Search

PurposeThis phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348).Patients and methodsPatients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles.ResultsA total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively.ConclusionAll regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

Lessons learnedTKM-080301 showed a favorable toxicity profile at the studied dose.TKM-080301 targeting PLK1 through small interfering RNA mechanism did not demonstrate improved overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma compared with historical control. Preliminary antitumor activity as shown in this early-phase study does not support further evaluation as a single agent.BackgroundPolo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Knockdown of PLK1 expression by PLK1 small interfering RNA (siRNA) in an HCC cell line showed reduced expression in RNA-induced silencing complex and a reduction in cell proliferation.MethodsA 3 + 3 dose escalation plus expansion cohort at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was implemented. Patients with HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2, and Child-Pugh score A received TKM-080301 as an intravenous infusion once every week for 3 consecutive weeks, repeated every 28 days.ResultsThe study enrolled 43 patients. The starting dose of TKM-080301 was 0.3 mg/kg, and MTD was declared at 0.75 mg/kg. Following the development of grade 4 thrombocytopenia in two subjects on the expansion cohort, the MTD was redefined at 0.6 mg/kg. Four patients did not have any evaluable postbaseline scan. Of the other 39 subjects who had received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 18 subjects (46.2%) had stable disease (SD) by independent RECIST 1.1 criteria. By Choi criteria, eight subjects (23.1%) had a partial response (PR). For 37 assessable subjects, with 2 subjects censored, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.04 months. Median survival for the whole study population was 7.5 months.ConclusionTKM-080301 was generally well tolerated. In this early-phase study, antitumor effect for TKM 080301 was limited. Further evaluation as a single agent in large randomized trials is not warranted.

Lessons learnedTKM-080301 showed a favorable toxicity profile at the studied dose.TKM-080301 targeting PLK1 through small interfering RNA mechanism did not demonstrate improved overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma compared with historical control. Preliminary antitumor activity as shown in this early-phase study does not support further evaluation as a single agent.BackgroundPolo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Knockdown of PLK1 expression by PLK1 small interfering RNA (siRNA) in an HCC cell line showed reduced expression in RNA-induced silencing complex and a reduction in cell proliferation.MethodsA 3 + 3 dose escalation plus expansion cohort at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was implemented. Patients with HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2, and Child-Pugh score A received TKM-080301 as an intravenous infusion once every week for 3 consecutive weeks, repeated every 28 days.ResultsThe study enrolled 43 patients. The starting dose of TKM-080301 was 0.3 mg/kg, and MTD was declared at 0.75 mg/kg. Following the development of grade 4 thrombocytopenia in two subjects on the expansion cohort, the MTD was redefined at 0.6 mg/kg. Four patients did not have any evaluable postbaseline scan. Of the other 39 subjects who had received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 18 subjects (46.2%) had stable disease (SD) by independent RECIST 1.1 criteria. By Choi criteria, eight subjects (23.1%) had a partial response (PR). For 37 assessable subjects, with 2 subjects censored, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.04 months. Median survival for the whole study population was 7.5 months.ConclusionTKM-080301 was generally well tolerated. In this early-phase study, antitumor effect for TKM 080301 was limited. Further evaluation as a single agent in large randomized trials is not warranted.

Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics.

Background: Ascites is common in advanced gastrointestinal cancers with peritoneal metastases (PM) and negatively impacts patient survival. No study to date has specifically evaluated the relationship between ascites, PM and survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and metastatic gastric cancer (mGC). Objectives: This study aims to investigate and elucidate the relationship between malignant ascites, PM and survival outcomes in both mCRC and mGC patients. Design: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical trial data of mCRC and mGC patients with PM. Methods: We performed two pooled analyses, firstly of two Italian randomized trials enrolling patients with mCRC eligible for systemic therapy (TRIBE2; VALENTINO), and secondly of gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis (GCPM) patients who underwent bi-directional therapeutic treatment comprising systemic and peritoneal-directed therapies. Results: Of 900 mCRC patients, 39 (4.3%) had PM with malignant ascites. Compared to the group without PM, median progression-free and overall survival were significantly inferior in the ascites group (hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21–2.35, p = 0.007; HR for overall survival (OS) 2.14, 95% CI: 1.57–3.01, p < 0.001), but not in the group of PM without ascites (HR for PFS 1.10, 95% CI: 0.91 – 1.34; HR for OS 1.04, 95% CI: 0.84 – 1.30). Of 170 patients with GCPM, those with ascites had higher median Peritoneal Cancer Index scores (23 vs 9, p < 0.001). Median OS was significantly inferior among those with ascites compared to those without (13.0 vs 21.0 months, HR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.16–2.52, p = 0.007). Conclusion: Ascites identifies a subgroup of patients with PM and poor outcomes, for whom tailored research are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: A review of the latest research at PubMed and major cancer conferences was conducted to find out the current treatments for advanced stomach and esophagogastric junction cancers. In the West, neoadjuvant and perioperative chemotherapy is preferred for localized tumors. In East Asia, adjuvant chemotherapy is preferred. Studies are looking at how well immunotherapy and other drugs work in the perioperative setting. To choose the best treatment for advanced gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the esophago-gastric junction, it is important to know biomarkers like HER2 expression, PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS), Claudin 18.2, and microsatellite instability (MSI). The standard first-line therapy is a combination of fluoropyrimidine and a platinum derivative. The choice of chemotherapy with antibodies depends on the biomarker. This article reviews recent clinical trial results and looks at the future of systemic therapy. Background: The prognosis of patients diagnosed with locally advanced and metastatic gastric and esophago-gastric junction cancer is critical. The optimal choice of systemic therapy is essential to optimize survival outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature review via PubMed and analysis of major oncology congresses (European Society for Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology websites) were conducted to ascertain the current status and latest developments in the systemic treatment of patients with localized or advanced gastric and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma. Results: While neoadjuvant and perioperative chemotherapy for localized tumor stages is the preferred approach in the Western Hemisphere, adjuvant chemotherapy remains the preferred course of action in East Asia. The administration of chemotherapy, typically in the form of combinations comprising platinum and fluoropyrimidine compounds in combination with docetaxel, represents a standard of care. Investigations are underway into the potential of immunotherapy and other biologically targeted agents in the perioperative setting. To select the most appropriate therapy for advanced gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the esophago-gastric junction, it is essential to determine biomarkers such as HER2 expression, PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) (combined positive score), Claudin 18.2, and microsatellite instability (MSI). In the present clinical context, the standard first-line therapy is a combination of fluoropyrimidine and a platinum derivative. The selection of chemotherapy in combination with antibodies is contingent upon the specific biomarker under consideration. Conclusions: This article reviews the current state of the art based on recent clinical trial results and provides an outlook on the future of systemic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This investigator-initiated clinical trial aims to study the efficacy and safety of administering selective internal radiation therapy with resin yttrium-90 microspheres (SIRT) followed by standard chemotherapy in unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Methods: A phase 2 single-arm multicenter study was conducted in patients with unresectable ICC (NCT02167711). SIRT was administered at dose of 120 Gy targeted at tumor followed by commencement of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on days one and eight of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in solid tumors 1.1, toxicity, and time from SIRT to commencement of chemotherapy. Results: Total 31 patients were screened and twenty-four were recruited. All patients completed SIRT and 16 of them underwent subsequent chemotherapy. The median cycle of chemotherapy was 5 (range: 1–8). The median OS was 13.6 months (95% CI: 5.4–21.6) for the intent-to-treat population. Among 16 patients undergoing chemotherapy, the median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI: 7.3–25.2) and the median PFS was 9 months (95% CI: 3.2–13.1). The response rate was 25% (95% CI: 3.8–46.2%), and the disease control rate was 75% (95% CI: 53.8–96.2%). No new safety signal was observed, with fewer than 10% of patients suffering from grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events. The median time from SIRT to chemotherapy was 29 (range: 7–42) days. Eight patients could not receive chemotherapy due to rapid progressive disease (n = 4), underlying treatment unrelated comorbidities (n = 2), and withdrawal of consent due to personal reasons (n = 2). Conclusions: Treatment of SIRT followed by standard gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy is feasible and effective for unresectable ICC. Further studies are required to study the optimal sequence of SIRT and chemotherapy.