Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update an evidence-based guideline to assist in clinical decision-making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to update the 2020 guideline on systemic therapy for HCC. The panel updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2023 and updated recommendations. RESULTS: Ten new RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered first-line for patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Where there are contraindications to these therapies, sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab may be offered first-line. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), ramucirumab (for patients with alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] ≥400 ng/mL), durva + treme, or nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with durva + treme, second-line therapy with a TKI is recommended. Following first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be considered for patients who did not have access to these therapies in the first-line setting, and do not have contraindications. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Third-line therapy may be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients with good PS, using one of the agents listed previously that has a nonidentical mechanism of action with previously received therapy. A cautious approach to systemic therapy is recommended for patients with Child-Pugh class B advanced HCC. Further guidance on choosing between options is included within the guideline.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Current Standards, Multidisciplinary Approaches, and Future Directions in the Management of Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Biliary tract cancers are molecularly and anatomically diverse cancers which include intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic (perihilar and distal) cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder cancer. While recognized as distinct entities, the rarer incidence of these cancers combined with diagnostic challenges in classifying anatomic origin has resulted in clinical trials and guideline recommended strategies being generalized patients with all types of biliary tract cancer. In this review, we delve into the unique aspects, subtype-specific clinical trial outcomes, and multidisciplinary management of patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. When resectable, definitive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (sometimes with selective radiation/chemoradiation) is current standard of care. Due to high recurrence rates, there is growing interest in the use of upfront/neoadjuvant therapy to improve surgical outcomes and to downstage patients who may not initially be resectable. Select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma are being successfully treated with novel approaches such as liver transplant. In the advanced disease setting, combination gemcitabine and cisplatin remains the standard base for systemic therapy and was recently improved upon with the addition of immune checkpoint blockade to the chemotherapy doublet in the recently reported TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966 trials. Second-line all-comer treatments for these patients remain limited in both options and efficacy, so clinical trial participation should be strongly considered. With increased use of molecular testing, detection of actionable mutations and opportunities to receive indicated targeted therapies are on the rise and are the most significant driver of improved survival for patients with advanced stage disease. Though these targeted therapies are currently reserved for the second or later line, future trials are looking at moving these to earlier treatment settings and use in combination with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In addition to cross-disciplinary management with surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, patient-centered care should also include collaboration with advanced endoscopists, palliative care specialists, and nutritionists to improve global patient outcomes.

NCI10066: a Phase 1/2 study of olaparib in combination with ramucirumab in previously treated metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Our preclinical work revealed tumour hypoxia induces homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), increasing sensitivity to Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We aimed to induce tumour hypoxia with ramucirumab thereby sensitising tumours to olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multi-institution single-arm Phase 1/2 trial enrolled patients with metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma refractory to ≥1 systemic treatment. In dose escalation, olaparib was evaluated at escalating dose levels with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg day 1 in 14-day cycles. The primary endpoint of Phase 1 was the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), and in Phase 2 the primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received ramucirumab and olaparib. The RP2D was olaparib 300 mg twice daily with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg. In evaluable patients at the RP2D the ORR was 6/43 (14%) (95% CI 4.7-25.6). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2) and median overall survival (OS) was 7.3 months (95% CI 5.7-13.0). Non-statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS were observed for patients with tumours with mutations in HRD genes. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib and ramucirumab is well-tolerated with efficacy that exceeds historical controls with ramucirumab single agent for gastric cancer in a heavily pre-treated patient population.

The Cholangiocarcinoma in the Young (CITY) Study: Tumor Biology, Treatment Patterns, and Survival Outcomes in Adolescent Young Adults With Cholangiocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Increased awareness of the distinct tumor biology for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer has led to improvement in outcomes for this population. However, in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a paucity of data exist on the AYA population. To our knowledge, we present the largest study to date on AYA disease biology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in CCA. METHODS: A multi-institutional cohort of patients with CCA diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) was used for analysis. Retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who were 50 years old and younger (young; n = 124) and older than 50 years (older; n = 723). RESULTS: Among 1,039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (72% ICC, 28% ECC). Young patients had a larger median tumor size at resection compared with older patients (4.2 v 3.6 cm; P = .048), more commonly had N1 disease (65% v 43%; P = .040), and were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.74). Tumors of young patients were more likely to harbor an FGFR2 fusion, BRAF mutation, or ATM mutation (P < .05 for each). Young patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic therapy (96% v 69%; P < .001), targeted therapy (23% v 8%; P < .001), and treatment on a clinical trial (31% v 19%; P = .004). Among patients who presented with advanced disease, young patients had a higher median overall survival compared with their older counterparts (17.7 v 13.5 months; 95% CI, 12.6 to 22.6 v 11.4 to 14.8; P = .049). CONCLUSION: Young patients with CCA had more advanced disease at resection, more commonly received both adjuvant and palliative therapies, and demonstrated improved survival compared with older patients. Given the low clinical trial enrollment and poor outcomes among some AYA cancer populations, data to the contrary in CCA are highly encouraging.

Immunotherapy in Biliary Tract Cancers: Current Standard-of-Care and Emerging Strategies.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs), comprising intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma as well as gallbladder adenocarcinoma, continue to be challenging to manage. Conventional chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease are limited in both options and benefits, and more effective perioperative regimens are also needed. Over the last decade, immunotherapy has had a profound impact on the management of many solid tumor types, particularly in using immune checkpoint inhibition to enable a tumor-directed T cell response. Immunotherapy administered on its own has had limited utility in BTCs, in part due to a hostile immune microenvironment and the relative infrequency of biomarker-based tumor-agnostic indications for immunotherapy. However, immunotherapy in conjunction with chemotherapy, molecularly targeted therapies, and/or anti-angiogenic therapies has gained traction, supported by evidence that these agents can impart favorable immunomodulatory effects on the tumor microenvironment. The TOPAZ-1 trial led to the first BTC-specific immunotherapy approval, establishing the combination of durvalumab with gemcitabine and cisplatin as the preferred first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic disease. Recently, the KEYNOTE-966 trial showed positive results for the combination of pembrolizumab with gemcitabine and cisplatin in the same setting, adding further evidence for the addition of immune checkpoint inhibition to the standard chemotherapy backbone. Meanwhile, advances in the molecular profiling of BTCs has contributed to the recent proliferation of molecularly targeted therapeutics for the subset of BTCs harboring alterations in IDH1, FGFR2, MAP kinase signaling, HER2, and beyond, and there has been great interest in investigating combinations of these agents with immunotherapy. Emerging immunotherapy strategies beyond immune checkpoint inhibition are also being studied in BTCs, and these include immunostimulatory receptor agonists, Wnt signaling modulators, adoptive cell therapy, and cancer vaccines. A large number of trials are underway to explore promising new combinations and immune-targeted strategies, offering opportunities to expand the role of immunotherapy in BTC management in the near future.

Molecular profiling and treatment pattern differences between intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. METHODS: This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P < .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P < .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.

Phase I/II sequencing study of azacitidine, epacadostat, and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), an interferon-inducible enzyme, contributes to tumor immune intolerance. Immune checkpoint inhibition may increase interferon levels; combining IDO1 inhibition with immune checkpoint blockade represents an attractive strategy. Epigenetic agents trigger interferon responses and may serve as an immunotherapy priming method. We evaluated whether epigenetic therapy plus IDO1 inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade confers clinical benefit to patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: ECHO-206 was a Phase I/II study where treatment-experienced patients with advanced solid tumors (N = 70) received azacitidine plus an immunotherapy doublet (epacadostat [IDO1 inhibitor] and pembrolizumab). Sequencing of treatment was also assessed. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability (Phase I), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or pharmacologically active dose (PAD; Phase I), and investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Phase II). RESULTS: In Phase I, no dose-limiting toxicities were reported, the MTD was not reached; a PAD was not determined. ORR was 5.7%, with four partial responses. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (42.9%) and nausea (42.9%). Twelve (17.1%) patients experienced ≥1 fatal AE, one of which (asthenia) was treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: Although the azacitidine-epacadostat-pembrolizumab regimen was well tolerated, it was not associated with substantial clinical response in patients with advanced solid tumors previously exposed to immunotherapy.

Targeted therapies in advanced biliary tract cancers-a narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs), including cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer, are a relatively rare group of cancers with a poor prognosis. Over the past decade, the utilization of next-generation sequencing has led to the identification of multiple actionable somatic aberrations in BTCs. Subsequently, new therapies have been created to target these molecular alterations and have been incorporated into clinical practice. In this review, we outline therapies that have been previously studied, and those that are under investigation, to target genomic alterations with the goal of improving survival in patients with advanced disease. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify phase I, II, and III trials of targeted therapies in patients with advanced BTCs published between January 1, 2010 and October 1, 2022. Medline (via PubMed) and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant studies and 415 trials were identified. The search strategy was performed using keywords including: biliary tract cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, randomized trials, controlled trials, phase I, phase II, and phase III. Search results were imported into EndNote X 9.1. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: Overall, immune checkpoint inhibitors, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-directed therapies have all shown promising results with regard to efficacy in patients with advanced BTCs studied in clinical trials. A number of other agents have also been studied in early-phase trials. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted agents can improve survival in patients with advanced BTCs and have substantially increased the number of potential therapeutic options in patients with refractory disease. The therapeutic landscape of targeted therapies for patients with advanced BTCs continues to evolve based on improvements in detection of genomic alterations.

Catching Those Who Fall Through the Cracks: Integrating a Follow-Up Process for Emergency Department Patients with Incidental Radiologic Findings.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Abnormal findings unrelated to the indication for testing are identified on emergency department (ED) imaging studies. We report the design and implementation of an electronic health record-based interdisciplinary referral system and our experience from the first 13 months of ensuring that patients with incidental radiology findings were connected with the appropriate outpatient surveillance. METHODS: Our informatics team standardized the contemporaneous reporting of critical radiology alerts using our ED trackboard and created a companion follow-up request form for the treating ED clinicians to complete. The forms were routed to nurse case managers, who arranged follow-ups based on the findings and clinical significance. The primary outcome was the proportion of ED patient visits with identified incidental findings that had documented communication of the incidental findings and surveillance plans. RESULTS: Over the first 13 months after implementation, 932 ED patient visits had critical radiology alert referrals, for a total of 982 incidental findings. The primary outcome (confirmed post-ED communication and documented follow-up plan) was attained in 888 (95.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 93.9% to 96.6%) ED patient visits with confirmed post-ED communication and documented follow-up plans. The team was unable to contact or confirm follow-up with 44 (4.7%, 95% CI 3.4 to 6.1) patients by telephone or through the health care system's electronic communication tools. CONCLUSION: We report the implementation of a standardized notification and referral system for ED patients with incidental radiology findings. The development of a reliable notification and follow-up system is an important patient safety intervention given the opportunity to potentially identify undiagnosed malignancies.

External Validation of a Clinical Score for Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors Under Consideration for Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy.

Importance: Despite the benefit of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WD NETs), no clinical metric to anticipate benefit from the therapy for individual patients has been previously defined. Objective: To assess whether the prognostic ability of the clinical score (CS) could be validated in an external cohort of patients with WD NETs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study's analysis included patients with WD NETs who were under consideration for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with lutetium-177 (177Lu)-dotatate between March 1, 2016, and March 17, 2020. The original cohort included patients from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. The validation cohort included patients from Ochsner Medical Center, Markey Cancer Center, and Rush Medical Center. Patients with paragangliomas, pheochromocytomas and neuroblastomas were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from June to November 2021. Exposures: PRRT with 177Lu-dotatate or alternate therapies such as everolimus, sunitinib, or capecitabine plus temozolomide. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) and was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method; a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for primary tumor site, tumor grade, and number of PRRT doses administered was used to analyze association between CS and outcomes. Results: A total of 126 patients (median age [IQR] age: 63.6 [52.9-70.7] years; 64 male individuals) were included in the validation cohort, and the combined cohort (validation and original cohorts combined) had a total of 248 patients (median [IQR] patient age: 63.3 [53.3-70.3] years; 126 male individuals). In the validation cohort, on multivariable analysis, for each 2-point increase in CS, PFS decreased significantly (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.64-4.16). After finding an association of the CS with PFS in the validation cohort, the original and validation cohorts were combined into the cohort for this analysis. On multivariable analysis, for each 2-point increase in CS, PFS decreased significantly (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.89-3.36). Conclusions and Relevance: Increases in CS were associated with worsening PFS in the validation cohort, validating findings from the original cohort. These findings suggest that the CS, to our knowledge, represents the first clinical metric to estimate anticipated benefit from PRRT for patients with WD NETs and may be a clinical tool for patients being considered for PRRT.

First-in-Human PET Imaging and Estimated Radiation Dosimetry of l-[5-11C]-Glutamine in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Altered metabolism is a hallmark of cancer. In addition to glucose, glutamine is an important nutrient for cellular growth and proliferation. Noninvasive imaging via PET may help facilitate precision treatment of cancer through patient selection and monitoring of treatment response. l-[5-11C]-glutamine (11C-glutamine) is a PET tracer designed to study glutamine uptake and metabolism. The aim of this first-in-human study was to evaluate the radiologic safety and biodistribution of 11C-glutamine for oncologic PET imaging. Methods: Nine patients with confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer underwent PET/CT imaging. Patients received 337.97 ± 44.08 MBq of 11C-glutamine. Dynamic PET acquisitions that were centered over the abdomen or thorax were initiated simultaneously with intravenous tracer administration. After the dynamic acquisition, a whole-body PET/CT scan was acquired. Volume-of-interest analyses were performed to obtain estimates of organ-based absorbed doses of radiation. Results:11C-glutamine was well tolerated in all patients, with no observed safety concerns. The organs with the highest radiation exposure included the bladder, pancreas, and liver. The estimated effective dose was 4.46E-03 ± 7.67E-04 mSv/MBq. Accumulation of 11C-glutamine was elevated and visualized in lung, brain, bone, and liver metastases, suggesting utility for cancer imaging. Conclusion: PET using 11C-glutamine appears safe for human use and allows noninvasive visualization of metastatic colon cancer lesions in multiple organs. Further studies are needed to elucidate its potential for other cancers and for monitoring response to treatment.

Multicenter randomized phase II trial of atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib in biliary tract cancers.

BACKGROUNDMEK inhibitors have limited activity in biliary tract cancers (BTCs) as monotherapy but are hypothesized to enhance responses to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition.METHODSThis open-label phase II study randomized patients with BTC to atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) as monotherapy or in combination with cobimetinib (MEK inhibitor). Eligible patients had unresectable BTC with 1 to 2 lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting, measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status less than or equal to 1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).RESULTSSeventy-seven patients were randomized and received study therapy. The trial met its primary endpoint, with a median PFS of 3.65 months in the combination arm versus 1.87 months in the monotherapy arm (HR 0.58, 90% CI 0.35-0.93, 1-tail P = 0.027). One patient in the combination arm (3.3%) and 1 patient in the monotherapy arm (2.8%) had a partial response. Combination therapy was associated with more rash, gastrointestinal events, CPK elevations, and thrombocytopenia. Exploratory analysis of tumor biopsies revealed enhanced expression of antigen processing and presentation genes and an increase in CD8/FoxP3 ratios with combination treatment. Patients with higher baseline or lower fold changes in expression of certain inhibitory ligands (LAG3, BTLA, VISTA) on circulating T cells had evidence of greater clinical benefit from the combination.CONCLUSIONThe combination of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib prolonged PFS as compared with atezolizumab monotherapy, but the low response rate in both arms highlights the immune-resistant nature of BTCs.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT03201458.FUNDINGNational Cancer Institute (NCI) Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN); F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.; NCI, NIH (R01 CA228414-01 and UM1CA186691); NCI's Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Gastrointestinal Cancers (P50 CA062924); NIH Center Core Grant (P30 CA006973); and the Passano Foundation.

A clinical score for neuroendocrine tumor patients under consideration for Lu-177-DOTATATE therapy.

We developed a clinical score (CS) at Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) that we hoped would predict outcomes for patients with progressive well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) receiving therapy with Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-DOTATATE. Patients under consideration for 177Lu-DOTATATE between March 1, 2016 and March 17, 2020 at VICC were assigned a CS prospectively. The CS included 5 categories: available treatments for tumor type outside of 177Lu-DOTATATE, prior systemic treatments, patient symptoms, tumor burden in critical organs and presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis. The primary outcome of the analysis was progression-free survival (PFS). To evaluate the effect of the CS on PFS, a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed adjusting for tumor grade, primary tumor location, and the interaction between 177Lu-DOTATATE doses received (zero, 1-2, 3-4) and CS. A total of 91 patients and 31 patients received 3-4 doses and zero doses of 177Lu-DOTATATE, respectively. On multivariable analysis, in patients treated with 3-4 doses of 177Lu-DOTATATE, for each 1-point increase in CS, the estimated hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 2.0 (95% CI 1.61-2.48). On multivariable analysis, in patients who received zero doses of 177Lu-DOTATATE, for each 1-point increase in CS, the estimated HR for PFS was 1.22 (95% CI 0.91-1.65). Among patients treated with 3-4 doses of 177Lu-DOTATATE, those with lower CS experienced improved PFS with the treatment compared to patients with higher CS. This PFS difference, based upon CS, was not observed in patients who did not receive 177Lu-DOTATATE, suggesting the predictive utility of the score.

A phase I pharmacokinetic and safety study of Paclitaxel Injection Concentrate for Nano-dispersion (PICN) alone and in combination with carboplatin in patients with advanced solid malignancies and biliary tract cancers.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel injection concentrate for nano-dispersion (PICN) is a Cremophor-free, nanotechnology-driven paclitaxel formulation. This phase I study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of PICN alone and in combination with carboplatin. Its early efficacy in unresectable biliary tract cancers (BTCs) was also evaluated. METHODS: This multi-center study comprised two parts. Part A contained a dose-escalation cohort following "3 + 3" design using PICN monotherapy in advanced solid tumors (Part A1); Part A2 dose-expansion cohort was then conducted in advanced BTCs due to observed efficacy in Part A1. Part B1 and B2 evaluated escalating dose of PICN with carboplatin in advanced solid tumors. PICN was administered as a 30 min-infusion every 3 weeks without pre-medications for hypersensitivity reactions. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients received PICN monotherapy in Part A and 21 received PICN plus carboplatin in Part B. The MTD of PICN was determined to be 295 mg/m2 both as a monotherapy and in combination with carboplatin at AUC 5. Dose-proportional exposure in paclitaxel Cmax and AUC was observed overdose range from 175 to 325 mg/m2 for PICN monotherapy and its combination with carboplatin. Carboplatin did not alter PICN exposure. Clinically significant toxicities mainly include neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy. PICN monotherapy yielded a response rate of 20% in unresectable BTCs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the safety and stable pharmacokinetics of PICN as a monotherapy and in combination with carboplatin. Single-agent PICN showed promising antitumor activity in advanced BTCs, warranting further studies to investigate its role in gastrointestinal cancers.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS: Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Ramucirumab and durvalumab for previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, gastric/gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, or hepatocellular carcinoma: An open-label, phase Ia/b study (JVDJ).

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence supports combining immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with conventional or targeted therapies to enhance ICI antitumour activity and broaden the spectrum of patients who respond to ICIs. Here, we present the safety and preliminary efficacy of ramucirumab, an anti-VEGFR2 IgG1, plus durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 IgG1, in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), gastric/gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (gastric/GEJ), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 25-centre, phase Ia/b single-arm, non-randomised, multi-cohort study was undertaken in patients with advanced/metastatic disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, 0-1, progression on prior therapy, no prior ramucirumab or immunotherapy and any PD-L1 status. Patients received ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) plus durvalumab (1125 mg) intravenously Q3W (NSCLC), or ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) plus durvalumab (750 mg) Q2W (gastric/GEJ, HCC). RESULTS: Phase Ia treatment was found safe for phase Ib expansion; final enrolment was NSCLC (n = 28), gastric/GEJ (n = 29), HCC (n = 28). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32.1%, 37.9% and 42.9% of patients, respectively. The most common were fatigue (35.7%), hypertension (34.5%) and diarrhoea (28.6%), respectively. Two patients died owing to an adverse event; one was treatment-related (hepatitis acute, HCC cohort). Objective response rate was 11% for NSCLC and HCC and 21% for gastric/GEJ. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 2.7 and 11 months in NSCLC; 2.6 and 12.4 months in gastric/GEJ; 4.4 and 10.7 months in HCC, with more prolonged survival in patients with high PD-L1 expression. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab/durvalumab exhibited manageable safety. The combination showed antitumour activity in all cohorts, particularly in patients with high PD-L1 expression.

Immune-Related Adverse Events and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Efficacy in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer with Food and Drug Administration-Approved Indications for Immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-related adverse event (IRAE) onset may represent a clinical biomarker for anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody response based on emerging evidence from patients with various advanced malignancies. This phenomenon has not been previously reported in a multidisease cohort of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications to receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis of 76 patients with GI cancer who had received anti-PD-1 antibodies for FDA-approved indications. The primary and secondary outcomes of the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients based upon IRAE presence, respectively. PFS and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method; a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for IRAE onset, patient age, and enrolling institution was used to analyze outcomes. RESULTS: Median PFS and OS were prolonged in patients who experienced IRAEs compared with those who did not experience them (PFS: not reached [NR] vs. 3.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.3, p < .001]; OS: NR vs. 7.4 months [HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, p < .001]). Among patients who experienced IRAEs, there were no significant differences in PFS and OS by either initial IRAE severity, management, or time to onset. CONCLUSION: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer who experienced IRAEs while on anti-PD-1 antibodies demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and OS compared with their counterparts who did not develop IRAEs. Although these findings add to results from studies in other tumor types, larger prospective studies are needed prior to clinical adoption of IRAE onset as a biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Predictive clinical biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitor response have been understudied in the field of immuno-oncology. Immune-related adverse event onset appears to be one such biomarker. Across tumor types, immune-related adverse event onset has been associated with response to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies. The results of this study demonstrate this for the first time in patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies. Before immune-related adverse event onset can be adopted clinically as a predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response, however, larger prospective studies are needed to better understand the nuances between immune-related adverse event characteristics (severity, site, management, timing of onset) and immune checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness.

Fatal hepatic necrosis after nivolumab as a bridge to liver transplant for HCC: Are checkpoint inhibitors safe for the pretransplant patient?

Nivolumab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) currently in phase 3 clinical trials for hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety of ICIs in recipients of organ allotransplant is unclear, and several reports of fatal alloimmune injury after posttransplant ICI use have been published. We present the first published case of nivolumab used in the pretransplant setting for HCC resulting in fatal acute hepatic necrosis in the immediate postoperative period from a profound immune reaction likely propagated by nivolumab. Further investigation and significant caution are needed in the evaluation of patients awaiting transplant who are receiving ICI therapy.