Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: 5-year results from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated promising clinical activity and durable responses in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the CheckMate 040 study at 30.7-month median follow-up. Here, we present 5-year results from this cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to arm A [nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)] or arm B [nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)], each followed by nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or arm C (nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W). The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were randomized across treatment arms. At 60-month minimum follow-up (62.6-month median follow-up), the ORR was 34% (n = 17), 27% (n = 13), and 29% (n = 14) in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The median DOR was 51.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.6 months-not estimable (NE)], 15.2 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE), and 21.7 months (95% CI 4.2 months-NE), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 22.2 months (34/50; 95% CI 9.4-54.8 months) in arm A, 12.5 months (38/49; 95% CI 7.6-16.4 months) in arm B, and 12.7 months (40/49; 95% CI 7.4-30.5 months) in arm C; 60-month OS rates were 29%, 19%, and 21%, respectively. In an exploratory analysis of OS by response (6-month landmark), the median OS was meaningfully longer for responders versus nonresponders for all arms. No new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. There were no new discontinuations due to immune-mediated adverse events since the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the primary analysis, the arm A regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful responses and long-term survival benefit, with no new safety signals in patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib treatment, further supporting its use as a second-line treatment in these patients.

Nivolumab in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: 5-year follow-up from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) have a poor prognosis and high mortality. Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with aHCC in the CheckMate 040 study. Five-year follow-up of the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups of CheckMate 040 is presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received nivolumab monotherapy at dose levels of 0.1-10.0 mg/kg (dose-escalation phase) or 3 mg/kg (dose-expansion phase) every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability (dose escalation), and objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) and by investigator as per RECIST version 1.1 (dose expansion). RESULTS: Eighty sorafenib-naive and 154 sorafenib-experienced patients were treated. Minimum follow-up in both groups was 60 months. ORR as per BICR was 20% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 30%] and 14% (95% CI 9% to 21%) in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Responses occurred regardless of HCC etiology or baseline tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Median overall survival (OS) was 26.6 months (95% CI 16.6-30.6 months) and 15.1 months (95% CI 13.0-18.2 months) in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients, respectively. The 3-year OS rates were 28% in the sorafenib-naive and 20% in the sorafenib-experienced groups; 5-year OS rates were 14% and 12%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 33% and 21% of patients in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Biomarker analyses showed that baseline PD-L1 expression ≥1% was associated with higher ORR and longer OS compared with PD-L1 <1%. In the sorafenib-naive group, patients with OS ≥3 years exhibited higher baseline CD8 T-cell density compared with those with OS <1 year. CONCLUSION: With 5 years of follow-up, nivolumab monotherapy continued to provide durable clinical benefit with manageable safety in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with aHCC.

Phase I study of the halichondrin B analogue eribulin mesylate in combination with cisplatin in advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin mesylate is a synthetic macrocyclic ketone analogue of Halichondrin B that has demonstrated high antitumor activity in preclinical and clinical settings. This phase I study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and pharmacokinetics in combination with cisplatin (CP) in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with advanced solid tumours received eribulin mesylate 0.7-1.4 mg m(-2) and CP 60-75 mg m(-2). Eribulin mesylate was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 in combination with CP day 1 every 28-day cycle. The protocol was amended after dose level 4 (eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg m(-2), CP 60 mg m(-2)) when it was not feasible to administer eribulin mesylate on day 15 because of neutropenia; the treatment schedule was changed to eribulin mesylate on days 1 and 8 and CP on day 1 every 21 days. RESULTS: On the 28-day schedule, three patients had DLT during the first cycle: grade (G) 4 febrile neutropenia (1.0 mg m(-2), 60 mg m(-2)); G 3 anorexia/fatigue/hypokalemia (1.2 mg m(-2), 60 mg m(-2)); and G 3 stomatitis/nausea/vomiting/fatigue (1.4 mg m(-2), 60 mg m(-2)). On the 21-day schedule, three patients had DLT during the first cycle: G 3 hypokalemia/hyponatremia (1.4 mg m(-2), 60 mg m(-2)); G 4 mucositis (1.4 mg m(-2), 60 mg m(-2)); and G 3 hypokalemia (1.2 mg m(-2), 75 mg m(-2)). The MTD and recommended phase II dose was determined as eribulin mesylate 1.2 mg m(-2) (days 1, 8) and CP 75 mg m(-2) (day 1), on a 21-day cycle. Two patients had unconfirmed partial responses (PR) (pancreatic and breast cancers) and two had PR (oesophageal and bladder cancers). CONCLUSIONS: On the 21-day cycle, eribulin mesylate 1.2 mg m(-2), administered on days 1 and 8, in combination with CP 75 mg m(-2), administered on day 1 is well tolerated and showed preliminary anticancer activity.

S0941: a phase 2 SWOG study of sorafenib and erlotinib in patients with advanced gallbladder carcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Gallbladder cancers and cholangiocarcinomas make up a heterogenous group of tumours with a poor prognosis in advanced stages. On the basis of evidence of dysregulation of the epidermal growth factor receptor, vascular endothelial growth factor and mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways in biliary cancers, we performed a phase 2 trial of sorafenib and erlotinib in patients with advanced biliary cancers. METHODS: Eligible patients were previously untreated in the advanced setting with adequate hepatic and bone marrow function. Sorafenib and erlotinib were administered continuously at 400 mg BID and 100 mg daily, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-four eligible patients were recruited. The study was terminated after the first stage of accrual owing to failure to meet the predetermined number of patients who were alive and progression free at 4 months. There were two unconfirmed partial responses (6%, 95% CI: 1-20%), with a median progression-free survival of 2 months (95% CI: 2-3), and median overall survival of 6 months (95% CI: 3-8 months). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events included hypertension, AST/ALT increase, bilirubin increase, diarrhoea, hypokalaemia, hypophosphatemia and rash. CONCLUSIONS: Despite compelling preclinical rationale, the combination of sorafenib and erlotinib does not have promising clinical activity in an unselected population of patients with biliary cancers. Improved patient selection based on tumour biology and molecular markers is critical for future evaluation of targeted therapies in this disease.

A randomized phase II of gemcitabine and sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer have limited therapeutic options. The role of the Ras-Raf-MAPK pathway and of vascular endothelial growth factor in pancreatic carcinogenesis provided the rational to evaluate the efficacy of sorafenib with or without gemcitabine in a randomized phase II study. METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomized to sorafenib alone (arm A) or sorafenib with gemcitabine (arm B). RESULTS: Arm A was closed to accrual at interim analysis due to the lack of objective response. Median PFS and OS were 2.3 and 4.3 months respectively. There was one partial response among the 37 patients in arm B. Median PFS and OS were 2.9 and 6.5 months respectively. There were more grade 3 and 4 toxicities in arm B with the most common being neutropenia (17%), thrombocytopenia (8%), alkaline phosphatase elevation (14%), venous thromboembolism (8%), diarrhea, hypokalemia and ALT elevation (5%) each. Several associations were noted between single nucleotide polymorphisms in ribonucleotide reductase, Cox-2, vascular endothelial growth factor and survival in patients treated with gemcitabine and sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Neither sorafenib alone or sorafenib in combination with gemcitabine manifested promising activity in metastatic pancreatic cancer.