BRAIN CANCER

HER2 Breast Cancer

BREAST CANCER

Bladder Cancer

Prostate Cancer

Renal Cell Carcinoma

GENITOURINARY CANCERS

Liquid Biopsies

GENOMIC TESTING

Colorectal Cancer

GIST

Gastric Cancer

GI CANCERS

Cervical Cancer

Endometrial Cancer

Ovarian Cancer

GYNECOLOGIC CANCERS

HEAD & NECK CANCERS

Bone Marrow & Stem Cell Transplant

HEMATOLOGY

CAR T-Cell Therapy

IMMUNOTHERAPY

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

LEUKEMIAS

Biomarker-Driven Lung Cancer

EGFR+ Lung Cancer

MET-Targeted Therapy

Small Cell Lung Cancer

LUNG CANCER

DLBCL

Follicular Lymphoma

Mantle Cell Lymphoma

LYMPHOMAS

MPNs

MULTIPLE MYELOMA

NTRK GENE FUSIONS

SARCOMA

Melanoma

SKIN CANCERS

THYROID CANCERS

NEWS

All News

FDA Briefs

Oncology Icons

Special Reports

The Targeted Pulse

Voices from the Field

CONFERENCES

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Data Dialogue with the Oncology Brothers

MEDIA

All Videos

Case-Based Peer Perspectives

Expert Perspective Virtual Tumor Board

Interviews

Investigator Perspectives

Medical World News

Pivotal Practice Views with the Oncology Brothers

Podcasts

Precision Medicine

Speaking Out

PUBLICATIONS

All Publications

Evolving Paradigms

Peers & Perspectives in Oncology

Targeted Therapies in Oncology

CASE-BASED ROUNDTABLE

PARTNERS

RESOURCES

CME/CE

Clinical Trials

Precision Medicine Perspectives

Press Releases

Treatment Resources

SUBSCRIBE

Targeted Oncology provides news, videos, and reviews on the rapidly evolving world of targeted therapies and immunotherapy for oncologists treating patients in a community setting.

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

CureToday.com

CancerNetwork.com

OncLive.com

OncNursingNews.com

Do Not Sell My Information

Privacy

Terms & Conditions

Targeted Oncology - Immunotherapy, Biomarkers, and Cancer Pathways

Facebook

Linkedin

YouTube

Instagram

Featured Clinical Focus

BTK Inhibitors: In-Focus

Bone Marrow & SCT

EGFR-Positive Lung Cancer

Lung Cancer

Multiple Myeloma

Thyroid Cancers

Clinical Focus

Brain Cancer

Breast Cancer

Gastrointestinal Cancer

Genitourinary Cancers

Gynecologic Cancers

Head & Neck Cancers

Hematology

Leukemias

Lymphomas

Sarcoma

Skin Cancers

Spotlight

video of Stacey Stein discussing atezolizumab/bevacizumab, IMbrave150 and real-world results

Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab Benefit Potentially Extends to Child-Pugh B HCC

Stacey Stein, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at the Yale School of Medicine and assistant medical director of the clinical trials office at Yale Cancer Center, discusses the patient population and outcomes of the IMbrave150 trial (NCT03434379) of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

In the phase 3 trial, 501 patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive atezolizumab/bevacizumab or sorafenib (Nexavar). At a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the coprimary end point of overall survival (OS) was met with a median OS of 19.2 months with atezolizumab/bevacizumab compared with 13.4 months with sorafenib, a difference of 5.8 months (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.85; descriptive 

 < 0.001). This was a significantly longer OS than what was seen in prior trials, Stein said.

According to Stein, trials of treatments for patients with advanced and unresectable HCC, including IMbrave150, focus on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis or those without cirrhosis, as opposed to those patients with Child-Pugh B or C who are more likely to have poor outcomes regardless of treatment. These patients with a good performance status and liver function don’t represent the real-world population with HCC; however, several retrospective analyses of real-world patients have shown modest efficacy and responses in the Child-Pugh B population. Although toxicities need to be monitored more closely in these patients with poor liver function, they may also benefit from the combination.

The OS was improved by a few months to a median OS of [19.2] months and these were numbers that we have never previously seen in this disease, so we really started to move the needle. In terms of the patient population that was selected, trials in HCC…usually focus only on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis or patients without cirrhosis, and so overall, it's a well-compensated patient population with good performance status and good liver function, which may not always represent all of the patients we see in the real world in clinic. But there [are] some data that show that we're able to treat patients with Child-Pugh B disease without increased harm, and they still get a benefit from the regimen.

Stacey Stein, MD, discusses the patient population and outcomes of the IMbrave150 trial of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. 

imbrave150 study background and endpoints for QOL

Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab Shows Survival and QOL Benefit in HCC

Stacey Stein, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at the Yale School of Medicine and assistant medical director of the clinical trials office at Yale Cancer Center, discusses the background and outcomes of the IMbrave150 trial (NCT03434379) of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

According to Stein, before this combination was approved, patients with advanced HCC received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as sorafenib (Nexavar), which showed efficacy but significant adverse events (AEs). The IMbrave150 trial followed a phase 1b trial (NCT02715531) where atezolizumab/bevacizumab showed a higher response rate than prior TKIs had in trials.

The phase 3 trial randomly assigned 336 patients to receive the combination vs 165 to receive sorafenib. At 15.6 months median follow-up, the median overall survival (OS) was 19.2 months with the combination vs 13.4 months with sorafenib, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.9 months vs 4.3 months, respectively. The toxicity profile was also favorable, Stein said.

Additionally, patient-reported quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes were reported from the trial population. The risk of deterioration for prespecified generic cancer symptom scales for appetite loss, diarrhea, fatigue, and pain were reduced with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. Disease-specific symptom scales for fatigue and pain also showed significant reduction, though it did not show statistically significant reduction in jaundice vs sorafenib. The mean score changes from baseline were better for the combination vs sorafenib in terms of QOL, role functioning, and physical functioning.

 Prior to immune therapy, we gave patients only TKIs, which have some benefit, but also several [AEs]. The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in the phase 1 study had showed a higher response rate than we had ever seen with TKIs. So there was a lot of excitement over comparing this combination [with] sorafenib.

 The IMbrave150 study was a randomized phase 3 study that looked at the combination vs sorafenib. There were over 300 patients [who] enrolled in the study, and we saw an impressive improvement in both PFS and OS with a favorable toxicity profile. Patients were also asked to report on their QOL, and they felt that their QOL was significantly better on the immune therapy combination than on sorafenib. So really all of the indicators that we were looking for in terms of PFS, OS, AEs, and QOL were all improved on this regimen compared [with] sorafenib.

Stacey Stein, MD, discusses the background and outcomes of the IMbrave150 trial of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. 

Targeted Oncology: What did the subgroup analyses of the HIMALAYA study of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus bevacizumab (Avastin) show for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)?

Looking at the forest plot in the initial report, it was more or less similar across all subgroups in terms of benefit with the STRIDE [Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (Imfinzi)] regimen compared with sorafenib [Nexavar].

 But women and patients with hepatitis C [etiology] did not appear to get the benefit from the combination arm, at least in this initial analysis. Subsequently, when they looked at ALBI [Albumin-Bilirubin] scores and they looked at extrahepatic spread and adjusted for that, these changes did not seem significant.

Because some of these subgroups are slightly different in their biology and their outcomes, as has been noted in other studies, they specifically looked at overall survival [OS] and ORR [objective response rate] versus sorafenib in the Hong Kong or Taiwan subgroup. What they saw was much higher median OS in this group, 29.4 months in the STRIDE regimen and with sorafenib, 19 months—much higher than what we would see in most clinical trials—with an HR of 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.77].

 The ORR as well, at 33.9%, was a bit higher in this group of patients, but the median duration of this benefit lasted for close to 2 years, 20.5 months [IQR, 3.8–not reached].

The HIMALAYA investigators also brought up the point of the best Child-Pugh class. Class B is the kind of patients we all see in our clinical practices. In these patients who might have just albumin or bilirubin issues, the 2 that concern us when we’re treating people with immunotherapy, their [performance] as well as their tolerability of the agents that we want to give. [They] looked at patients with ALBI grade 1, and [those with] grades 2 and 3. These were originally developed for a post-hepatectomy analyses of prediction of survival, but it has been used more and more now. What they saw was the ORR was still higher in the STRIDE regimen, as well as the durvalumab arm, compared with sorafenib in both of these subgroups.

 The median time to treatment response was short in both the [immunotherapy-containing] arms compared with sorafenib, and the duration of response was longer with the STRIDE regimen than durvalumab or sorafenib in the ALBI subgroup of grades 2/3. The slightly sicker patients did get benefit and continued to tolerate it and stay on it for longer than if they had had the durvalumab or the sorafenib in those groups.

What was the safety and tolerability observed in the HIMALAYA trial?

In terms of safety, [the regimens were] reasonably well tolerated in terms of grade 3 or 4 toxicities, although 50% of patients experienced these toxicities in the STRIDE arm, 37% in the durvalumab arm, and approximately 50% in the sorafenib arm.

 Only about 13% of patients in the STRIDE arm and 16% in the sorafenib arm discontinued because of these toxicities. In terms of [grade 3 or 4] immune-mediated toxicities, only about 12% of patients [in the STRIDE arm] had very significant immune-mediated adverse events [AEs].

They also looked at the same safety information in the Hong Kong and Taiwan group and very similarly did see any-grade AEs in pretty much all of the patients, but grade 3 and 4 AEs were only seen in about 40%, with discontinuation secondary to toxicities in only about 5% of patients on the STRIDE regimen, compared with almost a 12% [discontinuation rate with sorafenib].

[Looking at] the onset of the toxicities so we are aware in practice when we expect these toxicities to occur, it looks like the majority occurred less than 90 days from the first dose.

 If they’re going to have these toxicities, they happen relatively early, and most of these toxicities did resolve, with the resolution time being less than 60 days. I know from a practice perspective, [when] we have to follow patients and bring them back, this is relevant to know when these toxicities occur and how to manage them. [There were] diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, and blood pressure issues, although both the IMbrave150 study [NCT03434379]as well as the HIMALAYA study did exclude patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

 Investigators saw some of that while patients were on therapy, and some of the other skin reactions: pruritus, rash, hand-foot skin reaction, alopecia AEs.

What additional data are there for frontline immunotherapy-based regimens in HCC?

The trial data from IMbrave150 showed us a very impressive median OS of around 19 months,1 but in terms of real life, we always have slightly different patient populations and outcomes in these patients. The real-life study [AB-Real] that was reported showed slightly lower median OS, as is expected in real life, at 15.7 months, and median PFS was 6.9 months, which was similar to the IMbrave150-reported PFS.

Looking at all the studies that have led to approvals prior to the HIMALAYA study—nivolumab [Opdivo] versus sorafenib [CheckMate-459; NCT02576509], atezolizumab/bevacizumab versus sorafenib, and KEYNOTE-240 [NCT02702401], which was pembrolizumab [Keytruda]—looking at the HR for [OS in] the non-viral etiologies, generally it appears that the treatment with immunotherapies didn’t have as much benefit. It has led us all to wonder whether that is the best approach, and if there are other approaches we should be taking with tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations in this group.

However, in the patients with viral etiology, the HRs have generally been lower, with the best being for IMbrave150 at 0.48. In hepatitis C virus [HCV]­–related HCC, we’re also seeing significant benefit across the board with all 3 of the immunotherapy trials I listed, a little bit more so with atezolizumab and bevacizumab. In the patients with hepatitis B virus etiology, as well, we see significant benefit.

In the HIMALAYA study, looking across the board, it appears that at least in the initial report that the patients with HCV didn’t get quite the benefit.4,9 But when they did the subsequent analysis and adjusting for distant spread, as well as the ALBI score, it didn’t look like there was much of a difference in terms of benefit across etiologies.

1. Abou-Alfa GK, Chan SL, Kudo M, et al. Phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tremelimumab (T) and durvalumab (D) as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC): HIMALAYA. 

. 2022;40(4_suppl):379. doi:10.1200/JCO.2022.40.4_suppl.379

2. Chan SL, Kudo M, Sangro B, et al. Outcomes in the Asian subgroup of the phase III HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab (T) plus durvalumab (D) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). 

. 2022;33(suppl_9):S1454-S1484. doi: 10.1016/annonc/annonc1123

3. Vogel A, Chan SL, Furuse J, et al. Outcomes by baseline liver function in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with tremelimumab and durvalumab in the phase 3 HIMALAYA study. 

. 2022;33(suppl_4):S380-S381. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.446

4. Abou-Alfa GK, Lau G, Kudo M, et al; HIMALAYA Investigators. Tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. 

. 2022;1(8). Published online June 6, 2022. doi:10.1056/EVIDoa2100070​

5. Lau G, Sangro B, Crysler OV, et al. Temporal patterns of immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) with tremelimumab (T) plus durvalumab (D) in the phase 3 HIMALAYA study in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). 

. 2023;41(16_suppl):4073. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.4073

6. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. 

 2020;382(20):1894-1905. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915745

7. Fulgenzi CAM, Cheon J, D'Alessio A, et al. Reproducible safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for HCC in clinical practice: Results of the AB-real study.

. 2022;175:204-213. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2022.08.024

8. Pfister D, Núñez NG, Pinyol R, et al. NASH limits anti-tumour surveillance in immunotherapy-treated HCC. 

. 2021;592(7854):450-456. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03362-0

9. Chan LS, Kudo M, Sangro B, et al. Impact of viral aetiology in the phase III HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab (T) plus durvalumab (D) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC).

. 2022;33(suppl_7):S323-S330. doi: 10.1016/annonc/annonc1057

During a Targeted Oncology™ Case-Based Roundtable™ event, Renuka Iyer, MD, discussed subgroup analyses of the HIMALAYA trial of frontline durvalumab plus tremelimumab for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This is the second of 2 articles based on this event.



Analyses Show Subgroup-Dependent Benefits of Immunotherapy in HCC

Targeted Oncology: What was the design and goals of the IMbrave150 trial (NCT03434379) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)?

The IMbrave150 study [enrolled] patients with locally advanced or metastatic and unresectable HCC who were not previously treated. It was an international study with patients from all over the world…with ECOG [performance status of] 0 or 1. They allowed macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread but stratified for it, as well as for the AFP [α-fetoprotein] levels, and there was a 2:1 randomization to atezolizumab [Tecentriq] and bevacizumab [Avastin] versus sorafenib [Nexavar] done every 3 weeks at the standard approved dosing. The study was open label, something to remember [since] everyone knew what they were getting.

Prior to enrollment, because of the concern of bleeding varices within the last 6 months, all patients had to have a screening endoscopy and have treated, completely controlled varices before enrollment. They were treated until the loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The coprimary end points [of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review] were investigated as well as independent reviewer–assessed objective response rate [ORR] using RECIST 1.1. They did an initial report and then did a follow-up report with updates on the survival.

The patient characteristic profile...[included] median age of about 64 to 66 in both arms, very well balanced, and about 40% of patients were in Asia [excluding Japan].

 The majority were Child-Pugh class A, and they even gave subclassifications of A5 and A6. The patients with macrovascular invasion were about 38% to 40% of patients and patients with [hepatitis B etiology] made up 45% to 50% in this group. Nonviral etiology was seen in approximately 30%; I bring this up so that we keep that in mind as we look at some of the other data.

What were the updated efficacy data for this trial?

When they updated the efficacy and safety data, they reported the difference in median OS was statistically significant with 19.2 months for the study arm versus 13.4 months for the sorafenib arm with an HR of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.52-0.85; log-rank 

 The median PFS was 6.9 months versus 4.3 months with an HR of 0.65 [95% CI, 0.53-0.81; log-rank 

They also looked at ORR and these were pretty impressive response rates for this disease group. In the update they saw 30% ORR [for the study arm], a little bit more than they had initially reported. Eight percent of these were complete responses compared with less than 1% with sorafenib, and also only about 19% had disease progression [with atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Forty-four percent had stable disease [SD] with atezolizumab and bevacizumab and another 22% had partial responses [PR], meaning 74% of patients had disease control [versus 43% SD, 11% PR, and 55% disease control rate for sorafenib]. The duration of response [DOR] continued for about 18 months [versus 14.9 months with sorafenib].

What was the purpose of the phase 3 HIMALAYA trial (NCT03298451) of durvalumab (Imfinzi) plus tremelimumab (Imjudo) and how does it compare with IMbrave150?

The HIMALAYA study was initiated around the same time or slightly before the IMbrave150 study but was completed later and was reported with 3 years of follow-up. The phase 3 study initially was launched as a 4-arm study, with the fourth arm using 4 doses of priming tremelimumab. But, after they saw some initial results from their phase 2 data, they decided to close that arm. The final study was in patients with confirmed unresectable HCC and had similar [requirements to IMbrave150, including] Child-Pugh class A, ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, but no main portal vein thrombosis, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy was not required of this group of patients; it had similar stratification factors. In the first arm, patients got tremelimumab as…just 1 priming dose followed by durvalumab in that cycle and subsequent cycles, once [every 4 weeks] at 1500 mg intravenously. The other 2 arms were durvalumab [monotherapy] and sorafenib [monotherapy], and the plan for the primary objective was to look for superiority in OS with the durvalumab/tremelimumab arm compared with sorafenib and also to look at noninferiority between durvalumab [monotherapy] and sorafenib. The other additional secondary objectives [included PFS, ORR, DOR, and safety].

The patient characteristics [were] very similar to the IMbrave150 study in terms of the median age of patients and in terms of the groupings of where the patients were, a little bit fewer patients from Asia, about 39% compared with IMbrave150.

 Because of that, they had slightly fewer patients with hepatitis B [etiology] and a little bit more in terms of non-viral etiology; in the IMbrave150 study it was about 30% and here it was approximately 41% in each of the 3 arms.

 They also reported their PD-L1 status in the patients who were enrolled. About 37% of patients were PD-L1–positive and they were also stratified by AFP and macrovascular invasion.

What were the key efficacy outcomes in this trial?

They met the primary objective of superiority in OS with the durvalumab/tremelimumab arm compared with sorafenib after the prespecified number of OS events had occurred, with a difference between the 2 groups of 16.4 months versus 13.8 months, with an HR of 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.92; 2-sided 

 What was interesting and exciting about this report was that they had a 36-month OS rate of 30.7% [for durvalumab/tremelimumab] and 20% in the sorafenib-alone arm, keeping in mind that 17% of the sorafenib patients eventually, at progression, did get IO [immunotherapy] subsequently versus patients [receiving] further IO therapies in the durvalumab/tremelimumab arm [being] only single digits, 1% to 3%. Keeping that in mind, these were great results for us to see.

PFS, however, was very similar in the 2 arms and I’d be curious to see what responses people have seen in their practices if they’ve had experience using the STRIDE [Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab] regimen.

 They saw a median PFS of 3.78 months [95% CI, 3.68-5.32] with the STRIDE regimen; with sorafenib, it was 4.07 months [95% CI, 3.75-5.49]; and with the durvalumab alone, it was 3.65 months [95% CI, 3.19-3.75].

1. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. 

2. Cheng AL, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. 

. 2022;76(4):862-873. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030

3. Abou-Alfa GK, Lau G, Kudo M, et al; HIMALAYA Investigators. Tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. 

4. Abou-Alfa GK, Chan SL, Kudo M, et al. Phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tremelimumab (T) and durvalumab (D) as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC): HIMALAYA. 

During a Targeted Oncology™ Case-Based Roundtable™ event, Renuka Iyer, MD, discussed the study designs, patient populations, and efficacy outcomes of the IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA trials of frontline immunotherapy-containing regimens for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This is the first of 2 articles based on this event. 

Comparing IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA Outcomes in Frontline HCC

A 77-year-old White woman presented to her primary care physician complaining of abdominal pain and fatigue.​ She had cirrhosis due to heavy alcohol use; Crohn’s disease, controlled with infliximab (Remicade); and a history of variceal bleeding, with banding 2 months ago​. She had an ECOG performance status of 1. A CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis with triphasic liver evaluation revealed a 4.5-cm LR5 [LI-RADS score of 5] hepatic mass in the right lobe and metastatic disease in the lung​. She had a Child-Pugh status of A. Her α-fetoprotein level was 380 ng/mL. ​Biopsy was obtained and confirmed the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

[In] the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] guidelines for first-line treatments…the preferred regimen is either atezolizumab [Tecentriq] plus bevacizumab [Avastin] or durvalumab [Imfinzi] plus tremelimumab [Imjudo] based off of the respective phase 3 studies IMbrave150 [NCT03434379] or HIMALAYA [NCT03298451].

We have other recommended regimens, including the tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs] sorafenib [Nexavar] or lenvatinib [Lenvima], which are both category 1 recommendations, based off of phase 3 data. We also have additional level 2 evidence for single-agent immunotherapy with durvalumab based off of noninferiority data of durvalumab versus sorafenib, as well as pembrolizumab [Keytruda] in an accelerated cohort of first-line patients.

Nivolumab [Opdivo] is also being placed in this scenario as useful in certain situations. It has some Child-Pugh B data, so that can also be potentially considered in the respective scenarios.

It is not surprising that survival as well as safety and tolerability are at the top of our decision making in terms of what we're choosing for our patients. Then response rate…in specific scenarios. I think that's completely reasonable, and I don't think that there's too much debate on this. Where the safety and tolerability issue comes up is that our patients with HCC are vulnerable. This patient [has] an autoimmune condition and variceal bleeding.

During a Targeted Oncology™ Case-Based Roundtable™ event, Daneng Li, MD, discussed the available therapy options for a patient with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

LATEST HCC CONTENT

CASE-BASED ROUNDTABLES