Search

PurposeIn REFLECT, lenvatinib demonstrated an effect on overall survival (OS) by confirmation of noninferiority to sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This analysis assessed correlations between serum or tissue biomarkers and efficacy outcomes from REFLECT.Experimental designSerum biomarkers (VEGF, ANG2, FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23) were measured by ELISA. Gene expression in tumor tissues was measured by the nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. Pharmacodynamic changes in serum biomarker levels from baseline, and associations of clinical outcomes with baseline biomarker levels, were evaluated.ResultsFour hundred and seven patients were included in the serum analysis set (lenvatinib n = 279, sorafenib n = 128); 58 patients were included in the gene-expression analysis set (lenvatinib n = 34, sorafenib n = 24). Both treatments were associated with increases in VEGF; only lenvatinib was associated with increases in FGF19 and FGF23 at all time points. Lenvatinib-treated responders had greater increases in FGF19 and FGF23 versus nonresponders at cycle 4, day 1 (FGF19: 55.2% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.014; FGF23: 48.4% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.0022, respectively). Higher baseline VEGF, ANG2, and FGF21 correlated with shorter OS in both treatment groups. OS was longer for lenvatinib than sorafenib [median, 10.9 vs. 6.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.85; P-interaction = 0.0397] with higher baseline FGF21. In tumor tissue biomarker analysis, VEGF/FGF-enriched groups showed improved OS with lenvatinib versus the intermediate VEGF/FGF group (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = 0.0253).ConclusionsHigher baseline levels of VEGF, FGF21, and ANG2 may be prognostic for shorter OS. Higher baseline FGF21 may be predictive for longer OS with lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, but this needs confirmation.

ObjectiveIn the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial, cabozantinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This subgroup analysis evaluated cabozantinib in patients who had received sorafenib as the only prior systemic therapy.MethodsCELESTIAL randomised (2:1) patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh class A liver function to treatment with cabozantinib (60 mg daily) or placebo. Eligibility required prior treatment with sorafenib, and patients could have received ≤2 prior systemic regimens. The primary endpoint was OS. Outcomes in patients who had received sorafenib as the only prior therapy were analysed by duration of prior sorafenib (

BackgroundThe rationale for the evaluation of trametinib in advanced biliary cancer (BC) is based on the presence of mitogen-activated protein kinase alterations and on earlier promising results with MEK inhibitors in BC.MethodsPatients with histologically proven BC who progressed on gemcitabine/platinum were randomised to trametinib daily (arm 1) versus fluoropyrimidine therapy (infusional 5-fluorouracil or oral capecitabine, arm 2). The primary end-point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end-points included progression free survival (PFS) and response rate. A planned interim futility analysis of objective response was performed on the first 14 patients registered to the trametinib arm.ResultsThe study was stopped early based on the lack of measurable response in the trametinib arm. A total of 44 eligible patients were randomised (24 patients in arm 1 and 20 patients in arm 2). Median age was 62 years and the primary sites of tumour were cholangiocarcinoma (68%) and gallbladder (32%). The overall response rate was 8% (95% CI 0%-19%) in arm 1 versus 10% (95% CI 0%-23%) in arm 2 (p > .99) Median OS was 4.3 months for arm 1 and 6.6 months for arm 2. The median PFS was 1.4 months for arm 1 and 3.3 months for arm 2.ConclusionsThis is the first prospective randomised study of a targeted agent versus chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of BC. In this unselected population, the interim analysis result of unlikely benefit with trametinib resulted in early closure.

Introduction: Lenvatinib (dosing for patients who weigh ≥60 kg was 12 mg/day; for patients who weigh <60 kg, the dose was 8 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks demonstrated antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with first-line unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in the open-label phase 1b Study 116/KEYNOTE-524 (primary analysis data cutoff date: October 31, 2019; median follow-up: 10.6 months). This analysis (updated data cutoff date: March 31, 2021) reports efficacy results from 17 months of additional follow-up time. Methods: 100 patients with uHCC were included in the primary analysis (median follow-up: 27.6 months). Endpoints included overall survival (OS), investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) per modified RECIST. Landmark analyses of OS by the best response at 3 and 9 months were performed. Pembrolizumab antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and concentrations were also measured (cutoff date: August 7, 2020). Results: ORR was 43.0% (95% CI 33.1–53.3%) and median DOR was 17.1 months (95% CI 6.9–19.3 months). Median PFS and OS were 9.3 months (95% CI 7.4–9.8 months) and 20.4 months (95% CI 14.4–25.9 months), respectively. No treatment-emergent ADAs were detected. Conclusion: Results show a sustained treatment effect with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with uHCC in the first-line setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Thalidomide and its more potent immunomodulatory derivative lenalidomide enhance rituximab-mediated antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. We therefore evaluated lenalidomide and rituximab in symptomatic Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM) patients naive to either agent., Experimental Design: Intended therapy consisted of 48 weeks of lenalidomide (25 mg/d for 3 weeks and then 1 week off) along with rituximab (375 mg/m(2)/wk) dosed on weeks 2 to 5 and 13 to 16. Sixteen patients were enrolled, 12 of whom were previously untreated., Results: Unexpectedly, we observed an acute decrease in hematocrit in 13 of 16 patients (median hematocrit decrease, 4.8%), which was attributable to lenalidomide patients and which led to cessation of further enrollment on this study. Lenalidomide-related anemia was observed even at doses as low as 5 mg/d and occurred in the absence of hemolysis or other cytopenias. The overall response and major response (<50% decrease in serum IgM) rates were 50% and 25%, respectively, on an intent-to-treat basis. With a median follow-up of 31.3 months, 4 of 8 responding patients have progressed with a median time to progression of 18.9 months., Conclusion: Lenalidomide produces unexpected but clinically significant acute anemia in patients with WM. In comparison with our previous study with thalidomide and rituximab in an analogous patient population, the responses achieved in WM patients with lenalidomide and rituximab appear less favorable.