Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib monotreatment and lenvatinib-based combination therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective, real-world study in China

Background Lenvatinib and lenvatinib-based combination treatments are widely used in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in clinical practice, but their curative effect and safety need further study in the real world. Methods This was a retrospective study involving patients with uHCC receiving lenvatinib monotherapy and lenvatinib-based combination treatment between Nov, 2018 and Sep, 2020 in Nanfang Hospital. Efficacy was evaluated with objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to tumor progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were recorded and graded. Efficacy and safety of monotherapy and combination therapy were compared. Stratified analysis was performed according to systemic line of treatment and medication regimen for combination therapy. Results For lenvatinib monotherapy (n = 39), OS and PFS were 80 weeks and 24.3 weeks, respectively. For combination treatment (n = 72), median OS and PFS were 99 weeks and 45.6 weeks, respectively. OS, PFS, and TTP for patients in the combination treatment cohort were significantly longer compared to those of patients in the monotreatment cohort (OS: P = 0.04, PFS: P = 0.003; TTP, P = 0.005). The incidence of TRAEs could be controlled both in the monotherapy cohort and the combination treatment cohort. In the monotherapy cohort, OS and PFS were significantly decreased in the second-line treatment group compared with the first-line treatment group, while no differences were observed in the combination cohort. The efficacy of triple therapy (lenvatinib plus PD-1 antibody plus TACE or HAIF) was similar to lenvatinib plus PD-1 antibody or lenvatinib plus TACE or HAIF. Conclusions Our real-world study showed that lenvatinib monotherapy and lenvatinib-based combination therapy were well tolerated, with encouraging efficacies in patients with uHCC. Lenvatinib-based combination therapy showed a better curative effect compared with lenvatinib single-agent therapy. In patients who have failed first-line TKI treatment, lenvatinib-based combination therapy may be a better choice than lenvatinib single-agent therapy. Lenvatinib-based triple therapy may not have an advantage over dual therapy.

PD-(L)1 inhibitors as single-agent or in combination with chemotherapy for advanced, PD-L1-high non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Introduction: The best treatment for advanced, PD-L1-high non-small-cell lung cancer remains a debated issue. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone or plus chemotherapy (CT) for advanced, PD-L1-high non-small-cell lung cancer. Results: 14 RCTs were included. The combination of a PD-(L)1 inhibitor with CT resulted in the improvement of progression-free survival (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.43–0.79; p = 0.0005) and objective response rate (RR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.14–2.42; p = 0.008). No overall survival difference was documented (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.77–1.27; p = 0.95). The risk of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events was significantly reduced with immune-checkpoint inhibitor single-agent therapy compared with immune-checkpoint inhibitors plus CT (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.32–0.45; p = 0.00001). Conclusion: The combination of a PD-(L)1 inhibitor and CT appears to be associated with improved PFS and ORR, but similar OS, compared with PD-(L)1 inhibitor single-agent therapy in patients with PD-L1-high non-small-cell lung cancer.

Disparity in utilization of multiagent therapy for acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL): A large National Cancer Database (NCDB) analysis.

6587 Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated a high rate of cure in APL with the use of multiagent therapy; however, overall survival in real world practice is significantly lower than that in the trials (Blood 2020; 136 (s 1): 13-14). We performed a large NCDB analysis to determine the appropriateness of treatment as a possible explanation for worse survival outside of the clinical trials. Methods: We included a total of 7190 APL cases reported to NCDB between 2004-2015. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of covariates on probability of multiagent therapy use. Results: Only 64% of total patients received multiagent therapy; 29% received singe agent therapy and 4% received unknown therapy. 3% (n = 207) did not receive any treatment for reasons including early death (n = 8), patient refusal (n = 15), perceived contraindication (n = 12) and unknown reasons (n = 182). Compared to patients > 60 years, younger patients aged 0-18 years (hazard ratio [HR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-5.5, p < 0.001), 19-40 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.03-2.54, p = 0.03) and 41-60 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9, p < 0.001) were more likely to receive multiagent chemotherapy. Patients with Medicaid were more likely to receive multiagent therapy compared to those with private insurance (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.01-1.42, p = 0.04), possibly because patients with Medicaid are younger. The likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy decreased in uninsured patients (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.8, p < 0.001). Compared to academic cancer centers, patients treated at community cancer center (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, p = 0.001), comprehensive community cancer center (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8, p < 0.001)) and integrated network cancer center (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0-0.9, p = 0.01) were less likely to be treated with multiagent therapy. Lower comorbidity index increased the likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy. The likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy was not influenced by sex, race, annual income, distance traveled to treatment facility and high school education. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first large scale analysis of utilization of multiagent therapy in APL in real world practice. In our study, 3% of patients did not receive treatment, a much smaller proportion of patients compared to acute myeloid leukemia, where a quarter to a third of patients do not receive any chemotherapy (Blood Adv; 2018 (2): 1277–1282). However, 29% of APL patients received suboptimal treatment with single agent therapy. The use of single agent therapy was higher in older adults and those with greater comorbidity. About half of the patients were treated outside of academic centers, which was associated with a higher probability of receiving single agent therapy. Uninsured patients were more likely to receive single agent therapy. Our findings highlight disparity based on insurance and health system factors.

Agnostic evaluation of ipilimumab and nivolumab association: a metanalysis

Background Ipilimumab and Nivolumab, targeting the molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, respectively,have shown efficacy against several types of cancer. Despite these results, only a small percentage of patients maintains a long-lasting effect. Even Ipilimumab, in combination with nivolumab, has demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in multiple tumor types. However, no trial has been designed with the primary endpoint to compare the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined, compared to nivolumab alone. Hence, the added value of ipilimumab in the combination has not clearly been established yet. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of the combination strategy compared to the single agent therapy. Materials and methods We performed a meta-analysis of Phase I-II-III Clinical Trials, published from 2010 up to 2020, in which the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was compared to nivolumab alone. We extracted ORR, OS and PFS HR on the basis of treatment from the subgroup analysis of each trial. Results A total of 7 trials were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, 1313 patients were treated with the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination compared to 1110 patients treated with nivolumabalone. All trials reported the Objective response rate(ORR), no heterogeneity was found among studies and the pooled Odds Ratio was highly in favor of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination with respect to nivolumab alone (1.683; 95% CI: 1.407–2.012; P < 0.0001). Three studies were considered for Progression free survival (PFS) analysis, and the pooled Hazard Ratio favored the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.807; 95% CI: 0.719–0.907; P < 0.0001). The Overall survival(OS) endpoint was considered only in 2 trials, and the pooled HR favored, also in this case, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.87; 95% CI: 0.763–0.997; P = 0.045). Conclusions The combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab seems to be superior to nivolumab alone in cancer patients, regardless of histology.

Agnostic Evaluation of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab Association: a Metanalysis.

Background. Ipilimumab and Nivolumab, targeting the molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, respectively,have shown efficacy against several types of cancer. Despite these results, only a small percentage of patients maintains a long-lasting effect. Even Ipilimumab, in combination with nivolumab, has demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in multiple tumor types. However, no trial has been designed with the primary endpoint to compare the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined, compared to nivolumab alone. Hence, the added value of ipilimumab in the combination has not clearly been established yet. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of the combination strategy compared to the single agent therapy.Materials and methods. We performed a meta-analysis of Phase I-II-III Clinical Trials, published from 2010 up to 2020, in which the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was compared to nivolumab alone. We extracted ORR, OS and PFS HR on the basis of treatment from the subgroup analysis of each trial. Results. A total of 7 trials were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, 1313 patients were treated with the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination compared to 1110 patients treated with nivolumabalone. All trials reported the Objective response rate(ORR), no heterogeneity was found among studies and the pooled Odds Ratio was highly in favor of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination with respect to nivolumab alone (1.683; 95% CI: 1.407-2.012; P<0.0001). Three studies were considered for Progression free survival (PFS) analysis, and the pooled Hazard Ratio favored the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.807; 95% CI: 0.719-0.907; P<0.0001). The Overall survival(OS) endpoint was considered only in 2 trials, and the pooled HR favored, also in this case, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.87; 95% CI: 0.763-0.997; P=0.045).Conclusions. The combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab seems to be superior to nivolumab alone in cancer patients, regardless of histology.

Agnostic Evaluation of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab Association: A Metanalysis.

Background. Ipilimumab and Nivolumab, targeting the molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, respectively, have shown efficacy against several types of cancer. Despite these results, only a small percentage of patients maintain a long-lasting effect. Even Ipilimumab, in combination with nivolumab, has demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in multiple tumor types. However, no trial has been designed with the primary endpoint to compare the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined, compared to nivolumab alone. Hence, the added value of ipilimumab in the combination has not clearly been established yet. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of the combination strategy compared to single agent therapy.Materials and methods. We performed a meta-analysis of Phase I-II-III Clinical Trials, published from 2010 up to 2020, in which the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was compared to nivolumab alone. We extracted ORR, OS and PFS HR on the basis of treatment from the subgroup analysis of each trial. Results. A total of 8 trials were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, 1313 patients were treated with the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination compared to 1110 patients treated with nivolumab alone. All trials reported the Objective response rate (ORR) (Table 2), no heterogeneity was found and the pooled Odds Ratio (Figure 1) was highly in favor of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination with respect to nivolumab alone (1.683; 95% CI: 1.407-2.012; P<0.0001). Three studies were considered for Progression free survival (PFS) analysis (Table 3), no heterogeneity was found and the pooled Hazard Ratio (Figure 2) favored the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.807; 95% CI: 0.719-0.907; P<0.0001). The Overall survival (OS) endpoint was considered only in 2 trials (Table 4), no heterogeneity was found and the pooled HR (Figure 3) favored, also in this case, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.87; 95% CI: 0.763-0.997; P=0.045).Conclusions. The combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab seems to be superior to nivolumab alone in cancer patients, regardless of histology.

Cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab versus sorafenib in treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: COSMIC-312 Phase III study design

Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, MET and the TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER) family of kinase receptors. In addition to their role in tumor growth and angiogenesis, cabozantinib targets promote an immune-suppressive microenvironment. Cabozantinib is approved as single-agent therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received prior sorafenib. Owing to its antitumor and immunomodulatory properties, cabozantinib is being developed in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Early studies of these combinations have shown promising antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with solid tumors. Here, we describe the rationale and design of COSMIC-312, a Phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) versus sorafenib for treatment-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. ClinicalTrial.gov Registration: NCT03755791

Potential benefit of combination antifungal therapy in Aspergillus endocarditis

Aspergillus endocarditis (AE) is a rare condition with a mortality rate greater than 60%. While it is generally accepted that both antifungal therapy and surgery are necessary for survival, the optimal antifungal regimen is unclear. A 62-year-old man was diagnosed with AE of a prosthetic aortic valve, complicated by cerebral emboli. He underwent debridement of the aortic valve abscess and valve replacement, and was managed with a combination of liposomal amphotericin B and voriconazole for 7 weeks followed by long-term suppressive azole therapy. He remained well at follow-up 18 months later. Data from a review of case reports published between 1950 and 2010 revealed greater survival rates in patients managed with two or more antifungals as opposed to single agent therapy. We provide an updated literature review with similar findings, suggesting that dual agent antifungal therapy should be considered in patients with AE.