Explore the vast range of titles available.

Anti-programed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) antibodies are now standard therapeutic options for patients with treatment-naïve, advanced stage, hepatocellular carcinoma. Given the observed efficacy in the advanced setting, the unmet need for therapies for intermediate stage liver cancer, and compelling preclinical rationale for combination with liver-directed therapies, such as transarterial chemoembolization, immunotherapies have quickly moved into earlier stages of the disease. Several phase 1/2 clinical trials have collectively verified the safety of immune checkpoint blockade with regional therapy for intermediate stage, liver-limited, hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, two global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated superior efficacy, based on the surogate of progession free survial, for transarterial chemoembolization plus combination immunotherapy over chemoembolization alone. In this issue of the Journal, Li and colleagues present data for an anti-PD-1 inhibitor with chemoembolization in liver-limited hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study, along with the status of the field, provides the opportunity to highlight key issues for implementation of combinatorial approaches in patients with liver-limited liver cancer, which are discussed in this Commentary. Regional treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition combinations for intermediate stage disease is now rightly at the forefront of HCC drug development, though specific biologic factors, ideal patient characteristics, and optimal combinations require deeper investigation prior to routine use for all patients.

A man with undiagnosed chronic myelomonocytic leukemia began treatment with vemurafenib for BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. His white-cell count soared and then dropped when the drug was withdrawn. The leukemia cells contained an RAS mutation that became more active with RAF inhibition. Approximately 50% of patients with metastatic melanoma harbor a somatic V600E mutation — or, less frequently, a V600K mutation — in the BRAF kinase. 1 – 4 These activating mutations drive increased ERK signaling, promoting the proliferation and survival of melanoma cells. 5 Selective RAF inhibitors, such as vemurafenib and dabrafenib, inhibit ERK signaling and arrest growth in tumors with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations. 3 , 6 – 8 Treatment with vemurafenib or dabrafenib induces tumor regression in more than half of patients with BRAF V600E–mutant metastatic melanoma. Both drugs also improve the rate of progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine. 7 , 9 – 11 Vemurafenib . . .

Purpose The phosphoinositide 3‐kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) pathway controls insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism. Hyperglycemia is one of the most common on‐target adverse effects (AEs) of PI3K/AKT inhibitors. As several PI3K and AKT inhibitors are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration or are being studied in clinical trials, characterizing this AE and developing a management strategy is essential. Methods Patients with hematologic or solid malignancies treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center with a PI3K or AKT inhibitor were included in this retrospective analysis. A search for patients experiencing hyperglycemia was performed. The frequency, management interventions and outcomes were characterized. Results Four hundred and ninety‐one patients with 10 unique cancer types who received a PI3K or AKT inhibitor were included. Twelve percent of patients required a dose interruption, 6% of patients required a dose reduction and 2% of patients were hospitalized to manage hyperglycemia. No events occurred among patients receiving β‐, γ‐, or δ‐ specific PI3K inhibitor. There was one case where the PI3K or AKT inhibitor was permanently discontinued due to hyperglycemia. Metformin was the most commonly used antidiabetic medication, followed by insulin, sodium‐glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and sulfonylurea. SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with the greatest reductions in blood sugar, followed by metformin. At least one case of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) occurred in a patient on PI3K inhibitor and SGLT2 inhibitor. Body mass index ≥ 25 and HbA1c ≥ 5.7 are were independently significant predictors of developing hyperglycemia. Conclusion Hyperglycemia is one of the major on‐target side effects of PI3K and AKT inhibitors. It is manageable with antidiabetic medications, treatment interruption and/or dose modification. We summarize pharmacological interventions that may be considered for PI3K/AKT inhibitor induced hyperglycemia. SGLT2‐inhibitor may be a particularly effective second‐line option after metformin but there is a low risk of euglycemic DKA, which can be deadly. To our knowledge, our report is the largest study of hyperglycemia in patients receiving PI3K/AKT inhibitors. Phosphoinositide 3‐kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) inhibitor induced hyperglycemia is particularly likely to happen in patients with baseline diabetes, pre‐diabetes, or elevated body mass index. It is manageable with dose interruption, dose modification and/or pharmacologic management; and that sodium‐glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors are a promising second‐line option after metformin.

Background Effective treatment options for advanced pancreatic cancer are finite. NAPOLI-1, a phase III randomized trial, demonstrated the efficacy of nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil/leucovorin (nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV) for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer following progression on gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. There are limited additional data on the safety and efficacy of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV following FDA approval in October 2015. We examined the post-approval safety and effectiveness of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV in advanced pancreatic cancer patients receiving treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients beginning treatment with nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV from October 2015 through June 2017. Using the electronic medical record and institutional database, information was extracted pertaining to demographics, performance status (ECOG), prior therapies, dose, duration of treatment, adverse events, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment response. Results Fifty six patients were identified. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months and median overall survival (OS) was 5.3 months. Patients with prior disease progression on irinotecan experienced PFS and OS of 2.2 and 3.9 mo, respectively. Patients without prior irinotecan exposure experienced significantly longer PFS (4.8 mo, p  = 0.02) and OS (7.7 mo, p  = 0.002), as did patients who received prior irinotecan without disease progression (PFS, 5.7 mo, p  = 0.04; OS, 9.0 mo, p  = .04). Progression on prior irinotecan was associated with greater lines of prior advanced disease chemotherapy (2 vs 1). Dose reductions (DR) were most frequently due to fatigue (42%) and diarrhea (37%), but were not associated with worse outcomes. In fact, patients with ≥1 DR experienced longer PFS (5.4 v 2.6 mo, p = 0.035 ). Sequential therapy with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nab-P + Gem) followed by nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV ( n  = 25) resulted in OS of 23.0 mo. Mutations in TP53 were associated with shorter PFS. Conclusions These data support the safety and efficacy of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV, reinforcing results of NAPOLI-1. Patients without disease progression on prior irinotecan fared significantly better than patients with progression, when treated with nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV. Sequential therapy with nab-P + Gem followed by nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV demonstrates encouraging median OS. These findings provide guidance for patients most likely to benefit from nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV.

P-cadherin is a cell-cell adhesion molecule that is overexpressed in several solid tumors. PF-06671008 is a T-cell–redirecting bispecific antibody that engages both P-cadherin on tumors and CD3ϵ on T cells and induces antitumor activity in preclinical models. We conducted a phase 1, open-label, first-in-human, dose-escalation study to characterize the safety and tolerability of PF-06671008, towards determining the recommended phase 2 dose. Adult patients with treatment-refractory solid tumors received PF-06671008 (1.5–400 ng/kg) as a weekly intravenous (IV) infusion on a 21-day/3-week cycle. Parallel cohorts evaluated dosing via subcutaneous injection (SC) or an IV-prime dose. Of the 27 patients enrolled in the study, 24 received PF-06671008 IV in escalating doses, two received SC, and one IV-prime. A dose-limiting toxicity of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in the 400-ng/kg IV group, prompting evaluation of SC and IV-prime schedules. In all, 25/27 patients who received PF-06671008 reported at least one treatment-related adverse event (TRAE); the most common were CRS (21/27), decreased lymphocyte count (9/27), and hypophosphatemia (8/27). Seven patients permanently discontinued treatment due to adverse events and no treatment-related deaths occurred. Cytokine peak concentrations and CRS grade appeared to positively correlate with C max . Although the study was terminated due to limited antitumor activity, it provides important insights into understanding and managing immune-related adverse events resulting from this class of molecules.

Background Preclinical data suggest that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor (TGF)‐β signaling interact to stimulate angiogenesis and suppress antitumor immune responses. Thus, combined inhibition of both pathways may offer greater antitumor activity compared with VEGF‐targeted antiangiogenic monotherapy against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods This is a multicenter, open‐label, phase 1b study of galunisertib, an inhibitor of TGF‐β receptor 1, and ramucirumab, an anti‐VEGF receptor 2 antibody, in patients with advanced HCC aiming to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), antitumor efficacy, and plasma alpha‐fetoprotein and TGF‐β kinetics. Dose escalation employed a 3 + 3 design. Patients received galunisertib at 80 mg (cohort 1) or 150 mg (cohort 2) orally twice a day on days 1–14 of a 28‐day cycle combined with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Results Eight patients were enrolled: three in cohort 1 and five in cohort 2 (two patients were unevaluable due to rapid disease progression and replaced). No dose‐limiting toxicities were observed. Treatment‐related adverse events (AEs) of any grade in ≥2 patients included nausea (25%) and vomiting (25%). There was one Grade 3 treatment‐related AE, a cerebrovascular accident possibly related to ramucirumab. Galunisertib exposure was dose‐proportional and not affected by ramucirumab. The RECIST version 1.1 objective response rate and disease control rate were 0% and 12.5%, respectively. Conclusion Combination therapy was safe and tolerable and displayed favorable PK. The MTD was established at galunisertib at 150 mg orally twice a day and ramucirumab 8 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The results do not support the preclinical hypothesis that blocking TGFβ signaling enhances efficacy of VEGF‐targeted therapy; thus further clinical development was halted for the combination of galunisertib and ramucirumab. The combination of galunisertib (up to 150 mg twice as day) and ramucirumab 8 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (standard dose) was safe and tolerable and displayed favorable pharmacokinetics in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The results do not support the preclinical hypothesis that blocking transforming growth factor‐beta signaling enhances efficacy of VEGF‐targeted therapy; thus further clinical development was halted for the combination of galunisertib and ramucirumab.

IntroductionFibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-4/FGF19 pathway dysregulation is implicated in hepatobiliary and other solid tumors. INCB062079, an oral, selective, FGFR4 inhibitor, inhibits growth in FGF19/FGFR4-driven liver cancer models.MethodsThis was a two-part, phase I study (NCT03144661) in previously treated patients with advanced solid tumors. The primary objective was to determine safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD), while secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (plasma FGF19; bile acid salts/7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one [C4] levels), and preliminary efficacy. In Part 1, patients received INCB062079 starting at 10 mg once daily, with 3 + 3 dose escalation. Part 2 (dose expansion) was not conducted because of study termination.ResultsTwenty-three patients were treated (hepatobiliary, n = 11; ovarian, n = 9; other, n = 3). Among six patients receiving 15 mg twice daily, two patients had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; grade 3 diarrhea, grade 3 transaminitis). Both had high pretreatment C4 concentrations, prompting a protocol amendment requiring pretreatment C4 concentrations < 40.9 ng/mL and concomitant prophylactic bile acid sequestrant treatment. No additional DLTs were reported at 10 and 15 mg twice daily; higher doses were not assessed. The most common toxicity was diarrhea (60.9%). INCB062079 exposure was dose-proportional; FGF19 and bile acid/C4 concentrations increased with exposure. One partial response was achieved (15 mg twice daily; ovarian cancer; FGF/FGFR status unknown; duration of response, 7.5 months); two patients had stable disease.ConclusionsWith C4 cut-off and prophylactic bile acid sequestrant implementation, INCB062079 demonstrated a manageable safety profile and evidence of target inhibition. In view of the rarity of FGF19/FGFR4 alterations and slow patient accrual, the study was terminated before establishing an MTD.

Introduction: GNS561/Ezurpimtrostat is a first-in-class, orally bioavailable, small molecule that blocks cancer cell proliferation by inhibiting late-stage autophagy and dose-dependent build-up of enlarged lysosomes by interacting with the palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1 (PPT1). Methods: This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation trial (3 + 3 design) explored two GNS561 dosing schedules: one single oral intake 3 times a week (Q3W) and twice daily (BID) continuous oral administration in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma or colorectal adenocarcinomas with liver metastasis. The primary objective was to determine GNS561 recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and schedule. Secondary objectives included evaluation of the safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of GNS561. Results: Dose escalation ranged from 50 to 400 mg Q3W to 200–300 mg BID. Among 26 evaluable patients for safety, 20 were evaluable for efficacy and no dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Adverse events (AEs) included gastrointestinal grade 1–2 events, primarily nausea and vomiting occurred in 13 (50%) and 14 (54%) patients, respectively, and diarrhea in 11 (42%) patients. Seven grade 3 AEs were reported (diarrhea, decreased appetite, fatigue, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase increased). Q3W administration was associated with limited exposure and the BID schedule was preferred. At 200 mg BID GNS561, plasma and liver concentrations were comparable to active doses in animal models. Liver trough concentrations were much higher than in plasma a median time of 28 days of administration with a mean liver to plasma ratio of 9,559 (Min 149–Max 25,759), which is in accordance with rat preclinical data observed after repeated administration. PPT1 expression in cancer tissues in the liver was reduced upon GNS561 exposure. There was no complete or partial response. Five patients experienced tumor stable diseases (25%), including one minor response (−23%). Conclusion: Based on a favorable safety profile, exposure, and preliminary signal of activity, oral GNS561 RP2D was set at 200 mg BID. Studies to evaluate the antitumor activity of GNS561 in hepatocarcinoma cells and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma are to follow NCT 03316222.

Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1–2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509. Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7–28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7–25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9–18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9–17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72–1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related. First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks. Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Systemic treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are evolving rapidly and several multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors have demonstrated a survival advantage over best supportive care. Despite these treatment advances, the majority of HCC patients will progress on tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Preclinical data indicate that interference with immune checkpoint molecules results in HCC growth suppression. Several clinical trials applying monoclonal antibodies to immune checkpoint molecules have demonstrated durable antitumor activity in advanced HCC patients. As such, pivotal clinical trials are now in progress to assess if these agents will alter the natural history of the disease and further extend the overall survival of advanced HCC patients. This manuscript will review the current status of immune checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced HCC.