Search

International audience

Background ALBI grade is an objective measure of liver function for patients with HCC; higher ALBI grade is associated with worse prognosis. In the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426), cabozantinib, an inhibitor of MET, VEGFR, and AXL, significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in patients with previously treated HCC and is now approved for patients with HCC who received prior sorafenib. Here, we evaluate outcomes based on ALBI grade in the CELESTIAL trial. Methods 707 patients were randomized 2:1 to cabozantinib (60 mg daily) or placebo. Eligible patients had HCC, Child-Pugh score A, and ECOG PS ≤ 1. Patients received prior sorafenib and ≤2 lines of prior systemic therapy for HCC. Baseline ALBI score was calculated from serum albumin and total bilirubin measured centrally, and was used to determine ALBI grade (Johnson, J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:550-8). Results At baseline, 186 patients (40%) were ALBI grade 1 and 282 (60%) were ALBI grade 2 in the cabozantinib arm; 182 patients (43%) were ALBI grade 1 and 133 (56%) were ALBI grade 2 in the placebo arm. Two patients in each arm were ALBI grade 3. Patients with ALBI grade 1 had better ECOG PS (61% ECOG 0 & 39% ECOG 1) vs those with ALBI grade 2 (48% ECOG 0 & 52% ECOG 1). In patients with ALBI grade 1, median OS was 17.5 months with cabozantinib vs 11.4 months with placebo (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.86). In patients with ALBI grade 2, median OS was 8.0 months with cabozantinib vs 6.4 months with placebo (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.06). In patients with ALBI grade 1, median PFS was 6.5 months with cabozantinib vs 1.9 months with placebo (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32-0.56) and in patients with ALBI grade 2, median PFS was 3.7 months with cabozantinib vs 1.9 months with placebo (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58). Common grade 3/4 adverse events in both groups were consistent with the overall population. Treatment related discontinuations in the cabozantinib arm were 12% and 19% for patients with ALBI grade 1 and 2. Conclusions Patients treated with cabozantinib had longer PFS and OS vs patients receiving placebo, regardless of ALBI grade. Outcomes were generally better in patients with ALBI grade 1 vs 2. Clinical trial identification NCT01908426 (Other Study ID Numbers: XL184-309). Editorial acknowledgement Suvajit Sen (Exelixis). Legal entity responsible for the study Exelixis. Funding Exelixis. Disclosure S.L. Chan: Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen. R. Miksad: Full / Part-time employment: Flatiron Health; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Flatiron Health; Research grant / Funding (institution): Exelixis, Bayer. I. Cicin: Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp; Advisory / Consultancy: F. Hoffmann-La Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer. H.J. Klumpen: Advisory / Consultancy: IPSEN; Research grant / Funding (institution), Local PI for clinical trial from the following organizations: IPSEN Exelexis, ITM, SIRTEX, Taiho, BAYER, DAICHII, Novartis, BTG. S. Kim: Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech, Roche, Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Servier. J. Youkstetter: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Exelixis. S. Sen: Full / Part-time employment, Self and spouse: Exelixis; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Self and spouse: Exelixis. A-L. Cheng: Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer Schering Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Serono; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Ono Pharmaceutica; Advisory / Consultancy: Exelixis; Advisory / Consultancy: Nucleix; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: IQVIA; Honoraria (self): Merck Sharp Dohme. A.B. El-Khoueiry: Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): Astex; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Agenus; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: EISAI; Advisory / Consultancy: Pieris; Advisory / Consultancy: EMD Serono; Advisory / Consultancy: Exelixis; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Apeiron. T. Meyer: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS, BAYER, EISAI, BTG, AZ, BEIGENE, TARVEDA, MSD; Research grant / Funding (institution): BTG BAYER. R.K. Kelley: Advisory / Consultancy: Agios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS (funding to institution) IDMC: Genentech/Roche (funding to self); Research grant / Funding (institution): Agios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, QED, Taiho. G.K. Abou-Alfa: Research grant / Funding (self): ActaBiologica,; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Agios,; Research grant / Funding (self): Array,; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Bayer,; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Beigene,; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): BMS,; Research grant / Funding (self): Casi,; Research grant / Funding (self): Celgene,; Research grant / Funding (self): Exelixis,; Research grant / Funding (self): Genentech,; Research grant / Funding (self): Halozyme,; Research grant / Funding (self): Incyte,; Research grant / Funding (self): Lilly,; Research grant / Funding (self): Mabvax,; Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis,; Research grant / Funding (self): OncoQuest,; Research grant / Funding (institution): Polaris Puma; Research grant / Funding (self): QED,; Research grant / Funding (self): Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: 3DMedcare,Agios, Alignmed, Amgen, Antengene, Aptus, Aslan, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Bioline, BMS, Boston Scientifc, Bridgebio, Carsgen, Celgene, Casi, Cipla, CytomX, Daiichi, Debio, Delcath, Eisai, Exelixis, Flatiron, Genoscience, Halozyme. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

AimSurgery is the only modality of cure in patients diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors associated with disease relapse in patients with NETs treated by potentially-curative surgery.MethodsSequential patients registered in The Christie European NET Society (ENETS) Centre of Excellence, with grade (G)1 or G2 NETs who had undergone curative surgery (February 2002–June 2014) were included. Investigated prognostic factors for relapse were: age, gender, TNM stage, tumour-localisation, functionality, genetic predisposition, presence of multiple NETs, second malignancy, grade (Ki-67-based), presence of vascular and/or perineural invasion, necrosis, surgical margin (R0/R1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation co-morbidity score.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-eight patients were identified [median age of 60 years (range 16–89)]. With a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 43 relapses occurred. The estimated median relapse-free survival (RFS) for the entire cohort was 8.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9–10.0 years). In univariate analysis, primary NET location (p = 0.01), ENETS T-(HR-1.4; 95%-CI 1.0–2.0, p = 0.026), N-(HR-2.0, 95%-CI 1.1–3.9, p = 0.026) and M-stage (HR-2.6, 95%-CI 1.1–6.3, p = 0.052), grade (Ki-67%-based) (HR-2.5; 95%-CI 1.4–4.7; p = 0.003) and perineural invasion (HR-2.1; 95%-CI 1.1–3.9; p = 0.029) were prognostic for relapse. Factors remaining significant after multivariable analysis were tumour size (HR-1.67; 95%-CI 1.04–2.70; p = 0.03), nodal involvement (HR-2.61; 95%-CI 1.17–5.83; p = 0.013) and Ki-67 at the time of diagnosis (HR-1.93; 95%-CI 1.24–3.0; p = 0.002).ConclusionSize of tumour, lymph node involvement and Ki-67 were independent prognostic factors for relapse after potentially curative surgery in NET.

Aim: Surgery is the only modality of cure in patients diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors associated with disease relapse in patients with NETs treated by potentially-curative surgery. Methods: Sequential patients registered in The Christie European NET Society (ENETS) Centre of Excellence, with grade (G)1 or G2 NETs who had undergone curative surgery (February 2002eJune 2014) were included. Investigated prognostic factors for relapse were: age, gender, TNM stage, tumour-localisation, functionality, genetic predisposition, presence of multiple NETs, second malignancy, grade (Ki-67-based), presence of vascular and/or perineural invasion, necrosis, surgical margin (R0/R1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation co-morbidity score. Results: One hundred and eighty-eight patients were identified [median age of 60 years (range 16e89)]. With a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 43 relapses occurred. The estimated median relapse-free survival (RFS) for the entire cohort was 8.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9e10.0 years). In univariate analysis, primary NET location (p ¼ 0.01), ENETS T-(HR-1.4; 95%-CI 1.0e2.0, p ¼ 0.026), N-(HR-2.0, 95%-CI 1.1e3.9, p ¼ 0.026) and M-stage (HR-2.6, 95%-CI 1.1e6.3, p ¼ 0.052), grade (Ki-67%-based) (HR-2.5; 95%CI 1.4e4.7; p ¼ 0.003) and perineural invasion (HR-2.1; 95%-CI 1.1e3.9; p ¼ 0.029) were prognostic for relapse. Factors remaining significant after multivariable analysis were tumour size (HR-1.67; 95%-CI 1.04 e2.70; p ¼ 0.03), nodal involvement (HR-2.61; 95%-CI 1.17e5.83; p ¼ 0.013) and Ki-67 at the time of diagnosis (HR-1.93; 95%-CI 1.24e3.0; p ¼ 0.002). Conclusion: Size of tumour, lymph node involvement and Ki-67 were independent prognostic factors for relapse after potentially curative surgery in NET.