scholarly journals Recent Advances in Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in an Aging Society: 2020 Update

Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 640-662
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Kudo
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Recent Advances

Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has changed markedly since the introduction of the molecular targeted agent sorafenib in 2007. Sorafenib increased the available treatment options for patients with extrahepatic spread and vascular invasion and improved survival in patients with advanced HCC; however, various shortcomings such as low response rates and relatively high toxicity (e.g., hand-foot skin reaction) prompted concerted efforts aimed at developing new molecular targeted agents to provide more treatment options and second-line agents for patients with disease progression or intolerance to sorafenib. Despite many attempts to develop new drugs between 2007 and 2016, all first-line and second-line clinical trials conducted during this period failed. However, between 2017 and 2019, 4 drugs (lenvatinib as a first-line agent and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab as second-line agents) emerged in quick succession from clinical trials and became available for clinical use. In addition, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved as second-line agents after sorafenib. A recent phase III trial (IMbrave150) showed that combination immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab increases overall survival compared with sorafenib therapy; Food and Drug Agency already approved this combination therapy, and worldwide approval is expected soon. This review describes the recent advances in systemic therapy and the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, and cabozantinib), monoclonal antibodies (ramucirumab and bevacizumab), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab) in elderly patients and the similarity of their efficacy and safety profiles to those in the general population.

scholarly journals Clinical Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2662
Author(s):  
Anne Dyhl-Polk ◽  
Marta Kramer Mikkelsen ◽  
Morten Ladekarl ◽  
Dorte Lisbet Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Line Setting

Introduction: Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are under clinical development in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the field is advancing rapidly. In this comprehensive review, we discuss published results and report on ongoing clinical trials. Methods: A literature search was carried out using PubMed and EMBASE; data reported at international meetings and clinicaltrials.gov were included as well. The search was updated 5 March 2021. We evaluated studies with monotherapy CPI’s, combinations of CPI’s and combinations of CPI’s with other treatment modalities separately. Only studies with at least 10 included patients were considered. Results: We identified 2649 records published in the English language literature. After review, 29 studies remained, including 12 studies with preliminary data only. The obtained overall response rate of PD-1/PDL-1 monotherapy in phase II studies in the second-line setting was 15–20% with disease control in approximately 60% of patients. The responses were of long duration in a subset of patients. Furthermore, the safety profiles were manageable. However, a phase III study comparing nivolumab with sorafenib in the first-line setting and a phase III study evaluating pembrolizumab versus best supportive care in the second-line setting did not meet their prespecified endpoints. More recently, a phase I/II study of nivolumab and ipilimumab has resulted in a response rate of approximately 30% with a median OS of 22 months in the second-line setting. Multiple trials have been initiated to evaluate CPIs in combination with molecularly targeted drugs, especially anti-angiogenic drugs or local therapy. A phase III study investigating atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in the first-line setting showed significantly increased survival in the combination arm. Conclusions: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for fit patients with preserved liver function. CPIs can produce durable tumor remission and induce long-standing anti-tumor immunity in a subgroup of patients with advanced HCC. Although phase III trials of CPI monotherapy have been negative, the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, CTLA-4 inhibitors or other modalities may result in new treatment options for patients with HCC. Research on predictive biomarkers is crucial for further development of CPIs in HCC.

scholarly journals Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Latest Advances

Cancers ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Kudo
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Targeted Agent

Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has changed drastically since the introduction of the molecular targeted agent sorafenib in 2007. Although sorafenib expanded the treatment options for extrahepatic spread (EHS) and vascular invasion, making long-term survival of patients with advanced disease achievable to a certain extent, new molecular-targeted agents are being developed as alternatives to sorafenib due to shortcomings such as its low response rate and high toxicity. Every single one of the many drugs developed during the 10-year period from 2007 to 2016 was a failure. However, during the two-year period from 2017 through 2018, four drugs—regorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab—emerged successfully from clinical trials in quick succession and became available for clinical use. The efficacy of combination therapy with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib was also first demonstrated in 2018. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been applied to HCC treatment and many phase III clinical trials are ongoing, not only on monotherapy with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and tislelizumab, but also on combination therapy with checkpoint inhibitors, programmed death-1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody plus a molecular targeted agent (bevacizumab) or the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) antibody, tremelimumab. These combination therapies have shown higher response rates than PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy alone, suggesting a synergistic effect by combination therapy in early phases; therefore, further results are eagerly awaited.

scholarly journals Role of immunotherapy in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: current standards and future directions

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (S3) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Weinmann ◽  
P.R. Galle
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Promising Therapeutic Approach

 The multikinase inhibitor sorafenib was the only approved systemic therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) for about a decade. In recent years, the number of approved agents has increased significantly as a result of a number of positive phase iii clinical trials. Lenvatinib as a first-line treatment, and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab in the second-line setting are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (fda) and the European Medicines Agency. In phase ii studies, immunotherapy with nivolumab and monotherapy using pembrolizumab yielded impressive results for overall survival in therapy-naïve and pretreated patients, leading to the accelerated approval by the fda of nivolumab and pembrolizumab for second-line treatment. However, phase iii trials of nivolumab in the first line and pembrolizumab in the second line as single agents failed to reach statistical significance, although clinical benefit for a subset of patients with long durations of response could be demonstrated. Despite that setback, immunotherapy for hcc is a promising therapeutic approach, and the combination of immunotherapy with other treatment modal­ities such as monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or local therapies has the potential to increase the overall response rate and survival. Recently, the results of a phase iii trial of combination atezolizumab–bevacizumab compared with sorafenib showed a highly significant survival benefit and median overall survival that was not reached in the immunotherapy arm, making the combination the preferred standard of care in first-line therapy. Despite the impressive results and generally good toxicity profile of immunotherapy, patients who respond to therapy constitute only a subset of the overall population, and response rates are still limited. This review focuses on the currently reported results and ongoing clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitor–based immunotherapy in hcc.

scholarly journals Systemic therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma: reality and prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
V. V. Breder ◽  
M. V. Natrusova ◽  
I. A. Dzhanyan
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Second Line ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Angiogenic Inhibitors ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

This article discusses the results of clinical trials and the perspectives for perioperative systemic therapy for liver cancer, as well as the effectiveness of combination with locoregional methods. Special attention is paid to first and second line hepatocellular carcinoma therapy, as already approved in the Russian Federation (multikinase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, checkpoint inhibitors), as well as ongoing clinical trials. Promising combinations of immunotherapy with multikinase and (or) angiogenic inhibitors, potential predictors of the effectiveness of immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as the features of therapy after orthotopic liver transplantation and against the background of non-compensated liver cirrhosis, are considered.

Efficacy and safety of PD-1 inhibitors as first- and second- line treatments for advanced gastroesophageal cancers: A network meta-analysis of phase III clinical trials.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16032-e16032
Author(s):  
Laercio Lopes Da Silva ◽  
Robin Park ◽  
Pedro Nazareth Aguiar ◽  
Eduardo Edleman Saul ◽  
Benjamin Haaland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Esophageal Cancers

e16032 Background: Advanced gastroesophageal tumors are among the most prevalent and burdensome cancers worldwide. They have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Recent studies show that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors can improve outcomes, but the results are inconsistent across trials. Herein, we compare the effectiveness and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy in patients with ERBB2 negative advanced/metastatic gastric and esophageal cancers. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus) and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1, 2010, to November 23, 2020. We included phase III randomized clinical trials comparing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 single-agent or in combination with chemotherapy (chemoimmunotherapy) for advanced gastric or esophageal cancers in the first- or second-line settings. We performed a network meta-analysis with a frequentist approach and a random-effects model using the package ‘netmeta’ for R statistical software. A prospective protocol was uploaded to PROSPERO (CRD42020221822). Results: The final analysis included a total of 8 trials that compared different anti-PD-1 agents; none of them involved anti-PD-L1 agents. The four first-line studies involved 3817 patients. Chemoimmunotherapy improved OS and PFS with no significant safety difference: Nivolumab + chemotherapy, OS (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92), PFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), SAE (OR 0.54; 0;95% CI, 0.1-2.92); Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy: OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88), PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85), SAE (OR, 1.31; 0;95% CI, 0.23-7.35). Pembrolizumab monotherapy was the safest first-line treatment, SAE (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.2), but did not improve survival, OS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16), PFS (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.23-2.14). The four second-line studies totalized 2087 individuals. Anti-PD-1 drugs were significantly safer but did not significantly improve survival: camrelizumab, OS (HR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93), PFS (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.06), SAE (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24-0.56); nivolumab, OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.02), PFS (HR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.77-1.66), SAE (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.2) pembrolizumab, OS (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04), PFS (HR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.96-1.71), SAE (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.30-0.53). Conclusions: the combination of PD-1 inhibitors with chemotherapy improves OS and PFS in previously untreated gastroesophageal cancers. Single-agent anti-PD-1 drugs improve safety in refractory disease, with no significant change in OS and PFS.

scholarly journals DERN CONTROL POINT INHIBITORS AND THEIR POSSIBILITIES FOR THE THERAPY OF METASTATIC UROTELIAL CANCER

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (5(74)) ◽  
pp. 4-8
Author(s):  
M.N. Tillyashajhov ◽  
S.V. Kamyshov ◽  
E.V. Bojko
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Control Point ◽  
Surface Protein ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Critical Question ◽  
Accelerated Approval ◽  
New Biomarkers

For a long time, chemotherapy remained the main treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Over the past year, there have been revolutionary changes associated with the approval of five new drugs aimed at blocking the interaction between the surface protein of T‑lymphocytes PD‑1 and its ligands PD‑L1 and PD‑L2, resulting in the activation of the immune response. It is noteworthy that the anti‑PD‑1 antibody pembrolizumab demonstrated an increase in overall survival relative to chemotherapy in a randomized phase III trial in the second line with mUC. Based on this level 1 evidence pembrolizumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nivolumab (antibody PD‑1) also demonstrated an increase in overall survival compared to historical control and was approved by FDA. Likewise, antibodies targeting PD‑L1, including atezolizumab, durvalumab and avelumab, received accelerated approval from the FDA as the second line of treatment for mUC. Some of these agents are approved in the first line by the results of phase II study (atezolizumab and pembolizumab received accelerated approval for first‑line treatment in patients not receiving cisplatin). Despite these many endorsements, clinical development of new biomarkers for selection of patients, who can get maximum advantages of immunotherapy and also for development the optimal therapy sequencing still are biggest and critical question for future investigation.The clinical introduction of biomarkers to determine optimal treatment of patients remains extremely important.

scholarly journals Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Korean Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 613-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaekyung Cheon ◽  
Hong Jae Chon ◽  
Yeonghak Bang ◽  
Neung Hwa Park ◽  
Jung Woo Shin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line

Introduction/Objective: Lenvatinib demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the randomized phase III REFLECT trial. Considering the discrepancies in patients between clinical trial data and daily practice, an account of practical experience is needed. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in which 3 tertiary referral centers participated. A total of 92 patients with advanced HCC treated with lenvatinib between September 2018 and January 2020 were analyzed. Results: Lenvatinib was used as the first-line therapy for 67 (72.8%) patients, and for 25 (27.2%) patients previously treated with other systemic therapy including immune checkpoint inhibitors. At the time of initiation of lenvatinib, 74 (80.4%) and 18 (19.6%) patients were classified as Child-Pugh A and B, respectively. Thirty-five patients (38.0%) had extensive disease that would have excluded them from the REFLECT trial. In the Child-Pugh A group, the response rate graded according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 was 21.1%, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1–6.1) months, and overall survival (OS) was 10.7 (95% CI 4.8–16.5) months for patients treated with first-line lenvatinib (n = 57). With second- or later-line lenvatinib (n = 17), median PFS and OS were 4.1 (95% CI 3.1–5.1) and 6.4 (95% CI 5.1–7.7) months, respectively. In the Child-Pugh B group (n = 18), median PFS and OS were 2.6 (95% CI 0.6–4.6) and 5.3 (95% CI 2.0–8.5) months, respectively. The most common grade 3–4 toxicities were hyperbilirubinemia (n = 8; 8.7%), AST elevation (n = 6; 6.5%), and diarrhea (n = 5; 5.4%) across all study patients. Conclusions: In this real-world study, lenvatinib was found to be well tolerated and effective in more heterogeneous HCC patient populations.

A review of the patterns of docetaxel use for hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) at the Princess Margaret Hospital

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16161-e16161
Author(s):  
S. N. Chin ◽  
L. Wang ◽  
A. Lau ◽  
M. Moore ◽  
S. S. Sridhar
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Median Duration ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line

e16161 Background: Docetaxel is standard of care for the treatment of HRPC, based on two large randomized clinical trials. The aim of this study was to determine if docetaxel use and effectiveness in routine clinical practice was similar to that seen in the TAX 327 randomized phase III clinical trial. Methods: A retrospective chart review was undertaken to assess patterns of docetaxel use for HRPC at our institution for the 2-year period since its approval for the first-line treatment of HRPC in 2005. Results: Eighty-eight patients, median age 71 and baseline PSA 107, received docetaxel in the first line setting. Main reasons for initiating docetaxel were rising PSA (90%) and progressive symptoms (71%). Eighteen percent of patients received docetaxel for rising PSA alone. A median of 7 cycles was administered. PSA response rates were 61%, time to response 1.5 months, and response duration 6.8 months. Disease progression was the most common reason for treatment discontinuation (36%). Main toxicities were fatigue (32%) and neuropathy (22%). Kaplan Meier survival analysis showed median duration of survival was 15.9 months (95% CI 12.4–20.5) from first drug use. 1-year survival was 0.63 (95% CI 0.52–0.72). Post-docetaxel, 36 patients received second-line treatment, mostly with mitoxantrone (89%). Second-line response rates were 22%, and median duration of response was 4 months. Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, docetaxel is a well-tolerated regimen for the treatment of HRPC. Response rates and toxicity profiles were comparable to the randomized trials. However, compared with the TAX 327 clinical trial, survival was slightly shorter than expected (15.9 vs. 18.9 months), possibly due to inclusion of patients with poorer performance status and comorbidities, who may be excluded from clinical trials. Second-line response rates were also comparable with previous reports. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document