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.

Combination gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced/recurrent biliary tract cancer: the FUGA-BT (JCOG1113) randomized phase III clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is the standard treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC); however, it causes nausea, vomiting, and anorexia, and requires hydration. Gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) reportedly has equal to, or better, efficacy and an acceptable toxicity profile. We aimed to confirm the non-inferiority of GS to GC for patients with advanced/recurrent BTC in terms of overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We undertook a phase III randomized trial in 33 institutions in Japan. Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy-naïve patients with recurrent or unresectable BTC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 - 1, and adequate organ function. The calculated sample size was 350 with a one-sided α of 5%, a power of 80%, and non-inferiority margin hazard ratio (HR) of 1.155. The primary end point was OS, while the secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), adverse events (AEs), and clinically significant AEs defined as grade ≥2 fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, oral mucositis, or diarrhea.

RESULTS

Between May 2013 and March 2016, 354 patients were enrolled. GS was found to be non-inferior to GC [median OS: 13.4 months with GC and 15.1 months with GS, HR, 0.945; 90% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.15; P = 0.046 for non-inferiority]. The median PFS was 5.8 months with GC and 6.8 months with GS (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.70-1.07). The RR was 32.4% with GC and 29.8% with GS. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated. Clinically significant AEs were observed in 35.1% of patients in the GC arm and 29.9% in the GS arm.

CONCLUSIONS

GS, which does not require hydration, should be considered a new, convenient standard of care option for patients with advanced/recurrent BTC.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

This trial has been registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm), number UMIN000010667.

REVERCE: a randomized phase II study of regorafenib followed by cetuximab versus the reverse sequence for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The objective of this randomized phase II trial was to evaluate efficacy and safety of the therapeutic sequence of regorafenib followed by cetuximab, compared with cetuximab followed by regorafenib, as the current standard sequence for metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were randomized to receive sequential treatment with regorafenib followed by cetuximab ± irinotecan (R-C arm), or the reverse sequence [cetuximab ± irinotecan followed by regorafenib (C-R arm)]. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) with initial treatment (PFS1), PFS with second treatment (PFS2), safety, and quality of life. Exploratory end points included serial biomarker analyses, including oncogenic alterations from circulating tumor DNA or multiple serum or plasma proteins.

RESULTS

One-hundred one patients were randomized and eligible for efficacy analysis. Sequential treatment was successful in 86% patients in both arms. Median OS for R-C and C-R was 17.4 and 11.6 months, respectively (P = 0.0293), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.61 for OS [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.96]. The HR for PFS1 (regorafenib in R-C versus cetuximab in C-R) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.61-1.54), and PFS2 (C in R-C versus R in C-R) was 0.29 (95% CI 0.17-0.50). No unexpected safety signals were observed. The quality of life scores during the entire treatment period was not significantly different between the two arms. Circulating biomarker analyses showed emerging oncogenic alterations in RAS, BRAF, EGFR, HER2, and MET, which were more commonly detected after cetuximab than after regorafenib.

CONCLUSIONS

The therapeutic sequence of regorafenib followed by cetuximab suggests a longer OS than the current standard sequence.

Updated results from GEST study: a randomized, three-arm phase III study for advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

The GEST study showed non-inferiority of S-1 but not superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) to gemcitabine alone for overall survival with the data by the cut-off date of 31st July in 2010 for chemo-naïve patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We considered it important to determine whether S-1 maintains non-inferiority after a long-term follow-up in the GEST study and to obtain a firm positive conclusion. In addition, it may be an interesting challenge to explore the efficacious profile of GS in the long-term follow-up study. Using the data from the follow-up period, background and efficacy in patients from Taiwan and Japan, as well as the rates of tumor shrinkage in locally advanced and metastatic patients (Waterfall plot) were also analyzed.

METHODS

The results of the primary analysis were reconfirmed, and subset analysis of overall survival and progression-free survival was performed based on the overall survival data updated by the cut-off date of 31st July in 2011.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 29.8 months, and 795 deaths occurred (95.6%). The median overall survival was 8.8 months for gemcitabine, 9.7 months for S-1 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.17), and 9.9 months for GS (HR 0.91; 97.5% CI 0.75-1.11). In patients with performance status (PS) 0, the median overall survival was 9.8 months for gemcitabine, 10.9 months for S-1, and 10.5 months for GS. In patients with PS 1, the median overall survival was 6.2 months for gemcitabine, 6.3 months for S-1, and 9.6 months for GS.

CONCLUSION

Our survey reconfirmed the non-inferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine and showed S-1 can be used as one of the standard treatment options for advanced pancreatic cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00498225.

Randomised phase II trial of irinotecan plus S-1 in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer

Background:

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of irinotecan/S-1 (IRIS) therapy with S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

Methods:

Patients were treated with oral S-1 (80–120 mg for 14 days every 4 weeks) plus intravenous irinotecan (100 mg m⁻² on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks; IRIS group) or oral S-1 group (80–120 mg daily for 28 days every 6 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

Of 137 patients enrolled, 127 were eligible for efficacy. The median PFS in the IRIS group and S-1 monotherapy group were 3.5 and 1.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio (HR)=0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53–1.11; P=0.18), while the median overall survival (OS) were 6.8 and 5.8 months, respectively (HR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.51–1.09; P=0.13). Response rate was significantly higher in the IRIS group than in the S-1 monotherapy group (18.3% vs 6.0%, P=0.03). Grade 3 or higher neutropenia and anorexia occurred more frequently in the IRIS group.

Conclusions:

There was a trend for better PFS and OS in the IRIS group that could be a treatment arm in the clinical trials for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

Sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: randomized phase II trial

In a randomized phase II study of sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin in comparison with sorafenib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, it yielded favorable overall survival when compared with sorafenib alone. This is the first report of its effectiveness in relation to the overall survival in comparison with that of sorafenib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background

Sorafenib (Sor) is acknowledged as a standard therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of addition of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin (SorCDDP) to Sor for the treatment of advanced HCC.

Patients and methods

We conducted a multicenter open-labeled randomized phase II trial in chemo-naïve patients with advanced HCC with Child-Pugh scores of 5–7. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive SorCDDP (sorafenib: 400 mg bid; cisplatin: 65 mg/m², day 1, every 4–6 weeks) or Sor (400 mg bid). The primary end point was overall survival.

Results

A total of 108 patients were randomized (Sor, n = 42; SorCDDP, n = 66). The median survival in the Sor and SorCDDP arms were 8.7 and 10.6 months, respectively [stratified hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 0.60 (0.38–0.96), P = 0.031]. The median time to progression and the response rate were, respectively, 2.8 months and 7.3% in the Sor arm and 3.1 months and 21.7% in the SorCDDP arm. The adverse events were more frequent in the SorCDDP arm than in the Sor arm, but well-tolerated.

Conclusion

SorCDDP yielded favorable overall survival when compared with Sor in patients with advanced HCC.

Clinical Trial registration

UMIN-CTR (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index-j.htm), identification number: UMIN000005703.

A randomized phase II study of S-1 plus oral leucovorin versus S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer

This is the first phase II trial in which adding oral leucovorin (LV) to S-1 (SL) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with S-1 monotherapy (S) in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). The significantly better PFS and disease control rate with SL than with S suggest that the antitumor activity of S-1 is enhanced by LV in advanced PC.

Background

We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of adding oral leucovorin (LV) to S-1 when compared with S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC).

Patients and methods

Gemcitabine-refractory PC patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive S-1 at 40, 50, or 60 mg according to body surface area plus LV 25 mg, both given orally twice daily for 1 week, repeated every 2 weeks (SL group), or S-1 monotherapy at the same dose as the SL group for 4 weeks, repeated every 6 weeks (S-1 group). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Among 142 patients enrolled, 140 were eligible for efficacy assessment (SL: n = 69 and S-1: n = 71). PFS was significantly longer in the SL group than in the S-1 group [median PFS, 3.8 versus 2.7 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37–0.85; P = 0.003]). The disease control rate was significantly higher in the SL group than in the S-1 group (91% versus 72%; P = 0.004). Overall survival (OS) was similar in both groups (median OS, 6.3 versus 6.1 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54–1.22; P = 0.463). After adjusting for patient background factors in a multivariate analysis, OS tended to be better in the SL group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47–1.07; P = 0.099). Both treatments were well tolerated, although gastrointestinal toxicities were slightly more severe in the SL group.

Conclusion

The addition of LV to S-1 significantly improved PFS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced PC, and a phase III trial has been initiated in a similar setting.

Clinical trials number

Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center: JapicCTI-111554.

Phase II trial of combination therapy of gemcitabine plus anti-angiogenic vaccination of elpamotide in patients with advanced or recurrent biliary tract cancer

Background Elpamotide is an HLA-A*24:02-restricted epitope peptide of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and induces cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) against VEGFR-2/KDR. Given the high expression of VEGFR-2 in biliary tract cancer, combination chemoimmunotherapy with elpamotide and gemcitabine holds promise as a new therapy. Patients and Methods Patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent biliary tract cancer were included in this single-arm phase II trial, with the primary endpoint of overall survival. Survival analysis was performed in comparison with historical control data. The patients concurrently received gemcitabine once a week for 3 weeks (the fourth week was skipped) and elpamotide once a week for 4 weeks. Results Fifty-five patients were registered, of which 54 received the regimen and were included in the full analysis set as well as the safety analysis set. Median survival was 10.1 months, which was longer than the historical control, and the 1-year survival rate was 44.4 %. Of these patients, injection site reactions were observed in 64.8 %, in whom median survival was significantly longer (14.8 months) compared to those with no injection site reactions (5.7 months). The response rate was 18.5 %, and all who responded exhibited injection site reactions. Serious adverse reactions were observed in five patients (9 %), and there were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion Gemcitabine and elpamotide combination therapy was tolerable and had a moderate antitumor effect. For future development of therapies, it will be necessary to optimize the target population for which therapeutic effects could be expected.

GIDEON (Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib): second interim analysis

BACKGROUND

GIDEON (Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC] and Of its treatment with sorafeNib) is a global, prospective, non-interventional study undertaken to evaluate the safety of sorafenib in patients with unresectable HCC in real-life practice, including Child-Pugh B patients who were excluded from clinical trials.

METHODS

Patients with unresectable HCC, for whom the decision to treat with sorafenib, based on the approved label and prescribing guidelines, had been taken by their physician, were eligible for inclusion. Demographic data and disease/medical history were recorded at entry. Sorafenib dosing and adverse events (AEs) were collected at follow-up visits. The second interim analysis was undertaken when ~1500 treated patients were followed up for ≥ 4 months.

RESULTS

Of the 1571 patients evaluable for safety, 61% had Child-Pugh A status and 23% Child-Pugh B. The majority of patients (74%) received the approved 800 mg initial sorafenib dose, regardless of Child-Pugh status; however, median duration of therapy was shorter in Child-Pugh B patients. The majority of drug-related AEs were grade 1 or 2, and the most commonly reported were consistent with previous reports. The incidence and nature of drug-related AEs were broadly similar across Child-Pugh, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and initial dosing subgroups, and consistent with the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the first interim analysis, overall safety profile and dosing strategy are similar across Child-Pugh subgroups. Safety findings also appear comparable irrespective of initial sorafenib dose or BCLC stage. Final analyses in > 3000 patients are ongoing.

Cisplatin and gemcitabine for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Two recent studies (ABC-02 [UK] and BT22 [Japan]) have demonstrated the superiority of cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) chemotherapy over gemcitabine (Gem) alone for patients with pathologically proven advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC: cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder and ampullary cancers). This pre-planned analysis evaluates the efficacy of CisGem with increased statistical power.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data of these studies to establish the effect of CisGem versus Gem on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and carried out exploratory subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

CisGem demonstrates a significant improvement in PFS [hazard ratio (HR)=0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.76, P<0.001] and OS (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.78, P<0.001) over Gem. This effect is most marked among patients with good performance status (PS 0-1): HR for PFS is 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.74), P<0.001 and OS HR=0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.77), P<0.001. CisGem resulted in improved PFS and OS for intra- and extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinomas and gallbladder cancer. The treatment effect between UK and Japanese patients was consistent with respect to OS (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.03, respectively); with similar OS in the combination arms (median 11.7 and 11.1 months, respectively). Subgroups least likely to benefit included patients with ampullary tumours and poor performance status (PS2).

CONCLUSIONS

CisGem is the standard of care for the first-line treatment of good-PS patients with advanced BTC regardless of ethnicity. Future studies should aim to enhance the effectiveness of this regimen in the first-line setting, establish the role of subsequent (second-line) therapy and assess the role of rationally developed molecular-targeted therapies.

Serum levels of IL-6 and IL-1β can predict the efficacy of gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

With this study, we sought to characterise the impact of pro-inflammatory cytokines on the outcomes of gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

Treatment-naive patients with advanced PC and no obvious infections were eligible for enrolment. All of the patients were scheduled to undergo systemic chemotherapy. Serum pro-inflammatory cytokines were measured using an electro-chemiluminescence assay method before chemotherapy. High cytokine levels were defined as values greater than the median. Clinical data were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Sixty patients who received GEM were included in the analysis. High IL-6 and IL-1β levels were poor prognostic factors for overall survival in a multivariate analysis (P=0.011 and P=0.048, respectively). Patients with both a high IL-6 level and a high IL-1β level exhibited shortened overall and progression-free survival, a reduction in the tumour control rate, and a high dose intensity of GEM compared with patients with low levels of both IL-6 and IL-1β.

CONCLUSION

The serum levels of IL-6 and IL-1β predict the efficacy of GEM in patients with advanced PC.