Real-World Data for Lenvatinib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ELEVATOR): A retrospective multicenter study

Background Lenvatinib is approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of lenvatinib in Caucasian real-world patients is insufficiently defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in a multi-center cohort (ELEVATOR) from Germany and Austria. Methods A retrospective data analysis of 205 patients treated with first-line systemic lenvatinib at 14 different sites was conducted. Overall survival, progression free survival, overall response rate and adverse event rates were assessed and analyzed. Results Patients receiving lenvatinib in the real-world setting reached a median overall survival of 12.8 months, which was comparable to the results reported from the REFLECT study. Median overall survival (mOS) and progression free survival (mPFS) was superior in those patients who met the inclusion criteria of the REFLECT study compared to patients who failed to meet the inclusion criteria (mOS 15.6 vs 10.2 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81, p=0.002; mPFS 8.1 vs 4.8 months HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91, p=0.0015). For patients with an impaired liver function according to the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, or reduced ECOG performance status ≥2, survival was significantly shorter compared to patients with sustained liver function (ALBI grade 1) and good performance status (ECOG performance status 0), respectively (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07-2.66, p=0.023; HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19-4.23, p=0.012). Additionally, macrovascular invasion (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.37, p=0.041) and an AFP ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.34, p=0.034) were confirmed as independent negative prognostic factors in our cohort of patients with advanced HCC. Conclusion Overall, our data confirm the efficacy of lenvatinib as first-line treatment and did not reveal new or unexpected side effects in a large retrospective Caucasian real-world cohort, supporting the use of lenvatinib as meaningful alternative for patients that cannot be treated with IO-based combinations in first-line HCC.

Checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic gastric and GEJ cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of real-world data in a Western cohort

Background Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer could be demonstrated in predominantly Asian cohorts, whereas data in Western patients outside of clinical trials are vastly missing. Methods In this multi-institutional retrospective analysis conducted at nine oncologic centers in Austria, we tried to assess feasibility of checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastric/GEJ cancer in a real-world Western cohort. Results In total, data from 50 patients with metastatic gastric/GEJ cancer who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab in a palliative setting between November 2015 and April 2020 have been evaluated. The median number of previous palliative therapy lines was two. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.1 (95% CI: 1.4–2.8) and 6.3 (95% CI: 3.3–9.3) months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in median OS according to microsatellite or PD-L1 status. However, a trend towards prolonged PFS and OS for the microsatellite instability high subgroup could be observed. Patients with an ECOG Performance Status (PS) ≥ 2 displayed a significantly worse outcome than those with an ECOG PS ≤ 1 (p = .03). Only one patient discontinued immunotherapy due to treatment-related toxicity. Conclusions Our results support feasibility of nivolumab and pembrolizumab in pre-treated patients with metastatic gastric and GEJ cancer in a Western real-world cohort. Further phase II/III studies are needed to confirm clinical efficacy.

What’s the difference between hyperprogressive disease and progressive disease for patients with treated immune checkpoint inhibitors?

Background Although the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) became a vital part of cancer care, many patients do not respond to treatment. Some of the patients in this group, which is considered to have hyperprogressive disease (HPD), have a shorter overall survival compared to progressive disease (PD). Therefore, biomarkers are needed to differentiate between HPD and PD. Here, we evaluated PILE score to differentiate HPD from PD in patients treated with ICI. Methods Ninety-five patients treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 inhibitors for any type of cancer with progression according to RECIST criteria in the first control imaging were included. HPD was defined according to Russo's work. The PILE scoring system was calculated, including PIV (< median vs. ≥ median), LDH (normal and > normal), and ECOG performance status (0 vs. ≥ 1). The relationship between PILE score and HPD was examined. Results The median follow-up was 6.6 months and the median OS of all cohort were 11.18 ± 1.36 months. The patients in the HPD group had decreased OS (4.77 ± 0.89 vs. 13.94 ± 1.80 months, p <0.001) and PFS (1.89 ± 0.11 vs. 3.16 ± 0.12 months, p <0.001) compared to PD group. The risk of HPD was higher than the risk of PD in patİents with a high PILE score (p:0.001). Conclusion In this study, we showed that patients treated with ICI with a higher PILE score are at greater risk for HPD. If prospective studies confirm our results, the PILE score may be a biomarker to differentiate HPD from PD.

DREAMseq (Doublet, Randomized Evaluation in Advanced Melanoma Sequencing): A phase III trial—ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

356154 Background: Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) blocking PD-1 and CTLA-4 or BRAF/MEK inhibitors have both shown significant antitumor efficacy and overall survival (OS) benefit in patients (pts) with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM), leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exists to guide the choice of one over the other as initial therapy or the preferred treatment sequence in this population. The DREAMseq Trial was designed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the sequence of nivolumab/ipilimumab (N/I) followed by dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T) to the converse sequence. Methods: Eligible pts with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant MM were stratified by ECOG Performance Status (PS) 0 or 1 and LDH level and randomized 1:1 to receive Step 1 with either N/I (Arm A) or D/T (Arm B) and at disease progression (PD) were enrolled in Step 2 receiving the alternate therapy, D/T (Arm C) or N/I (Arm D), respectively. Pts received N (1mg/kg)/I (3 mg/kg) q3 wks x 4 doses followed by N 240 IV q2 wks for up to 72 wks (Arms A and D) or D 150 mg po BID and T 2 mg po qD until PD (Arms B and C). In 2019, investigators were given the option to use alternate induction dosing of N (3mg/kg)/I (1 mg/kg) q3 wks x 4 doses for Arms A and D. Cycles were every 6 wks and imaging was obtained at baseline and q12 wks on each arm. Primary endpoint was 2-year OS. At the 4th Interim Analysis with 59% of pts being 2 yrs from enrollment, the DSMC and NCI CTEP recommended halting accrual and releasing the data. Results: Beginning 7/2015, 265 out of a proposed 300 pts were enrolled (133 Arm A and 132 Arm B). Median age was 61 (25-85) and 63% were male. Demographics for Arm A and B were balanced with 67% PS 0 and 60% with normal LDH. As of 7/16/21, at a median follow-up of 27.7 mos, 27 pts had switched to Arm C and 46 to Arm D. Overall Grade 3+ toxicity was 60% in Arm A and 52% in Arm B. Grade 5 treatment-related AEs included 2 on Arm A and 1 on Arm C. ORR to date is: Arm A 46% (52/113), Arm B 43% (49/114), Arm C 48% (11/23) and Arm D 30% (8/27). 37/42 assessed pts in Arm A and 19/37 in Arm B remain in response. Median DOR: Arm A- Not reached; Arm B-12.7 mos (95% CI: 8.2, -) (p <0.001). There were 100 deaths (Arm A to C- 38/Arm B to D- 62). 2-yr OS rate for those starting with Arm A was 72% (95% CI: 62-81%) and for Arm B 52% (95% CI: 42-62%) (log-rank p= 0.0095). PFS showed a trend in favor of Arm A (log-rank p=0.054). Both the PFS and OS curves show a biphasic pattern with Arm B being above Arm A until 6 and 10 mos, respectively. For the 115 pts with documented progression on Step 1 (Arm A-44/Arm B-71), 60 (52%) had registered for Step 2. The principal reason for not enrolling on Step 2 was death from PD within 6 mos (Arm A:15/23; Arm B: 25/32). Conclusions: For pts with advanced BRAFV600-mutant MM, the treatment sequence beginning with the CPI combination of N/I resulted in superior OS, which became evident at 10 mos, with longer Step 1 DOR and more ongoing responses than the treatment sequence beginning with D/T. Clinical trial information: NCT02224781.

Treatment and overall survival among anti-PD-1-exposed advanced melanoma patients with evidence of disease progression

Background: Little is known regarding treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced melanoma who progress after anti-PD-1 exposure. Methods: The Kaplan–Meier method was used to evaluate OS from electronic health records for patients with advanced melanoma who progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy and received subsequent therapy. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize treatment. Results: A total of 304 patients who progressed after anti-PD-1 therapy received subsequent therapy: 50% immunotherapy, 36% BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors, 14% other therapies. Median OS was 7.2 months (95% CI: 6.4–8.8), with an association (p < 0.01) with best response to baseline anti-PD-1 therapy and further associations with Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤1 (p < 0.001 compared with ECOG ≥2), normal LDH (p < 0.001 compared with elevated levels) and treatment with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors (p = 0.02 compared with other treatment). There was an association (p < 0.01) of survival with best response to baseline anti-PD-1 therapy. Conclusions: OS for advanced melanoma patients who progress on anti-PD-1 therapy is suboptimal, which highlights the need for further research to develop new medications and optimize treatment strategies.

Impact of Cell-of-Origin on Outcome of Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated With Uniform R-CHOP Protocol: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis From North India

IntroductionThere is a scarcity of data from India on the impact of cell of origin (COO) on outcomes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of COO on outcomes of DLBCL patients treated with uniform rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (RCHOP) protocol.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective analysis included patients who received uniform RCHOP chemoimmunotherapy during the study period (2014–2020) at the Department of Medical Oncology at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India. The patients were classified as germinal center B-cell like (GCB) or activated B-cell (ABC) type using the Hans classification.ResultsFour hundred seventeen patients with median age of 48 years (range, 18–76) and a male-female ratio of 2:1 were included in the analysis. B symptoms and bulky disease were seen in 42.9% and 35.5%. Extranodal involvement was seen in 50.8% of cases. ECOG performance status (0-2) was present in 65%, and 51% presented with advanced disease. GCB subtype was seen in 43%, and 47% were ABC type. Low- and intermediate-risk international prognostic index (IPI) score was seen in 76% of cases. The overall response rate to RCHOP was 85.8%, including a complete response rate of 74.8%. After a median follow-up of 30 months, the 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 80% and 88%, respectively. The presence of B symptoms and poor ECOG performance status (3-4) was associated with inferior CR rate. Low albumin (p &lt; 0.001), age &gt;60 years (p = 0.001), bulky disease (p &lt; 0.001), and extranodal involvement (p = 0.001) were associated with inferior EFS, whereas a high IPI risk score was associated with an inferior OS (p &lt; 0.001). EFS and OS were not significantly different between the GCB and ABC subtypes. Grade III/IV anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were seen in 7.6%, 13.6%, and 2.7% of patients, respectively. Febrile neutropenia was seen in 8.9% of patients, and there were four treatment-related deaths.ConclusionsCell of origin for DLBCL has no impact on CR, EFS, and OS if patients are appropriately treated with standard doses and frequency of RCHOP. RCHOP is well tolerated in our patients, and results are comparable with the Western data.

OP208 Did Health Technology Assessments Make the Wrong Call? Quantitative Bias Analysis: Alectinib versus Ceritinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

IntroductionThe German health technology assessment (HTA) rejected additional benefit of alectinib for second line (2L) ALK+ NSCLC, citing possible biases from missing ECOG performance status data and unmeasured confounding in real-world evidence (RWE) for 2L ceritinib that was submitted as a comparator to the single arm alectinib trial. Alectinib was approved in the US and therefore US post-launch RWE can be used to evaluate this HTA decision.MethodsWe compared the real-world effectiveness of alectinib with ceritinib in 2L post-crizotinib ALK+ NSCLC using the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. Using quantitative bias analysis (QBA), we estimated the strength of (i) unmeasured confounding and (ii) deviation from missing-at-random (MAR) assumptions needed to nullify any overall survival (OS) benefit.ResultsAlectinib had significantly longer median OS than ceritinib in complete case analysis. The estimated effect size (Hazard Ratio: 0.55) was robust to risk ratios of unmeasured confounder-outcome and confounder-exposure associations of <2.4.Based on tipping point analysis, missing baseline ECOG performance status for ceritinib-treated patients (49% missing) would need to be more than 3.4-times worse than expected under MAR to nullify the OS benefit observed for alectinib.ConclusionsOnly implausible levels of bias reversed our conclusions. These methods could provide a framework to explore uncertainty and aid decision-making for HTAs to enable patient access to innovative therapies.

P-OGC56 Do patients presenting with obstructing oesophageal cancer have worse outcome?

Background Oesophageal cancer carries a poor prognosis. Despite the availability of urgent Upper GI endoscopy in the United Kingdom, a substantial proportion of patients with newly diagnosed oesophageal cancer present late with near total dysphagia and an obstructing tumour at the index endoscopy. There is little data analysing the effect of obstructing oesophageal cancer at presentation on overall prognosis. The aim of the study was to analyse if patients presenting with obstructing oesophageal cancer have a worse outcome. Methods A retrospective cohort study of all newly diagnosed oesophageal cancers (adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and high grade dysplasia registered in a single UK Regional Upper GI MDT between October 2019 and September 2020 was performed. Electronic records were interrogated and patients dichotomised into two groups based on if they were obstructed endoscopically or not on the index endoscopy and the results were compared. Median follow up was 7 months. Results 243 patients (68 (28.0%) obstructed and 175 (72.0%) non-obstructed) with median age of 70 were identified. There were more females in the obstructed group (44.1% vs 25.7%, p = 0.005). ECOG performance status was worse in the obstructed group: ECOG-0 (30.9% vs 50.3%, p = 0.006). Adenocarcinoma was more common in non-obstructed group (69.1% vs 54.4%, p = 0.031). More patients in the obstructed group had a T4 tumour (38.2% vs 18.9%, p = 0.002), however, nodal and metastatic status were similar. Rates of curative intent treatment were similar. At median follow-up of 7 months (IQR 3-13), more patients in obstructed group were deceased (72.1% vs 49.7%, p = 0.002). Conclusions Obstructing oesophageal cancer at presentation is a marker of advanced disease and despite curative treatment intent, overall survival is worse compared to passable tumours. New screening techniques such as Cytosponge combined with public health interventions to encourage early presentation may enable earlier diagnosis and improved survival.