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: NCT0375579

Safety and efficacy of cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who advanced to Child-Pugh B liver function at study week 8: a retrospective analysis of the CELESTIAL randomised controlled trial

Background: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child–Pugh B liver cirrhosis have poor prognosis and are underrepresented in clinical trials. The CELESTIAL trial, in which cabozantinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with HCC and Child–Pugh A liver cirrhosis at baseline, was evaluated for outcomes in patients who had Child–Pugh B cirrhosis at Week 8. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of adult patients with previously treated advanced HCC. Child–Pugh B status was assessed by the investigator. Patients were randomised 2:1 to cabozantinib (60 mg once daily) or placebo. Results: Fifty-one patients receiving cabozantinib and 22 receiving placebo had Child–Pugh B cirrhosis at Week 8. Safety and tolerability of cabozantinib for the Child–Pugh B subgroup were consistent with the overall population. For cabozantinib- versus placebo-treated patients, median OS from randomisation was 8.5 versus 3.8 months (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18–0.58), median PFS was 3.7 versus 1.9 months (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25–0.76), and best response was stable disease in 57% versus 23% of patients. Conclusions: These encouraging results with cabozantinib support the initiation of prospective studies in patients with advanced HCC and Child–Pugh B liver function. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01908426

Noninferiority of cetuximab every-2-weeks versus standard once-weekly administration schedule for the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract Aim This study assessed whether cetuximab 500 mg/m2 administered every 2 weeks (Q2W), when combined with chemotherapy as a first-line (1L) treatment, was noninferior to the approved dose (400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 once weekly [Q1W]) for overall survival (OS) in adults with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods This pooled analysis included patients receiving 1L treatment with cetuximab Q1W or Q2W in combination with chemotherapy from post-authorisation studies with patient-level data available to the sponsor. Baseline characteristics were adjusted with a propensity score using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Noninferiority in terms of OS was tested with a noninferiority margin for the hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25 using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of lung/liver metastases resection and serious adverse events. Results OS time was noninferior in the Q2W cohort (n = 554) compared to the Q1W cohort (n = 763), with a HR after IPTW (95% confidence interval) of 0.827 (0.715–0.956) and median OS times of 24.7 (Q1W) and 27.9 (Q2W) months. There were no major differences in PFS (HR: 0.915 [0.804–1.042]). The odds ratios (ORs) after IPTW for ORR (1.292 [1.031–1.617]) and the rates of lung/liver metastases resection (1.419 [1.043–1.932]) favoured the Q2W regimen. No differences were noted in the occurrence rate of any SAE between groups; the OR after IPTW was 1.089 (0.858–1.382). Conclusions The cetuximab Q2W regimen was noninferior to the Q1W regimen for OS in the 1L treatment of mCRC

Quality of life assessment of cabozantinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the CELESTIAL trial

BACKGROUND: The CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426) demonstrated overall survival benefit for cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) who had received prior sorafenib treatment. This analysis of CELESTIAL compared the impact of cabozantinib versus placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health status was assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire over the 800-day follow-up period. EQ-5D-5L health states were mapped to health utility scores using reference values for the UK population. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each treatment group as the area under the curve for the plot of health utility score over time. The between-treatment group difference in restricted mean QALYs was calculated by generalized linear models and adjusted for baseline differences. A difference of 0.08 in health utility score (or in QALY) was deemed a minimally important difference and to be clinically significant. RESULTS: At week 5, the difference in mean health utility score between cabozantinib and placebo was -0.097 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: -0.126, -0.067; p ≤ 0.001). Between-group differences in health utility scores diminished over time and were generally non-significant. The cabozantinib group accrued more QALYs than the placebo group over follow-up. Differences in mean QALYs (cabozantinib minus placebo) were statistically and clinically significant, ranging from +0.092 (95% CI: 0.016, 0.169) to +0.185 (95% CI: 0.126, 0.243) in favour of cabozantinib, depending on the reference value set used. CONCLUSIONS: These HRQoL findings support a positive benefit-risk profile for cabozantinib in previously treated patients with aHCC

Urine protein:creatinine ratio vs 24-hour urine protein for proteinuria management: analysis from the phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib vs sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma

Background: Proteinuria monitoring is required in patients receiving lenvatinib, however, current methodology involves burdensome overnight urine collection. Methods: To determine whether the simpler urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) calculated from spot urine samples could be accurately used for proteinuria monitoring in patients receiving lenvatinib, we evaluated the correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein results from the phase 3 REFLECT study. Paired data (323 tests, 154 patients) were analysed. Results: Regression analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein (R2: 0.75; P < 2 × 10−16). A UPCR cut-off value of 2.4 had 96.9% sensitivity, 82.5% specificity for delineating between grade 2 and 3 proteinuria. Using this UPCR cut-off value to determine the need for further testing could reduce the need for 24-hour urine collection in ~74% of patients. Conclusion: Incorporation of UPCR into the current algorithm for proteinuria management can enable optimisation of lenvatinib treatment, while minimising patient inconvenience

Postchemoradiotherapy Pathologic Stage Classified by the American Joint Committee on the Cancer Staging System Predicts Prognosis of Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

IntroductionTo determine whether the postchemoradiotherapy (post-CRT) pathologic stage predicts the outcomes of patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) undergoing preoperative CRT followed by surgery.MethodsFrom three phase II trials of preoperative CRT for locally advanced ESCC, 140 patients were included. Preoperative CRT comprised twice weekly paclitaxel and cisplatin-based regimens and 40-Gy radiotherapy in 20 fractions. The post-CRT pathologic stage was classified according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7th edition staging system. The prognostic effects of clinicopathologic factors were analyzed using Cox regression.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 61.9 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort were 24.5 and 30.9 months, respectively. The post-CRT pathologic stage was 0 in 34.5%, I in 12.9%, II in 29.3%, III in 13.6%, and ypT0N1-2 in 6.4% of the patients. The median PFS was 47.2, 25.9, 16.0, 9.4, and 15.1 months, and the median OS was 57.4, 34.1, 26.2, 14.1, and 17.6 months for patients with post-CRT pathologic stage 0, I, II, III, and ypT0N1-2, respectively. In multivariate analysis, performance status (p < 0.001), tumor location (p = 0.016), and extranodal extension (p = 0.024) were independent prognostic factors for PFS, whereas performance status (p < 0.001) and post-CRT pathologic stage (p = 0.027) were independent prognostic factors for OS.ConclusionsThe post-CRT pathologic stage classified by American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7th edition staging system predicted the survival of locally advanced ESCC patients who underwent preoperative paclitaxel and cisplatin-based CRT followed by esophagectomy

Effects of subsequent systemic anticancer medication following first-line lenvatinib: a post hoc responder analysis from the phase 3 REFLECT study in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction: Understanding the relationship between subsequent-line therapies and overall survival (OS) is important for maximizing OS for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Objective: In this post hoc analysis, we investigated OS in lenvatinib- and sorafenib-treated patients from the REFLECT study, who then received subsequent anticancer medication during the survival follow-up period. Methods: The follow-up period commenced at the first off-treatment visit after stopping the study medication and continued until study termination, withdrawal of consent, or death. OS and objective response rate were calculated for patients who did or did not receive poststudy anticancer medication for both treatment arms, as well as for the overall cohort. We investigated the subset of patients who responded to first-line treatment and subsequently received anticancer medication. Results: The OS for patients initially randomized to first-line lenvatinib (versus first-line sorafenib) and who then received any subsequent anticancer medication was 20.8 vs. 17.0 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; 95% CI 0.67–1.14). The OS for patients who initially received first-line lenvatinib (versus first-line sorafenib) and who did not receive any subsequent anticancer medication was 11.5 vs. 9.1 months (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.75–1.09). Responders to first-line lenvatinib who received subsequent medication had a median OS of 25.7 months (95% CI 18.5–34.6); responders to first line-sorafenib who received subsequent medication had a median OS of 22.3 months (95% CI 14.6–not evaluable). Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of all patients in the REFLECT study who received subsequent anticancer medication, OS was increased compared with patients who did not receive any subsequent anticancer medication. In a subset analysis of responders who had received subsequent anticancer medication, use of first-line lenvatinib led to a slightly longer median OS; more research is needed on the benefits of using first-line lenvatinib compared with sorafenib