Explore the vast range of titles available.

Lenvatinib plus either pembrolizumab or everolimus was compared with sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib. Lenvatinib plus everolimus was also more effective than sunitinib, but the difference was smaller.

Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is standard care for unresectable, non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the addition of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab to TACE versus dual placebo plus TACE in patients with unresectable, non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-012), patients were recruited from 137 global sites in 33 countries or regions. Eligible patients were age 18 years or older with unresectable, non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to curative treatment, but with tumours amenable to TACE, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and Child-Pugh class A disease. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by study site, α-fetoprotein level, ECOG performance status, albumin-bilirubin grade, and tumour burden, by a central interactive response system, to receive TACE and either oral lenvatinib (bodyweight ≥60 kg: 12 mg; bodyweight <60 kg: 8 mg; once daily) plus intravenous pembrolizumab (400 mg once every 6 weeks for up to 2 years) or matched dual placebo (oral and intravenous). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (threshold one-sided p=0·025), per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (modified for the current study to allow for up to five target tumours in the liver and requiring new intrahepatic tumours to meet LI-RADS 5 criteria to be considered progressive disease) by blinded independent central review, and overall survival (threshold one-sided p=0·0012) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to treatment). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (ie, all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of any study treatment). Here, we report results from the first interim analysis (final analysis for progression-free survival). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04246177, and is active but not recruiting. Between May 22, 2020, and Jan 11, 2023, 847 patients were screened, of whom 480 (57%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TACE plus lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=237) or TACE plus dual placebo (n=243; ITT population). Median age was 66 years (IQR 58–73), 82 (17%) of 480 participants were female, 398 (83%) were male, 98 (20%) were White, 347 (72%) were Asian, four (1%) were Black or African American, and five (1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. Median follow-up as of data cutoff (Jan 30, 2024) was 25·6 months (IQR 19·5–32·4). Median progression-free survival was 14·6 months (95% CI 12·6–16·7; 132 events [20 deaths and 112 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 10·0 months (8·1–12·2; 154 events [eight deaths and 146 progressions]) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·51–0·84]; one-sided p=0·0002). 69 (29%) of 237 in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 82 (34%) of 243 from the placebo group died, with a 24-month overall survival rate of 75% (95% CI 68–80) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 69% (62–74) in the placebo group (HR 0·80 [95% CI 0·57–1·11]; one-sided p=0·087). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 169 (71%) of 237 participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and in 76 (32%) of 241 in the placebo group, the most common of which were hypertension (57 [24%] vs 18 [7%]) and platelet count decreased (27 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Deaths due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in four (2%) participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (n=1 each due to hepatic failure, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, myositis, and immune-mediated hepatitis) and one (<1%) in the placebo group (due to brain stem haemorrhage). TACE plus lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed significant, clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in patients with unresectable, non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma compared with TACE plus placebo. The numerical improvement in overall survival is encouraging, but longer follow-up is necessary. Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, and Eisai, Nutley, NJ, USA.

Glioblastoma is a highly vascularised tumour and there are few treatment options after disease recurrence. Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. REGOMA is a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial done in ten centres in Italy. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed glioblastoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and documented disease progression after surgery followed by radiotherapy and temozolomide chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based system, stratified by centre and surgery at recurrence (yes vs no), to receive regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle or lomustine 110 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02926222, and is currently in follow-up. Between Nov 27, 2015, and Feb 23, 2017, 124 patients were screened and 119 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive regorafenib (n=59) or lomustine (n=60). Median follow-up was 15·4 months (IQR 13·8–18·1). At the analysis cutoff date, 99 (83%) of 119 patients had died: 42 (71%) of 59 in the regorafenib group and 57 (95%) of 60 in the lomustine group. Overall survival was significantly improved in the regorafenib group compared with the lomustine group, with a median overall survival of 7·4 months (95% CI 5·8–12·0) in the regorafenib group and 5·6 months (4·7–7·3) in the lomustine group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·33–0·75; log-rank p=0·0009). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33 (56%) of 59 patients treated with regorafenib and 24 (40%) of 60 with lomustine. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to regorafenib were hand–foot skin reaction, increased lipase, and blood bilirubin increased (in six [10%] of 59 patients each). In the lomustine group, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased platelet count (eight [13%] of 60 patients), decreased lymphocyte count (eight [13%]), and neutropenia (seven [12%]). No death was considered by the investigators to be drug related. REGOMA showed an encouraging overall survival benefit of regorafenib in recurrent glioblastoma. This drug might be a new potential treatment for these patients and should be investigated in an adequately powered phase 3 study. Veneto Institute of Oncology and Bayer Italy.

Regorafenib has proven activity in patients with pretreated gastrointestinal stromal tumours and colorectal and hepatocellular carcinoma. We designed REGOBONE to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma and other bone sarcomas. This trial comprised four parallel independent cohorts: osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and chordoma. In this Article, we report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. In this non-comparative, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, patients aged 10 years or older with histologically confirmed osteosarcoma whose disease had progressed after treatment with one to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral regorafenib (160 mg/day, for 21 of 28 days) or matching placebo. Patients in both groups also received best supportive care. Randomisation was done using a web-based system and was stratified (permuted block) by age at inclusion (<18 vs ≥18 years old). Investigators and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Patients in the placebo group, after centrally confirmed progressive disease, could cross over to receive regorafenib. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without disease progression at 8 weeks. Analyses were done by modified intention to treat (ie, patients without any major entry criteria violation who initiated masked study drug treatment were included). All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389244, and the results presented here are the final analysis of the osteosarcoma cohort (others cohorts are ongoing). Between Oct 10, 2014, and April 4, 2017, 43 adult patients were enrolled from 13 French comprehensive cancer centres. All patients received at least one dose of assigned treatment and were evaluable for safety; five patients were excluded for major protocol violations (two in the placebo group and three in the regorafenib group), leaving 38 patients who were evaluable for efficacy (12 in the placebo group and 26 in the regorafenib group). 17 of 26 patients (65%; one-sided 95% CI 47%) in the regorafenib group were non-progressive at 8 weeks compared with no patients in the placebo group. Ten patients in the placebo group crossed over to receive open-label regorafenib after centrally confirmed disease progression. 13 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (24%) of 29 patients in the regorafenib group versus none of 14 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events during the double-blind period of treatment included hypertension (in seven [24%] of 29 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hand–foot skin reaction (three [10%] vs none), fatigue (three [10%] vs one [3%]), hypophosphataemia (three [10%] vs none), and chest pain (three [10%] vs none). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Regorafenib demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity in adult patients with recurrent, progressive, metastatic osteosarcoma after failure of conventional chemotherapy, with a positive effect on delaying disease progression. Regorafenib should be further evaluated in the setting of advanced disease as well as potentially earlier in the disease course for patients at high risk of relapse. Regorafenib might have an important therapeutic role as an agent complementary to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy in the therapeutic armamentarium against osteosarcoma. Bayer HealthCare.

There is no standard of care for adjuvant therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after surgical resection or local ablation. We undertook this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with a complete radiological response after surgical resection (n=900) or local ablation (n=214) in 202 sites (hospitals and research centres) in 28 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 400 mg oral sorafenib or placebo twice a day, for a maximum of 4 years, according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) using an interactive voice-response system. Patients were stratified by curative treatment, geography, Child-Pugh status, and recurrence risk. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival assessed after database cut-off on Nov 29, 2013. We analysed efficacy in the intention-to-treat population and safety in randomly assigned patients receiving at least one study dose. The final analysis is reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00692770. We screened 1602 patients between Aug 15, 2008, and Nov 17, 2010, and randomly assigned 1114 patients. Of 556 patients in the sorafenib group, 553 (>99%) received the study treatment and 471 (85%) terminated treatment. Of 558 patients in the placebo group, 554 (99%) received the study treatment and 447 (80%) terminated treatment. Median duration of treatment and mean daily dose were 12·5 months (IQR 2·6–35·8) and 577 mg per day (SD 212·8) for sorafenib, compared with 22·2 months (8·1–38·8) and 778·0 mg per day (79·8) for placebo. Dose modification was reported for 497 (89%) of 559 patients in the sorafenib group and 206 (38%) of 548 patients in the placebo group. At final analysis, 464 recurrence-free survival events had occurred (270 in the placebo group and 194 in the sorafenib group). Median follow-up for recurrence-free survival was 8·5 months (IQR 2·9–19·5) in the sorafenib group and 8·4 months (2·9–19·8) in the placebo group. We noted no difference in median recurrence-free survival between the two groups (33·3 months in the sorafenib group vs 33·7 months in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·940; 95% CI 0·780–1·134; one-sided p=0·26). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (154 [28%] of 559 patients in the sorafenib group vs four [<1%] of 548 patients in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (36 [6%] vs five [<1%] in the placebo group). Sorafenib-related serious adverse events included hand-foot skin reaction (ten [2%]), abnormal hepatic function (four [<1%]), and fatigue (three [<1%]). There were four (<1%) drug-related deaths in the sorafenib group and two (<1%) in the placebo group. Our data indicate that sorafenib is not an effective intervention in the adjuvant setting for hepatocellular carcinoma following resection or ablation. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.

Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma have a poor prognosis, and treatments with long-term benefits are needed. We report results from the preplanned interim analysis of the CheckMate 9DW trial assessing nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the first-line setting. This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma without previous systemic therapy at 163 hospitals and cancer centres across 25 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients had at least one measurable untreated lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, a Child–Pugh score of 5 or 6, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive response technology system to receive nivolumab (1 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks or investigator's choice of either oral lenvatinib (8 mg or 12 mg mg daily depending on bodyweight) or oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Randomisation was stratified by aetiology; the presence of macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; and baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was an exploratory endpoint and was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04039607 (ongoing). Between Jan 6, 2020, and Nov 8, 2021, 668 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=335) or lenvatinib or sorafenib (n=333). Early crossing of the overall survival Kaplan–Meier curves reflected a higher number of deaths during the first 6 months after randomisation with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio 1·65 [95% CI 1·12–2·43]) but was followed by a sustained separation of the curves thereafter in favour of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (0·61 [0·48–0·77]). After a median follow-up of 35·2 months (IQR 31·1–39·9), overall survival was significantly improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib (median 23·7 months [95% CI 18·8–29·4] vs 20·6 months [17·5–22·5]; hazard ratio 0·79 [0·65–0·96]; two-sided stratified log-rank p=0·018); respective overall survival rates were 49% (95% CI 44–55) versus 39% (34–45) at 24 months and 38% (32–43) versus 24% (19–30) at 36 months. Overall, 137 (41%) of 332 patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 138 (42%) of 325 patients receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events. 12 deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and three were attributed to treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a significant overall survival benefit versus lenvatinib or sorafenib and manageable safety in patients with previously untreated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. These results support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a first-line treatment in this setting. Bristol Myers Squibb.

Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90Y-loaded resin microspheres 2–5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9–33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0–35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7–9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7–11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94–1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [<1%] vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. Sirtex Medical Inc.

Regorafenib (Stivarga ® ) is an oral small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. It is indicated worldwide for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the EU and USA it is indicated for patients with mCRC who have been previously treated with, or are not considered candidates for available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy and, if RAS wild-type, an anti-EGFR therapy. In Japan, it is indicated for the treatment of unresectable, advanced/recurrent CRC. The addition of regorafenib to best supportive care prolonged median overall survival (OS; by up to 2.5 months) and progression-free survival (PFS; by up to 1.5 months) relative to the addition of placebo in double-blind phase 3 studies (CORRECT and CONCUR) in patients with mCRC who had progressed after failure of standard therapy. Health-related quality of life was not adversely affected with regorafenib relative to placebo. A large open-label phase 3 study (CONSIGN) and several large real-world studies supported the efficacy of regorafenib in this setting. Regorafenib had a generally manageable tolerability profile, which was consistent with the profile of a typical small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs), mostly of mild or moderate severity, were reported in the majority of patients receiving regorafenib, with dermatological toxicities and liver enzyme elevations among the most common AEs. Although identification of biomarkers/parameters predicting efficacy outcomes with regorafenib will help to individualize therapy, current evidence indicates that regorafenib is a valuable treatment option for patients with refractory mCRC who have a very poor prognosis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib–nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting. TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting. From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib–nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0–7·4) with tivozanib–nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6–9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84–1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6–9·6) with tivozanib–nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4–10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib–nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7–5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9–7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib–nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group). These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting. Aveo Pharmaceuticals.

In a phase 3, placebo-controlled study, lenvatinib was associated with a significant increase in progression-free survival (18.3 months vs. 3.6 months). Toxic effects with lenvatinib were substantial and included hypertension, diarrhea, and unexplained death. The 10-year survival rate among patients with differentiated thyroid cancer that is refractory to radioiodine (iodine-131) therapy is 10% from the time of detection of metastasis. 1 – 3 Although treatment options have historically been limited, efforts have first targeted vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR), since this signaling network has been associated with the aggressiveness and metastasis of thyroid cancer. 4 – 6 However, other molecular pathways of tumor growth and maintenance beyond VEGF-driven angiogenesis contribute to the pathogenesis of thyroid cancer, including BRAF, NRAS, HRAS, RET/PTC, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR). 7 – 16 Because . . .