Clinical Edge Journal Scan

Key clinical point: Tumor vaccines are effective and safe in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: Tumor vaccines effectuated a pooled objective response rate, median overall survival, and median progression-free survival of 7% (95% CI 3%-14%), 13.7 (95% CI 8.2-22.8) months, and 6.2 (95% CI 3.0-12.9) months, respectively. The pooled rate of severe adverse events (AE; grades 3-5) was only 7.9%, and the most prevalent AE was grade 1-2 injection site reaction.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 35 cohorts in 31 studies (published between 2001 and 2021) that included 932 patients with HCC who received tumor vaccines.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Taishan Scholars Program for Young Expert of Shandong Province and National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Han CL et al. Efficacy and security of tumor vaccines for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis of the last 2 decades. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04008-y

Key clinical point: Tumor vaccines are effective and safe in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: Tumor vaccines effectuated a pooled objective response rate, median overall survival, and median progression-free survival of 7% (95% CI 3%-14%), 13.7 (95% CI 8.2-22.8) months, and 6.2 (95% CI 3.0-12.9) months, respectively. The pooled rate of severe adverse events (AE; grades 3-5) was only 7.9%, and the most prevalent AE was grade 1-2 injection site reaction.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 35 cohorts in 31 studies (published between 2001 and 2021) that included 932 patients with HCC who received tumor vaccines.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Taishan Scholars Program for Young Expert of Shandong Province and National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Han CL et al. Efficacy and security of tumor vaccines for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis of the last 2 decades. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04008-y

Key clinical point: Tumor vaccines are effective and safe in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: Tumor vaccines effectuated a pooled objective response rate, median overall survival, and median progression-free survival of 7% (95% CI 3%-14%), 13.7 (95% CI 8.2-22.8) months, and 6.2 (95% CI 3.0-12.9) months, respectively. The pooled rate of severe adverse events (AE; grades 3-5) was only 7.9%, and the most prevalent AE was grade 1-2 injection site reaction.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 35 cohorts in 31 studies (published between 2001 and 2021) that included 932 patients with HCC who received tumor vaccines.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Taishan Scholars Program for Young Expert of Shandong Province and National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Han CL et al. Efficacy and security of tumor vaccines for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis of the last 2 decades. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04008-y

Key clinical point: Lenvatinib plus nivolumab shows a promising efficacy and safety profile against advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the real-world setting.

Major finding: The lenvatinib plus nivolumab vs lenvatinib group showed a higher objective response rate (45.0% vs 23.4%; P = .03) and longer progression-free survival (7.5 vs 4.8 months; P = .05) and overall survival (22.9 vs 10.3 months; P = .01). Only a few patients developed grade 3/4 toxicities, such as dermatitis (15.0%), gastrointestinal bleeding (7.5%), and hypertension (5.0%).

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 87 patients aged ≥20 years with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib plus nivolumab (n = 40) or lenvatinib alone (n = 47).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Center of Excellence for Cancer Research and Taipei Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts if interest.

Source: Wu W-C et al. Lenvatinib combined with nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma-real-world experience. Invest New Drugs. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1007/s10637-022-01248-0

Key clinical point: Lenvatinib plus nivolumab shows a promising efficacy and safety profile against advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the real-world setting.

Major finding: The lenvatinib plus nivolumab vs lenvatinib group showed a higher objective response rate (45.0% vs 23.4%; P = .03) and longer progression-free survival (7.5 vs 4.8 months; P = .05) and overall survival (22.9 vs 10.3 months; P = .01). Only a few patients developed grade 3/4 toxicities, such as dermatitis (15.0%), gastrointestinal bleeding (7.5%), and hypertension (5.0%).

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 87 patients aged ≥20 years with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib plus nivolumab (n = 40) or lenvatinib alone (n = 47).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Center of Excellence for Cancer Research and Taipei Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts if interest.

Source: Wu W-C et al. Lenvatinib combined with nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma-real-world experience. Invest New Drugs. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1007/s10637-022-01248-0

Key clinical point: Lenvatinib plus nivolumab shows a promising efficacy and safety profile against advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the real-world setting.

Major finding: The lenvatinib plus nivolumab vs lenvatinib group showed a higher objective response rate (45.0% vs 23.4%; P = .03) and longer progression-free survival (7.5 vs 4.8 months; P = .05) and overall survival (22.9 vs 10.3 months; P = .01). Only a few patients developed grade 3/4 toxicities, such as dermatitis (15.0%), gastrointestinal bleeding (7.5%), and hypertension (5.0%).

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 87 patients aged ≥20 years with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib plus nivolumab (n = 40) or lenvatinib alone (n = 47).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Center of Excellence for Cancer Research and Taipei Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts if interest.

Source: Wu W-C et al. Lenvatinib combined with nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma-real-world experience. Invest New Drugs. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1007/s10637-022-01248-0

Key clinical point: Immunotherapy was associated with prolonged survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: After adjusting for confounding variables, immunotherapy was independently associated with improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88) compared with chemotherapy.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study that included 3990 patients with advanced HCC (tumor-node-metastasis stage III or IV) from the National Cancer Database who received chemotherapy (n = 3248) or immunotherapy (n = 742) as the first-line systemic treatment.

Disclosures: No funding source was reported. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or receiving institutional research support from various organizations.

Source: Ahn JC et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in early treatment with immunotherapy for advanced HCC in the United States. Hepatology. 2022 (Apr 16). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32527

Key clinical point: Immunotherapy was associated with prolonged survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: After adjusting for confounding variables, immunotherapy was independently associated with improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88) compared with chemotherapy.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study that included 3990 patients with advanced HCC (tumor-node-metastasis stage III or IV) from the National Cancer Database who received chemotherapy (n = 3248) or immunotherapy (n = 742) as the first-line systemic treatment.

Disclosures: No funding source was reported. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or receiving institutional research support from various organizations.

Source: Ahn JC et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in early treatment with immunotherapy for advanced HCC in the United States. Hepatology. 2022 (Apr 16). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32527

Key clinical point: Immunotherapy was associated with prolonged survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: After adjusting for confounding variables, immunotherapy was independently associated with improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88) compared with chemotherapy.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study that included 3990 patients with advanced HCC (tumor-node-metastasis stage III or IV) from the National Cancer Database who received chemotherapy (n = 3248) or immunotherapy (n = 742) as the first-line systemic treatment.

Disclosures: No funding source was reported. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or receiving institutional research support from various organizations.

Source: Ahn JC et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in early treatment with immunotherapy for advanced HCC in the United States. Hepatology. 2022 (Apr 16). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32527

Key clinical point: As laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy (LAH) is associated with increased disease-free survival (DFS) and comparable long-term overall survival (OS) and postoperative complications compared with non-anatomical hepatectomy (LNAH), it is recommended over LNAH for selected patients with HCC.

Major finding: Patients who underwent LAH vs LNAH showed significantly higher 5-year DFS rate (33.9% vs 30.1%; P = .009) and comparable long-term OS (43.2% vs 35.2%; P = .054) and postoperative complication (8.9% vs 12.4%; P = .255) rates.

Study details: Findings are from a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial including 385 adult patients with HCC (single tumor ≤10 cm in size) who were randomly assigned to undergo LAH (n = 192) or LNAH (n = 193).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Project of Chongqing Municipality. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liao K et al. Laparoscopic anatomical versus non-anatomical hepatectomy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2022;102:106652 (May 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106652

Key clinical point: As laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy (LAH) is associated with increased disease-free survival (DFS) and comparable long-term overall survival (OS) and postoperative complications compared with non-anatomical hepatectomy (LNAH), it is recommended over LNAH for selected patients with HCC.

Major finding: Patients who underwent LAH vs LNAH showed significantly higher 5-year DFS rate (33.9% vs 30.1%; P = .009) and comparable long-term OS (43.2% vs 35.2%; P = .054) and postoperative complication (8.9% vs 12.4%; P = .255) rates.

Study details: Findings are from a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial including 385 adult patients with HCC (single tumor ≤10 cm in size) who were randomly assigned to undergo LAH (n = 192) or LNAH (n = 193).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Project of Chongqing Municipality. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liao K et al. Laparoscopic anatomical versus non-anatomical hepatectomy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2022;102:106652 (May 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106652

Key clinical point: As laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy (LAH) is associated with increased disease-free survival (DFS) and comparable long-term overall survival (OS) and postoperative complications compared with non-anatomical hepatectomy (LNAH), it is recommended over LNAH for selected patients with HCC.

Major finding: Patients who underwent LAH vs LNAH showed significantly higher 5-year DFS rate (33.9% vs 30.1%; P = .009) and comparable long-term OS (43.2% vs 35.2%; P = .054) and postoperative complication (8.9% vs 12.4%; P = .255) rates.

Study details: Findings are from a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial including 385 adult patients with HCC (single tumor ≤10 cm in size) who were randomly assigned to undergo LAH (n = 192) or LNAH (n = 193).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Project of Chongqing Municipality. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liao K et al. Laparoscopic anatomical versus non-anatomical hepatectomy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2022;102:106652 (May 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106652

Key clinical point: Compared with the standard ultrasonography (US)-based imaging surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intensive surveillance using alternative computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to US may facilitate the diagnosis of very early-stage HCC without providing any survival advantage.

Major finding: Diagnosis of very early-stage HCC was better in the low- (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.44; P = .034) and high- (aOR 0.40; P = .014) intensive surveillance groups than in the standard surveillance group. However, overall survival remained unaffected by the surveillance intensity (P > .05).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 529 patients with newly diagnosed HCC who were on regular surveillance and were monitored using only US (standard group; n = 62) or CT/MRI plus US (categorized into low-intensive group [n = 232] and high-intensive group [n = 235] based on the median percentage of CT/MRI investigations [cut-off, 27%]).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hwang JA et al. Association between intensity of imaging surveillance and clinical outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2022;151:110328 (Apr 21). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110328

Key clinical point: Compared with the standard ultrasonography (US)-based imaging surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intensive surveillance using alternative computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to US may facilitate the diagnosis of very early-stage HCC without providing any survival advantage.

Major finding: Diagnosis of very early-stage HCC was better in the low- (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.44; P = .034) and high- (aOR 0.40; P = .014) intensive surveillance groups than in the standard surveillance group. However, overall survival remained unaffected by the surveillance intensity (P > .05).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 529 patients with newly diagnosed HCC who were on regular surveillance and were monitored using only US (standard group; n = 62) or CT/MRI plus US (categorized into low-intensive group [n = 232] and high-intensive group [n = 235] based on the median percentage of CT/MRI investigations [cut-off, 27%]).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hwang JA et al. Association between intensity of imaging surveillance and clinical outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2022;151:110328 (Apr 21). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110328

Key clinical point: Compared with the standard ultrasonography (US)-based imaging surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intensive surveillance using alternative computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to US may facilitate the diagnosis of very early-stage HCC without providing any survival advantage.

Major finding: Diagnosis of very early-stage HCC was better in the low- (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.44; P = .034) and high- (aOR 0.40; P = .014) intensive surveillance groups than in the standard surveillance group. However, overall survival remained unaffected by the surveillance intensity (P > .05).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 529 patients with newly diagnosed HCC who were on regular surveillance and were monitored using only US (standard group; n = 62) or CT/MRI plus US (categorized into low-intensive group [n = 232] and high-intensive group [n = 235] based on the median percentage of CT/MRI investigations [cut-off, 27%]).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hwang JA et al. Association between intensity of imaging surveillance and clinical outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2022;151:110328 (Apr 21). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110328

Key clinical point: Compared with best supportive care (BSC), treatment with any type of anticancer therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy discontinuation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with a significant improvement in overall survival.

Major finding: After ICI therapy discontinuation, patients who received anticancer therapy vs. BSC showed a significantly improved median overall survival (12.2 vs 3.2 months; hazard ratio 0.4; P < .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective, multicenter study that included 420 patients with HCC who were treated with ICI followed by subsequent anticancer treatment (n = 163) or BSC (n = 152).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund, UK. Some authors declared serving as advisors, consultants, or speakers for and receiving grants from various sources.

Source: Sharma R et al. Patterns and outcomes of subsequent therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor discontinuation in HCC. Hepatol Commun. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1002/hep4.1927

Key clinical point: Compared with best supportive care (BSC), treatment with any type of anticancer therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy discontinuation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with a significant improvement in overall survival.

Major finding: After ICI therapy discontinuation, patients who received anticancer therapy vs. BSC showed a significantly improved median overall survival (12.2 vs 3.2 months; hazard ratio 0.4; P < .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective, multicenter study that included 420 patients with HCC who were treated with ICI followed by subsequent anticancer treatment (n = 163) or BSC (n = 152).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund, UK. Some authors declared serving as advisors, consultants, or speakers for and receiving grants from various sources.

Source: Sharma R et al. Patterns and outcomes of subsequent therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor discontinuation in HCC. Hepatol Commun. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1002/hep4.1927

Key clinical point: Compared with best supportive care (BSC), treatment with any type of anticancer therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy discontinuation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with a significant improvement in overall survival.

Major finding: After ICI therapy discontinuation, patients who received anticancer therapy vs. BSC showed a significantly improved median overall survival (12.2 vs 3.2 months; hazard ratio 0.4; P < .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective, multicenter study that included 420 patients with HCC who were treated with ICI followed by subsequent anticancer treatment (n = 163) or BSC (n = 152).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund, UK. Some authors declared serving as advisors, consultants, or speakers for and receiving grants from various sources.

Source: Sharma R et al. Patterns and outcomes of subsequent therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor discontinuation in HCC. Hepatol Commun. 2022 (Apr 28). Doi: 10.1002/hep4.1927

Key clinical point: Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed favorable efficacy in systemic therapy-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), with no new safety signals in addition to those observed for pembrolizumab in aHCC in a second-line setting.

Major finding: The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%), and the median duration of response was 16 months. The median progression-free and overall survival were 4 (95% CI 2-8) and 17 (95% CI 8-23) months, respectively. Only 16% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2  KEYNOTE-224 trial including 51 adult, systemic therapy-naive patients with aHCC who received 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., USA. Some authors reported being advisory board members, consultants, or advisors or receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses from various sources, including MSD. The other authors are employees and stock owners of MSD.

Source: Verset G et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Data from the open-label, phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (Apr 14). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3807

Key clinical point: Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed favorable efficacy in systemic therapy-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), with no new safety signals in addition to those observed for pembrolizumab in aHCC in a second-line setting.

Major finding: The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%), and the median duration of response was 16 months. The median progression-free and overall survival were 4 (95% CI 2-8) and 17 (95% CI 8-23) months, respectively. Only 16% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2  KEYNOTE-224 trial including 51 adult, systemic therapy-naive patients with aHCC who received 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., USA. Some authors reported being advisory board members, consultants, or advisors or receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses from various sources, including MSD. The other authors are employees and stock owners of MSD.

Source: Verset G et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Data from the open-label, phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (Apr 14). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3807

Key clinical point: Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed favorable efficacy in systemic therapy-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), with no new safety signals in addition to those observed for pembrolizumab in aHCC in a second-line setting.

Major finding: The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%), and the median duration of response was 16 months. The median progression-free and overall survival were 4 (95% CI 2-8) and 17 (95% CI 8-23) months, respectively. Only 16% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2  KEYNOTE-224 trial including 51 adult, systemic therapy-naive patients with aHCC who received 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., USA. Some authors reported being advisory board members, consultants, or advisors or receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses from various sources, including MSD. The other authors are employees and stock owners of MSD.

Source: Verset G et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Data from the open-label, phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (Apr 14). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3807

Key clinical point: Compared with liver-directed ablative therapies, orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) offers a survival advantage for elderly patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels <500 ng/mL.

Major finding: Multivariable analysis revealed a significant survival benefit of OLT compared with ablative therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.31; P < .001), with OLT being associated with better survival even after adjusting for imbalanced factors after propensity matching (aHR 0.35; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective review study that propensity score matched patients aged ≥70 years with stage I-II HCC and AFP levels of <500 ng/mL receiving OLT (n = 170) with those undergoing liver-directed ablative therapy (n = 170).

Disclosures: No source of funding or conflicts of interest was declared by the authors.

Source: Shah MB et al. Outcomes in elderly patients undergoing liver transplantation compared with liver-directed ablative therapy in early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2022;234(5):892-899 (Apr 15). Doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000135

Key clinical point: Compared with liver-directed ablative therapies, orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) offers a survival advantage for elderly patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels <500 ng/mL.

Major finding: Multivariable analysis revealed a significant survival benefit of OLT compared with ablative therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.31; P < .001), with OLT being associated with better survival even after adjusting for imbalanced factors after propensity matching (aHR 0.35; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective review study that propensity score matched patients aged ≥70 years with stage I-II HCC and AFP levels of <500 ng/mL receiving OLT (n = 170) with those undergoing liver-directed ablative therapy (n = 170).

Disclosures: No source of funding or conflicts of interest was declared by the authors.

Source: Shah MB et al. Outcomes in elderly patients undergoing liver transplantation compared with liver-directed ablative therapy in early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2022;234(5):892-899 (Apr 15). Doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000135

Key clinical point: Compared with liver-directed ablative therapies, orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) offers a survival advantage for elderly patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels <500 ng/mL.

Major finding: Multivariable analysis revealed a significant survival benefit of OLT compared with ablative therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.31; P < .001), with OLT being associated with better survival even after adjusting for imbalanced factors after propensity matching (aHR 0.35; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective review study that propensity score matched patients aged ≥70 years with stage I-II HCC and AFP levels of <500 ng/mL receiving OLT (n = 170) with those undergoing liver-directed ablative therapy (n = 170).

Disclosures: No source of funding or conflicts of interest was declared by the authors.

Source: Shah MB et al. Outcomes in elderly patients undergoing liver transplantation compared with liver-directed ablative therapy in early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2022;234(5):892-899 (Apr 15). Doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000135

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

In a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session, Dr Paz-Ares and colleagues presented interim analysis of the PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab. In this triple-blind phase 3 trial, 1177 patients with stage IB (tumor ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (per American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], version 7) were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab vs placebo. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall population and in the population with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The study met its primary endpoint where improved DFS was observed in the overall population that included lung cancers, whether they were PD-L1–negative (TPS = 0%) or –positive (TPS  ≥ 1%) (53.6 months in the pembrolizumab group vs 42.0 months in the placebo group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; P = .0014]). Overall survival data are not yet clear. Of note, in the interim analysis presented, the subset of patients with high PD-L1 NSCLC (TPS ≥ 50%) did not show a DFS benefit whereas in other adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies, such as IMpower010 and CheckMate 816, the subset of high PD-L1 patients appeared to derive the most benefit. The results from the high PD-L1 subset and other subsets may change with future updated analyses as more events occur. The major co-primary endpoint was clearly met with the overall population clearly showing a positive DFS benefit. The results of the PEARLS trial adds to the current landscape of systemic treatment of early-stage NSCLC where neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for stage IB (≥ 4 cm) to IIIA resected NSCLC regardless of level of PD-L1 expression, as is adjuvant atezolizumab after consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients that are PD-L1–positive (≥ 1%) on the basis of a DFS benefit observed in this population.^1,2 For the future, it is important to see if the DFS benefit observed in these studies translates into a meaningful overall survival benefit.

Plasma cfDNA Levels as a Prognostic Marker in ALK+ NSCLC in the ALEX Trial

The ALEX trial is a pivotal global phase 3 randomized control trial that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with the next-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 vs 10.9 months crizotinib).³ In a study recently published in Clinical Cancer Research, Dr Dziadziuszko and colleagues retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of baseline cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels in patients treated in the ALEX trial. Baseline plasma for cfDNA was quantified by the Foundation ACT next-generation sequencing assay. Clinical outcomes were assessed by quantitative cfDNA level stratified by the median value. In both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms, patients with cfDNA levels above the median were more likely to experience disease progression (alectinib adjusted HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.07-3.89; P = .03 and crizotinib adjusted HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.11-3.00, P = .016). Though survival data are incomplete, the study also suggested survival probability was lower when baseline cfDNA was above the median in both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms. Regardless of cfDNA levels, PFS was improved with alectinib compared with crizotinib. Previous studies have shown the value of cfDNA analysis at the time of progression to guide further treatment and target resistance mechanisms to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as G1202R, or bypass tract pathways, such as MET amplification.^4,5 Assessment of the EML4-ALK variant type (V1 vs V3) has been shown to associate with certain types of resistance mechanisms (ie, on target ALK mutations, such as G1202R in V3) and clinical activity of specific ALK TKI (V3 > V1 for PFS with lorlatinib).⁶ This study examining baseline cfDNA levels and clinical outcomes on the ALEX trial shows the potential utility of baseline cfDNA levels as a prognostic factor for ALK TKI.

Lorlatinib in ROS1-Rearranged NSCLC After Progression on Prior ROS1 TKI

ROS1 rearrangements represent about 1.5% of lung adenocarcinoma. In advanced disease, both crizotinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved as agents targeting ROS1 with robust PFS. The third-generation TKI lorlatinib is approved and has substantial activity in ALK-rearranged NSCLC. In a recently published retrospective real-world cohort study by Girard and colleagues (LORLATU), 80 patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC were treated with lorlatinib as second-line treatment or beyond and after failure on at least one prior ROS1 TKI. Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.0-9.9) and median overall survival was 19.6 months (95% CI 12.3-27.5). The overall response rate was 45% and the disease control rate was 82%. The central nervous system response rate was 72%. There were no new safety signals. This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that lorlatinib is a major targeted therapy treatment option in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.

Checkmate 816: Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

In this open-label, phase 3 trial, 358 patients with stage IB (T ³ 4cm) to IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone for three cycles, followed by surgical resection. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. The median EFS was significantly increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm compared to chemotherapy alone: 31.6 months (95% CI 30.2 to not reached) vs 20.8 months (95% CI 14.0 to 26.7) (HR 0.63; 97.38% CI 0.43 to 0.91; P = .005). pCR rate was also increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm (24.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; odds ratio 13.94; 99% CI 3.49 to 55.75; P < .001). At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI 0.30 to 1.07), which currently does not meet the criterion for statistical significance. Of the randomized patients, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group were able to undergo surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. In an exploratory analysis, EFS was longer in patients with pCR than patients without a pCR. In a subset analysis, patients with high PD-L1 expression (³50%) stood out in terms of particular benefit (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.61). The Checkmate 816 trial is a landmark study. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard of care in the systemic treatment of resectable NSCLC that is at a stage that warrants systemic treatment. It is FDA approved regardless of PD-L1 expression level including PD-L1 negative (0%) patients.² Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy is also an FDA-approved treatment option for patients that are PD-L1 positive (³1%) based upon the IMpower 010 study.¹ It will be important to assess the overall survival benefit as the trial data matures, which seems to be trending in the right direction. Additional neoadjuvant clinical trials with chemoimmunotherapy have completed accrual and some of these trials also continued PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting after surgery. An important question for the future is if combination of PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting along with continuation of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting post-surgery will further improve clinical outcomes.

References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-57. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5  Source

2. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. April 11, 2022. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170 Source
    
3. Mok T, Camige DR, Gadgeel SM, et al. Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1056-1064. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.478 Source

4. Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Chiari R, et al. Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1691-1701. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2 Source
    
5. Lawrence MN, Tamen RM, Martinez P, et al. SPACEWALK: A remote participation study of ALK resistance leveraging plasma cell-free DNA genotyping. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2021;2:100151. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100151 Source
    
6. Lin JJ, Zhu VW, Yoda S, et al. Impact of EML4-ALK variant on resistance mechanisms and clinical outcomes in ALK-positive lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1199-1206. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2294 Source

In a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session, Dr Paz-Ares and colleagues presented interim analysis of the PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab. In this triple-blind phase 3 trial, 1177 patients with stage IB (tumor ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (per American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], version 7) were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab vs placebo. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall population and in the population with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The study met its primary endpoint where improved DFS was observed in the overall population that included lung cancers, whether they were PD-L1–negative (TPS = 0%) or –positive (TPS  ≥ 1%) (53.6 months in the pembrolizumab group vs 42.0 months in the placebo group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; P = .0014]). Overall survival data are not yet clear. Of note, in the interim analysis presented, the subset of patients with high PD-L1 NSCLC (TPS ≥ 50%) did not show a DFS benefit whereas in other adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies, such as IMpower010 and CheckMate 816, the subset of high PD-L1 patients appeared to derive the most benefit. The results from the high PD-L1 subset and other subsets may change with future updated analyses as more events occur. The major co-primary endpoint was clearly met with the overall population clearly showing a positive DFS benefit. The results of the PEARLS trial adds to the current landscape of systemic treatment of early-stage NSCLC where neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for stage IB (≥ 4 cm) to IIIA resected NSCLC regardless of level of PD-L1 expression, as is adjuvant atezolizumab after consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients that are PD-L1–positive (≥ 1%) on the basis of a DFS benefit observed in this population.^1,2 For the future, it is important to see if the DFS benefit observed in these studies translates into a meaningful overall survival benefit.

Plasma cfDNA Levels as a Prognostic Marker in ALK+ NSCLC in the ALEX Trial

The ALEX trial is a pivotal global phase 3 randomized control trial that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with the next-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 vs 10.9 months crizotinib).³ In a study recently published in Clinical Cancer Research, Dr Dziadziuszko and colleagues retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of baseline cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels in patients treated in the ALEX trial. Baseline plasma for cfDNA was quantified by the Foundation ACT next-generation sequencing assay. Clinical outcomes were assessed by quantitative cfDNA level stratified by the median value. In both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms, patients with cfDNA levels above the median were more likely to experience disease progression (alectinib adjusted HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.07-3.89; P = .03 and crizotinib adjusted HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.11-3.00, P = .016). Though survival data are incomplete, the study also suggested survival probability was lower when baseline cfDNA was above the median in both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms. Regardless of cfDNA levels, PFS was improved with alectinib compared with crizotinib. Previous studies have shown the value of cfDNA analysis at the time of progression to guide further treatment and target resistance mechanisms to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as G1202R, or bypass tract pathways, such as MET amplification.^4,5 Assessment of the EML4-ALK variant type (V1 vs V3) has been shown to associate with certain types of resistance mechanisms (ie, on target ALK mutations, such as G1202R in V3) and clinical activity of specific ALK TKI (V3 > V1 for PFS with lorlatinib).⁶ This study examining baseline cfDNA levels and clinical outcomes on the ALEX trial shows the potential utility of baseline cfDNA levels as a prognostic factor for ALK TKI.

Lorlatinib in ROS1-Rearranged NSCLC After Progression on Prior ROS1 TKI

ROS1 rearrangements represent about 1.5% of lung adenocarcinoma. In advanced disease, both crizotinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved as agents targeting ROS1 with robust PFS. The third-generation TKI lorlatinib is approved and has substantial activity in ALK-rearranged NSCLC. In a recently published retrospective real-world cohort study by Girard and colleagues (LORLATU), 80 patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC were treated with lorlatinib as second-line treatment or beyond and after failure on at least one prior ROS1 TKI. Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.0-9.9) and median overall survival was 19.6 months (95% CI 12.3-27.5). The overall response rate was 45% and the disease control rate was 82%. The central nervous system response rate was 72%. There were no new safety signals. This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that lorlatinib is a major targeted therapy treatment option in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.

Checkmate 816: Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

In this open-label, phase 3 trial, 358 patients with stage IB (T ³ 4cm) to IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone for three cycles, followed by surgical resection. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. The median EFS was significantly increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm compared to chemotherapy alone: 31.6 months (95% CI 30.2 to not reached) vs 20.8 months (95% CI 14.0 to 26.7) (HR 0.63; 97.38% CI 0.43 to 0.91; P = .005). pCR rate was also increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm (24.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; odds ratio 13.94; 99% CI 3.49 to 55.75; P < .001). At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI 0.30 to 1.07), which currently does not meet the criterion for statistical significance. Of the randomized patients, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group were able to undergo surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. In an exploratory analysis, EFS was longer in patients with pCR than patients without a pCR. In a subset analysis, patients with high PD-L1 expression (³50%) stood out in terms of particular benefit (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.61). The Checkmate 816 trial is a landmark study. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard of care in the systemic treatment of resectable NSCLC that is at a stage that warrants systemic treatment. It is FDA approved regardless of PD-L1 expression level including PD-L1 negative (0%) patients.² Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy is also an FDA-approved treatment option for patients that are PD-L1 positive (³1%) based upon the IMpower 010 study.¹ It will be important to assess the overall survival benefit as the trial data matures, which seems to be trending in the right direction. Additional neoadjuvant clinical trials with chemoimmunotherapy have completed accrual and some of these trials also continued PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting after surgery. An important question for the future is if combination of PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting along with continuation of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting post-surgery will further improve clinical outcomes.

References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-57. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5  Source

2. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. April 11, 2022. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170 Source
    
3. Mok T, Camige DR, Gadgeel SM, et al. Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1056-1064. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.478 Source

4. Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Chiari R, et al. Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1691-1701. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2 Source
    
5. Lawrence MN, Tamen RM, Martinez P, et al. SPACEWALK: A remote participation study of ALK resistance leveraging plasma cell-free DNA genotyping. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2021;2:100151. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100151 Source
    
6. Lin JJ, Zhu VW, Yoda S, et al. Impact of EML4-ALK variant on resistance mechanisms and clinical outcomes in ALK-positive lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1199-1206. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2294 Source

In a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session, Dr Paz-Ares and colleagues presented interim analysis of the PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab. In this triple-blind phase 3 trial, 1177 patients with stage IB (tumor ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (per American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], version 7) were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab vs placebo. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall population and in the population with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The study met its primary endpoint where improved DFS was observed in the overall population that included lung cancers, whether they were PD-L1–negative (TPS = 0%) or –positive (TPS  ≥ 1%) (53.6 months in the pembrolizumab group vs 42.0 months in the placebo group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; P = .0014]). Overall survival data are not yet clear. Of note, in the interim analysis presented, the subset of patients with high PD-L1 NSCLC (TPS ≥ 50%) did not show a DFS benefit whereas in other adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies, such as IMpower010 and CheckMate 816, the subset of high PD-L1 patients appeared to derive the most benefit. The results from the high PD-L1 subset and other subsets may change with future updated analyses as more events occur. The major co-primary endpoint was clearly met with the overall population clearly showing a positive DFS benefit. The results of the PEARLS trial adds to the current landscape of systemic treatment of early-stage NSCLC where neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for stage IB (≥ 4 cm) to IIIA resected NSCLC regardless of level of PD-L1 expression, as is adjuvant atezolizumab after consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients that are PD-L1–positive (≥ 1%) on the basis of a DFS benefit observed in this population.^1,2 For the future, it is important to see if the DFS benefit observed in these studies translates into a meaningful overall survival benefit.

Plasma cfDNA Levels as a Prognostic Marker in ALK+ NSCLC in the ALEX Trial

The ALEX trial is a pivotal global phase 3 randomized control trial that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with the next-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 vs 10.9 months crizotinib).³ In a study recently published in Clinical Cancer Research, Dr Dziadziuszko and colleagues retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of baseline cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels in patients treated in the ALEX trial. Baseline plasma for cfDNA was quantified by the Foundation ACT next-generation sequencing assay. Clinical outcomes were assessed by quantitative cfDNA level stratified by the median value. In both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms, patients with cfDNA levels above the median were more likely to experience disease progression (alectinib adjusted HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.07-3.89; P = .03 and crizotinib adjusted HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.11-3.00, P = .016). Though survival data are incomplete, the study also suggested survival probability was lower when baseline cfDNA was above the median in both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms. Regardless of cfDNA levels, PFS was improved with alectinib compared with crizotinib. Previous studies have shown the value of cfDNA analysis at the time of progression to guide further treatment and target resistance mechanisms to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as G1202R, or bypass tract pathways, such as MET amplification.^4,5 Assessment of the EML4-ALK variant type (V1 vs V3) has been shown to associate with certain types of resistance mechanisms (ie, on target ALK mutations, such as G1202R in V3) and clinical activity of specific ALK TKI (V3 > V1 for PFS with lorlatinib).⁶ This study examining baseline cfDNA levels and clinical outcomes on the ALEX trial shows the potential utility of baseline cfDNA levels as a prognostic factor for ALK TKI.

Lorlatinib in ROS1-Rearranged NSCLC After Progression on Prior ROS1 TKI

ROS1 rearrangements represent about 1.5% of lung adenocarcinoma. In advanced disease, both crizotinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved as agents targeting ROS1 with robust PFS. The third-generation TKI lorlatinib is approved and has substantial activity in ALK-rearranged NSCLC. In a recently published retrospective real-world cohort study by Girard and colleagues (LORLATU), 80 patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC were treated with lorlatinib as second-line treatment or beyond and after failure on at least one prior ROS1 TKI. Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.0-9.9) and median overall survival was 19.6 months (95% CI 12.3-27.5). The overall response rate was 45% and the disease control rate was 82%. The central nervous system response rate was 72%. There were no new safety signals. This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that lorlatinib is a major targeted therapy treatment option in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.

Checkmate 816: Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

In this open-label, phase 3 trial, 358 patients with stage IB (T ³ 4cm) to IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone for three cycles, followed by surgical resection. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. The median EFS was significantly increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm compared to chemotherapy alone: 31.6 months (95% CI 30.2 to not reached) vs 20.8 months (95% CI 14.0 to 26.7) (HR 0.63; 97.38% CI 0.43 to 0.91; P = .005). pCR rate was also increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm (24.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; odds ratio 13.94; 99% CI 3.49 to 55.75; P < .001). At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI 0.30 to 1.07), which currently does not meet the criterion for statistical significance. Of the randomized patients, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group were able to undergo surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. In an exploratory analysis, EFS was longer in patients with pCR than patients without a pCR. In a subset analysis, patients with high PD-L1 expression (³50%) stood out in terms of particular benefit (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.61). The Checkmate 816 trial is a landmark study. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard of care in the systemic treatment of resectable NSCLC that is at a stage that warrants systemic treatment. It is FDA approved regardless of PD-L1 expression level including PD-L1 negative (0%) patients.² Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy is also an FDA-approved treatment option for patients that are PD-L1 positive (³1%) based upon the IMpower 010 study.¹ It will be important to assess the overall survival benefit as the trial data matures, which seems to be trending in the right direction. Additional neoadjuvant clinical trials with chemoimmunotherapy have completed accrual and some of these trials also continued PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting after surgery. An important question for the future is if combination of PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting along with continuation of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting post-surgery will further improve clinical outcomes.

References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-57. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5  Source

2. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. April 11, 2022. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170 Source
    
3. Mok T, Camige DR, Gadgeel SM, et al. Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1056-1064. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.478 Source

4. Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Chiari R, et al. Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1691-1701. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2 Source
    
5. Lawrence MN, Tamen RM, Martinez P, et al. SPACEWALK: A remote participation study of ALK resistance leveraging plasma cell-free DNA genotyping. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2021;2:100151. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100151 Source
    
6. Lin JJ, Zhu VW, Yoda S, et al. Impact of EML4-ALK variant on resistance mechanisms and clinical outcomes in ALK-positive lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1199-1206. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2294 Source