Dataset Information

Case Report: Clinical Responses to Tislelizumab as a First-Line Therapy for Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma With B-Cell Indolent Lymphoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As an emerging therapy with a promising efficacy, immunotherapy has been widely used in the treatment of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. This clinical study compares the efficacy of tislelizumab, a domestic immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), to that of sorafenib when used as a first-line therapeutic option in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and the concurrence of HCC and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) is rare, especially in the treatment of ICIs.

Case presentation

A 61-year-old patient presenting with primary HCC and indolent B-cell lymphoma had a partial clinical response to tislelizumab for his primary HCC. Besides, we described a phenomenon of pseudo-progression and delayed diagnosis of his lymphoma during a long course of treatment.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab, an immunotherapeutic option with a favorable efficacy and toxicity, can be used to manage double primary tumors. However, studies should aim to elucidate the probable mechanisms of this therapy. Pseudo-progression and separation remission make the treatment of double primary tumors even more challenging, which calls for additional caution in patients undergoing immunotherapy to avoid misdiagnosis and, therefore, begin early appropriate interventions.

SUBMITTER: Li Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8044442 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment.ObjectiveTo investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC.Design, setting, and participantsThe open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022.InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety.ResultsA total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib.Conclusions and relevanceIn RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.