TBD Meeting (3660-22)

Clinicians are struggling to make sense of conflicting regulations from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency on whether measuring programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) is essential before prescribing checkpoint inhibitors for gastroesophageal cancer.

“In the last couple of years, the incorporation of PD-1 antibodies is really changing our standard of care and international guidelines in this disease,” said Ian Chau, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London.

He moderated a debate at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium on the importance of measuring PD-L1 expression levels before administering immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Tumor cells can use PD-1 signaling to deactivate the response of T cells that would otherwise destroy them, and several new drugs are designed to block that signaling.

Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown the benefit of adding such checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy for gastroesophageal cancer and currently, chemotherapy plus a checkpoint inhibitor is standard care, Dr. Chau said.

PD-1–blocking antibodies include pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma, among other cancers. And, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) approved for renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, among other cancers.

Regulators differ on whether these treatments should be limited to patients whose expression level of PD-L1 reaches a defined threshold. The FDA has not required the measurement of any biomarker before starting therapy with either of these drugs. However, the EMA requires a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for pembrolizumab and at least 5 for nivolumab.

In a poll conducted before the start of the debate, 83% of physician attendees said they favor of the EMA position, while 17% disagreed.

Florian Lordick, MD, PhD, director of the University of Leipzig (Germany) Cancer Center, argued that tests for PD-L1 expression are accurate. About half of patients have CPS of at least 1. And, pathologists are in agreement in interpreting the tests about 97% of the time.
 

Pivotal decision-making clinical trials

The EMA requires a PD-L1 assay primarily based on its interpretation of the data from KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate-648.

KEYNOTE-590 included 749 patients with esophageal carcinoma who were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab with standard of care chemotherapy, or placebo and standard of care chemotherapy. Patients receiving pembrolizumab who had PD-L1 CPS scores of 10 or more survived a few months longer on average. But in a post hoc analysis, the investigators found that, in patients with PD-L1 CPS scores less than 10, the difference between the treatment and placebo groups was not statistically significant.

In CheckMate-648, 970 patients with esophageal carcinoma were randomized to receive nivolumab with ipilimumab, nivolumab with chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. Investigators used a slightly different measurement of PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS), in comparing chemotherapy plus nivolumab to chemotherapy alone for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

The median survival time of patients with TPS of at least 1% was 15.4 months in the nivolumab group and 9.2 months in the control group. But among patients with a TPS of less than 1%, the median overall survival was 12.0 months in the nivolumab group and 12.2 in the control group. CPS thresholds of 5 or 1 resulted in similar effects.

Dr. Lordick cited a systematic review of four studies in press at ESMO Open. Hazard ratios for three of the studies favored immunotherapy only in patients with CPS of at least 10.

Deciding which patients to treat matters because these drugs are expensive, he said. A single dose of 240 mg nivolumab costs $7,228.70, and treatment for 1 year can cost $173,488.80 in addition to costs for hospitalization because of immune-related adverse events, labs, imaging, colonoscopy, and other related costs.

“This is a lot of money, isn’t it? It’s the same price the hospital pay for two registered nurses in the U.S., at least when we are talking about the average price. I’m not sure I want to spend this money for a drug that does not work,” Dr. Lordick said.

Aaron Scott, MD, an oncologist with the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said that “patients and clinicians want and need options” because there may be other factors that should be considered.

“PD-L1 has shown inconsistent results. And while I agree it is the best that we have for predictive biomarker in the space, it is far from perfect. PD-L1 has not been predictive for response in a variety of settings and trials. In first-line, second-line, third-line trials we have examples where it does not predict response,” he said.

JUPITER06 compared toripalimab or placebo with paclitaxel and cisplatin for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Patients who received toripalimab lived longer than patients who received the placebo, but within the toripalimab group, there was no difference in median overall survival between those patients above and those below the threshold of CPS 1.

ORIENT-15 compared sintilimab or placebo with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Although the treatment group fared better, survival rates were the same whether patients were above or below the CPS 10 threshold.

Dr. Scott cited three other trials in which PD-L1 was not predictive of response to checkpoint inhibitors.

The differences among studies could be attributed to different assays, he said. “Where you biopsy and when you biopsy seems to matter.”

In a second opinion poll conducted after the presentations, the proportion of physician attendees saying PD-L1 was essential before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, dropped to about two-thirds.

Dr. Chau reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Lordick reported financial relationships Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Clinicians are struggling to make sense of conflicting regulations from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency on whether measuring programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) is essential before prescribing checkpoint inhibitors for gastroesophageal cancer.

“In the last couple of years, the incorporation of PD-1 antibodies is really changing our standard of care and international guidelines in this disease,” said Ian Chau, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London.

He moderated a debate at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium on the importance of measuring PD-L1 expression levels before administering immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Tumor cells can use PD-1 signaling to deactivate the response of T cells that would otherwise destroy them, and several new drugs are designed to block that signaling.

Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown the benefit of adding such checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy for gastroesophageal cancer and currently, chemotherapy plus a checkpoint inhibitor is standard care, Dr. Chau said.

PD-1–blocking antibodies include pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma, among other cancers. And, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) approved for renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, among other cancers.

Regulators differ on whether these treatments should be limited to patients whose expression level of PD-L1 reaches a defined threshold. The FDA has not required the measurement of any biomarker before starting therapy with either of these drugs. However, the EMA requires a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for pembrolizumab and at least 5 for nivolumab.

In a poll conducted before the start of the debate, 83% of physician attendees said they favor of the EMA position, while 17% disagreed.

Florian Lordick, MD, PhD, director of the University of Leipzig (Germany) Cancer Center, argued that tests for PD-L1 expression are accurate. About half of patients have CPS of at least 1. And, pathologists are in agreement in interpreting the tests about 97% of the time.
 

Pivotal decision-making clinical trials

The EMA requires a PD-L1 assay primarily based on its interpretation of the data from KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate-648.

KEYNOTE-590 included 749 patients with esophageal carcinoma who were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab with standard of care chemotherapy, or placebo and standard of care chemotherapy. Patients receiving pembrolizumab who had PD-L1 CPS scores of 10 or more survived a few months longer on average. But in a post hoc analysis, the investigators found that, in patients with PD-L1 CPS scores less than 10, the difference between the treatment and placebo groups was not statistically significant.

In CheckMate-648, 970 patients with esophageal carcinoma were randomized to receive nivolumab with ipilimumab, nivolumab with chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. Investigators used a slightly different measurement of PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS), in comparing chemotherapy plus nivolumab to chemotherapy alone for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

The median survival time of patients with TPS of at least 1% was 15.4 months in the nivolumab group and 9.2 months in the control group. But among patients with a TPS of less than 1%, the median overall survival was 12.0 months in the nivolumab group and 12.2 in the control group. CPS thresholds of 5 or 1 resulted in similar effects.

Dr. Lordick cited a systematic review of four studies in press at ESMO Open. Hazard ratios for three of the studies favored immunotherapy only in patients with CPS of at least 10.

Deciding which patients to treat matters because these drugs are expensive, he said. A single dose of 240 mg nivolumab costs $7,228.70, and treatment for 1 year can cost $173,488.80 in addition to costs for hospitalization because of immune-related adverse events, labs, imaging, colonoscopy, and other related costs.

“This is a lot of money, isn’t it? It’s the same price the hospital pay for two registered nurses in the U.S., at least when we are talking about the average price. I’m not sure I want to spend this money for a drug that does not work,” Dr. Lordick said.

Aaron Scott, MD, an oncologist with the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said that “patients and clinicians want and need options” because there may be other factors that should be considered.

“PD-L1 has shown inconsistent results. And while I agree it is the best that we have for predictive biomarker in the space, it is far from perfect. PD-L1 has not been predictive for response in a variety of settings and trials. In first-line, second-line, third-line trials we have examples where it does not predict response,” he said.

JUPITER06 compared toripalimab or placebo with paclitaxel and cisplatin for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Patients who received toripalimab lived longer than patients who received the placebo, but within the toripalimab group, there was no difference in median overall survival between those patients above and those below the threshold of CPS 1.

ORIENT-15 compared sintilimab or placebo with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Although the treatment group fared better, survival rates were the same whether patients were above or below the CPS 10 threshold.

Dr. Scott cited three other trials in which PD-L1 was not predictive of response to checkpoint inhibitors.

The differences among studies could be attributed to different assays, he said. “Where you biopsy and when you biopsy seems to matter.”

In a second opinion poll conducted after the presentations, the proportion of physician attendees saying PD-L1 was essential before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, dropped to about two-thirds.

Dr. Chau reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Lordick reported financial relationships Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Clinicians are struggling to make sense of conflicting regulations from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency on whether measuring programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) is essential before prescribing checkpoint inhibitors for gastroesophageal cancer.

“In the last couple of years, the incorporation of PD-1 antibodies is really changing our standard of care and international guidelines in this disease,” said Ian Chau, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London.

He moderated a debate at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium on the importance of measuring PD-L1 expression levels before administering immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Tumor cells can use PD-1 signaling to deactivate the response of T cells that would otherwise destroy them, and several new drugs are designed to block that signaling.

Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown the benefit of adding such checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy for gastroesophageal cancer and currently, chemotherapy plus a checkpoint inhibitor is standard care, Dr. Chau said.

PD-1–blocking antibodies include pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma, among other cancers. And, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) approved for renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, among other cancers.

Regulators differ on whether these treatments should be limited to patients whose expression level of PD-L1 reaches a defined threshold. The FDA has not required the measurement of any biomarker before starting therapy with either of these drugs. However, the EMA requires a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for pembrolizumab and at least 5 for nivolumab.

In a poll conducted before the start of the debate, 83% of physician attendees said they favor of the EMA position, while 17% disagreed.

Florian Lordick, MD, PhD, director of the University of Leipzig (Germany) Cancer Center, argued that tests for PD-L1 expression are accurate. About half of patients have CPS of at least 1. And, pathologists are in agreement in interpreting the tests about 97% of the time.
 

Pivotal decision-making clinical trials

The EMA requires a PD-L1 assay primarily based on its interpretation of the data from KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate-648.

KEYNOTE-590 included 749 patients with esophageal carcinoma who were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab with standard of care chemotherapy, or placebo and standard of care chemotherapy. Patients receiving pembrolizumab who had PD-L1 CPS scores of 10 or more survived a few months longer on average. But in a post hoc analysis, the investigators found that, in patients with PD-L1 CPS scores less than 10, the difference between the treatment and placebo groups was not statistically significant.

In CheckMate-648, 970 patients with esophageal carcinoma were randomized to receive nivolumab with ipilimumab, nivolumab with chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. Investigators used a slightly different measurement of PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS), in comparing chemotherapy plus nivolumab to chemotherapy alone for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

The median survival time of patients with TPS of at least 1% was 15.4 months in the nivolumab group and 9.2 months in the control group. But among patients with a TPS of less than 1%, the median overall survival was 12.0 months in the nivolumab group and 12.2 in the control group. CPS thresholds of 5 or 1 resulted in similar effects.

Dr. Lordick cited a systematic review of four studies in press at ESMO Open. Hazard ratios for three of the studies favored immunotherapy only in patients with CPS of at least 10.

Deciding which patients to treat matters because these drugs are expensive, he said. A single dose of 240 mg nivolumab costs $7,228.70, and treatment for 1 year can cost $173,488.80 in addition to costs for hospitalization because of immune-related adverse events, labs, imaging, colonoscopy, and other related costs.

“This is a lot of money, isn’t it? It’s the same price the hospital pay for two registered nurses in the U.S., at least when we are talking about the average price. I’m not sure I want to spend this money for a drug that does not work,” Dr. Lordick said.

Aaron Scott, MD, an oncologist with the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said that “patients and clinicians want and need options” because there may be other factors that should be considered.

“PD-L1 has shown inconsistent results. And while I agree it is the best that we have for predictive biomarker in the space, it is far from perfect. PD-L1 has not been predictive for response in a variety of settings and trials. In first-line, second-line, third-line trials we have examples where it does not predict response,” he said.

JUPITER06 compared toripalimab or placebo with paclitaxel and cisplatin for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Patients who received toripalimab lived longer than patients who received the placebo, but within the toripalimab group, there was no difference in median overall survival between those patients above and those below the threshold of CPS 1.

ORIENT-15 compared sintilimab or placebo with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Although the treatment group fared better, survival rates were the same whether patients were above or below the CPS 10 threshold.

Dr. Scott cited three other trials in which PD-L1 was not predictive of response to checkpoint inhibitors.

The differences among studies could be attributed to different assays, he said. “Where you biopsy and when you biopsy seems to matter.”

In a second opinion poll conducted after the presentations, the proportion of physician attendees saying PD-L1 was essential before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, dropped to about two-thirds.

Dr. Chau reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Lordick reported financial relationships Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Incidence rates for testicular cancer have been rising in the United States, as have related mortality rates, but there are wide variations by race/ethnicity and geographic location, a new analysis shows.

Testicular cancer is the most common type of malignancy in young men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, although overall, it is relatively uncommon and represents only 0.5% of all new cancer cases in the U.S.

The new analysis shows that age-adjusted testicular cancer–specific mortality rates in the United States increased from 1999-2019, particularly among Hispanic men. During the same period, mortality rates declined somewhat among Black men as compared to White men.

“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that mortality rates for this disease are increasing,” said lead author Anushka Ghosh, BS, a clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “It is crucial to understand these trends and make targeted efforts to address any geographic, racial, and ethnic gaps in testicular cancer care.”

She presented the findings at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (GUCS) 2022.

“Testicular cancer is a rare but very curable disease,” said Daniel Geynisman, MD, associate professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment. “The increase in testicular cancer deaths for Hispanic men is concerning.”

“Whether this change relates to suboptimal access to appropriate care or change in biology as a result of socioeconomic or geographic changes in Hispanic men over the recent years is unknown but needs to be urgently explored and addressed,” he added.
 

Details of the new findings

For their analysis, Ms. Ghosh and colleagues assessed recent changes in testicular cancer mortality rates over time in the United States with respect to race, ethnicity, and geography. They used the Centers for Disease Control’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database to obtain the number of age-adjusted death rates for individuals across all U.S. counties over a 21-year period (1999-2019).

During this period, overall age-adjusted testicular cancer mortality rates rose slowly but not significantly, with an overall increase of 0.0002 per 100,000 population per year. This increase was significantly worse among Hispanic men, among whom the increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).

But when stratified by race (Black vs. White), the authors saw that Black men had somewhat improved rates. Among Black men, the rate decreased by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with an increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .049).

“We also observed significant geographical differences in mortality rates,” said Ms. Ghosh.

They divided the U.S. into four regions: the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West. There were no differences in the South and the Midwest, but mortality rates decreased in the Northeast by 0.00092 per 100,000 and rose in the West by 0.00086 per 100,000 (P for difference between slopes = .032).

The authors also looked at differences in urbanization categories or population density and found that large central metro regions (central counties in metro areas with population greater than 1 million) and small metro regions (counties with population 50,000-249,999) were significantly different. While testicular cancer mortality rates decreased slightly in large central metropolitan regions by 0.0004, rates increased slightly in small metropolitan regions (0.0022; P for difference = .048). No other significant differences based on urbanization were noted.

Also approached for comment, Matt D. Galsky, MD, director of genitourinary medical oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, noted that the finding that testicular cancer mortality rates increased from 1999-2019 was not statistically significant.

However, there were significant trends among subgroups. Testicular cancer mortality increased during this period among Hispanic men, he pointed out. “Importantly, while statistically significant, the differences are numerically small. That said, testicular cancer is a generally a highly curable malignancy, so any disparities related to mortality may be notable and worth further investigation.

“There are several potential underlying causes of such disparities, some of which could be probed with additional clinical details, and some of which might involve a more complex interplay of access and tumor biology,” he continued. “For example, testicular cancers are broadly separated into two subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Whether the trends in these two subtypes in Hispanic men are different compared to non-Hispanic men could be one clue into the observed disparities.”

Ms. Ghosh, Dr. Geynisman, and Dr. Galsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Incidence rates for testicular cancer have been rising in the United States, as have related mortality rates, but there are wide variations by race/ethnicity and geographic location, a new analysis shows.

Testicular cancer is the most common type of malignancy in young men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, although overall, it is relatively uncommon and represents only 0.5% of all new cancer cases in the U.S.

The new analysis shows that age-adjusted testicular cancer–specific mortality rates in the United States increased from 1999-2019, particularly among Hispanic men. During the same period, mortality rates declined somewhat among Black men as compared to White men.

“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that mortality rates for this disease are increasing,” said lead author Anushka Ghosh, BS, a clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “It is crucial to understand these trends and make targeted efforts to address any geographic, racial, and ethnic gaps in testicular cancer care.”

She presented the findings at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (GUCS) 2022.

“Testicular cancer is a rare but very curable disease,” said Daniel Geynisman, MD, associate professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment. “The increase in testicular cancer deaths for Hispanic men is concerning.”

“Whether this change relates to suboptimal access to appropriate care or change in biology as a result of socioeconomic or geographic changes in Hispanic men over the recent years is unknown but needs to be urgently explored and addressed,” he added.
 

Details of the new findings

For their analysis, Ms. Ghosh and colleagues assessed recent changes in testicular cancer mortality rates over time in the United States with respect to race, ethnicity, and geography. They used the Centers for Disease Control’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database to obtain the number of age-adjusted death rates for individuals across all U.S. counties over a 21-year period (1999-2019).

During this period, overall age-adjusted testicular cancer mortality rates rose slowly but not significantly, with an overall increase of 0.0002 per 100,000 population per year. This increase was significantly worse among Hispanic men, among whom the increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).

But when stratified by race (Black vs. White), the authors saw that Black men had somewhat improved rates. Among Black men, the rate decreased by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with an increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .049).

“We also observed significant geographical differences in mortality rates,” said Ms. Ghosh.

They divided the U.S. into four regions: the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West. There were no differences in the South and the Midwest, but mortality rates decreased in the Northeast by 0.00092 per 100,000 and rose in the West by 0.00086 per 100,000 (P for difference between slopes = .032).

The authors also looked at differences in urbanization categories or population density and found that large central metro regions (central counties in metro areas with population greater than 1 million) and small metro regions (counties with population 50,000-249,999) were significantly different. While testicular cancer mortality rates decreased slightly in large central metropolitan regions by 0.0004, rates increased slightly in small metropolitan regions (0.0022; P for difference = .048). No other significant differences based on urbanization were noted.

Also approached for comment, Matt D. Galsky, MD, director of genitourinary medical oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, noted that the finding that testicular cancer mortality rates increased from 1999-2019 was not statistically significant.

However, there were significant trends among subgroups. Testicular cancer mortality increased during this period among Hispanic men, he pointed out. “Importantly, while statistically significant, the differences are numerically small. That said, testicular cancer is a generally a highly curable malignancy, so any disparities related to mortality may be notable and worth further investigation.

“There are several potential underlying causes of such disparities, some of which could be probed with additional clinical details, and some of which might involve a more complex interplay of access and tumor biology,” he continued. “For example, testicular cancers are broadly separated into two subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Whether the trends in these two subtypes in Hispanic men are different compared to non-Hispanic men could be one clue into the observed disparities.”

Ms. Ghosh, Dr. Geynisman, and Dr. Galsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Incidence rates for testicular cancer have been rising in the United States, as have related mortality rates, but there are wide variations by race/ethnicity and geographic location, a new analysis shows.

Testicular cancer is the most common type of malignancy in young men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, although overall, it is relatively uncommon and represents only 0.5% of all new cancer cases in the U.S.

The new analysis shows that age-adjusted testicular cancer–specific mortality rates in the United States increased from 1999-2019, particularly among Hispanic men. During the same period, mortality rates declined somewhat among Black men as compared to White men.

“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that mortality rates for this disease are increasing,” said lead author Anushka Ghosh, BS, a clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “It is crucial to understand these trends and make targeted efforts to address any geographic, racial, and ethnic gaps in testicular cancer care.”

She presented the findings at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (GUCS) 2022.

“Testicular cancer is a rare but very curable disease,” said Daniel Geynisman, MD, associate professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment. “The increase in testicular cancer deaths for Hispanic men is concerning.”

“Whether this change relates to suboptimal access to appropriate care or change in biology as a result of socioeconomic or geographic changes in Hispanic men over the recent years is unknown but needs to be urgently explored and addressed,” he added.
 

Details of the new findings

For their analysis, Ms. Ghosh and colleagues assessed recent changes in testicular cancer mortality rates over time in the United States with respect to race, ethnicity, and geography. They used the Centers for Disease Control’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database to obtain the number of age-adjusted death rates for individuals across all U.S. counties over a 21-year period (1999-2019).

During this period, overall age-adjusted testicular cancer mortality rates rose slowly but not significantly, with an overall increase of 0.0002 per 100,000 population per year. This increase was significantly worse among Hispanic men, among whom the increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).

But when stratified by race (Black vs. White), the authors saw that Black men had somewhat improved rates. Among Black men, the rate decreased by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with an increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .049).

“We also observed significant geographical differences in mortality rates,” said Ms. Ghosh.

They divided the U.S. into four regions: the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West. There were no differences in the South and the Midwest, but mortality rates decreased in the Northeast by 0.00092 per 100,000 and rose in the West by 0.00086 per 100,000 (P for difference between slopes = .032).

The authors also looked at differences in urbanization categories or population density and found that large central metro regions (central counties in metro areas with population greater than 1 million) and small metro regions (counties with population 50,000-249,999) were significantly different. While testicular cancer mortality rates decreased slightly in large central metropolitan regions by 0.0004, rates increased slightly in small metropolitan regions (0.0022; P for difference = .048). No other significant differences based on urbanization were noted.

Also approached for comment, Matt D. Galsky, MD, director of genitourinary medical oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, noted that the finding that testicular cancer mortality rates increased from 1999-2019 was not statistically significant.

However, there were significant trends among subgroups. Testicular cancer mortality increased during this period among Hispanic men, he pointed out. “Importantly, while statistically significant, the differences are numerically small. That said, testicular cancer is a generally a highly curable malignancy, so any disparities related to mortality may be notable and worth further investigation.

“There are several potential underlying causes of such disparities, some of which could be probed with additional clinical details, and some of which might involve a more complex interplay of access and tumor biology,” he continued. “For example, testicular cancers are broadly separated into two subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Whether the trends in these two subtypes in Hispanic men are different compared to non-Hispanic men could be one clue into the observed disparities.”

Ms. Ghosh, Dr. Geynisman, and Dr. Galsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

In the wake of the pivotal IDEA TRIAL, oncologists have shifted towards shorter adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for stage III colon cancer and a greater reliance on CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) instead of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin), according to a review of 366 patients.

The international IDEA trial showed that, across almost 13,000 subjects, 3 months of treatment with either regimen was not inferior to 6 months, which was standard at the time for low-risk disease and often led to significantly less grade 2, but more neuropathy.

In high-risk patients (T4, N2), 3-year disease-free survival was almost identical between 3 months of CAPOX (64.1%) and 6 months (64.0%), but 3 months of FOLFOX was inferior to 6 months of FOLFOX (61.5% vs. 64.7%).

Oncologists paid attention, according to the new review, which was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Overall, 16.3% of patients were prescribed CAPOX in June 2016, but before the study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the number rose to 66.8% by June 2020.

“We are using a lot more CAPOX in this country now, and it’s interesting we are doing that because the data aren’t quite there” yet for patients in the United States, said lead investigator Daniel Walden, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

IDEA pulled data from six trials, but only one included U.S. patients and it did not permit CAPOX, only FOLFOX. As a result, the growing use of CAPOX in the United States is based on outcomes elsewhere, primarily Europe and Japan.

The problem, Dr. Walden said, is that U.S. patients don’t tolerate capecitabine as well as people in other countries because of the high intake of dietary folic acid, which is added to grains in the United States and interferes with capecitabine clearance.

He and his team are now looking into outcomes, particularly with CAPOX, in their U.S. cohort, which was pulled from Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida, with additional subjects from Emory and Vanderbilt Universities. “Hopefully,” data to support the shift to adjuvant CAPOX in the United States “will be here soon. I feel more confident prescribing 3 months of CAPOX for high-risk patients, seeing that more people do it than I would have thought,” Dr. Walden said. His study found a 25.9% adoption in June 2020, which was up from 1.3% in June 2016.

Among other findings, 78.3% of patients received 6 months of FOLFOX in June 2016, which fell to 17.3% 4 years later. There was a corresponding shift in 3-month courses of CAPOX, up from 7.4% to 67.5% over the same period.

By June 2020, low-risk patients were far more likely to receive 3 months of CAPOX (67.9%) than any other regimen.

Among high-risk patients, the number who received 6 months of FOLFOX fell from 86.6% to 47.8%, while the number who received 3 months of FOLFOX increased from 0.9% to 3.9%. Use of CAPOX for 6 months in high-risk patients climbed from 11.2% of patients to 22.4%.

There was no funding for the work, and Dr. Walden didn’t have any disclosures.

In the wake of the pivotal IDEA TRIAL, oncologists have shifted towards shorter adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for stage III colon cancer and a greater reliance on CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) instead of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin), according to a review of 366 patients.

The international IDEA trial showed that, across almost 13,000 subjects, 3 months of treatment with either regimen was not inferior to 6 months, which was standard at the time for low-risk disease and often led to significantly less grade 2, but more neuropathy.

In high-risk patients (T4, N2), 3-year disease-free survival was almost identical between 3 months of CAPOX (64.1%) and 6 months (64.0%), but 3 months of FOLFOX was inferior to 6 months of FOLFOX (61.5% vs. 64.7%).

Oncologists paid attention, according to the new review, which was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Overall, 16.3% of patients were prescribed CAPOX in June 2016, but before the study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the number rose to 66.8% by June 2020.

“We are using a lot more CAPOX in this country now, and it’s interesting we are doing that because the data aren’t quite there” yet for patients in the United States, said lead investigator Daniel Walden, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

IDEA pulled data from six trials, but only one included U.S. patients and it did not permit CAPOX, only FOLFOX. As a result, the growing use of CAPOX in the United States is based on outcomes elsewhere, primarily Europe and Japan.

The problem, Dr. Walden said, is that U.S. patients don’t tolerate capecitabine as well as people in other countries because of the high intake of dietary folic acid, which is added to grains in the United States and interferes with capecitabine clearance.

He and his team are now looking into outcomes, particularly with CAPOX, in their U.S. cohort, which was pulled from Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida, with additional subjects from Emory and Vanderbilt Universities. “Hopefully,” data to support the shift to adjuvant CAPOX in the United States “will be here soon. I feel more confident prescribing 3 months of CAPOX for high-risk patients, seeing that more people do it than I would have thought,” Dr. Walden said. His study found a 25.9% adoption in June 2020, which was up from 1.3% in June 2016.

Among other findings, 78.3% of patients received 6 months of FOLFOX in June 2016, which fell to 17.3% 4 years later. There was a corresponding shift in 3-month courses of CAPOX, up from 7.4% to 67.5% over the same period.

By June 2020, low-risk patients were far more likely to receive 3 months of CAPOX (67.9%) than any other regimen.

Among high-risk patients, the number who received 6 months of FOLFOX fell from 86.6% to 47.8%, while the number who received 3 months of FOLFOX increased from 0.9% to 3.9%. Use of CAPOX for 6 months in high-risk patients climbed from 11.2% of patients to 22.4%.

There was no funding for the work, and Dr. Walden didn’t have any disclosures.

In the wake of the pivotal IDEA TRIAL, oncologists have shifted towards shorter adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for stage III colon cancer and a greater reliance on CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) instead of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin), according to a review of 366 patients.

The international IDEA trial showed that, across almost 13,000 subjects, 3 months of treatment with either regimen was not inferior to 6 months, which was standard at the time for low-risk disease and often led to significantly less grade 2, but more neuropathy.

In high-risk patients (T4, N2), 3-year disease-free survival was almost identical between 3 months of CAPOX (64.1%) and 6 months (64.0%), but 3 months of FOLFOX was inferior to 6 months of FOLFOX (61.5% vs. 64.7%).

Oncologists paid attention, according to the new review, which was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Overall, 16.3% of patients were prescribed CAPOX in June 2016, but before the study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the number rose to 66.8% by June 2020.

“We are using a lot more CAPOX in this country now, and it’s interesting we are doing that because the data aren’t quite there” yet for patients in the United States, said lead investigator Daniel Walden, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

IDEA pulled data from six trials, but only one included U.S. patients and it did not permit CAPOX, only FOLFOX. As a result, the growing use of CAPOX in the United States is based on outcomes elsewhere, primarily Europe and Japan.

The problem, Dr. Walden said, is that U.S. patients don’t tolerate capecitabine as well as people in other countries because of the high intake of dietary folic acid, which is added to grains in the United States and interferes with capecitabine clearance.

He and his team are now looking into outcomes, particularly with CAPOX, in their U.S. cohort, which was pulled from Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida, with additional subjects from Emory and Vanderbilt Universities. “Hopefully,” data to support the shift to adjuvant CAPOX in the United States “will be here soon. I feel more confident prescribing 3 months of CAPOX for high-risk patients, seeing that more people do it than I would have thought,” Dr. Walden said. His study found a 25.9% adoption in June 2020, which was up from 1.3% in June 2016.

Among other findings, 78.3% of patients received 6 months of FOLFOX in June 2016, which fell to 17.3% 4 years later. There was a corresponding shift in 3-month courses of CAPOX, up from 7.4% to 67.5% over the same period.

By June 2020, low-risk patients were far more likely to receive 3 months of CAPOX (67.9%) than any other regimen.

Among high-risk patients, the number who received 6 months of FOLFOX fell from 86.6% to 47.8%, while the number who received 3 months of FOLFOX increased from 0.9% to 3.9%. Use of CAPOX for 6 months in high-risk patients climbed from 11.2% of patients to 22.4%.

There was no funding for the work, and Dr. Walden didn’t have any disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — A blood test that measures circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can help to identify those patients with resectable colorectal cancer who are most likely to derive the most benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, suggest results from a Japanese study.

The team used a personalized tumor-informed assay (Signatera bespoke multiplex-PCR NGS assay) to measure molecular residual disease (MRD) 4 weeks after surgery.

Among patients who were ctDNA positive at 4 weeks post-op, those who received adjuvant chemotherapy had significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) at 6 months, compared with patients who didn’t receive it.

The adjuvant chemotherapy was able to clear ctDNA in 68% of that subgroup by 24 weeks, noted study author Masahito Kotaka, MD, PhD, from the gastrointestinal cancer center, Sano Hospital, Hyogo, Japan

“Even with an extended follow-up time, ctDNA positivity at 4 weeks post-op was significantly associated with inferior disease-free survival,” he said.

“Two out of three post-op patients who were positive at 4 weeks recurred, even in stage I or low-risk stage II.”

However, he noted that “patients who were 4 weeks post-op and ctDNA negative did not derive significant benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in high- risk stage II and III.”

Overall, the study shows that stratifying postsurgical treatment decisions using the assay can identify patients likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy across all stages of the disease, explained Dr. Kotaka.

Dr. Kotaka presented the new results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“ctDNA dynamics from 4-week post-op positivity to 12 weeks afterwards could become new surrogate endpoints beyond disease-free survival,” he suggested.

However, the discussant for this abstract, Rona Yaeger, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, cautioned that this is not yet ready for clinical use.

“There was a clear prognostic effect,” she said. “This was a very large sample size and validates some of the earlier studies showing that ctDNA is a very important prognostic marker.” This study “gives us a tighter confidence interval due to the large size.”

However, there are limitations, one being that it was not a randomized study so it is unknown who received adjuvant therapy, she pointed out. “Since it is not randomized, the groups are not equal.”

Summarizing, she said that ctDNA is a strong prognostic marker that identifies MRD. “But it is expensive and currently doesn’t guide our adjuvant decisions,” she said. “It is not ready yet for standard evaluation of early-stage colorectal cancer patients, and we don’t know yet if additional therapy after adjuvant therapy in ctDNA-positive patients will change outcomes.”
 

Study details

The new results come from the GALAXY study, which is part of a large platform in Japan, called CIRCULATE, that is evaluating the clinical utility of ctDNA in patients with resectable colorectal cancer. Aside from GALAXY, which is a prospective observational trial, CIRCULATE also includes two phase 3 randomized trials: VEGA and ALTAIR.

For their study, Dr. Kotaka and colleagues monitored ctDNA status in patients with clinical stage l to IV colorectal cancer who underwent complete surgical resection and then evaluated the association of ctDNA dynamics with a short-term clinical outcome and adjuvant therapy efficacy.

A total of 1,040 patients were included in the current analysis. They were stratified into subgroups that were either ctDNA positive (n = 183) or ctDNA negative (n = 531) 4 weeks post surgery. The cohort included 116 patients with stage I disease, 478 with stage II, 503 with stage III, and 268 patients with oligomet resectable stage IV (of whom 16% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy).

Blood samples were collected before surgery and at 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 weeks following resection.

The team looked at 6-month disease-free survival rates. Among patients with high-risk stage II disease and with a positive ctDNA assay at 4 weeks post-op, those who received adjuvant chemotherapy had a 6-month DFS rate of 100% vs. 53.8% who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

For stage III disease, those rates were 89.2% vs. 32.0%, and for stage IV disease, they were 72.7% vs. 28.3%.

At a median follow-up of 11.4 months, the 6- and 12-month DFS was 96.5% and 92.7% for all patients who were ctDNA negative at 4 weeks post-op. Outcomes for patients who were ctDNA positive were significantly poorer, at 62.8% and 47.5% (hazard ratio, 10.9; P <.001; sensitivity for recurrence, 63.6%).

Of the 188 patients who were MRD positive at 4 weeks post-op with available MRD status at 12 weeks, 95 received adjuvant therapy. The ctDNA clearance rate at 12 weeks was significantly higher in the adjuvant therapy group vs. no adjuvant therapy; 57% vs. 8% in stage I-IV (P < .001), and 58% vs. 11% (4/37) in stage II–III (P < .001).

Additionally, the ctDNA clearance rate at 24 weeks was also significantly higher in adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms; 26% vs. 0% in patients with stage I-IV disease (P = .003), and 33% vs. 0% in patients with stage II-III disease (P = .03).

Cumulative clearance of ctDNA at 6 months post-op was significantly higher in the adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms (67% vs. 7% by 24 weeks; cumulative HR, 17.1; P < .001). For patients MRD positive at 4 weeks, the 6-month DFS was also significantly higher in adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms; 84% vs 34% (HR, 0.15; P < .001), which was observed across all stages.

Upon multivariate analysis, the highest risk of recurrence for patients with stage II-III cancer correlated with ctDNA-positive vs. ctDNA-negative status (HR, 15.3; P <. 001), mutant vs. wild-type RAS (HR, 1.8; P = .04), or mutant vs. wild-type BRAF (HR, 5.2; P < .001).

The group is continuing with its research into a ctDNA-guided adjuvant strategy. More data will be available soon from the ongoing randomized VEGA and ALTAIR studies and will be presented at future conference, Dr. Kotaka commented.

CIRCULATE‐Japan receives financial supports from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and from Taiho Pharmaceutical, through Alpha‐A. Dr. Kotaka reported relationships with Chugai, Lilly Japan, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. Dr. Yaeger reported relationships with Array BioPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — A blood test that measures circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can help to identify those patients with resectable colorectal cancer who are most likely to derive the most benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, suggest results from a Japanese study.

The team used a personalized tumor-informed assay (Signatera bespoke multiplex-PCR NGS assay) to measure molecular residual disease (MRD) 4 weeks after surgery.

Among patients who were ctDNA positive at 4 weeks post-op, those who received adjuvant chemotherapy had significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) at 6 months, compared with patients who didn’t receive it.

The adjuvant chemotherapy was able to clear ctDNA in 68% of that subgroup by 24 weeks, noted study author Masahito Kotaka, MD, PhD, from the gastrointestinal cancer center, Sano Hospital, Hyogo, Japan

“Even with an extended follow-up time, ctDNA positivity at 4 weeks post-op was significantly associated with inferior disease-free survival,” he said.

“Two out of three post-op patients who were positive at 4 weeks recurred, even in stage I or low-risk stage II.”

However, he noted that “patients who were 4 weeks post-op and ctDNA negative did not derive significant benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in high- risk stage II and III.”

Overall, the study shows that stratifying postsurgical treatment decisions using the assay can identify patients likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy across all stages of the disease, explained Dr. Kotaka.

Dr. Kotaka presented the new results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“ctDNA dynamics from 4-week post-op positivity to 12 weeks afterwards could become new surrogate endpoints beyond disease-free survival,” he suggested.

However, the discussant for this abstract, Rona Yaeger, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, cautioned that this is not yet ready for clinical use.

“There was a clear prognostic effect,” she said. “This was a very large sample size and validates some of the earlier studies showing that ctDNA is a very important prognostic marker.” This study “gives us a tighter confidence interval due to the large size.”

However, there are limitations, one being that it was not a randomized study so it is unknown who received adjuvant therapy, she pointed out. “Since it is not randomized, the groups are not equal.”

Summarizing, she said that ctDNA is a strong prognostic marker that identifies MRD. “But it is expensive and currently doesn’t guide our adjuvant decisions,” she said. “It is not ready yet for standard evaluation of early-stage colorectal cancer patients, and we don’t know yet if additional therapy after adjuvant therapy in ctDNA-positive patients will change outcomes.”
 

Study details

The new results come from the GALAXY study, which is part of a large platform in Japan, called CIRCULATE, that is evaluating the clinical utility of ctDNA in patients with resectable colorectal cancer. Aside from GALAXY, which is a prospective observational trial, CIRCULATE also includes two phase 3 randomized trials: VEGA and ALTAIR.

For their study, Dr. Kotaka and colleagues monitored ctDNA status in patients with clinical stage l to IV colorectal cancer who underwent complete surgical resection and then evaluated the association of ctDNA dynamics with a short-term clinical outcome and adjuvant therapy efficacy.

A total of 1,040 patients were included in the current analysis. They were stratified into subgroups that were either ctDNA positive (n = 183) or ctDNA negative (n = 531) 4 weeks post surgery. The cohort included 116 patients with stage I disease, 478 with stage II, 503 with stage III, and 268 patients with oligomet resectable stage IV (of whom 16% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy).

Blood samples were collected before surgery and at 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 weeks following resection.

The team looked at 6-month disease-free survival rates. Among patients with high-risk stage II disease and with a positive ctDNA assay at 4 weeks post-op, those who received adjuvant chemotherapy had a 6-month DFS rate of 100% vs. 53.8% who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

For stage III disease, those rates were 89.2% vs. 32.0%, and for stage IV disease, they were 72.7% vs. 28.3%.

At a median follow-up of 11.4 months, the 6- and 12-month DFS was 96.5% and 92.7% for all patients who were ctDNA negative at 4 weeks post-op. Outcomes for patients who were ctDNA positive were significantly poorer, at 62.8% and 47.5% (hazard ratio, 10.9; P <.001; sensitivity for recurrence, 63.6%).

Of the 188 patients who were MRD positive at 4 weeks post-op with available MRD status at 12 weeks, 95 received adjuvant therapy. The ctDNA clearance rate at 12 weeks was significantly higher in the adjuvant therapy group vs. no adjuvant therapy; 57% vs. 8% in stage I-IV (P < .001), and 58% vs. 11% (4/37) in stage II–III (P < .001).

Additionally, the ctDNA clearance rate at 24 weeks was also significantly higher in adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms; 26% vs. 0% in patients with stage I-IV disease (P = .003), and 33% vs. 0% in patients with stage II-III disease (P = .03).

Cumulative clearance of ctDNA at 6 months post-op was significantly higher in the adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms (67% vs. 7% by 24 weeks; cumulative HR, 17.1; P < .001). For patients MRD positive at 4 weeks, the 6-month DFS was also significantly higher in adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms; 84% vs 34% (HR, 0.15; P < .001), which was observed across all stages.

Upon multivariate analysis, the highest risk of recurrence for patients with stage II-III cancer correlated with ctDNA-positive vs. ctDNA-negative status (HR, 15.3; P <. 001), mutant vs. wild-type RAS (HR, 1.8; P = .04), or mutant vs. wild-type BRAF (HR, 5.2; P < .001).

The group is continuing with its research into a ctDNA-guided adjuvant strategy. More data will be available soon from the ongoing randomized VEGA and ALTAIR studies and will be presented at future conference, Dr. Kotaka commented.

CIRCULATE‐Japan receives financial supports from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and from Taiho Pharmaceutical, through Alpha‐A. Dr. Kotaka reported relationships with Chugai, Lilly Japan, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. Dr. Yaeger reported relationships with Array BioPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — A blood test that measures circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can help to identify those patients with resectable colorectal cancer who are most likely to derive the most benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, suggest results from a Japanese study.

The team used a personalized tumor-informed assay (Signatera bespoke multiplex-PCR NGS assay) to measure molecular residual disease (MRD) 4 weeks after surgery.

Among patients who were ctDNA positive at 4 weeks post-op, those who received adjuvant chemotherapy had significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) at 6 months, compared with patients who didn’t receive it.

The adjuvant chemotherapy was able to clear ctDNA in 68% of that subgroup by 24 weeks, noted study author Masahito Kotaka, MD, PhD, from the gastrointestinal cancer center, Sano Hospital, Hyogo, Japan

“Even with an extended follow-up time, ctDNA positivity at 4 weeks post-op was significantly associated with inferior disease-free survival,” he said.

“Two out of three post-op patients who were positive at 4 weeks recurred, even in stage I or low-risk stage II.”

However, he noted that “patients who were 4 weeks post-op and ctDNA negative did not derive significant benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in high- risk stage II and III.”

Overall, the study shows that stratifying postsurgical treatment decisions using the assay can identify patients likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy across all stages of the disease, explained Dr. Kotaka.

Dr. Kotaka presented the new results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“ctDNA dynamics from 4-week post-op positivity to 12 weeks afterwards could become new surrogate endpoints beyond disease-free survival,” he suggested.

However, the discussant for this abstract, Rona Yaeger, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, cautioned that this is not yet ready for clinical use.

“There was a clear prognostic effect,” she said. “This was a very large sample size and validates some of the earlier studies showing that ctDNA is a very important prognostic marker.” This study “gives us a tighter confidence interval due to the large size.”

However, there are limitations, one being that it was not a randomized study so it is unknown who received adjuvant therapy, she pointed out. “Since it is not randomized, the groups are not equal.”

Summarizing, she said that ctDNA is a strong prognostic marker that identifies MRD. “But it is expensive and currently doesn’t guide our adjuvant decisions,” she said. “It is not ready yet for standard evaluation of early-stage colorectal cancer patients, and we don’t know yet if additional therapy after adjuvant therapy in ctDNA-positive patients will change outcomes.”
 

Study details

The new results come from the GALAXY study, which is part of a large platform in Japan, called CIRCULATE, that is evaluating the clinical utility of ctDNA in patients with resectable colorectal cancer. Aside from GALAXY, which is a prospective observational trial, CIRCULATE also includes two phase 3 randomized trials: VEGA and ALTAIR.

For their study, Dr. Kotaka and colleagues monitored ctDNA status in patients with clinical stage l to IV colorectal cancer who underwent complete surgical resection and then evaluated the association of ctDNA dynamics with a short-term clinical outcome and adjuvant therapy efficacy.

A total of 1,040 patients were included in the current analysis. They were stratified into subgroups that were either ctDNA positive (n = 183) or ctDNA negative (n = 531) 4 weeks post surgery. The cohort included 116 patients with stage I disease, 478 with stage II, 503 with stage III, and 268 patients with oligomet resectable stage IV (of whom 16% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy).

Blood samples were collected before surgery and at 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 weeks following resection.

The team looked at 6-month disease-free survival rates. Among patients with high-risk stage II disease and with a positive ctDNA assay at 4 weeks post-op, those who received adjuvant chemotherapy had a 6-month DFS rate of 100% vs. 53.8% who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

For stage III disease, those rates were 89.2% vs. 32.0%, and for stage IV disease, they were 72.7% vs. 28.3%.

At a median follow-up of 11.4 months, the 6- and 12-month DFS was 96.5% and 92.7% for all patients who were ctDNA negative at 4 weeks post-op. Outcomes for patients who were ctDNA positive were significantly poorer, at 62.8% and 47.5% (hazard ratio, 10.9; P <.001; sensitivity for recurrence, 63.6%).

Of the 188 patients who were MRD positive at 4 weeks post-op with available MRD status at 12 weeks, 95 received adjuvant therapy. The ctDNA clearance rate at 12 weeks was significantly higher in the adjuvant therapy group vs. no adjuvant therapy; 57% vs. 8% in stage I-IV (P < .001), and 58% vs. 11% (4/37) in stage II–III (P < .001).

Additionally, the ctDNA clearance rate at 24 weeks was also significantly higher in adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms; 26% vs. 0% in patients with stage I-IV disease (P = .003), and 33% vs. 0% in patients with stage II-III disease (P = .03).

Cumulative clearance of ctDNA at 6 months post-op was significantly higher in the adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms (67% vs. 7% by 24 weeks; cumulative HR, 17.1; P < .001). For patients MRD positive at 4 weeks, the 6-month DFS was also significantly higher in adjuvant vs. no adjuvant therapy arms; 84% vs 34% (HR, 0.15; P < .001), which was observed across all stages.

Upon multivariate analysis, the highest risk of recurrence for patients with stage II-III cancer correlated with ctDNA-positive vs. ctDNA-negative status (HR, 15.3; P <. 001), mutant vs. wild-type RAS (HR, 1.8; P = .04), or mutant vs. wild-type BRAF (HR, 5.2; P < .001).

The group is continuing with its research into a ctDNA-guided adjuvant strategy. More data will be available soon from the ongoing randomized VEGA and ALTAIR studies and will be presented at future conference, Dr. Kotaka commented.

CIRCULATE‐Japan receives financial supports from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and from Taiho Pharmaceutical, through Alpha‐A. Dr. Kotaka reported relationships with Chugai, Lilly Japan, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. Dr. Yaeger reported relationships with Array BioPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel dual immunotherapy regimen significantly improved overall survival compared to a standard of care in patients with advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the large phase 3 HIMALAYA trial.

The novel regimen, dubbed STRIDE (Single T Regular Interval D), comprised a single priming dose of the investigational agent tremelimumab followed by regular doses of durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Patients on this regimen experienced a 22% lower risk of death than patients treated with sorafenib (Nexavar), which at the time the trial began was the only approved frontline standard of care for patients with advanced HCC.

At 3 years, almost 31% of patients treated with combination therapy were still alive, versus 24.7% for durvalumab alone and 20.2% for sorafenib.

This novel regimen “may represent new treatment options for patients with untreated hepatocellular carcinoma,” said lead author Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, an attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York. “Pending FDA approval, this novel dual immunotherapy regimen could be readily available to all patients and would not require additional safety assessments prior to treatment.”

He presented the new results here at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

Discussing the abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, agreed that the STRIDE regimen, with the combination of one priming dose of tremelimumab and regular interval durvalumab, is a new first-line treatment option for advanced HCC patients.

“But there are some limitations to the study and topics that will require further additional investigation,” he added.
 

Liver cancer increasing

Liver cancer is one of the few cancers for which deaths rates are increasing. In the United States. The overall rate of death due to liver cancer has doubled since 1980, Dr. Abou-Alfa told the audience. The most recent 5-year survival rates are 32.6% for localized disease, 10.8% with regional disease, and 2.4% with distant disease.

Until recently, first-line treatment for untreated HCC was limited to the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib (Lenvima), which have been associated with median overall survival of approximately 1 year but also with toxicities that impact the quality of life, he commented.

“More recently, the anti-PD-L1 agent atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed significant survival benefit versus sorafenib and have become a standard of care following approval in 2020,” Dr. Abou-Alfa said.

Tremelimumab is an experimental immunotherapy that targets the CTLA-4 receptor, and in 2020 it received orphan drug status for the treatment of HCC from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The authors hypothesized that tremelimumab would boost the response to durvalumab, a PDL-1 inhibitor, as this had been observed in the phase 2 Study 22 trial, which had tested the STRIDE regimen.

Now in the phase 3 HIMALAYA trial, the STRIDE regimen was compared to durvalumab used alone and to sorafenib used alone.

The trial randomized 1,171 patients to receive either the STRIDE regimen (a single dose of 75 mg tremelimumab plus 1,500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks) or durvalumab alone (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or sorafenib alone (400 mg twice daily).

Initially, there was also a lower-dose tremelimumab-containing arm, but recruitment into this arm was halted after a planned analysis of Study 22 failed to show a meaningful efficacy difference between that arm and durvalumab alone.

At data cutoff, the study’s primary objective was met. Overall survival was significantly improved for STRIDE versus sorafenib (hazard ratio; P = .0035). Median overall survival was 16.4 months for the STRIDE group versus 13.8 months for sorafenib and 16.6 months for durvalumab alone.

Median progression-free survival was 3.8 months, 3.7 months, and 41.1 months, respectively.

The overall response rate for the STRIDE arm was 20.1% compared to 17% for durvalumab, and 5.1% for sorafenib, and the median duration of response was 22.3 months, 16.8 months, and 18.4 months, respectively.

Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 25.8% of patients on the combination, compared with 12.9% for durvalumab and 36.9% for sorafenib.

Grade 5 events occurred in 2.3% of the STRIDE group, compared with 0% among those receiving durvalumab alone and 0.8% in the sorafenib group. Treatment discontinuation due to events occurred in 8.2%, 4.1%, and 11.0% of patients, respectively.
 

New option for first-line treatment

In his discussion of the abstract, Dr. El-Khoueiry raised a few issues with the HIMALAYA trial that he felt needed further investigation.

Due to the study design, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the STRIDE regimen versus durvalumab as a single agent – the study was not powered for that, he said.

Also, the trial excluded patients with main portal vein thrombosis (PVT), he noted, and he felt that the subgroup analysis of hepatitis C patients requires further study.

“Another point is that, compared with other studies, bleeding events were less common in the HIMALAYA trial, but it did exclude patients with main PVT who are at highest risk of bleeding,” he pointed out.

STRIDE has a different toxicity profile from that seen with VEGF-containing combinations (for example, containing bevacizumab) and has a lower bleeding risk and a manageable rate of immune-mediated adverse events that require steroids. “But looking at non-VEGF regimens, is there an advantage to this, since most subsequent therapies target VEGF?” he questioned.

Another question is if there is a role for single agent PD-1/PD-L1 in first-line HCC. “This trial found that durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib. This could be a first-line treatment option for select patients – maybe those who are poor candidates for combination therapy or have contraindications to VEGF,” said Dr. El-Khoueiry.

Nevertheless, STRIDE represents an emerging treatment option for this population, especially for patients who have contraindications for bevacizumab and a high bleeding risk, he concluded.

“So for HCC, it is amazing that we now have multiple first-line treatment options available,” he said. “The choice of therapy should be guided by toxicity profile and patient specific contraindications.”

For the future, he emphasized that biomarker development is critical to enhance a personalized approach driven by tumor and host biology.

“Sorafenib is no longer an appropriate control arm for first-line trials,” he said. “Timing of transition from liver-directed therapy to systemic therapy is critical given multiple available options.”

HCC in the setting of compromised liver function continues to be an unmet need. “And finally, in the second line and beyond, therapy after first-line immunotherapy combinations is largely empiric,” he said. “Research is needed to establish the efficacy of available and future therapeutic options post immunotherapy and the optimal sequence.”

This study received funding from AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Abou-Alfa and Dr. El-Khoueiry reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel dual immunotherapy regimen significantly improved overall survival compared to a standard of care in patients with advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the large phase 3 HIMALAYA trial.

The novel regimen, dubbed STRIDE (Single T Regular Interval D), comprised a single priming dose of the investigational agent tremelimumab followed by regular doses of durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Patients on this regimen experienced a 22% lower risk of death than patients treated with sorafenib (Nexavar), which at the time the trial began was the only approved frontline standard of care for patients with advanced HCC.

At 3 years, almost 31% of patients treated with combination therapy were still alive, versus 24.7% for durvalumab alone and 20.2% for sorafenib.

This novel regimen “may represent new treatment options for patients with untreated hepatocellular carcinoma,” said lead author Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, an attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York. “Pending FDA approval, this novel dual immunotherapy regimen could be readily available to all patients and would not require additional safety assessments prior to treatment.”

He presented the new results here at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

Discussing the abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, agreed that the STRIDE regimen, with the combination of one priming dose of tremelimumab and regular interval durvalumab, is a new first-line treatment option for advanced HCC patients.

“But there are some limitations to the study and topics that will require further additional investigation,” he added.
 

Liver cancer increasing

Liver cancer is one of the few cancers for which deaths rates are increasing. In the United States. The overall rate of death due to liver cancer has doubled since 1980, Dr. Abou-Alfa told the audience. The most recent 5-year survival rates are 32.6% for localized disease, 10.8% with regional disease, and 2.4% with distant disease.

Until recently, first-line treatment for untreated HCC was limited to the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib (Lenvima), which have been associated with median overall survival of approximately 1 year but also with toxicities that impact the quality of life, he commented.

“More recently, the anti-PD-L1 agent atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed significant survival benefit versus sorafenib and have become a standard of care following approval in 2020,” Dr. Abou-Alfa said.

Tremelimumab is an experimental immunotherapy that targets the CTLA-4 receptor, and in 2020 it received orphan drug status for the treatment of HCC from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The authors hypothesized that tremelimumab would boost the response to durvalumab, a PDL-1 inhibitor, as this had been observed in the phase 2 Study 22 trial, which had tested the STRIDE regimen.

Now in the phase 3 HIMALAYA trial, the STRIDE regimen was compared to durvalumab used alone and to sorafenib used alone.

The trial randomized 1,171 patients to receive either the STRIDE regimen (a single dose of 75 mg tremelimumab plus 1,500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks) or durvalumab alone (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or sorafenib alone (400 mg twice daily).

Initially, there was also a lower-dose tremelimumab-containing arm, but recruitment into this arm was halted after a planned analysis of Study 22 failed to show a meaningful efficacy difference between that arm and durvalumab alone.

At data cutoff, the study’s primary objective was met. Overall survival was significantly improved for STRIDE versus sorafenib (hazard ratio; P = .0035). Median overall survival was 16.4 months for the STRIDE group versus 13.8 months for sorafenib and 16.6 months for durvalumab alone.

Median progression-free survival was 3.8 months, 3.7 months, and 41.1 months, respectively.

The overall response rate for the STRIDE arm was 20.1% compared to 17% for durvalumab, and 5.1% for sorafenib, and the median duration of response was 22.3 months, 16.8 months, and 18.4 months, respectively.

Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 25.8% of patients on the combination, compared with 12.9% for durvalumab and 36.9% for sorafenib.

Grade 5 events occurred in 2.3% of the STRIDE group, compared with 0% among those receiving durvalumab alone and 0.8% in the sorafenib group. Treatment discontinuation due to events occurred in 8.2%, 4.1%, and 11.0% of patients, respectively.
 

New option for first-line treatment

In his discussion of the abstract, Dr. El-Khoueiry raised a few issues with the HIMALAYA trial that he felt needed further investigation.

Due to the study design, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the STRIDE regimen versus durvalumab as a single agent – the study was not powered for that, he said.

Also, the trial excluded patients with main portal vein thrombosis (PVT), he noted, and he felt that the subgroup analysis of hepatitis C patients requires further study.

“Another point is that, compared with other studies, bleeding events were less common in the HIMALAYA trial, but it did exclude patients with main PVT who are at highest risk of bleeding,” he pointed out.

STRIDE has a different toxicity profile from that seen with VEGF-containing combinations (for example, containing bevacizumab) and has a lower bleeding risk and a manageable rate of immune-mediated adverse events that require steroids. “But looking at non-VEGF regimens, is there an advantage to this, since most subsequent therapies target VEGF?” he questioned.

Another question is if there is a role for single agent PD-1/PD-L1 in first-line HCC. “This trial found that durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib. This could be a first-line treatment option for select patients – maybe those who are poor candidates for combination therapy or have contraindications to VEGF,” said Dr. El-Khoueiry.

Nevertheless, STRIDE represents an emerging treatment option for this population, especially for patients who have contraindications for bevacizumab and a high bleeding risk, he concluded.

“So for HCC, it is amazing that we now have multiple first-line treatment options available,” he said. “The choice of therapy should be guided by toxicity profile and patient specific contraindications.”

For the future, he emphasized that biomarker development is critical to enhance a personalized approach driven by tumor and host biology.

“Sorafenib is no longer an appropriate control arm for first-line trials,” he said. “Timing of transition from liver-directed therapy to systemic therapy is critical given multiple available options.”

HCC in the setting of compromised liver function continues to be an unmet need. “And finally, in the second line and beyond, therapy after first-line immunotherapy combinations is largely empiric,” he said. “Research is needed to establish the efficacy of available and future therapeutic options post immunotherapy and the optimal sequence.”

This study received funding from AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Abou-Alfa and Dr. El-Khoueiry reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel dual immunotherapy regimen significantly improved overall survival compared to a standard of care in patients with advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the large phase 3 HIMALAYA trial.

The novel regimen, dubbed STRIDE (Single T Regular Interval D), comprised a single priming dose of the investigational agent tremelimumab followed by regular doses of durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Patients on this regimen experienced a 22% lower risk of death than patients treated with sorafenib (Nexavar), which at the time the trial began was the only approved frontline standard of care for patients with advanced HCC.

At 3 years, almost 31% of patients treated with combination therapy were still alive, versus 24.7% for durvalumab alone and 20.2% for sorafenib.

This novel regimen “may represent new treatment options for patients with untreated hepatocellular carcinoma,” said lead author Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, an attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York. “Pending FDA approval, this novel dual immunotherapy regimen could be readily available to all patients and would not require additional safety assessments prior to treatment.”

He presented the new results here at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

Discussing the abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, agreed that the STRIDE regimen, with the combination of one priming dose of tremelimumab and regular interval durvalumab, is a new first-line treatment option for advanced HCC patients.

“But there are some limitations to the study and topics that will require further additional investigation,” he added.
 

Liver cancer increasing

Liver cancer is one of the few cancers for which deaths rates are increasing. In the United States. The overall rate of death due to liver cancer has doubled since 1980, Dr. Abou-Alfa told the audience. The most recent 5-year survival rates are 32.6% for localized disease, 10.8% with regional disease, and 2.4% with distant disease.

Until recently, first-line treatment for untreated HCC was limited to the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib (Lenvima), which have been associated with median overall survival of approximately 1 year but also with toxicities that impact the quality of life, he commented.

“More recently, the anti-PD-L1 agent atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed significant survival benefit versus sorafenib and have become a standard of care following approval in 2020,” Dr. Abou-Alfa said.

Tremelimumab is an experimental immunotherapy that targets the CTLA-4 receptor, and in 2020 it received orphan drug status for the treatment of HCC from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The authors hypothesized that tremelimumab would boost the response to durvalumab, a PDL-1 inhibitor, as this had been observed in the phase 2 Study 22 trial, which had tested the STRIDE regimen.

Now in the phase 3 HIMALAYA trial, the STRIDE regimen was compared to durvalumab used alone and to sorafenib used alone.

The trial randomized 1,171 patients to receive either the STRIDE regimen (a single dose of 75 mg tremelimumab plus 1,500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks) or durvalumab alone (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or sorafenib alone (400 mg twice daily).

Initially, there was also a lower-dose tremelimumab-containing arm, but recruitment into this arm was halted after a planned analysis of Study 22 failed to show a meaningful efficacy difference between that arm and durvalumab alone.

At data cutoff, the study’s primary objective was met. Overall survival was significantly improved for STRIDE versus sorafenib (hazard ratio; P = .0035). Median overall survival was 16.4 months for the STRIDE group versus 13.8 months for sorafenib and 16.6 months for durvalumab alone.

Median progression-free survival was 3.8 months, 3.7 months, and 41.1 months, respectively.

The overall response rate for the STRIDE arm was 20.1% compared to 17% for durvalumab, and 5.1% for sorafenib, and the median duration of response was 22.3 months, 16.8 months, and 18.4 months, respectively.

Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 25.8% of patients on the combination, compared with 12.9% for durvalumab and 36.9% for sorafenib.

Grade 5 events occurred in 2.3% of the STRIDE group, compared with 0% among those receiving durvalumab alone and 0.8% in the sorafenib group. Treatment discontinuation due to events occurred in 8.2%, 4.1%, and 11.0% of patients, respectively.
 

New option for first-line treatment

In his discussion of the abstract, Dr. El-Khoueiry raised a few issues with the HIMALAYA trial that he felt needed further investigation.

Due to the study design, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the STRIDE regimen versus durvalumab as a single agent – the study was not powered for that, he said.

Also, the trial excluded patients with main portal vein thrombosis (PVT), he noted, and he felt that the subgroup analysis of hepatitis C patients requires further study.

“Another point is that, compared with other studies, bleeding events were less common in the HIMALAYA trial, but it did exclude patients with main PVT who are at highest risk of bleeding,” he pointed out.

STRIDE has a different toxicity profile from that seen with VEGF-containing combinations (for example, containing bevacizumab) and has a lower bleeding risk and a manageable rate of immune-mediated adverse events that require steroids. “But looking at non-VEGF regimens, is there an advantage to this, since most subsequent therapies target VEGF?” he questioned.

Another question is if there is a role for single agent PD-1/PD-L1 in first-line HCC. “This trial found that durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib. This could be a first-line treatment option for select patients – maybe those who are poor candidates for combination therapy or have contraindications to VEGF,” said Dr. El-Khoueiry.

Nevertheless, STRIDE represents an emerging treatment option for this population, especially for patients who have contraindications for bevacizumab and a high bleeding risk, he concluded.

“So for HCC, it is amazing that we now have multiple first-line treatment options available,” he said. “The choice of therapy should be guided by toxicity profile and patient specific contraindications.”

For the future, he emphasized that biomarker development is critical to enhance a personalized approach driven by tumor and host biology.

“Sorafenib is no longer an appropriate control arm for first-line trials,” he said. “Timing of transition from liver-directed therapy to systemic therapy is critical given multiple available options.”

HCC in the setting of compromised liver function continues to be an unmet need. “And finally, in the second line and beyond, therapy after first-line immunotherapy combinations is largely empiric,” he said. “Research is needed to establish the efficacy of available and future therapeutic options post immunotherapy and the optimal sequence.”

This study received funding from AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Abou-Alfa and Dr. El-Khoueiry reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) to treatment with lenvatinib (Lenvima) significantly improved survival, compared with lenvatinib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 LAUNCH trial.

The combination of TACE and lenvatinib “represents a potential new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC,” said study author Ming Kuang, MD, PhD, professor in hepatobiliary surgery and interventional ultrasound and director of the cancer center in the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

The combination of the two approaches was “safe and effective for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and demonstrated remarkable improvements in overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate, as well as acceptable toxicity,” he said.

Patients receiving combination therapy achieved a median overall survival of 17.8 months, compared with 11.5 months in the lenvatinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.45; P < .001). Similarly, median progression-free survival also favored lenvatinib plus TACE: 10.6 months vs. 6.4 months (HR, 0.43; P < .001).

The study results were presented at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Discussing the abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, said the results are “intriguing,” and he commended the researchers on carrying out this study.

“It reinforces the feasibility of combined liver directed and systemic therapy,” he said.

“However, it does not change the standard of care in the U.S.,” he cautioned.

“Systemic therapy backbone is not the standard of care, and the design of this study was not optimal to answer the question of whether the addition of liver-directed therapy in advanced HCC improves outcomes,” he added.

Dr. EL-Khoueiry pointed out that these new results from the LAUNCH trial contrast with two studies that looked at liver-directed plus a systemic therapy. Both of those previous studies used sorafenib, one utilizing Y-90 and the other conventional TACE.

Both of those studies were negative, he said. “But there were differences between these studies and LAUNCH.”

Aside from the fact that they used sorafenib and not lenvatinib, another difference was that the patient population of LAUNCH was younger than in the other two studies. In addition, most patients in the LAUCH trial had hepatitis B, and they received a higher number of TACE treatments than in the previous studies. “One can argue that maybe treatment selection was more optimal,” Dr. El-Khoueiry commented.

He also noted that “the control arm of lenvatinib underperformed, as sorafenib median overall survival in previous trials ranges from 13 to 15 months. We would have expected lenvatinib to perform at least as well or better.” (The median overall survival was 11.5 months).
 

Improved outcomes with combination therapy

The LAUNCH study involved 338 treatment-naive patients with advanced HCC from 12 hospitals in China who were randomly assigned to receive either lenvatinib plus TACE (n = 170) or lenvatinib alone (n = 168).

TACE was administered on day 1 following treatment with lenvatinib, which was administered at 8 mg or 12 mg once daily, depending on the patient’s weight.

The majority of patients were 60 years of age or younger, with a median age of 54-56 years. The majority of patients were male (81.8% in the combination group vs. 78.6% in the lenvatinib-alone group), and the majority had hepatitis B (87.1% vs. 85.7%).

At a median follow-up of 18.4 months for the lenvatinib-TACE group and 17.0 months for the lenvatinib group, the results showed a significantly improved overall survival of 17.8 months with the combination vs. 11.5 months for monotherapy (HR, 0.45; P < .001). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly longer, at 10.6 months vs. 6.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.43; P < .001).

The overall response rate was 54.1% vs. 25.0% (P < .001), and one complete response was observed in each study arm. The complete response rate was 2.9% vs. 0.6%; partial response rate, 51.2% vs. 24.4%; stable disease rate, 40.0% vs. 48.2%; and rate of disease progression, 5.9% vs. 26.8% for the lenvatinib-TACE group and lenvatinib monotherapy groups. The disease control rate was 94.1% vs. 73.2%.

Grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred more frequently in the lenvatinib-TACE group than in the lenvatinib group included increased liver enzymes, with increased ALT in 17.6% vs. 1.2%; increased AST in 22.9% vs. 1.8%; and hyperbilirubinemia in 9.4% vs. 3.0%.

“Subgroup analysis shows that the combination group had better overall survival and progression-free survival in most of the analyzed subgroups,” said Dr. Kuang. “Multivariate analysis also found that portal vein tumor thrombus and treatment allocation were independent risk factors of overall survival, and that age, portal vein tumor thrombus, and treatment allocation were independent risk factors of progression-free survival.”
 

Study limitations

In his discussion of the abstract, Dr. El-Khoueiry noted that the LAUNCH trial had several limitations, one being the heterogeneity of the patient population and potential imbalance. “There is limited information regarding extrahepatic disease burden and distribution,” he explained. “Another limitation is that the younger population – with the majority having hepatitis B – limits the broad applicability of the result and has a potential impact on the low rate of treatment discontinuation.”

This study received no industry funding. Dr. Kuang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. El-Khoueiry reported relationships with ABL bio, Agenus, Astex, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CytomX Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Fulgent Genetics, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, QED Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) to treatment with lenvatinib (Lenvima) significantly improved survival, compared with lenvatinib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 LAUNCH trial.

The combination of TACE and lenvatinib “represents a potential new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC,” said study author Ming Kuang, MD, PhD, professor in hepatobiliary surgery and interventional ultrasound and director of the cancer center in the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

The combination of the two approaches was “safe and effective for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and demonstrated remarkable improvements in overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate, as well as acceptable toxicity,” he said.

Patients receiving combination therapy achieved a median overall survival of 17.8 months, compared with 11.5 months in the lenvatinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.45; P < .001). Similarly, median progression-free survival also favored lenvatinib plus TACE: 10.6 months vs. 6.4 months (HR, 0.43; P < .001).

The study results were presented at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Discussing the abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, said the results are “intriguing,” and he commended the researchers on carrying out this study.

“It reinforces the feasibility of combined liver directed and systemic therapy,” he said.

“However, it does not change the standard of care in the U.S.,” he cautioned.

“Systemic therapy backbone is not the standard of care, and the design of this study was not optimal to answer the question of whether the addition of liver-directed therapy in advanced HCC improves outcomes,” he added.

Dr. EL-Khoueiry pointed out that these new results from the LAUNCH trial contrast with two studies that looked at liver-directed plus a systemic therapy. Both of those previous studies used sorafenib, one utilizing Y-90 and the other conventional TACE.

Both of those studies were negative, he said. “But there were differences between these studies and LAUNCH.”

Aside from the fact that they used sorafenib and not lenvatinib, another difference was that the patient population of LAUNCH was younger than in the other two studies. In addition, most patients in the LAUCH trial had hepatitis B, and they received a higher number of TACE treatments than in the previous studies. “One can argue that maybe treatment selection was more optimal,” Dr. El-Khoueiry commented.

He also noted that “the control arm of lenvatinib underperformed, as sorafenib median overall survival in previous trials ranges from 13 to 15 months. We would have expected lenvatinib to perform at least as well or better.” (The median overall survival was 11.5 months).
 

Improved outcomes with combination therapy

The LAUNCH study involved 338 treatment-naive patients with advanced HCC from 12 hospitals in China who were randomly assigned to receive either lenvatinib plus TACE (n = 170) or lenvatinib alone (n = 168).

TACE was administered on day 1 following treatment with lenvatinib, which was administered at 8 mg or 12 mg once daily, depending on the patient’s weight.

The majority of patients were 60 years of age or younger, with a median age of 54-56 years. The majority of patients were male (81.8% in the combination group vs. 78.6% in the lenvatinib-alone group), and the majority had hepatitis B (87.1% vs. 85.7%).

At a median follow-up of 18.4 months for the lenvatinib-TACE group and 17.0 months for the lenvatinib group, the results showed a significantly improved overall survival of 17.8 months with the combination vs. 11.5 months for monotherapy (HR, 0.45; P < .001). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly longer, at 10.6 months vs. 6.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.43; P < .001).

The overall response rate was 54.1% vs. 25.0% (P < .001), and one complete response was observed in each study arm. The complete response rate was 2.9% vs. 0.6%; partial response rate, 51.2% vs. 24.4%; stable disease rate, 40.0% vs. 48.2%; and rate of disease progression, 5.9% vs. 26.8% for the lenvatinib-TACE group and lenvatinib monotherapy groups. The disease control rate was 94.1% vs. 73.2%.

Grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred more frequently in the lenvatinib-TACE group than in the lenvatinib group included increased liver enzymes, with increased ALT in 17.6% vs. 1.2%; increased AST in 22.9% vs. 1.8%; and hyperbilirubinemia in 9.4% vs. 3.0%.

“Subgroup analysis shows that the combination group had better overall survival and progression-free survival in most of the analyzed subgroups,” said Dr. Kuang. “Multivariate analysis also found that portal vein tumor thrombus and treatment allocation were independent risk factors of overall survival, and that age, portal vein tumor thrombus, and treatment allocation were independent risk factors of progression-free survival.”
 

Study limitations

In his discussion of the abstract, Dr. El-Khoueiry noted that the LAUNCH trial had several limitations, one being the heterogeneity of the patient population and potential imbalance. “There is limited information regarding extrahepatic disease burden and distribution,” he explained. “Another limitation is that the younger population – with the majority having hepatitis B – limits the broad applicability of the result and has a potential impact on the low rate of treatment discontinuation.”

This study received no industry funding. Dr. Kuang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. El-Khoueiry reported relationships with ABL bio, Agenus, Astex, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CytomX Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Fulgent Genetics, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, QED Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) to treatment with lenvatinib (Lenvima) significantly improved survival, compared with lenvatinib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 LAUNCH trial.

The combination of TACE and lenvatinib “represents a potential new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC,” said study author Ming Kuang, MD, PhD, professor in hepatobiliary surgery and interventional ultrasound and director of the cancer center in the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

The combination of the two approaches was “safe and effective for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and demonstrated remarkable improvements in overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate, as well as acceptable toxicity,” he said.

Patients receiving combination therapy achieved a median overall survival of 17.8 months, compared with 11.5 months in the lenvatinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.45; P < .001). Similarly, median progression-free survival also favored lenvatinib plus TACE: 10.6 months vs. 6.4 months (HR, 0.43; P < .001).

The study results were presented at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Discussing the abstract, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, MD, from the University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, said the results are “intriguing,” and he commended the researchers on carrying out this study.

“It reinforces the feasibility of combined liver directed and systemic therapy,” he said.

“However, it does not change the standard of care in the U.S.,” he cautioned.

“Systemic therapy backbone is not the standard of care, and the design of this study was not optimal to answer the question of whether the addition of liver-directed therapy in advanced HCC improves outcomes,” he added.

Dr. EL-Khoueiry pointed out that these new results from the LAUNCH trial contrast with two studies that looked at liver-directed plus a systemic therapy. Both of those previous studies used sorafenib, one utilizing Y-90 and the other conventional TACE.

Both of those studies were negative, he said. “But there were differences between these studies and LAUNCH.”

Aside from the fact that they used sorafenib and not lenvatinib, another difference was that the patient population of LAUNCH was younger than in the other two studies. In addition, most patients in the LAUCH trial had hepatitis B, and they received a higher number of TACE treatments than in the previous studies. “One can argue that maybe treatment selection was more optimal,” Dr. El-Khoueiry commented.

He also noted that “the control arm of lenvatinib underperformed, as sorafenib median overall survival in previous trials ranges from 13 to 15 months. We would have expected lenvatinib to perform at least as well or better.” (The median overall survival was 11.5 months).
 

Improved outcomes with combination therapy

The LAUNCH study involved 338 treatment-naive patients with advanced HCC from 12 hospitals in China who were randomly assigned to receive either lenvatinib plus TACE (n = 170) or lenvatinib alone (n = 168).

TACE was administered on day 1 following treatment with lenvatinib, which was administered at 8 mg or 12 mg once daily, depending on the patient’s weight.

The majority of patients were 60 years of age or younger, with a median age of 54-56 years. The majority of patients were male (81.8% in the combination group vs. 78.6% in the lenvatinib-alone group), and the majority had hepatitis B (87.1% vs. 85.7%).

At a median follow-up of 18.4 months for the lenvatinib-TACE group and 17.0 months for the lenvatinib group, the results showed a significantly improved overall survival of 17.8 months with the combination vs. 11.5 months for monotherapy (HR, 0.45; P < .001). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly longer, at 10.6 months vs. 6.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.43; P < .001).

The overall response rate was 54.1% vs. 25.0% (P < .001), and one complete response was observed in each study arm. The complete response rate was 2.9% vs. 0.6%; partial response rate, 51.2% vs. 24.4%; stable disease rate, 40.0% vs. 48.2%; and rate of disease progression, 5.9% vs. 26.8% for the lenvatinib-TACE group and lenvatinib monotherapy groups. The disease control rate was 94.1% vs. 73.2%.

Grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred more frequently in the lenvatinib-TACE group than in the lenvatinib group included increased liver enzymes, with increased ALT in 17.6% vs. 1.2%; increased AST in 22.9% vs. 1.8%; and hyperbilirubinemia in 9.4% vs. 3.0%.

“Subgroup analysis shows that the combination group had better overall survival and progression-free survival in most of the analyzed subgroups,” said Dr. Kuang. “Multivariate analysis also found that portal vein tumor thrombus and treatment allocation were independent risk factors of overall survival, and that age, portal vein tumor thrombus, and treatment allocation were independent risk factors of progression-free survival.”
 

Study limitations

In his discussion of the abstract, Dr. El-Khoueiry noted that the LAUNCH trial had several limitations, one being the heterogeneity of the patient population and potential imbalance. “There is limited information regarding extrahepatic disease burden and distribution,” he explained. “Another limitation is that the younger population – with the majority having hepatitis B – limits the broad applicability of the result and has a potential impact on the low rate of treatment discontinuation.”

This study received no industry funding. Dr. Kuang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. El-Khoueiry reported relationships with ABL bio, Agenus, Astex, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CytomX Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Fulgent Genetics, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, QED Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding the checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi) to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer, as compared to chemotherapy alone, according to interim results from the TOPAZ-1 trial.

The risk of death for those taking durvalumab plus chemotherapy was 20% lower than for patients on chemotherapy alone. At 18 months, overall survival was 35.1% in the durvalumab group versus 25.6% for chemotherapy alone. By 2 years, overall survival was 24.9% versus 10.4%.

“TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to show that adding immunotherapy to standard chemotherapy can increase survival in biliary tract cancer, and importantly, does so without inducing any new serious side effects,” said lead author Do-Youn Oh, MD, PhD, professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.

“The study met its primary endpoint at a prespecified interim analysis, and durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful prolonged overall survival compared with placebo plus chemotherapy,” she said.

“This is an effective first-line therapy and could become a new standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer,” she added.

Dr. Oh presented the results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

In a discussion of the paper, Nilofer Saba Azad, MD, from the department of oncology, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, noted that overall, “we are seeing enticing benefit in survival and response rate.”

“There is moderately strong preliminary clinical data and biological rationale that immune checkpoint may have some activity in biliary tract cancer,” she said. “The trial was adequately powered and accounted for important known clinical subsets, and [it] was placebo controlled. The results suggest a meaningful benefit for patients.”

However, she pointed out that there are still open questions, mostly having to do with the subgroup analysis.
 

Biliary tract cancer: Incidence is rising

Biliary tract cancers are a relatively rare and heterogeneous group of cancers, and global incidence is rising. “Advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer is an area of high unmet need due to its aggressive nature, limited treatment options, and poor prognosis,” explained Dr. Oh. “The first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancers, gemcitabine and cisplatin, has remained unchanged for over a decade.”

Previous research has suggested that checkpoint inhibition may result in antitumor immune responses, she commented. A previous phase 2 trial showed that durvalumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed promising antitumor activity in advanced biliary tract cancer. This latest study is a larger phase 3 trial to investigate this effect further.

The study involved 365 patients with unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract cancers. Patients had one of three types of biliary tract cancer: 55% had intrahepatic cancers; 19% had extrahepatic cancers; and 25% had gallbladder cancer.

The trial was conducted in the U.S. and 17 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia. Nearly 55% of the cohort was from Asia, including South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and China.

All patients received chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) for up to eight cycles.

Patients were randomized to receive either durvalumab (1,500 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo before chemotherapy and also to receive durvalumab (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo after chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At approximately 1 year, the authors found that adding durvalumab significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021).

Progression-free survival was also significantly better with durvalumab compared to placebo: 7.2 months versus 5.7 months (HR, 0.75; P = .001).

The overall response rate (ORR) was 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo.

The most common adverse events were anemia (experienced by 48.2% of patients), neutropenia (31.7%), and nausea (40.2%). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 75.7% of patients receiving durvalumab versus 77.8% for placebo, indicating that the majority of side effects in both arms were from chemotherapy, Dr. Oh commented. Discontinuation of any study medication because of toxicity occurred in 8.9% and 11.4% of patients, respectively.
 

Enticing benefit, but questions remain

In her discussion of the paper, Dr. Azad pointed out that Asian patients comprised more than half of the cohort and appeared to derive more benefit from the investigational treatment compared to other groups. “So the question is if that is driving the benefit or just an increased benefit,” she said. “That is going to be an open question for our research community.”

Dr. Azad also noted that patients with nonmetastatic disease at enrollment did a little better, so more data are needed on how that affected the outcomes.

“PDL-1 just missed statistical significance, but that is something that will be further explored,” she said. “And we still have open questions about viral hepatitis, liver fluke infection, and cirrhosis, and I do hope that these will be included in the final analysis of the study.”

The GICS meeting is organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the society highlighted these data in a press release. Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers, commented in the statement: “TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate the benefit of immunotherapy for improved overall survival, in combination with chemotherapy, creating a new standard of care.”

The study received funding from AstraZeneca, marker of durvalumab. Dr. Oh and Dr. Azad reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding the checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi) to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer, as compared to chemotherapy alone, according to interim results from the TOPAZ-1 trial.

The risk of death for those taking durvalumab plus chemotherapy was 20% lower than for patients on chemotherapy alone. At 18 months, overall survival was 35.1% in the durvalumab group versus 25.6% for chemotherapy alone. By 2 years, overall survival was 24.9% versus 10.4%.

“TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to show that adding immunotherapy to standard chemotherapy can increase survival in biliary tract cancer, and importantly, does so without inducing any new serious side effects,” said lead author Do-Youn Oh, MD, PhD, professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.

“The study met its primary endpoint at a prespecified interim analysis, and durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful prolonged overall survival compared with placebo plus chemotherapy,” she said.

“This is an effective first-line therapy and could become a new standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer,” she added.

Dr. Oh presented the results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

In a discussion of the paper, Nilofer Saba Azad, MD, from the department of oncology, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, noted that overall, “we are seeing enticing benefit in survival and response rate.”

“There is moderately strong preliminary clinical data and biological rationale that immune checkpoint may have some activity in biliary tract cancer,” she said. “The trial was adequately powered and accounted for important known clinical subsets, and [it] was placebo controlled. The results suggest a meaningful benefit for patients.”

However, she pointed out that there are still open questions, mostly having to do with the subgroup analysis.
 

Biliary tract cancer: Incidence is rising

Biliary tract cancers are a relatively rare and heterogeneous group of cancers, and global incidence is rising. “Advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer is an area of high unmet need due to its aggressive nature, limited treatment options, and poor prognosis,” explained Dr. Oh. “The first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancers, gemcitabine and cisplatin, has remained unchanged for over a decade.”

Previous research has suggested that checkpoint inhibition may result in antitumor immune responses, she commented. A previous phase 2 trial showed that durvalumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed promising antitumor activity in advanced biliary tract cancer. This latest study is a larger phase 3 trial to investigate this effect further.

The study involved 365 patients with unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract cancers. Patients had one of three types of biliary tract cancer: 55% had intrahepatic cancers; 19% had extrahepatic cancers; and 25% had gallbladder cancer.

The trial was conducted in the U.S. and 17 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia. Nearly 55% of the cohort was from Asia, including South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and China.

All patients received chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) for up to eight cycles.

Patients were randomized to receive either durvalumab (1,500 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo before chemotherapy and also to receive durvalumab (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo after chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At approximately 1 year, the authors found that adding durvalumab significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021).

Progression-free survival was also significantly better with durvalumab compared to placebo: 7.2 months versus 5.7 months (HR, 0.75; P = .001).

The overall response rate (ORR) was 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo.

The most common adverse events were anemia (experienced by 48.2% of patients), neutropenia (31.7%), and nausea (40.2%). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 75.7% of patients receiving durvalumab versus 77.8% for placebo, indicating that the majority of side effects in both arms were from chemotherapy, Dr. Oh commented. Discontinuation of any study medication because of toxicity occurred in 8.9% and 11.4% of patients, respectively.
 

Enticing benefit, but questions remain

In her discussion of the paper, Dr. Azad pointed out that Asian patients comprised more than half of the cohort and appeared to derive more benefit from the investigational treatment compared to other groups. “So the question is if that is driving the benefit or just an increased benefit,” she said. “That is going to be an open question for our research community.”

Dr. Azad also noted that patients with nonmetastatic disease at enrollment did a little better, so more data are needed on how that affected the outcomes.

“PDL-1 just missed statistical significance, but that is something that will be further explored,” she said. “And we still have open questions about viral hepatitis, liver fluke infection, and cirrhosis, and I do hope that these will be included in the final analysis of the study.”

The GICS meeting is organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the society highlighted these data in a press release. Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers, commented in the statement: “TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate the benefit of immunotherapy for improved overall survival, in combination with chemotherapy, creating a new standard of care.”

The study received funding from AstraZeneca, marker of durvalumab. Dr. Oh and Dr. Azad reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding the checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi) to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer, as compared to chemotherapy alone, according to interim results from the TOPAZ-1 trial.

The risk of death for those taking durvalumab plus chemotherapy was 20% lower than for patients on chemotherapy alone. At 18 months, overall survival was 35.1% in the durvalumab group versus 25.6% for chemotherapy alone. By 2 years, overall survival was 24.9% versus 10.4%.

“TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to show that adding immunotherapy to standard chemotherapy can increase survival in biliary tract cancer, and importantly, does so without inducing any new serious side effects,” said lead author Do-Youn Oh, MD, PhD, professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.

“The study met its primary endpoint at a prespecified interim analysis, and durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful prolonged overall survival compared with placebo plus chemotherapy,” she said.

“This is an effective first-line therapy and could become a new standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer,” she added.

Dr. Oh presented the results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

In a discussion of the paper, Nilofer Saba Azad, MD, from the department of oncology, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, noted that overall, “we are seeing enticing benefit in survival and response rate.”

“There is moderately strong preliminary clinical data and biological rationale that immune checkpoint may have some activity in biliary tract cancer,” she said. “The trial was adequately powered and accounted for important known clinical subsets, and [it] was placebo controlled. The results suggest a meaningful benefit for patients.”

However, she pointed out that there are still open questions, mostly having to do with the subgroup analysis.
 

Biliary tract cancer: Incidence is rising

Biliary tract cancers are a relatively rare and heterogeneous group of cancers, and global incidence is rising. “Advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer is an area of high unmet need due to its aggressive nature, limited treatment options, and poor prognosis,” explained Dr. Oh. “The first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancers, gemcitabine and cisplatin, has remained unchanged for over a decade.”

Previous research has suggested that checkpoint inhibition may result in antitumor immune responses, she commented. A previous phase 2 trial showed that durvalumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed promising antitumor activity in advanced biliary tract cancer. This latest study is a larger phase 3 trial to investigate this effect further.

The study involved 365 patients with unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract cancers. Patients had one of three types of biliary tract cancer: 55% had intrahepatic cancers; 19% had extrahepatic cancers; and 25% had gallbladder cancer.

The trial was conducted in the U.S. and 17 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia. Nearly 55% of the cohort was from Asia, including South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and China.

All patients received chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) for up to eight cycles.

Patients were randomized to receive either durvalumab (1,500 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo before chemotherapy and also to receive durvalumab (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo after chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At approximately 1 year, the authors found that adding durvalumab significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021).

Progression-free survival was also significantly better with durvalumab compared to placebo: 7.2 months versus 5.7 months (HR, 0.75; P = .001).

The overall response rate (ORR) was 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo.

The most common adverse events were anemia (experienced by 48.2% of patients), neutropenia (31.7%), and nausea (40.2%). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 75.7% of patients receiving durvalumab versus 77.8% for placebo, indicating that the majority of side effects in both arms were from chemotherapy, Dr. Oh commented. Discontinuation of any study medication because of toxicity occurred in 8.9% and 11.4% of patients, respectively.
 

Enticing benefit, but questions remain

In her discussion of the paper, Dr. Azad pointed out that Asian patients comprised more than half of the cohort and appeared to derive more benefit from the investigational treatment compared to other groups. “So the question is if that is driving the benefit or just an increased benefit,” she said. “That is going to be an open question for our research community.”

Dr. Azad also noted that patients with nonmetastatic disease at enrollment did a little better, so more data are needed on how that affected the outcomes.

“PDL-1 just missed statistical significance, but that is something that will be further explored,” she said. “And we still have open questions about viral hepatitis, liver fluke infection, and cirrhosis, and I do hope that these will be included in the final analysis of the study.”

The GICS meeting is organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the society highlighted these data in a press release. Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers, commented in the statement: “TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate the benefit of immunotherapy for improved overall survival, in combination with chemotherapy, creating a new standard of care.”

The study received funding from AstraZeneca, marker of durvalumab. Dr. Oh and Dr. Azad reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chinese researchers reporting at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium shared new results from a phase 1b/2 study showing that combination treatment with the antibody AK104 shows promise for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

“AK-104 plus chemo presents a potential new first line treatment option for these patients,” said Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Beijing.

AK104 is a PD-1/CTLA4 antibody manufactured by Akeso Biopharma, which in 2020 received fast-track designation for the drug’s use as monotherapy for patients with recurrent or chemotherapy-resistant metastatic squamous cervical cancer.

The new trial was a multicenter, open-label study that combined chemotherapy (XELOX – capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin) with AK104 for use as first-line therapy for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Two previous studies showed that combination treatment with an anti–PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 AK104 produced a higher response rate and better long-term overall survival than anti–PD-1 therapy alone, but at a cost of greater toxicity.

“The toxicity can be really significant with the combination ... you see some severe immune related events. So with the bispecific antibody, the hope is that we can minimize that additive toxicity by bringing the CTLA4 inhibitor to antigen-experienced PD-1–positive T cells, and hopefully enhance the effect of blocking CTLA4 at the tumor-immune interface, rather than nonspecifically,” said Katherine Bever, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Bever is an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and moderated the panel where the study was presented.

The new results are encouraging, Dr. Bever said. “The data looks promising in terms of the survival that they reported. It compares very favorably to our other first-line studies. But we need randomized data to show exactly what the contribution of the bispecific antibody is to the chemotherapy that it’s being combined with, and how that compares to combination with anti–PD-1 alone, and also to understand more about what they saw in terms of immune toxicities.”

Dr. Bever said the combination of chemotherapy and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab is now a first-line treatment for gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer based on results from the CheckMate 649 study, but relatively few patients appear to benefit from the PD-1 inhibitor compared to chemotherapy alone.

“I think there’s the potential that by incorporating PD-1 and CTLA4 targeting in the first line, we might further improve outcomes for these patients, but you need randomized data to show that,” she said.

Dr. Ji said that there is an ongoing phase 3 study of AK104 in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

The phase 1b/2 clinical trial included 96 patients (median age, 62.7 years; 70.8% male) who were treated with AK-104 every 2-3 weeks, plus XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) or modified XELOX.

After a median follow-up of 9.95 months the overall response rate was 65.9% (2.3% complete, 63.6% partial). The disease control rate was 92.0%. The median duration of response was 6.93 months, the median progression-free survival was 7.10 months, and median overall survival was 17.41 months. Treatment-related adverse events included reductions in platelet count (60.4%), white blood cells (58.3%), and neutrophils (56.3%), anemia (47.9%), nausea (30.2%), vomiting (30.2%), and increase in AST (30.2%); 62.5% had at least one grade 3 or higher TRAE.

The study was funded by Akeso Biopharma. Dr. Ji and Dr. Bever have no relevant financial disclosures.

Chinese researchers reporting at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium shared new results from a phase 1b/2 study showing that combination treatment with the antibody AK104 shows promise for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

“AK-104 plus chemo presents a potential new first line treatment option for these patients,” said Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Beijing.

AK104 is a PD-1/CTLA4 antibody manufactured by Akeso Biopharma, which in 2020 received fast-track designation for the drug’s use as monotherapy for patients with recurrent or chemotherapy-resistant metastatic squamous cervical cancer.

The new trial was a multicenter, open-label study that combined chemotherapy (XELOX – capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin) with AK104 for use as first-line therapy for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Two previous studies showed that combination treatment with an anti–PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 AK104 produced a higher response rate and better long-term overall survival than anti–PD-1 therapy alone, but at a cost of greater toxicity.

“The toxicity can be really significant with the combination ... you see some severe immune related events. So with the bispecific antibody, the hope is that we can minimize that additive toxicity by bringing the CTLA4 inhibitor to antigen-experienced PD-1–positive T cells, and hopefully enhance the effect of blocking CTLA4 at the tumor-immune interface, rather than nonspecifically,” said Katherine Bever, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Bever is an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and moderated the panel where the study was presented.

The new results are encouraging, Dr. Bever said. “The data looks promising in terms of the survival that they reported. It compares very favorably to our other first-line studies. But we need randomized data to show exactly what the contribution of the bispecific antibody is to the chemotherapy that it’s being combined with, and how that compares to combination with anti–PD-1 alone, and also to understand more about what they saw in terms of immune toxicities.”

Dr. Bever said the combination of chemotherapy and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab is now a first-line treatment for gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer based on results from the CheckMate 649 study, but relatively few patients appear to benefit from the PD-1 inhibitor compared to chemotherapy alone.

“I think there’s the potential that by incorporating PD-1 and CTLA4 targeting in the first line, we might further improve outcomes for these patients, but you need randomized data to show that,” she said.

Dr. Ji said that there is an ongoing phase 3 study of AK104 in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

The phase 1b/2 clinical trial included 96 patients (median age, 62.7 years; 70.8% male) who were treated with AK-104 every 2-3 weeks, plus XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) or modified XELOX.

After a median follow-up of 9.95 months the overall response rate was 65.9% (2.3% complete, 63.6% partial). The disease control rate was 92.0%. The median duration of response was 6.93 months, the median progression-free survival was 7.10 months, and median overall survival was 17.41 months. Treatment-related adverse events included reductions in platelet count (60.4%), white blood cells (58.3%), and neutrophils (56.3%), anemia (47.9%), nausea (30.2%), vomiting (30.2%), and increase in AST (30.2%); 62.5% had at least one grade 3 or higher TRAE.

The study was funded by Akeso Biopharma. Dr. Ji and Dr. Bever have no relevant financial disclosures.

Chinese researchers reporting at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium shared new results from a phase 1b/2 study showing that combination treatment with the antibody AK104 shows promise for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

“AK-104 plus chemo presents a potential new first line treatment option for these patients,” said Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Beijing.

AK104 is a PD-1/CTLA4 antibody manufactured by Akeso Biopharma, which in 2020 received fast-track designation for the drug’s use as monotherapy for patients with recurrent or chemotherapy-resistant metastatic squamous cervical cancer.

The new trial was a multicenter, open-label study that combined chemotherapy (XELOX – capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin) with AK104 for use as first-line therapy for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Two previous studies showed that combination treatment with an anti–PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 AK104 produced a higher response rate and better long-term overall survival than anti–PD-1 therapy alone, but at a cost of greater toxicity.

“The toxicity can be really significant with the combination ... you see some severe immune related events. So with the bispecific antibody, the hope is that we can minimize that additive toxicity by bringing the CTLA4 inhibitor to antigen-experienced PD-1–positive T cells, and hopefully enhance the effect of blocking CTLA4 at the tumor-immune interface, rather than nonspecifically,” said Katherine Bever, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Bever is an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and moderated the panel where the study was presented.

The new results are encouraging, Dr. Bever said. “The data looks promising in terms of the survival that they reported. It compares very favorably to our other first-line studies. But we need randomized data to show exactly what the contribution of the bispecific antibody is to the chemotherapy that it’s being combined with, and how that compares to combination with anti–PD-1 alone, and also to understand more about what they saw in terms of immune toxicities.”

Dr. Bever said the combination of chemotherapy and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab is now a first-line treatment for gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer based on results from the CheckMate 649 study, but relatively few patients appear to benefit from the PD-1 inhibitor compared to chemotherapy alone.

“I think there’s the potential that by incorporating PD-1 and CTLA4 targeting in the first line, we might further improve outcomes for these patients, but you need randomized data to show that,” she said.

Dr. Ji said that there is an ongoing phase 3 study of AK104 in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

The phase 1b/2 clinical trial included 96 patients (median age, 62.7 years; 70.8% male) who were treated with AK-104 every 2-3 weeks, plus XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) or modified XELOX.

After a median follow-up of 9.95 months the overall response rate was 65.9% (2.3% complete, 63.6% partial). The disease control rate was 92.0%. The median duration of response was 6.93 months, the median progression-free survival was 7.10 months, and median overall survival was 17.41 months. Treatment-related adverse events included reductions in platelet count (60.4%), white blood cells (58.3%), and neutrophils (56.3%), anemia (47.9%), nausea (30.2%), vomiting (30.2%), and increase in AST (30.2%); 62.5% had at least one grade 3 or higher TRAE.

The study was funded by Akeso Biopharma. Dr. Ji and Dr. Bever have no relevant financial disclosures.