survival, are presented. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to combination treatment, 217 to sorafenib, and 188 to single-agent cabozantinib, and included in all efficacy analyses. 704 (84%) patients were male and 133 (16%) were female. 824 of these patients received at least one dose of study treatment and were included in the safety population. Median follow-up was 22·1 months (IQR 19·3-24·8). Median overall survival was 16·5 months (96% CI 14·5-18·7) for the combination treatment group and 15·5 months (12·2-20·0) for the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [0·78-1·24]; stratified log-rank p=0·87). Median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (99% CI 5·7-8·2) for the combination treatment group, 4·3 months (2·9-6·1) for the sorafenib group, and 5·8 months (99% CI 5·4-8·2) for the single-agent cabozantinib group (HR 0·74 [0·56-0·97] for combination treatment vs sorafenib; HR 0·78 [99% CI 0·56-1·09], p=0·05, for single-agent cabozantinib vs sorafenib). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 281 (66%) of 429 patients in the combination treatment group, 100 (48%) of 207 patients in the sorafenib group, and 108 (57%) of 188 patients in the single-agent cabozantinib group; the most common were hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (36 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs 16 [9%]), aspartate aminotransferase increased (42 [10%] vs eight [4%] vs 17 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increased (40 [9%] vs six [3%] vs 13 [7%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 223 (52%) patients in the combination treatment group, 84 (41%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 87 (46%) patients in the single agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and four (2%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group (asthenia, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sepsis, and gastric perforation).

INTERPRETATION

First-line cabozantinib plus atezolizumab did not improve overall survival versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The progression-free survival benefit of the combination versus sorafenib was maintained, with no new safety signals.

FUNDING

Exelixis and Ipsen.

Pemigatinib for patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: A joint analysis of the French PEMI-BIL and Italian PEMI-REAL cohort studies

BACKGROUND

Pemigatinib is approved for patients with pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements or fusions. We aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in real-world setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A joint analysis of two multicentre observational retrospective cohort studies independently conducted in France and Italy was performed. All consecutive FGFR2-positive patients affected by CCA and treated with pemigatinib as second- or further line of systemic treatment in clinical practice, within or outside the European Expanded Access Program, were included.

RESULTS

Between July 2020 and September 2022, 72 patients were treated with pemigatinib in 14 Italian and 25 French Centres. Patients had a median age of 57 years, 76% were female, 81% had ECOG-PS 0-1, 99% had intrahepatic CCA, 74% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, 67% had metastatic disease at diagnosis, while 38.8% received ≥ 2 previous lines of systemic treatment. At data cut-off analysis (April 2023), ORR and DCR were 45.8% and 84.7%, respectively. Median DoR was 7 months (IQR: 5.8-9.3). Over a median follow-up time of 19.5 months, median PFS and 1-year PFS rate were 8.7 months and 32.8%. Median OS and 1-year OS rate were 17.1 months and 60.6%. Fatigue (69.4%), ocular toxicity (68%), nail toxicities (61.1%), dermatologic toxicity (41.6%) hyperphosphataemia (55.6%), stomatitis (48.6%), and diarrhea (36.1%) were the most frequent, mainly G1-G2 AEs. Overall incidence of G3 AEs was 22.2%, while no patient experienced G4 AE. Dose reduction and temporary discontinuation were needed in 33.3% and 40.3% of cases, with 1 permanent discontinuation due to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in a real-world setting.

Characteristics and outcomes of immunotherapy-related liver injury in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma versus other advanced solid tumours

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours.

METHODS

Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure.

RESULTS

In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival.

Multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part II - Non-surgical treatments

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC.

Different Genomic Clusters Impact on Responses in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer Treated with Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Plus Durvalumab

BACKGROUND

The results reported in the TOPAZ-1 phase III trial led to the approval of the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine with durvalumab as the new first-line standard of care for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a clustering analysis to classify patients into different groups based on their mutation profile, correlating the results of the analysis with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We selected 51 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with the combination of chemotherapy and durvalumab and who were screened using the next-generation sequencing-based FoundationOne gene panel. We conducted mutation-based clustering of tumors and a survival analysis.

RESULTS

Three main clusters were identified. Cluster 1 is mostly characterized by mutations in genes belonging to the chromatin modification pathway, altered in 100% of patients. Cluster 2 is characterized by the alteration of several pathways, among which DNA damage control, chromatin modification, RTK/RAS, cell-cycle apoptosis, TP53, and PI3K were the most affected. Finally, most altered pathways in cluster 3 were RTK/RAS and cell-cycle apoptosis. Overall response rate was 4/13 (31%), 12/24 (50%), and 0/10 (0%) in cluster 1, cluster 2, and cluster 3, respectively, and the difference between the three clusters was statistically significant (p = 0.0188).

CONCLUSIONS

By grouping patients into three clusters with distinct molecular and genomic alterations, our analysis showed that patients included in cluster 2 had higher overall response rates, whereas patients included in cluster 3 had no objective response. Further investigations on larger and external cohorts are needed in order to validate our results.

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.

The Italian Rare Biliary tract Cancer initiative (IRaBiCa): A multicentric observational study of Gruppo Oncologico dell'Italia Meridionale (GOIM) in collaboration with Gruppo Italiano Colangiocarcinoma (GICO)

INTRODUCTION

About 90% of cholangiocarcinomas are adenocarcinomas with glandular or tubular structures lined by epithelial cells, with no bile production and with a variable degree of differentiation, arising in the background of desmoplastic stroma. The remaining 10% is represented by rarer histological variants of which there is little knowledge regarding the biological behavior, molecular characterization, and sensitivity to the various possible therapies, including molecular-based treatments. Such rare tumors are described only in case reports or small retrospective series because of their exclusion from clinical trials. This national initiative, here presented, aims to address the following knowledge gap: a) how much does histological diversity translate into clinical manifestation variety? b) are those chemotherapy regimens, recommended for conventional biliary tract cancers, potentially active in rare variants?Therefore, epidemiological, pathological, and clinical characterization of series of rare biliary histotypes/variants, for which therapeutic and follow-up data are available, will be collected.

METHODS

An Italian task force on rare tumors of the biliary tract (IRaBiCa) has been created, whose initiative is a multicenter retrospective study involving 34 Italian cancer centers.Clinical data from approximately 100 patients will be collected and analyzed. Continuous variables will be presented as median ± standard deviation, while categorical variables will be expressed in terms of frequency. Kaplan-Maier analyses will be used to compare disease free, progression free and overall survival, according to the different histotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

We expect to gather novel data on rare histotypes of biliary tract cancer that will be useful to support their molecular and immunological characterization.

Practical guidelines for molecular testing of cholangiocarcinoma in clinical practice: Italian experts' position paper

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) represent a spectrum of malignancies associated with a dismal prognosis. Recent genomic profiling studies have provided a deeper understanding of the complex and heterogenous molecular landscape of BTCs, identifying several actionable genetic alterations, and expanding treatment options. Due to the high number and complexity of genetic alterations which require testing, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is currently the preferred approach over conventional methods (i.e., immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in-situ hybridization and PCR) for molecular profiling of BTCs and should be performed upfront in all BTC patients. However, BTC sampling often yields low tumor cellularity tissue, hampering NGS analysis. Future perspectives to overcome this obstacle include liquid biopsy and optimization of biopsy protocols. In this position paper, the authors discuss the current histopathologic, molecular, and therapeutic landscape of BTCs, provide a critical overview of the available testing methods for molecular diagnostics, and propose a practical diagnostic algorithm for molecular testing of BTC samples.

Previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is associated with decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations and complications in patients with cancer: Results of a propensity-matched analysis of the OnCovid registry

OBJECTIVES

To date, studies have not provided definitive answers regarding whether previous immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment alters outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The OnCovid registry (NCT04393974) was searched from February 27, 2020, to January 31, 2022, for patients who received systemic anti-cancer therapy in the 4 weeks before laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Propensity-score matching using country, vaccination status, primary tumor type, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumor stage, and remission status investigated differences in predefined clinical outcomes comparing those who had or had not received ICIs.

RESULTS

Of 3523 patients screened, 137 ICI-only and 1378 non-ICI met inclusion criteria. Before matching, ICI patients were older, male, enrolled at centers in Italy, and had histories of smoking, thoracic cancers, advanced cancer stages, and active malignancies (P ≤0.02). After matching, there were 120 ICI and 322 non-ICI patients. ICI patients had no differences (odds ratio: 95% CI) in presenting COVID-19 symptoms (0.69: 0.37-1.28), receipt of COVID-specific therapy (0.88: 0.54-1.41), 14-day (0.95: 0.56-1.61), or 28-day (0.79: 0.48-1.29) mortalities. However, ICI patients required less COVID-19-related hospitalization (0.37: 0.21-0.67) and oxygen therapy (0.51: 0.31-0.83) and developed fewer complications (0.57: 0.36-0.92).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity-score matched analysis, previous ICI therapy did not worsen and potentially improved COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer.

Navigating the landscape of liver cancer management: Study designs in clinical trials and clinical practice

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide and its prognosis is highly heterogeneous, being related not only to tumour burden but also to the severity of underlying chronic liver disease. Moreover, advances in systemic therapies for HCC have increased the complexity of patient management. Randomised-controlled trials represent the gold standard for evidence generation across all areas of medicine and especially in the oncology field, as they allow for unbiased estimates of treatment effect without confounders. Observational studies have many problems that could reduce their internal and external validity. However, large prospective (well-conducted) observational real-world studies can detect rare adverse events or monitor the occurrence of long-term adverse events. How best to harness real world data, which refers to data generated from the routine care of patients, and real-world 'evidence', which is the evidence generated from real-world data, represents an open challenge. In this review article, we aim to provide an overview of the benefits and limitations of different study designs, particularly focusing on randomised-controlled trials and observational studies, to address important and not fully resolved questions in HCC research.

A meta-analysis and real-world cohort study on the sex-related differences in efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background & Aims

Sex-related differences in the immune pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly related to oestrogen-dependent secretion of pro-tumourigenic cytokines, are well-known. Whether sex influences the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy is not known.

Methods

We performed a restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis of five phase III trials that evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced HCC and reported overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex to evaluate sex-related differences in OS. In a real-world cohort of 840 patients with HCC from 22 centres included between 2018 and 2023, we directly compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A+B) between sexes. Radiological response was reported according to RECIST v1.1. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

In the meta-analysis, immunotherapy was associated with a significant OS benefit only in male (pooled HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86) but not in female (pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.03) patients with HCC. When directly comparing model estimates, no differences in the treatment effect between sexes were observed. Among 840 patients, 677 (81%) were male (mean age 66 ± 11 years), and 163 (19%) were female (mean age 67 ± 12 years). Type and severity of adverse events were similar between the two groups. OS and PFS were comparable between males and females upon uni- and multivariable analyses (aHR for OS and PFS: 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.04; 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.30, respectively). Objective response rates (24%/22%) and disease control rates (59%/59%) were also similar between sexes.

Conclusion

Female phase III trial participants experienced smaller OS benefit following ICI therapy for advanced HCC, while outcomes following A+B treatment were comparable between sexes in a large real-world database. Based on the ambiguous sex-related differences in survival observed here, further investigation of sex-specific clinical and biologic determinants of responsiveness and survival following ICIs are warranted.

Impact and implications

While immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as standard of care for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, there are conflicting reports on whether the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy differs between females and males. Our study suggests ambiguous sex-related differences in outcomes from immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Further investigation of sex-specific clustering in clinicopathologic and immunologic determinants of responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be prioritised.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42023429625.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part I - Surgical treatments

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of HCC management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the first part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and surgical treatments of HCC.

The long and winding road: Adjuvant therapy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Despite being the first positive phase 3 trial in the adjuvant setting for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, the IMbrave050 study raises a number of questions regarding patient selection, endpoint robustness, and the balance between efficacy and acceptable toxicity.1.

Diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma in Italy: A Delphi consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA)/biliary tract cancer recommend genomic profiling to guide treatment decisions. Variable access to such profiling across Italy means many oncologists are unfamiliar with when and how to conduct genetic testing and prescribe targeted treatments.

METHODS

A Scientific Board of Italian oncologists who treat CCA (the authors) developed recommendations, based on recent clinical evidence, for using molecular testing in diagnosing, assessing, and treating CCA in Italy. The Delphi process was used to reach consensus on these recommendations among 38 Italian oncologists. Consensus was considered to be met if ≥ 66.7 % of the panel agreed or strongly agreed with each statement.

FINDINGS

Consensus was reached on 28 statements across four themes: (1) epidemiology and risk factors; (2) diagnosis, including molecular diagnosis; (3) treatment selection; and (4) treatment safety.

INTERPRETATION

These recommendations should aid Italian clinicians in selecting appropriate treatment options for their patients.

Comparative Genomic Analysis and Clinical Outcomes of BRAF-mutated Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers

PURPOSE

BRAF mutations are rare in biliary tract cancers (BTC), but are of interest given the recent developments in targeted therapy for BTC. We investigated the clinical outcomes in a cohort of BRAF-mutant advanced BTC treated with first-line chemotherapy. Furthermore, we investigated the genomic landscape of BRAF class I, II, and III mutations in the intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) subgroup of BTC.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We analyzed two nonoverlapping cohorts. We examined the genomic landscape of BRAF-mutated iCCA in a "genomic cohort" [187 class I, 82 class II, 113 class III BRAF mutants and 8,026 wildtype (WT)]. We also analyzed median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on first-line chemotherapy in a separate multi-institutional "clinical cohort" of patients with BTC (including iCCA and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) and gallbladder cancer; 41 class I, 32 class II+III BRAF mutants and 1,042 WT).

RESULTS

In the entire BTC clinical cohort, the median PFS was shorter for class I [HR, 2.11 (P < 0.001)] and class II+III [HR, 1.72 (P = 0.007)] as compared with BRAF WT. OS was also shorter in class I [HR, 2.04 (P = 0.011)] and class II+III [HR, 1.86 (P = 0.002)] as compared with BRAF WT. In the iCCA subgroup, class I alterations were mutually exclusive with FGFR2, IDH1/2, ERBB2, and KRAS mutations. Class II+III mutations appear to be mutually exclusive with FGFR2 and KRAS.

CONCLUSIONS

In BTC, all classes of BRAF mutations are associated with a worse prognosis. BRAF mutations occur in 5% of iCCA subgroup and may be mutually exclusive with other targetable mutations.

Artificial intelligence-based pathology as a biomarker of sensitivity to atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefits of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezolizumab-bevacizumab) are observed only in a subset of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and the development of biomarkers is needed to improve therapeutic strategies. The atezolizumab-bevacizumab response signature (ABRS), assessed by molecular biology profiling techniques, has been shown to be associated with progression-free survival after treatment initiation. The primary objective of our study was to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model able to estimate ABRS expression directly from histological slides, and to evaluate if model predictions were associated with progression-free survival.

METHODS

In this multicentre retrospective study, we developed a model (ABRS-prediction; ABRS-P), which was derived from the previously published clustering-constrained attention multiple instance learning (or CLAM) pipeline. We trained the model fit for regression analysis using a multicentre dataset from The Cancer Genome Atlas (patients treated by surgical resection, n=336). The ABRS-P model was externally validated on two independent series of samples from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (a surgical resection series, n=225; and a biopsy series, n=157). The predictive value of the model was further tested in a series of biopsy samples from a multicentre cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (n=122). All samples in the study were from adults (aged ≥18 years). The validation sets were sampled between Jan 1, 2008, to Jan 1, 2023. For the multicentre validation set, the primary objective was to assess the association of high versus low ABRS-P values, defined relative to cross-validation median split thresholds in the first biopsy series, with progression-free survival after treatment initiation. Finally, we performed spatial transcriptomics and matched prediction heatmaps with in situ expression profiles.

FINDINGS

Of the 840 patients sampled, 641 (76%) were male and 199 (24%) were female. Across the development and validation datasets, hepatocellular carcinoma risk factors included alcohol intake, hepatitis B and C virus infections, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Using cross-validation in the development series, the mean Pearson's correlation between ABRS-P values and ABRS score (mean expression of ABRS genes) was r=0·62 (SD 0·09; mean p<0·0001, SD<0·0001). The ABRS-P generalised well on the external validation series (surgical resection series, r=0·60 [95% CI 0·51-0·68], p<0·0001; biopsy series, r=0·53 [0·40-0·63], p<0·0001). In the 122 patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab, those with ABRS-P-high tumours (n=74) showed significantly longer median progression-free survival than those with ABRS-P-low tumours (n=48) after treatment initiation (12 months [95% CI 7-not reached] vs 7 months [4-9]; p=0·014). Spatial transcriptomics showed significantly higher ABRS score, along with upregulation of various other immune effectors, in tumour areas with high ABRS-P values versus areas with low ABRS-P values.

INTERPRETATION

Our study indicates that AI applied on hepatocellular carcinoma digital slides is able to serve as a biomarker for progression-free survival in patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab. This approach could be used in the development of inexpensive and fast biomarkers for targeted therapies. The combination of AI heatmaps with spatial transcriptomics provides insight on the molecular features associated with predictions. This methodology could be applied to other cancers or diseases and improve understanding of the biological mechanisms that drive responses to treatments.

FUNDING

Institut National du Cancer, Fondation ARC, China Scholarship Council, Ligue Contre le Cancer du Val de Marne, Fondation de l'Avenir, Ipsen, and Fondation Bristol Myers Squibb Pour la Recherche en Immuno-Oncologie.

Plain language summary of the HIMALAYA study: tremelimumab and durvalumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer)

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This is a summary of results from a phase 3 clinical study called HIMALAYA. HIMALAYA looked at treatment with one dose of a medication called tremelimumab combined with multiple doses of a medication called durvalumab (the STRIDE regimen) or multiple doses of durvalumab alone. These treatments were compared with a medication called sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is a type of liver cancer that is difficult to treat because it is often diagnosed when it is unresectable, meaning it can no longer be removed with surgery. Sorafenib has been the main treatment for unresectable HCC since 2007. However, people who take sorafenib may experience side effects that can reduce their quality of life, so alternative medicines are being trialed. Tremelimumab and durvalumab are types of drugs called immunotherapies, and they both work in different ways to help the body's immune system fight cancer.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?

Participants who took STRIDE lived longer than participants who took sorafenib, whilst participants who took durvalumab alone lived a similar length of time as participants who took sorafenib. Participants who took STRIDE or durvalumab had a lower relative risk of experiencing worsening in their quality of life than participants who took sorafenib. The side effects that participants who received STRIDE or durvalumab experienced were expected for these types of treatments and could mostly be managed.

WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?

Overall, STRIDE is more effective than sorafenib for people with unresectable HCC.

Baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-lymphocyte ratio appear predictive of immune treatment related toxicity in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

A well-recognized class effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) ranging from low grade toxicities to life-threatening end organ damage requiring permanent discontinuation of ICI. Deaths are reported in < 5% of patients treated with ICI. There are, however, no reliable markers to predict the onset and severity of IrAEs. We tested the association between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) at baseline with development of clinically significant IrAEs (grade ≥ 2) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with ICI.

AIM

To test the association between NLR and PLR at baseline with development of clinically significant IrAEs (grade ≥ 2) in HCC patients treated with ICI.

METHODS

Data was extracted from an international database from a consortium of 11 tertiary-care referral centers. NLR = absolute neutrophil count/absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and PLR = platelet count/ALC. Cutoff of 5 was used for NLR and 300 for PLR based on literature. We also tested the association between antibiotic and steroid exposure to IrAEs.

RESULTS

Data was collected from 361 patients treated between 2016-2020 across the United States (67%), Asia (14%) and Europe (19%). Most patients received Nivolumab (n = 255, 71%). One hundred sixty-seven (46%) patients developed at least one IrAE, highest grade 1 in 80 (48%), grade ≥ 2 in 87 (52%) patients. In a univariable regression model PLR > 300 was significantly associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 IrAEs (OR = 0.40; P = 0.044). Similarly, a trend was observed between NLR > 5 and lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 IrAEs (OR = 0.58; P = 0.097). Multivariate analyses confirmed PLR > 300 as an independent predictive marker of grade ≥ 2 IrAEs (OR = 0.26; P = 0.011), in addition to treatment with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1)/cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (OR = 2.57; P = 0.037) and PD-1/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (OR = 3.39; P = 0.01) combinations. Antibiotic use was not associated with IrAE incidence (OR = 1.02; P = 0.954). Patients treated with steroids had a > 2-fold higher incidence of grade ≥ 2 IrAEs (OR = 2.74; P < 0.001), although 74% were prescribed steroids for the treatment of IrAEs.

CONCLUSION

Given that high baseline NLR and PLR are associated with a decreased incidence of IrAEs, lower baseline NLR and PLR may be predictive biomarkers for the appearance of IrAEs in HCC treated with ICI. This finding is in keeping with several studies in solid tumors that have shown that baseline NLR and PLR appear predictive of IrAEs.

Efficacy and safety of atezolizumab/bevacizumab in patients with HCC after prior systemic therapy: A global, observational study

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of the combination treatment of anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody atezolizumab and anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (AB), median overall survival in HCC has drastically improved. However, evidence on the efficacy and safety of the novel treatment standard in patients with prior exposure to systemic treatment is scarce. The aim of this global, multicenter, observational study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AB in patients after previous systemic therapy.

METHODS

We screened our global, multicenter, prospectively maintained registry database for patients who received any systemic therapy before AB. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were time-to-progression, progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety (rate and severity of adverse events).

RESULTS

Among 493 patients who received AB for unresectable HCC, 61 patients received prior systemic therapy and were included in this analysis. The median age of the study population was 66 years, with 91.8% males. Predominant risk factors for HCC were viral hepatitis (59%) and alcohol (23%). Overall survival for AB was 16.2 (95% CI, 14.5-17.9) months, time-to-progression and progression-free survival were 4.1 (95% CI, 1.5-6.6) and 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1-5.1) months, respectively. The objective response rate was 38.2% (7.3% with complete and 30.9% with partial response). Overall survival was not influenced by treatment line (2nd vs. >2nd) or previous systemic treatment modality (tyrosine kinase inhibitors vs. immune checkpoint inhibitors). Treatment-related adverse events of all grades according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were documented in 42.6% of patients, with only 13.1% of grade ≥3, including one death.

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, AB emerges as a safe and efficacious treatment option in patients with HCC previously treated with other systemic therapy.

Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Combination as a First Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common leading causes of cancer death worldwide. As most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, systemic therapy remains the backbone of treatment. In recent years, we have witnessed the transformation of advanced HCC treatment landscapes from single-agent targeted therapies to immunotherapy combinations, with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab becoming the new first-line standard of care with an increase in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared to sorafenib, and a positive impact on quality of life. Although the efficacy and safety of this combination have been confirmed regardless of ethnicity, age, and etiology, only a subgroup of patients seems to benefit the most from this treatment. Currently, predictive serum and tissue biomarkers to select patients who are most likely to respond to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab are lacking. Moreover, the optimal subsequent therapy for patients who progress on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab remains unknown, clinical trials are ongoing, and real-world data are needed to determine the most effective treatment sequence. Importantly, careful evaluation of bleeding risk and preservation of adequate liver function are fundamental to improve patients' prognosis, especially when subsequent treatments are administered.

The rapidly evolving landscape of HCC: Selecting the optimal systemic therapy

Over the past years, there has been a remarkable advance in the systemic treatment options for advanced HCC. The overall survival has gradually increased over time, with larger benefits for patients with sensitive tumors and preserved liver function, the latter being an essential condition for the delivery of sequential lines of treatment and optimization of clinical outcomes. With the approval of new first-line agents and the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies, the treatment landscape of advanced HCC is becoming wider than ever. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and, more recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab have entered the clinical practice and are the current standard of care for treatment-naïve patients, surpassing sorafenib and lenvatinib monopoly. As no head-to-head comparisons are available among all the first-line treatment options, the recommendation for the most appropriate choice and sequence is patient-driven and integrates efficacy data with clinical comorbidities, background liver disease, and the safety profile of available drugs. In addition, predictive biomarkers for successful patients' stratification are yet to be available and constitute the focus of ongoing research. The treatment algorithm is likely to become even more complex since systemic therapeutic approaches are now being translated into earlier stages of the disease, with an impact on the evolution of the sequential treatment of patients with HCC.

Predictive and Prognostic Potential of Liver Function Assessment in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review

Introduction

We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the utility of liver function assessments for predicting disease prognosis and response to systemic anticancer therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC).

Methods

This was a PRISMA-standard review and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021244588). MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched (March 24, 2021) to identify publications reporting the efficacy and/or safety of systemic anticancer therapy (vs. any/no comparator) in liver-function-defined subgroups in phase 2 or 3 aHCC trials. Screening was completed by a single reviewer, with uncertainties resolved by a second reviewer and/or the authors. English-language full-text articles and congress abstracts were eligible for inclusion. Included publications were described and assessed for risk of bias using the GRADE methodology.

Results

Twenty (of 2,579) screened publications were eligible; seven categorized liver function using the albumin-bilirubin system, nine using the Child-Pugh system, four using both. GRADE assessment classified ten, nine, and one publication(s) as reporting moderate-quality, low-quality, and very-low-quality evidence, respectively. Analyses of cross-trial trends of within-exposure arm analyses (active and control) reported a positive relationship between baseline liver function and overall survival and progression-free survival, supporting liver function as a prognostic marker in aHCC. There were also signals for a modest relationship between more preserved baseline liver function and extent of systemic treatment benefit, and with more preserved liver function and lower incidence of safety events.

Conclusion

This review supports liver function as a prognostic variable in aHCC and highlights the value of a priori stratification of patients by baseline liver function in aHCC trials. The predictive value of liver function warrants further study. Findings were limited by the quality of available data.

Impact of body mass index in patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) is first line-treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Body mass index (BMI) has demonstrated predictive value for response to immunotherapy in non-HCC cancer types. Our study investigated the effect of BMI on safety and efficacy of real-life use of Atezo/Bev for unresectable HCC.

METHODS

191 consecutive patients from seven centres receiving Atezo/Bev were included in the retrospective study. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) defined by RECIST v1.1 were measured in overweight (BMI ≥ 25) and non-overweight (BMI < 25) patients. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients in the overweight cohort (n = 94) had higher rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and lower rates of Hepatitis B compared to non-overweight cohort (n = 97). Baseline Child-Pugh class and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage were similar between cohorts, with lower rates of extrahepatic spread in the overweight group. Overweight patients had similar OS compared to non-overweight (median OS 15.1 vs. 14.9 months; p = 0.99). BMI did not influence median PFS (7.1 vs. 6.1 months; p = 0.42), ORR (27.2% vs. 22.0%; p = 0.44) and DCR (74.1% vs. 71.9%; p = 0.46). There were higher rates of atezolizumab-related fatigue (22.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.02) and bevacizumab-related thrombosis (8.5% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.045) in the overweight patients, but overall trAEs and treatment discontinuation were comparable between cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Atezo/Bev has comparable efficacy in overweight HCC patients, with an increase in treatment-related fatigue and thrombosis. Combination therapy is safe and efficacious to use in overweight patients, including those with underlying NAFLD.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer: An early exploratory analysis of real-world data

BACKGROUND

The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial reported a survival benefit with the anti-programmed death cell ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of this new standard treatment in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The analysed population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the biliary tract treated with durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin at 17 Italian centres. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS), whereas secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) by baseline characteristics were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

From February 2022 to November 2022, 145 patients were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 8.5 months (95% CI: 7.9-13.6), the median PFS was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.4-11.7). Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.9-12.9). The investigator-assessed confirmed ORR was 34.5%, and the disease control rate was 87.6%. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 137 patients (94.5%). Grades 3-4 AEs occurred in 51 patients (35.2%). The rate of immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) was 22.7%. Grades 3-4 imAEs occurred in 2.1% of the patients. In univariate analysis, non-viral aetiology, ECOG PS >0 and NLR ≥3 correlated with shorter PFS.

CONCLUSION

The results reported in this first real-world analysis mostly confirmed the results achieved in the TOPAZ-1 trial in terms of PFS, ORR and safety.

Clinical outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-world study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting.

METHODS

Overall cohort included Western and Eastern hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea).

RESULTS

1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p < 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p = 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child-Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis, α-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures.

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR.

Can STEreotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) Improve the Prognosis of Unresectable Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer? Long-Term Clinical Outcomes, Toxicity and Prognostic Factors on 142 Patients (STEP Study)

AIM

The gold standard of care for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the integrated treatment of surgery and chemotherapy (ChT), but about 50% of patients present with unresectable disease. Our study evaluated the efficacy in terms of local control, survival and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

METHODS

A retrospective study (STEP study) analyzed patients with LAPC treated with a dose of 45 Gy in 6 fractions. Local control (LC), distant progression free survival (DPFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were analyzed according to the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were evaluated. Seventy-six patients (53.5%) received induction ChT before SBRT. The median follow-up was 11 months. One-, 2- and 3-year LC rate was 81.9%, 69.1% and 58.5%. Median DPFS was 6.03 months; 1- and 2-year DPFS rate was 19.9% and 4.5%. Median OS was 11.6 months and 1-, 2- and 3-year OS rates were 45.4%, 16.1%, and 9.8%. At univariate analysis, performed by the log-rank test, age < 70 years (p = 0.037), pre-SBRT ChT (p = 0.004) and post-SBRT ChT (p = 0.019) were associated with better OS. No patients experienced G3 toxicity.

CONCLUSION

SBRT represents an effective and safe therapeutic option in the multimodal treatment of patients with LAPC in terms of increased LC. When SBRT was sequentially integrated with ChT, the treatment proved to be promising in terms of OS as well.

Updated survival outcomes with ivosidenib in patients with previously treated IDH1-mutated intrahepatic-cholangiocarcinoma: an Italian real-world experience

Background

The results of the phase III ClarIDHy trial led to the FDA approval of ivosidenib as a therapeutic option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) harboring isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. We recently published the first data on the use of ivosidenib in a real-world setting.

Objective

Here we report the updated survival results of 11 patients with locally advanced or metastatic IDH1-mutated CCA who received ivosidenib in clinical practice.

Patients and methods

Patients treated with ivosidenib as second- and third-line treatments for advanced CCA have been collected with the aim to evaluate the survival outcomes. A molecular study has been performed by next generation sequencing essay.

Results

Overall, 11 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 13.7 months, median progression-free survival from the start of treatment with ivosidenib was 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.0-5.8), whereas median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI: 6.6-15.0) regardless of treatment line. Disease control rate was 63%, with two patients achieving a partial response (18%). Eighteen percent of patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse events (AEs), but no grade ⩾3 was reported. The most frequently observed grade 2 AEs were prolonged QT interval and hypomagnesemia. A molecular profiling was performed on 8 out of 11 patients, highlighting TP53, BAP1, CDKN2A, and CDKN2B as the most common co-altered genes in these patients.

Conclusion

The present update confirms the results of our previous real-world experience on the use of ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated CCA. Real-world evidence on larger numbers of patients is needed to confirm our findings.

Identification of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Prognostic Index via Recursive Partitioning Analysis in HCC: The ABE Index

BACKGROUND/AIM

The purpose of this study was to ascertain a novel prognostic index via recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients being treated with the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ABE) in first-line setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 784 patients with HCC were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

RPA identified three groups of patients: high-risk [Child-Pugh B (CP-B) patients; CP-A and Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI)-2 patients; CP-A and ALBI-1 patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI), and alpha-fetoprotein (α-FP) ≥400 ng/ml]; intermediate-risk [CP-A and ALBI-1 patients with aspartate aminotransferase (AST) normal value (NV), and αFP ≥400 ng/ml, but without MVI; CP-A and ALBI-1 patients with AST increased value (IV), and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥3, but without MVI]; low-risk (CP-A and ALBI-1 patients with AST NV, and αFP <400 ng/ml, but without MVI; CP-A and ALBI-1 patients with AST IV, and NLR <3, but without MVI; CP-A and ALBI-1 patients with MVI, and αFP <400 ng/ml). Overall survival was 7.0 months in high-risk patients (20.8%), 14.2 months in intermediate-risk patients (19.1%), and 22.5 months in low-risk patients (60.1%).

CONCLUSION

The ABE index allows for easy stratification of HCC patients treated with the combination of ABE in first-line setting.

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974.

FINDINGS

At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [50·7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49·3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16·6%; 95% CI 14·8-18·5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the pre-vaccination phase (191 [19·1%; 95% CI 16·4-22·0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16·8%; 13·8-20·3] of 653 patients, p=0·24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6·2%; 3·5-10·2] of 256 patients, p<0·0001). In the alpha-delta phase, 84 (18·3%; 95% CI 14·6-22·7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9·4%; 1·9-27·3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7·4%; 95% CI 3·5-13·5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9·8%; 5·8-15·5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [18·5%; 16·5-20·9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0·0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4·4%; 1·6-9·6], 11 [6·0%; 3·0-10·7] vs 148 [9·9%; 8·4-11·6], p=0·030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2·2%; 0·1-6·4], ten [5·4%; 2·6-10·0] vs 115 [7·7%; 6·3-9·3], p=0·037).

INTERPRETATION

Unvaccinated patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to COVID-19 sequelae irrespective of viral strain. This study confirms the role of previous SARS-CoV-2 immunisation as an effective measure to protect patients from COVID-19 sequelae, disruption of therapy, and ensuing mortality.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: The Gray Curtain of Immunotherapy and Spikes of Lights

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a dismal disease with a poor 5-year overall survival rate (~10%). The revolution of immunotherapy in clinical oncology has not substantially changed clinical outcome for patients with PDAC. Despite outstanding efforts, neither immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone, nor in combination with chemotherapy or targeted therapies have shown encouraging results. This failure mirrors the lack of knowledge about the real key players of immune system senescence and the complexity of the tumor microenvironment in PDAC. However, some hope can be derived from PARP-inhibitor combinations, vaccines, and CAR-T-cells therapy. In this review, we comprehensively summarize the latest updates about the use of ICIs in PDAC, focusing on clinical evidence and ongoing studies highlighting explanations for the failure of immunotherapy and possible solutions.

Combination immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been tested in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showing an objective response rate of 15-20%, mostly without a significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Furthermore, approximately 30% of HCC shows intrinsic resistance to ICIs. In the absence of predictive biomarkers to identify patients likely to benefit most from immunotherapy, research has moved to exploring combinations with potential activity in broader patient populations. Basket trials, including cohorts of patients with HCC, and early phase studies tested the combination of ICIs with antiangiogenic agents as well as the combination of two different ICIs. The achieved promising results provided the rationale for the following phase 3 trials, which tested the combination of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with bevacizumab, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), or anti-CTLA-4. Positive results from the IMbrave150 trial led to the practice-changing approval of atezolizumab-bevacizumab, the first regimen to demonstrate improved survival in the front-line setting, since the approval of sorafenib. More recently, the HIMALAYA trial demonstrated the superiority of durvalumab-tremelimumab (STRIDE regimen) over sorafenib, establishing a new first-line option. In contrast, inconsistent results have been achieved with combinations of ICIs and TKIs, with only one phase 3 trial showing an OS benefit. The rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape for patients with advanced HCC has left significant unmet needs to be addressed in future research. These include choice and sequencing of treatments, identification of biomarkers, combinations with locoregional therapies, and development of new immunotherapy agents. This review summarizes the scientific rationale and available clinical data for combination immunotherapy in advanced HCC.

Regret affects the choice between neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

When treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, therapeutic decisions are left to the sensibility of treating clinicians who, faced with a decision that post hoc can be proven wrong, may feel a sense of regret that they want to avoid. A regret-based decision model was applied to evaluate attitudes toward neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Three clinical scenarios describing high-, intermediate-, and low-risk disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery were presented to 60 respondents (20 oncologists, 20 gastroenterologists, and 20 surgeons). Respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied to analyze respondents' attitudes toward neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

The lowest regret of omission was elicited in the low-risk scenario, and the highest regret in the high-risk scenario (P < .001). The regret of the commission was diametrically opposite to the regret of omission (P ≤ .001). The disease-specific threshold mortality at which upfront surgery is favored over the neoadjuvant therapy progressively decreased from the low-risk to the high-risk scenarios (P ≤ .001). The nonsurgeons working in or with lower surgical volume centers (P = .010) and surgeons (P = .018) accepted higher disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery, which resulted in the lower likelihood of adopting neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSION

Regret drives decision making in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Being a surgeon or a specialist working in surgical centers with lower patient volumes reduces the likelihood of recommending neoadjuvant therapy.

Real-World Data for Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How Does Adherence to the IMbrave150 Trial Inclusion Criteria Impact Prognosis?

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently been approved as a new first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

OBJECTIVE

We performed a real-world study to evaluate the impact of the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria on the safety and efficacy of treatment outside of clinical trials.

METHODS

We analyzed patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC from four different countries. No specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, except for the absence of previous systemic therapies for HCC. The entire population was split into two groups according to concordance with the inclusion criteria as reported in the IMbrave150 trial in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, and safety and efficacy in the two groups of patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 766 patients were included in the analysis: 561/766 (73%) in the 'IMbrave150-in' group and 205/766 (27%) in the 'IMbrave150-out' group. Median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 16.3 versus 14.3 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.65; p < 0.0001] and 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99; p = 0.0431) in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients included in the 'IMbrave150-in' group had significantly longer OS compared with patients included in the 'IMbrave150-out' group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47-0.97; p = 0.0195). In 'IMbrave150-in' patients, the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade was not associated with OS, whereas in 'IMbrave150-out' patients, those with ALBI grade 1 reported a significant benefit in terms of OS compared with those with ALBI grade 2 (16.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR 4.40, 95% CI 2.40-8.08; p > 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were reported in the 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' groups in terms of safety profile.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria favorably impacts the prognosis of patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Among patients who did not meet the IMbrave150 inclusion criteria, those with ALBI grade 1 could benefit from the treatment.

Progression patterns and therapeutic sequencing following immune checkpoint inhibition for hepatocellular carcinoma: An international observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Different approaches are available after the progression of disease (PD) to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including the continuation of ICI, treatment switching to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and cessation of anticancer therapy. We sought to characterise the relationship between radiological patterns of progression and survival post-ICI, also appraising treatment strategies.

METHODS

We screened 604 HCC patients treated with ICIs, including only those who experienced PD by data cut-off. We evaluated post-progression survival (PPS) according to the treatment strategy at PD and verified its relationship with radiological patterns of progression: intrahepatic growth (IHG), new intrahepatic lesion (NIH), extrahepatic growth (EHG), new extrahepatic lesion (NEH) and new vascular invasion (nVI).

RESULTS

Of 604 patients, 364 (60.3%) experienced PD during observation. Median PPS was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.4-6.9; 271 events). At the data cut-off, 165 patients (45%) received no post-progression anticancer therapy; 64 patients (17.6%) continued ICI beyond PD. IHG (HR 1.64 [95% CI: 1.21-2.22]; p = .0013) and nVI (HR 2.15 [95% CI: 1.38-3.35]; p = .0007) were associated with shorter PPS. Multivariate models adjusted for progression patterns, treatment line and albumin-bilirubin grade and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at PD confirmed receipt of ICI beyond PD with (HR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.32; p < .0001) or without subsequent TKI (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.26-0.58; p < .0001) as predictors of prolonged PPS versus no anticancer therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

ICI-TKI sequencing is a consolidated option in advanced HCC. nVI and IHG predict a poorer prognosis. Despite lack of recommendation, the continuation of ICI beyond progression in HCC is adopted clinically: future efforts should appraise which patients benefit from this approach.

Outcomes of beta blocker use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background

In patients with cirrhosis, portal hypertension increases intestinal permeability, dysbiosis, and bacterial translocation, promoting an inflammatory state that can lead to the progression of liver disease and development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate whether beta blockers (BBs), which can mediate portal hypertension, conferred survival benefits in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 578 patients with unresectable HCC treated with ICI from 2017 to 2019 at 13 institutions across three continents. BB use was defined as exposure to BBs at any time during ICI therapy. The primary objective was to assess the association of BB exposure with overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the association of BB use with progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 criteria.

Results

In our study cohort, 203 (35%) patients used BBs at any point during ICI therapy. Of these, 51% were taking a nonselective BB. BB use was not significantly correlated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.9-1.39, P = 0.298), PFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83-1.26, P = 0.844) or ORR (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.31, P = 0.451) in univariate or multivariate analyses. BB use was also not associated with incidence of adverse events (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96-1.97, P = 0.079). Specifically, nonselective BB use was not correlated with OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.33, P = 0.721), PFS (HR 0.92, 0.66-1.29, P = 0.629), ORR (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58-2.49, P = 0.623), or rate of adverse events (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.46-1.47, P = 0.510).

Conclusion

In this real-world population of patients with unresectable HCC treated with immunotherapy, BB use was not associated with OS, PFS or ORR.

Tislelizumab in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (RATIONALE-208): A Multicenter, Non-Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial

Introduction

Tislelizumab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody) showed preliminary antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced solid tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced HCC.

Methods

The multiregional phase 2 study RATIONALE-208 examined single-agent tislelizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) in patients with advanced HCC with Child-Pugh A, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C, and who had received one or more prior lines of systemic therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), radiologically confirmed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by the Independent Review Committee. Safety was assessed in patients who received ≥1 dose of tislelizumab.

Results

Between April 9, 2018, and February 27, 2019, 249 eligible patients were enrolled and treated. After a median study follow-up of 12.7 months, ORR was 13% (n = 32/249; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-18), including five complete and 27 partial responses. The number of prior lines of therapy did not impact ORR (one prior line, 13% [95% CI, 8-20]; two or more prior lines, 13% [95% CI, 7-20]). Median duration of response was not reached. The disease control rate was 53%, and median overall survival was 13.2 months. Of the 249 total patients, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38 (15%) patients; the most common was liver transaminase elevations in 10 (4%) patients. Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 13 (5%) patients or dose delay in 46 (19%) patients. No deaths were attributed to the treatment per investigator assessment.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab demonstrated durable objective responses, regardless of the number of prior lines of therapy, and acceptable tolerability in patients with previously treated advanced HCC.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario.

METHODS

Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A large, real-life, worldwide population

579

Background: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomized controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-center study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario. Methods: Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Results: The analysis included 1,341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p=0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p=0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with NASH/NAFLD (HR: 1.88; p=0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events. Conclusions: Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in overall survival between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with NASH/NAFLD might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral etiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: how will it reshape treatment sequencing?

The treatment landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has broadened with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) setting a novel standard of care. With the increased number of therapies either in first or in further line, disentangling the possible treatment sequences has become much more complex. Yet, all the second-line therapies have been evaluated after sorafenib. After ICIs, offering multikinase inhibitors is a widespread approach, either shifting forward sorafenib or lenvatinib, or choosing among regorafenib or cabozantinib, already approved in the refractory setting. Under specific circumstances, ICIs could be maintained beyond disease progression in patients with proven clinical benefit, as supported by some data emerging from phase III clinical trials with immunotherapy in HCC. Rechallenge with ICIs is an additional attractive alternative, although requiring careful and individual evaluation as efficacy and safety of such a strategy have not been yet clarified. Still, a considerable number of patients displays primary resistance to ICIs and might benefit from antiangiogenics either alone or in addition to ICIs instead. Hopefully, the ongoing clinical trials will enlighten regarding the most effective treatment pathways. The identification of predictive correlates of response to immunotherapy will help treatment allocation at each stage, thus representing an urgent matter to address in HCC research. With programmed death ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, and microsatellite status being inadequate biomarkers in HCC, patient characteristics, drug safety profile, and regulatory approval remain key elements to acknowledge in routine practice. Despite the tissue remaining a preferred source, biomarkers discovery could take advantage of liquid biopsy to overcome the matter of tissue availability and track tumor changes. Lastly, tumor genetic phenotypes, tumor microenvironment features, gut microbiome, and markers of immune response and systemic inflammation are all potential emergent predictors of response to ICIs, pending validation in the clinical setting.

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios as Prognostic Biomarkers in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab

Systemic inflammation is a key risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression and poor outcomes. Inflammatory markers such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) may have prognostic value in HCC treated with standard of care atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo-Bev). We conducted a multicenter, international retrospective cohort study of patients with unresectable HCC treated with Atezo-Bev to assess the association of NLR and PLR with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates. Patients with NLR ≥ 5 had a significantly shorter OS (9.38 vs. 16.79 months, p < 0.001) and PFS (4.90 vs. 7.58 months, p = 0.03) compared to patients with NLR < 5. NLR ≥ 5 was an independent prognosticator of worse OS (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.22−3.56, p = 0.007) but not PFS. PLR ≥ 300 was also significantly associated with decreased OS (9.38 vs. 15.72 months, p = 0.007) and PFS (3.45 vs. 7.11 months, p = 0.04) compared to PLR < 300, but it was not an independent prognosticator of OS or PFS. NLR and PLR were not associated with objective response or disease control rates. NLR ≥ 5 independently prognosticated worse survival outcomes and is worthy of further study and validation.

Impact of older age in patients receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is the gold standard for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our study investigated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy in older patients with HCC.

METHODS

191 consecutive patients from eight centres receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab were included. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) defined by RECIST v1.1 were measured in older (age ≥ 65 years) and younger (age < 65 years) age patients. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The elderly (n = 116) had higher rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (19.8% vs. 2.7%; p < .001), presenting with smaller tumours (6.2 cm vs 7.9 cm, p = .02) with less portal vein thrombosis (31.9 vs. 54.7%, p = .002), with fewer patients presenting with BCLC-C stage disease (50.9 vs. 74.3%, p = .002). There was no significant difference in OS (median 14.9 vs. 15.1 months; HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.65-2.02 p = .63) and PFS (median 7.1 vs. 5.5 months; HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.54-1.92; p = .72) between older age and younger age. Older patients had similar ORR (27.6% vs. 20.0%; p = .27) and DCR (77.5% vs. 66.1%; p = .11) compared to younger patients. Atezolizumab-related (40.5% vs. 48.0%; p = .31) and bevacizumab-related (44.8% vs. 41.3%; p = .63) trAEs were comparable between groups. Rates of grade ≥3 trAEs and toxicity-related treatment discontinuation were similar between older and younger age patients. Patients 75 years and older had similar survival and safety outcomes compared to younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab therapy is associated with comparable efficacy and tolerability in older age patients with unresectable HCC.