Dataset Information

Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence to Date.

ABSTRACT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer with a dismal prognosis, especially when diagnosed at advanced stages. Surgical resection of the primary lesion, liver-directed therapies, and orthotropic liver transplantation are employed in localized disease depending upon the clinical status, underlying liver function, the size, and location of the liver lesions. Systemic therapy plays a critical role in the management of advanced HCC. Sorafenib had remained as the only United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA)-approved systemic therapeutic agent for approximately a decade since its approval in 2007, until the advent of immunotherapy and a better understanding of HCC molecular pathogenesis changed the landscape of advanced HCC management. Lenvatinib was approved as an alternative first-line agent, whereas regorafenib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and cabozantinib were approved as second-line agents for HCC patients who could not tolerate or whose disease progressed on sorafenib. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are the two immunotherapeutic agents that were conditionally approved by the US-FDA based on the encouraging results in Phase I/II trials. This review discusses the potential role of immunotherapy in advanced HCC with a special focus on nivolumab.

SUBMITTER: Tella SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886547 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence to Date.

Tella Sri Harsha SH Mahipal Amit A Kommalapati Anuhya A Jin Zhaohui Z

OncoTargets and therapy 20191128

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer with a dismal prognosis, especially when diagnosed at advanced stages. Surgical resection of the primary lesion, liver-directed therapies, and orthotropic liver transplantation are employed in localized disease depending upon the clinical status, underlying liver function, the size, and location of the liver lesions. Systemic therapy plays a critical role in the management of advanced HCC. Sorafenib had remained as the only U ...[more]

PMID: 31819517

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMost patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed with advanced disease not eligible for potentially curative therapies; therefore, new treatment options are needed. Combining nivolumab with ipilimumab may improve clinical outcomes compared with nivolumab monotherapy.ObjectiveTo assess efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced HCC who were previously treated with sorafenib.Design, setting, and participantsCheckMate 040 is a multicenter, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study. In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohort, patients were randomized between January 4 and September 26, 2016. Treatment group information was blinded after randomization. Median follow-up was 30.7 months. Data cutoff for this analysis was January 2019. Patients were recruited at 31 centers in 10 countries/territories in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced HCC (with/without hepatitis B or C) previously treated with sorafenib. A total of 148 patients were randomized (50 to arm A and 49 each to arms B and C).InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to either nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm A); nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm B); or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (arm C).Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary end points were safety, tolerability, and objective response rate. Duration of response was also measured (investigator assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1).ResultsOf 148 total participants, 120 were male (81%). Median (IQR) age was 60 (52.5-66.5). At data cutoff (January 2019), the median follow-up was 30.7 months (IQR, 29.9-34.7). Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 20%-47%) in arm A, 27% (95% CI, 15%-41%) in arm B, and 29% (95% CI, 17%-43%) in arm C. Median (range) duration of response was not reached (8.3-33.7+) in arm A and was 15.2 months (4.2-29.9+) in arm B and 21.7 months (2.8-32.7+) in arm C. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 46 of 49 patients (94%) in arm A, 35 of 49 patients (71%) in arm B, and 38 of 48 patients (79%) in arm C; there was 1 treatment-related death (arm A; grade 5 pneumonitis).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had manageable safety, promising objective response rate, and durable responses. The arm A regimen (4 doses nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks) received accelerated approval in the US based on the results of this study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658878.

Project description:BackgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here.MethodsPatients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others.ResultsAfter a minimum follow-up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%-53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable).ConclusionsIn patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases-a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials-the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals.

Project description:PurposeInter-tumoral heterogeneity at the differential lesion level raises the possibility of distinct organ-specific responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to comprehensively examine the clinicopathological factors to predict and assess the efficacy of nivolumab, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade at an individual tumor site-specific level in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC).Patients and methodsWe enrolled 261 aHCC patients treated with nivolumab between 2012 and 2018. Eighty-one clinicopathological factors were comprehensively collected and analyzed. The association between all variables and survival outcomes was evaluated. According to tumor site, the organ-specific responses were assessed based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.ResultsThe liver was the most commonly involved organ (75.1%), followed by the lungs (37.5%) and lymph nodes (LNs, 11.5%). The liver of nonresponders was more frequently the organ of progression, while the lungs of responders were more frequently the organs of response. Among the 455 individual lesions (liver, n = 248; lung, n = 124; LN, n = 35; others including bone or soft tissues, n = 48), intrahepatic tumors showed the least response (10.1%), followed by lung (24.2%) and LN tumors (37.1%), indicating the presence of distinct organ-specific responses to nivolumab. In intrahepatic tumors, the organ-specific response rate decreased as the size increased (13% for ⩽50 mm, 8.1% for 50-100 mm, and 5.5% for >100 mm). In the subgroup analysis according to tumor location, patients with lung only metastasis (⩾30 mm) showed the best progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In contrast, primary HCC (⩾100 mm) without lung metastasis had the worst PFS and OS. Comprehensive analyses also revealed that liver function and systemic inflammatory indices, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), were significantly associated with PFS and OS.ConclusionThe presence and size of liver tumors, liver function, and NLR are key factors determining the response to nivolumab in aHCC. These clinical factors should be considered when treating patients with advanced HCC with PD-1 blockade.

Project description:PurposePatients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC.Patients and methodsPatients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged.ConclusionsNIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence to Date.

Publications

Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence to Date.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets