Sorafenib Arm Research Articles

Development of mutated β-catenin gene signature to identify CTNNB1 mutations from whole and spatial transcriptomic data in patients with HCC

Background & AimsPatients with β-catenin (encoded by CTNNB1)-mutated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) demonstrate heterogenous responses to first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Precision-medicine based treatments for this subclass are currently in clinical development. Here, we report derivation of Mutated β-catenin Gene Signature (MBGS) to predict CTNNB1-mutational status in patients for future personalized medicine. MethodsCo-expression of mutant-Nrf2 and hMet ± mutant-β-catenin in murine livers in mice led to HCC development. Using bulk RNA-seq and intersectional transcriptomic analysis of various β-catenin-mutated and non-mutated HCC models, MBGS was derived. Integrated RNA/whole-exome-sequencing and spatial transcriptomic data from multiple HCC patient cohorts was assessed to address ability of MBGS to detect CTNNB1 mutation, tumor immune microenvironment and/or predict therapeutic responses. ResultsBulk RNA-seq comparing HCCs in mutant β-catenin-Nrf2, β-catenin-Met and β-catenin-Nrf2-Met to Nrf2-Met HCC model yielded 95 common upregulated genes. In TCGA-LIHC, differential gene expression analysis with FDR=0.05 and log2FC>1.5 on the 95 common genes comparing CTNNB1-mutated vs wild-type patients narrowed the gene panel to 13-genes MBGS. MBGS predicted CTNNB1-mutations in TCGA (n=374) and French (n=398) patient cohorts with ROC AUC of 0.90 and 0.94, respectively. Additionally, increased MBGS expression score was associated with lack of significant overall survival or progression-free survival effects in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab arm versus sorafenib arm in IMbrave150 cohort. MBGS performed comparable or superior to other CTNNB1-mutant classifiers. MBGS overlapped with Hoshida S3, Boyault G5/G6, and Chiang CTNNB1 subclass tumors in TCGA and in HCC spatial transcriptomic datasets visually depicting these tumors to be situated in an immune excluded tumor microenvironment. ConclusionsMBGS will aid in patient stratification to guide precision medicine therapeutics for CTNNB1-mutated HCC subclass as a companion diagnostic, as anti-β-catenin therapies become available.

Tislelizumab versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life in RATIONALE-301 Study

Introduction: RATIONALE-301 (NCT03412773) was a global, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab with sorafenib as first-line (1L) treatment in adult patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in overall survival (OS). This analysis compared health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes between the arms. Methods: Systemic therapy-naive adults with HCC were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab (n = 342) or sorafenib (n = 332). HRQOL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-HCC18, and EQ-5D-5L. At cycles 4 and 6, a mixed model for repeated measures was performed using key-prespecified patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints of the QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-HCC18. Time to deterioration was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method using the PRO endpoints. Results: At cycles 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm had better HRQOL outcomes than the patients in the sorafenib arm per mean-change difference in GHS/QOL, QLQ-C30 physical functioning and fatigue, and QLQ-HCC18 symptom index; however, no differences for pain were observed. Patients in the tislelizumab arm had lower risk of deterioration in GHS/QOL (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49–0.94), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32–0.63) and fatigue (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36–0.61), QLQ-HCC18 symptom index (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34–0.81), and HCC-specific fatigue (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45–0.79). For pain, both arms had similar risk of deterioration (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.56–1.09). At cycles 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm maintained in EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale, whereas scores decreased for the patients in the sorafenib arm. Conclusion: Patients with 1L HCC treated with tislelizumab had favorable HRQOL outcomes compared with patients treated with sorafenib, particularly in fatigue and physical functioning. These results, along with favorable safety profile, better response rate, and OS noninferiority, support tislelizumab as a potential 1L treatment option for unresectable HCC.

Sorafenib plus transarterial chemoembolization vs sorafenib alone for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although the past decade has seen remarkable advances in treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the dismal overall prognosis still envelops HCC patients. Several comparative trials have been conducted to study whether transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) could improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving sorafenib for advanced HCC; however, the findings have been inconsistent. To study the potential synergies and safety of sorafenib plus TACE vs sorafenib alone for treating advanced HCC, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. This study was conducted following the PRISMA statement. A systematic literature search was conducted using the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Data included in the present work were collected from patients diagnosed with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib plus TACE or sorafenib alone. Data synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using Review Manager software. The present study included 2780 patients from five comparative clinical trials (1 was randomized control trial and 4 were retrospective studies). It was found that patients receiving sorafenib plus TACE had better prognoses in terms of overall survival (OS), with a combined hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 [95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.46-0.93, P = 0.02, n = 2780]. Consistently, progression free survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP) differed significantly between the sorafenib plus TACE arm and sorafenib arm (PFS: HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.40-0.96, P = 0.03, n = 443; TTP: HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.64-0.83, P < 0.00001, n = 2451). Disease control rate (DCR) was also significantly increased by combination therapy (risk ratio = 1.36, 95%CI: 1.02-1.81, P = 0.04, n = 641). Regarding safety, the incidence of any adverse event (AE) was increased due to the addition of TACE; however, no significant difference was found in grade ≥ 3 AEs. The combination of sorafenib with TACE has superior efficacy to sorafenib monotherapy, as evidenced by prolonged OS, PFS, and TTP, as well as increased DCR. Additional high-quality trials are essential to further validate the clinical benefit of this combination in the treatment of advanced HCC.

Predictive value of platelet-to-lymphocyte and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in HCC treated with sorafenib and radioembolization

Herein we used data derived from the SORAMIC trial to explore the predictive value of systemic inflammatory markers (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR] and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR]) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib monotherapy or the combination of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT)/sorafenib. Patients randomized to sorafenib monotherapy or SIRT/sorafenib within the per-protocol population of the SORAMIC trial were evaluated in this exploratory post hoc analysis. The median baseline values of NLR and PLR were used as cut-off values to describe subgroups. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests were used to evaluate median survival in the sorafenib and SIRT/sorafenib arms in each subgroup. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was applied to eliminate the effect of confounding factors. A total of 275 patients with a median overall survival of 12.4 months were included in this analysis. The median NLR value of the cohort was 2.77 and the median PLR was 26.5. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the sorafenib and SIRT/sorafenib arms in patients with low NLR (p= 0.72) and PLR (p= 0.35) values. In patients with high NLR values, there was no statistically significant difference in median overall survival between SIRT/sorafenib and sorafenib cohorts (12.1 vs. 9.2 months, p= 0.21). In patients with high PLR values, overall survival in the SIRT/sorafenib arm was significantly longer than in the sorafenib arm (15.9 vs. 11.0 months, p= 0.029). This significant difference was preserved in the multivariable analysis (SIRT/sorafenib arm: hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96, p= 0.03) incorporating age, Child-Pugh grade, and alpha-fetoprotein levels. PLR is a potential predictive factor of benefit from additional SIRT in patients with HCC receiving sorafenib therapy. The potential predictive value of PLR should be further evaluated in future trials. Systemic therapies are the mainstay of treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma at advanced stages. However, not all patients respond well to these treatments. In our analysis, using blood test parameters showing systemic inflammation status, we were able to identify patients who would benefit more from combined treatment with a locoregional treatment of radioembolization (or selective internal radiation therapy).

PHOCUS: A Phase 3, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Sequential Treatment with Pexa-Vec (JX-594) and Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction: Intratumoral administration of pexa-vec (pexastimogene devacirepvec), an oncolytic and immunotherapeutic vaccinia virus, given to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is associated with both local and distant tumor responses. We hypothesized subsequent treatment with sorafenib could demonstrate superior efficacy. Methods: This random phase III open-label study evaluated the sequential treatment with pexa-vec followed by sorafenib compared to sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and no prior systemic treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival, overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: The study was conducted at 142 sites in 16 countries. From December 30, 2015, to the interim analysis on August 2, 2019, 459 patients were randomly assigned (pexa-vec plus sorafenib: 234, sorafenib: 225). At the interim analysis, the median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.89, 14.95) in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib arm and 14.0 months (95% CI: 11.01, 18.00) in the sorafenib arm. This led to the early termination of the study. The median TTP was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.77, 2.96) and 4.2 months (95% CI: 2.92, 4.63); ORR was 19.2% (45 patients) and 20.9% (47 patients); and DCR was 50.0% (117 patients) and 57.3% (129 patients) in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib and sorafenib arms, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 117 (53.7%) patients in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib and 77 (35.5%) patients in the sorafenib arm. Liver failure was the most frequently reported in both groups. Conclusion: Sequential pexa-vec plus sorafenib treatment did not demonstrate increased clinical benefit in advanced HCC and fared worse compared to sorafenib alone. The advent of the added value of checkpoint inhibitors should direct any further development of oncolytic virus therapy strategies.

Sorafenib plus intensive chemotherapy in newly diagnosed FLT3-ITD AML: a randomized, placebo-controlled study by the ALLG

AbstractSorafenib maintenance improves outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) for patients with FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3–internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Although promising outcomes have been reported for sorafenib plus intensive chemotherapy, randomized data are limited. This placebo-controlled, phase 2 study (ACTRN12611001112954) randomized 102 patients (aged 18-65 years) 2:1 to sorafenib vs placebo (days 4-10) combined with intensive induction: idarubicin 12 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3 plus either cytarabine 1.5 g/m2 twice daily on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (18-55 years) or 100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 7 (56-65 years), followed by consolidation and maintenance therapy for 12 months (post-HCT excluded) in newly diagnosed patients with FLT3-ITD AML. Four patients were excluded in a modified intention-to-treat final analysis (3 not commencing therapy and 1 was FLT3-ITD negative). Rates of complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery were high in both arms (sorafenib, 78%/9%; placebo, 70%/24%). With 49.1-months median follow-up, the primary end point of event-free survival (EFS) was not improved by sorafenib (2-year EFS 47.9% vs 45.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.51; P = .61). Two-year overall survival (OS) was 67% in the sorafenib arm and 58% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.42-1.39). For patients who received HCT in first remission, the 2-year OS rates were 84% and 67% in the sorafenib and placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.18-1.12; P = .08). In exploratory analyses, FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease (MRD) negative status (<0.001%) after induction was associated with improved 2-year OS (83% vs 60%; HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.17-0.93; P = .028). In conclusion, routine use of pretransplant sorafenib plus chemotherapy in unselected patients with FLT3-ITD AML is not supported by this study.

A novel drug specific mRNA biomarker predictor for selection of patients responding to dovitinib treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and other solid tumors.

Dovitinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1-3, PDGFR, FGFR1/3, c-KIT, FLT3 and topoisomerase 1 and 2. The drug response predictor (DRP) biomarker algorithm or DRP-Dovitinib is being developed as a companion diagnostic to dovitinib and was applied retrospectively. Archival tumor samples were obtained from consenting patients in a phase 3 trial comparing dovitinib to sorafenib in renal cell carcinoma patients and the DRP-Dovitinib was applied. The biomarker algorithm combines the expression of 58 messenger RNAs relevant to the in vitro sensitivity or resistance to dovitinib, including genes associated with FGFR, PDGF, VEGF, PI3K/Akt/mTOR and topoisomerase pathways as well as ABC drug transport, and provides a likelihood score between 0-100%. The DRP-Dovitinib divided the dovitinib treated RCC patients into two groups, sensitive (n = 49, DRP score >50%) or resistant (n = 86, DRP score ≤ 50%) to dovitinib. The DRP sensitive population was compared to the unselected sorafenib arm (n = 286). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months in the DRP sensitive dovitinib arm and 3.6 months in the sorafenib arm (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-1.01). Median overall survival (OS) was 15.0 months in the DRP sensitive dovitinib arm and 11.2 months in the sorafenib arm (hazard ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.99). The observed clinical benefit increased with increasing DRP score. At a cutoff of 67% the median OS was 20.6 months and the median PFS was 5.7 months in the dovitinib arm. The results were confirmed in five smaller phase II trials of dovitinib which showed a similar trend. The DRP-Dovitinib shows promise as a potential biomarker for identifying advanced RCC patients most likely to experience clinical benefit from dovitinib treatment, subject to confirmation in an independent prospective trial of dovitinib in RCC patients.

Efficacy of lenvatinib (LEN) vs sorafenib (SOR) in the first-line (1L) treatment of patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC): A post hoc analysis of patients with nonviral etiology from REFLECT.

4078 Background: The randomized phase 3 REFLECT trial demonstrated that LEN was non-inferior to SOR in overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) in 1L uHCC (median: 13.6 months [95% CI, 12.1–14.9] vs 12.3 months [95% CI, 10.4–13.9]) (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79–1.06). Median progression-free survival (PFS) by independent imaging review (IIR) per mRECIST was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.6–7.5) for pts in the LEN arm and 3.6 months (95% CI, 3.6–3.7) for pts in the SOR arm (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55–0.75; p&lt;0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) by IIR per mRECIST was 40.6% for pts in the LEN arm and 12.4% for pts in the SOR arm (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 3.59–7.01; p&lt;0.0001) [Kudo 2018, Lancet]. Since REFLECT, combination therapies with immunotherapy have become part of the therapeutic arsenal for the treatment of uHCC, and many studies are ongoing. Recent data suggest that viral/nonviral etiology may impact treatment outcomes [Pfister 2021, Nature; Rimini 2022, ESMO Open]. To add to the current body of evidence, this post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in pts with nonviral etiology in REFLECT. Methods: In REFLECT, pts with uHCC who had not received treatment for advanced disease were randomized to LEN (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg; 8 mg/day for bodyweight &lt;60 kg) or SOR (400 mg twice-daily) in 28-day cycles. This post hoc analysis included pts without hepatitis B or C (based on medical history) who were randomized to receive LEN or SOR. PFS, ORR (by IIR per mRECIST), and OS were analyzed. OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 478 pts randomized to LEN and 476 pts randomized to SOR, 127 and 108 pts, respectively, had nonviral etiology. Among randomized pts with nonviral etiology, median OS was 13.8 mos (95% CI, 10.5–18.7) in the LEN arm and 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.7–17.5) in the SOR arm (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.75–1.43). Median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.5–8.7) in pts randomized to LEN with nonviral etiology and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.6–5.5) in pts randomized to SOR with nonviral etiology (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42–0.87). ORR was 39.4% (95% CI 30.9–47.9) in pts randomized to LEN with nonviral etiology and 20.4% (95% CI 12.8–28.0) in pts randomized to SOR with nonviral etiology. Fewer (n=34 [26.8%]) pts with nonviral etiology randomized to LEN received anticancer medication during survival follow-up than those randomized to SOR (n=46 [42.6%]). Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, OS, PFS, and ORR in pts randomized to LEN with nonviral etiology were consistent with the overall population of pts randomized to LEN. This post hoc analysis, along with the results of the primary analysis of REFLECT [Kudo 2018, Lancet], demonstrates the efficacy of LEN regardless of etiology in uHCC, and supports LEN as a standard of care option for pts with 1L uHCC. Treatment efficacy by etiology should be assessed prospectively in future uHCC trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01761266 .

Evolution of systemic therapy for advanced HCC patients: Did we make progress in 2022?

Evolution of systemic therapy for advanced HCC patients: Did we make progress in 2022?

Efficacy and safety in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with VP4 tumor embolus using sinilimab plus bevacizumab: A retrospective analysis of real-world evidence.

e16156 Background: Recently, sinilimab plus bevacizumab has shown promising effects on unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in ORIENT-32. However, its efficacy and safety in uHCC patients with VP4 cancer embolus remained unclear. Methods: In this retrospective study, uHCC patients with VP4 tumor embolus who received first-line sinilimab plus bevacizumab were consecutively enrolled. We also included similar patients who were treated with first-line sorafenib as comparison. Main efficacy endpoint was overall survival (OS), following progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) to be secondary endpoints, evaluated in accordance with RECIST v1.1. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded according to CTCAE v5.0. Results: Total 43 eligible patients were enrolled, with 15 in sinilimab plus bevacizumab arm (arm 1) and the other 28 in sorafenib arm (arm 2). No statistical differences were found in etiology, liver function and performance status. At data cut-off at February 2023, median PFS in arm 1 and arm 2 were 3.7 (95%CI: 1.2-6.2) and 3.8 (95%CI:3.1-4.5) months, following ORR and DCR were 6.7% &amp; 46.7% and 7.1% &amp; 35.7%. OS in arm 1 was not matured and in arm 2 was 16.1 (11.1-21.1). Not any difference was detected among all efficacy endpoints. AEs happened among almost all patients. But nobody died of AEs. Conclusions: Efficacy and safety of sinilimab plus bevacizumab in uHCC patients with VP4 tumor embolus was similar with sorafenib, which needs to be further confirmed. [Table: see text]

Impact of adjuvant sorafenib treatment after local ablation for HCC in the phase II SORAMIC trial

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant sorafenib treatment compared with placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent local ablation. The SORAMIC trial is a randomised controlled trial with diagnostic, local ablation, and palliative sub-study arms. After initial imaging within the diagnostic study, patients were assigned to local ablation or palliative arms. In the local ablation cohort, patients were randomised 1:1 to local ablation+ sorafenib vs. local ablation+ placebo. The primary endpoint was time-to-recurrence (TTR). Secondary endpoints were local control rate and safety in terms of adverse events and quality-of-life. The recruitment was terminated prematurely after 104 patients owing to slow recruitment. One patient was excluded because of a technical failure. Fifty-four patients were randomised to local ablation+ sorafenib and 49 to local ablation+ placebo. Eighty-eight patients who underwent standardised follow-up imaging comprised the per-protocol population. The median TTR was 15.2 months in the sorafenib arm and 16.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.53-2.2; p= 0.82). Out of 136 lesions ablated within the trial, there was no difference in local recurrence rate between sorafenib (6/69, 8.6%) and placebo groups (5/67, 5.9%; p= 0.792).Overall (92.5% vs. 71.4%, p= 0.008) and drug-related (81.4% vs. 55.1%, p= 0.003) adverse events were more common in the sorafenib arm compared with the placebo arm. Dose reduction because of adverse events were common in the sorafenib arm (79.6% vs. 30.6%, p <0.001). Adjuvant sorafenib did not improve in TTR or local control rate after local ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma within the limitations of an early terminated trial. Local ablation is the standard of care treatment in patients with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma, along with surgical therapies. However, there is a risk of disease recurrence during follow-up. Sorafenib, an oral medication, is a routinely used treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This study found that sorafenib treatment after local ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma did not significantly improve the disease-free period compared with placebo. EudraCT 2009-012576-27, NCT01126645.

Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatic Cell Carcinoma: A Double Center Retrospective Analysis.

We conducted a retrospective analysis in our center (Umberto I Polyclinic) in collaboration with Campus Biomedico Polyclinic to assess the results of the REFLECT study, which was the first study that demonstrated the non-inferiority of Lenvatinib to Sorafenib. We identified 21 patients affected by advanced hepatocellular carcinoma during the last 3 years who were treated in our centers. They were subdivided according to the treatment administered (Lenvatinib or Sorafenib). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated, and subgroups were compared using the log-rank test. Specific predictive and prognostic factors were identified. The safety profile of the two drugs and the collateral effects were evaluated. The OS in patients in the Lenvatinib arm was 19 (months and 12.5 months in the Sorafenib arm. PFS in patients in the Lenvatinib arm was 6 months and 2.5 months in the Sorafenib arm. OS and PFS in patients treated with Lenvatinib were higher in any subcategory analyzed whereas no positive predictors of response to Sorafenib were found. Based on data from literature, the albumin bilirubin index (ALBI) grade was found to be a key prognostic factor. Patients treated with Sorafenib had more adverse events than those treated with Lenvatinib (100% versus 81.8%, respectively). Patients treated with Sorafenib had more frequently hand-foot syndromes, diarrhea, and nausea whereas patients treated with Lenvatinib commonly had hypertension, proteinuria, and weight loss. Lenvatinib was found to be better than Sorafenib in terms of both survival and toxicity, in advanced hepatic cell carcinoma patients.

CXCR4 (CD184) Expression in Pediatric AML Is Associated with Bone Marrow Retention, Specific Disease Characteristics, and Worse Outcomes: A Report of 1004 Patients from the Children's Oncology Group AAML1031 Protocol

Introduction: CXCR4 (CD184) is a G protein-coupled chemokine receptor specific for CXCL12 that is associated with leukocyte chemotaxis. It is expressed on normal hematopoietic cells as well as hematopoietic and epithelial cancer cells. CXCR4 and CXCL12 have been associated with bone marrow retention of AML and ALL blasts and blocking this interaction via small molecule inhibitors has been investigated as a therapeutic target. CXCR4 has also been implicated in other aspects of tumor progression including metastasis, angiogenesis, and survival. As part of Children's Oncology Group protocol AAML1031 for de novo pediatric AML we prospectively evaluated CXCR4 expression by difference from normal (ΔN) flow cytometry and correlated expression with clinical characteristics and outcome. Given the impact of the bone marrow niche on the administration of chemotherapy we hypothesized that high levels of CXCR4 expression would be associated with unfavorable outcomes. Methods: In the AAML1031 phase 3 trial pediatric patients with de novo AML were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy (Arm A) or standard chemotherapy with bortezomib (Arm B), excepting patients with high allelic ratio FLT3-ITD who received standard chemotherapy plus sorafenib (Arm C). Patients were stratified as low-risk (LR) or high-risk (HR) based on cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities, and end of induction (EOI) minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry. LR patients received four cycles of the standard chemotherapy backbone while HR patients received three followed by best hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Patients who: (1) submitted a bone marrow aspirate for ΔN at diagnosis and (2) provided consent for correlative biology studies were included in this analysis. All diagnostic specimens were centrally and prospectively evaluated for the expression of CXCR4 by ΔN. Results: Surface CXCR4 expression was available for 1004 patients and expression on AML cells varied across the cohort (range: 54-17,793 molecules/cell). For analysis, the study population was divided into quartiles (n=257-258 patients each) based on expression levels. Quartiles showed no association with sex and were distributed as expected between treatment arms. Correlation with clinical characteristics showed that patients in the top quartile of CXCR4 expression were younger (5.9 vs. 11.4 years, P<0.001) and had higher bone marrow (BM) blast counts but lower peripheral blood (PB) blast counts (76% vs. 66%, p<0.001 and 33% vs. 43%, p=0.01, respectively). These patients were highly enriched for HR KMT2A fusions (43% of total fusion positive patients), as well as t(9;11) and NPM1 mutations; while they had a lower frequency of t(8;21), inv(16), and CEBPA mutations (p<0.002 for all). There was no association between CXCR4 expression and protocol risk group assignment or complete remission rates, but patients in the high expressing CXCR4 quartile were more commonly MRD negative at EOI (p=0.03). Flow cytometry also revealed a striking increase in RAM phenotype (p<0.001), with 76% of all RAM patients allocated to the CXCR4 high expressing quartile. Patients in the top quartile of CXCR4 expression had lower 5-year OS (58% vs. 66%, p=0.036) and EFS (38% vs. 47%, p=0.009) compared to other patients. CXCR4 was strongly associated with increased 5-year relapse risk (RR) (54% vs. 39%, p<0.001). Among patients with HR KMT2A fusions high expression of CXCR4 was associated with an increased 5-year RR (85% vs. 57%, p=0.04). Multivariable analysis for 5-year RR including MRD status and prognostic genetic factors indicates CXCR4 expression is independently associated with relapse, with a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 1.04-1.7; p=0.026). Conclusions: These data demonstrate that CXCR4 expression is associated with individual HR markers (RAM phenotype and HR KMT2A fusions), but not risk status across the entire study. Despite similar risk status, patients in the top quartile of CXCR4 expression had inferior outcomes. These patients had higher BM blast counts but lower PB blast counts, which has been observed in RAM phenotype, likely due to the impact of CXCR4 on bone marrow retention of leukemia cells. This increased retention may also play a role in treatment resistance, suggesting that the addition of small molecule inhibitors of CXCR4/CXCL12 to chemotherapy may help these high expressing patients, especially in subtypes such as HR KMT2A and RAM phenotype patients. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Serum IGF-1 Scores and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III IMbrave150 Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PurposeChild-Turcotte-Pugh class A (CTP-A) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the standard criterion for active therapy and clinical trial enrollment. We hypothesized that insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) derived scores may provide improved survival prediction over CTP classification. This study aimed to evaluate the potential prognostic and predictive effects of IGF-1 derived scores in the phase III IMbrave150 study.Patients and MethodsBaseline and on-treatment serum IGF-1 levels from 371 patients were subjected to central analysis. Patients’ IGF-1 score (1/2/3) and IGF-CTP score (A/B/C) were determined based on pre-specified cutoffs. Outcomes were analyzed by baseline and by on-treatment changes of the IGF-1 and IGF-CTP scores within and between the two treatment arms. The interaction between these scores and outcomes was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsBaseline IGF-CTP score (A vs B/C) showed prognostic significance for OS in both the atezolizumab-bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.56; P<0.001) and sorafenib (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16–0.65; P=0.002) arms. Baseline IGF-1 score (1 vs 2/3) also showed prognostic significance for OS in both the atezolizumab-bevacizumab (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20–0.55; P<0.001) and sorafenib (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26–0.89; P=0.02) arms. HRs for PFS were consistent with those for OS. No significant predictive effects were observed for either score between the two arms. Kinetic analysis revealed that patients with increased IGF-1 score (1-> 2/3) at 3 weeks post treatment had shorter OS than patients with stable IGF-1 score of 1 in both the atezolizumab-bevacizumab (HR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.56–8.77; P=0.003) and sorafenib (HR, 5.83; 95% CI, 1.88–18.12; P=0.0023) arms.ConclusionBaseline and kinetic change of IGF-CTP and IGF-1 scores are independent prognostic factors for patients with unresectable HCC treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab or sorafenib. These novel scores may provide improved patient stratification in future HCC clinical trials. IMbrave150 ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.

Addition of Y-90 radioembolization increases tumor response and local disease control in hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib

PurposeTo comparethe treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received sorafenib treatment either alone or combined with radioembolization (RE).MethodsFollow-up images of the patients treated within a multicenter phase II trial (SORAMIC) were assessed by mRECIST. A total of 177 patients (73 combination arm [RE + sorafenib] and 104 sorafenib arm) were included in this post-hoc analysis. Response and progression characteristics were compared between treatment arms. Survival analyses were done to compare PFS and post-progression survival between treatment arms. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to compare survival with factors known to influence PFS in patients with HCC.ResultsThe combination arm had significantly higher objective response rate (61.6% vs. 29.8%, p < 0.001), complete response rate (13.7% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.022), and a trend for higher disease control rate (79.2% vs. 72.1%, p = 0.075). Progression was encountered in 116 (65.5%) patients and was more common in the sorafenib arm (75% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.001). PFS (median 8.9 vs. 5.4 months, p = 0.022) and hepatic PFS were significantly better in the combination arm (9.0 vs. 5.7 months, p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis confirmed the treatment arm as an independent predictor of PFS.ConclusionIn advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib, combination with RE has an additive anticancer effect on sorafenib treatment resulting in a higher and longer tumor response. However, the enhanced response did not translate into prolonged survival. Better patient selection and superselective treatment could improve outcomes after combination therapy.

Comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy versus Sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

e16160 Background: Combination immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) agent is now the standard 1st line (1L) therapy in patients with advanced/unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). Currently, there is a paucity of data on the use of ICI monotherapy when combination ICI/VEGFR is contraindicated. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety outcomes of ICI monotherapy versus sorafenib in patients with uHCC in the 1L setting. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing ICI versus sorafenib in the treatment of uHCC. Efficacy endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and progression free survival (PFS). Safety endpoints of interests were any adverse events (AE) and &gt; grade 3 AEs. We performed random effects meta-analysis to estimate odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals for individual endpoints. Results: A total of 2 studies with 1521 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared to sorafenib, ICIs were associated with improved OS [OR 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6-0.94]. Similarly, ICI had increased odds of ORR [OR 2.99; 95% CI 1.93-4.62] and PFS [OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.07-1.85] compared to the sorafenib arm. In the safety analyses, ICIs were associated with reduced risk of &gt; grade 3 AE [OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22-0.72] and any AEs [OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.55] when compared to sorafenib. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that ICI monotherapy has improved OS, PFS, ORR, and better safety profile in 1L uHCC compared to sorafenib.

Indirect Comparisons via Sorafenib for the Comparative Effectiveness of Two PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors to Treat Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients without Prior Systemic Therapies.

IntroductionAdvanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a major public health threat. Several emerging combination therapies have shown promising results for the first-line treatment of advanced HCC. The present study compared the efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP), which were two of the leading combination therapies.MethodsThe outcomes of the present analysis were overall survival (OS) time and progression-free survival (PFS) time. Two matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were first conducted using the individual-level patient data (IPD) of the sorafenib arm from a previous clinical trial and the aggregate data (AgD) of the AB and LP arms from the corresponding published trials. From the MAICs, the hazard ratios (HRs) of AB and LP vs sorafenib were estimated by conducting weighted Cox regressions. The HRs from the two MAICs were then pooled to conduct a second-order indirect comparison of AB vs LP.ResultsIn the MAIC analyses, AB had better efficacy on both OS (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.42–0.79) and PFS (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47–0.76) than sorafenib, whereas LP had significantly better efficacy on PFS (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41–0.94) but not OS (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.52–1.32). In the second-order comparison, AB was insignificantly more efficacious on OS (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.42–1.23) than and similarly efficacious on PFS (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.60–1.51) as the LP regimen.ConclusionLP regimen may be a potential first-line immunotherapy option for advanced HCC given its comparative effectiveness in relation to AB.

Expanding the immunotherapy roadmap for hepatocellular carcinoma.

In a recent Lancet Oncology article, Yau etal. report the CheckMate 459 trial results. This is the first phase III trial comparing the single-agent anti-programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy nivolumab to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib for treatment-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

FDA Approval Summary: Tivozanib for Relapsed or Refractory Renal Cell Carcinoma.

On March 10, 2021, the FDA granted regular approval to tivozanib for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following two or more prior systemic therapies. Approval was based on the TIVO-3 study, a randomized trial of tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with R/R advanced RCC. In TIVO-3, patients were randomized to receive either tivozanib 1.34 mg orally once daily for 21 consecutive days of every 28-day cycle or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1. Tivozanib demonstrated efficacy compared with sorafenib with an improvement in PFS [HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.95; P = 0.016]. The estimated median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months in the tivozanib and sorafenib arms, respectively. There was no evidence of a detrimental effect on overall survival: HR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.75-1.24). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse reaction on the tivozanib arm was hypertension (24%). Compared with sorafenib, tivozanib was associated with lower rates of grade 3 to 4 diarrhea, rash, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Patients receiving tivozanib in TIVO-3 had lower rates of dose reduction, interruption, or permanent discontinuation than those receiving sorafenib.

Real-Life Clinical Data of Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Italy.

BackgroundLenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib.Aims and MethodsTo evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival.ResultsOver a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34–0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue.ConclusionOur study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.