Lorenza Rimassa

Tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study

BACKGROUND Tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective oral inhibitor of MET, has shown promising antitumour activity in hepatocellular carcinoma as monotherapy and in combination with sorafenib. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS In this completed, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who had progressed on or were unable to tolerate first-line systemic therapy. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive tivantinib (360 mg twice-daily) or placebo until disease progression. The tivantinib dose was amended to 240 mg twice-daily because of high incidence of treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse neutropenia. Randomisation was done centrally by an interactive voice-response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was time to progression, according to independent radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed tumour samples for MET expression with immunohistochemistry (high expression was regarded as ≥2+ in ≥50% of tumour cells). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988741. FINDINGS 71 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivantinib (38 at 360 mg twice-daily and 33 at 240 mg twice-daily); 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. At the time of analysis, 46 (65%) patients in the tivantinib group and 26 (72%) of those in the placebo group had progressive disease. Time to progression was longer for patients treated with tivantinib (1·6 months [95% CI 1·4-2·8]) than placebo (1·4 months [1·4-1·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 90% CI 0·43-0·94; p=0·04). For patients with MET-high tumours, median time to progression was longer with tivantinib than for those on placebo (2·7 months [95% CI 1·4-8·5] for 22 MET-high patients on tivantinib vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6] for 15 MET-high patients on placebo; HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·19-0·97; p=0·03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the tivantinib group were neutropenia (ten patients [14%] vs none in the placebo group) and anaemia (eight [11%] vs none in the placebo group). Eight patients (21%) in the tivantinib 360 mg group had grade 3 or worse neutropenia compared with two (6%) patients in the 240 mg group. Four deaths related to tivantinib occurred from severe neutropenia. 24 (34%) patients in the tivantinib group and 14 (39%) patients in the placebo group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Tivantinib could provide an option for second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and well-compensated liver cirrhosis, particularly for patients with MET-high tumours. Confirmation in a phase 3 trial is needed, with a starting dose of tivantinib 240 mg twice-daily. FUNDING ArQule, Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi Sankyo Group).

Primary resistance to cetuximab therapy in EGFR FISH-positive colorectal cancer patients

The impact of KRAS mutations on cetuximab sensitivity in epidermal growth factor receptor fluorescence in situ hybridisation-positive (EGFR FISH+) metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC) has not been previously investigated. In the present study, we analysed KRAS, BRAF, PI3KCA, MET, and IGF1R in 85 mCRC treated with cetuximab-based therapy in whom EGFR status was known. KRAS mutations (52.5%) negatively affected response only in EGFR FISH+ patients. EGFR FISH+/KRAS mutated had a significantly lower response rate (P=0.04) than EGFR FISH+/KRAS wild type patients. Four EGFR FISH+ patients with KRAS mutations responded to cetuximab therapy. BRAF was mutated in 5.0% of patients and none responded to the therapy. PI3KCA mutations (17.7%) were not associated to cetuximab sensitivity. Patients overexpressing IGF1R (74.3%) had significantly longer survival than patients with low IGF1R expression (P=0.006), with no difference in response rate. IGF1R gene amplification was not detected, and only two (2.6%) patients, both responders, had MET gene amplification. In conclusion, KRAS mutations are associated with cetuximab failure in EGFR FISH+ mCRC, even if it does not preclude response. The rarity of MET and IGF1R gene amplification suggests a marginal role in primary resistance. The potential prognostic implication of IGF1R expression merits further evaluation.

Usefulness of alpha-fetoprotein response in patients treated with sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS Tumor shrinkage has been considered a fundamental surrogate efficacy measure for new cancer treatments. However, in patients treated with sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), tumor shrinkage rarely accompanies increased survival, thereby questioning the prognostic value of imaging-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). We investigated the prognostic usefulness of a decrease in serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and compared it to RECIST. METHODS In HCC patients treated with sorafenib with baseline AFP >20 ng/ml, AFP response was defined as a >20% decrease in AFP during 8weeks of treatment. Patients were also assessed by RECIST and were categorized as having radiologically proven progressive disease or disease control (consisting of complete or partial responses and stable disease). Comparisons of survival by RECIST and AFP response were corrected for guarantee-time bias by the landmark method. RESULTS We evaluated 85 patients for AFP response, among them, 82 were also evaluated by RECIST. In the analysis of AFP response, 32 out of 85 patients (37.6%) were responders, whereas 58 out of 82 patients (70.7%) achieved disease control. In landmark analysis, the hazard ratios (HR) for survival according to AFP response and disease control were 0.59 (p=0.040) and 1.03 (p=0.913), respectively. In multivariate analysis, only AFP response (HR=0.52; p=0.009) and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program dichotomized stage (HR=0.42; p=0.002) were prognostic factors of survival. CONCLUSIONS Assessment of AFP response may be considered as an alternative to RECIST to capture sorafenib activity in HCC.

Sorafenib therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the SHARP trial

Until now, no effective systemic treatment options have been available for patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP), patients with unresectable advanced HCC with Child–Pugh liver function class A and who had not received prior systemic therapy, received either oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo until radiological and symptomatic progression. The two groups of patients were well balanced with respect to baseline characteristics. The study was stopped at the second planned interim analysis because of an advantage in the median overall survival (10.7 vs 7.9 months; hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55–0.87; p < 0.001) and the median time to radiological progression (5.5 vs 2.8 months; p < 0.001) in the sorafenib arm. However, sorafenib was not able to increase the time to symptomatic progression. In terms of toxicity, there were more cases of diarrhea, weight loss, hand–foot skin reaction and hypophosphatemia among the patients receiving sorafenib, the majority of which were of grade 1 or 2 severity. The SHARP trial has demonstrated that sorafenib is effective in prolonging median survival and time-to-progression in patients with advanced HCC and that it is generally well tolerated with a manageable adverse events profile.

A Phase-1b study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in adult patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis

Background:The mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) receptor is dysregulated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and tivantinib (ARQ 197) is an oral, selective, MET inhibitor.Methods:This Phase-1b study assessed tivantinib safety as primary objective in patients with previously treated HCC and Child-Pugh A or B liver cirrhosis. Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.Results:Among 21 HCC patients, common drug-related adverse events (AEs) were neutropaenia, anaemia, asthenia, leucopaenia, anorexia, diarrhoea, and fatigue. No drug-related worsening of liver function or performance status occurred, but one Child-Pugh B patient experienced drug-related bilirubin increase. Four patients had drug-related serious AEs, including one neutropaenia-related death. Haematologic toxicities were more frequent than in previous tivantinib studies but were manageable with prompt therapy. Best response was stable disease (median, 5.3 months) in 9 of 16 evaluable patients (56%). Median time to progression was 3.3 months.Conclusion:Tivantinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile and preliminary antitumour activity in patients with HCC and Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis.

A phase II randomized multicenter trial of gefitinib plus FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND Gefitinib inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase and preclinical studies indicate that it may enhance CPT-11 cytotoxicity. This randomized phase II trial investigates the feasibility and efficacy of gefitinib and 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized to FOLFIRI +/- gefitinib 250 mg daily p.o. Patients randomized to FOLFIRI + gefitinib without disease progression after 6 months continued to receive gefitinib alone until disease progression. RESULTS From October 2002 to September 2004, 100 patients were enrolled. Twenty-three patients (47.9%) in the FOLFIRI arm and 23 (45.1%) in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm experienced an objective response. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 8.3 and 18.6 months in the FOLFIRI arm, and 8.3 and 17.1 months in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm, respectively. In the combination arm, grades 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 35 (67.3%) patients versus 25 patients (52.1%) in the FOLFIRI arm; 12 patients (23.1%) withdrew for an adverse event in the FOLFIRI + gefitinib arm and 5 (10.4%) in the FOLFIRI arm. CONCLUSIONS These data show that adding gefitinib to FOLFIRI does not improve the efficacy of FOLFIRI regimen. These disappointing results could be related to the high toxicity observed that led to significant dose reductions and delays.

Phase II study of NGR-hTNF, a selective vascular targeting agent, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of standard therapy

BACKGROUND NGR-hTNF consists of human tumour necrosis factor (hTNF) fused with the tumour-homing peptide Asp-Gly-Arg (NGR), which is able to selectively bind an aminopeptidase N overexpressed on tumour blood vessels. Preclinical antitumour activity was observed even at low doses. We evaluated the activity and safety of low-dose NGR-hTNF in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients failing standard therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty-three patients with progressive disease at study entry received NGR-hTNF 0.8 μg/m(2) given intravenously every 3 weeks. The median number of prior treatment regimens was three (range, 2-5). One-quarter of patients had previously received four or more regimens and two-thirds targeted agents. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary study objective. RESULTS NGR-hTNF was well tolerated. No treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicities were detected, most common grade 1 to 2 adverse events being short-lived, infusion-time related chills (50.0%). One partial response and 12 stable diseases were observed, yielding a disease control rate of 39.4% (95% CI, 22.9-57.8%). Median PFS and overall survival were 2.5 months (95% CI, 2.1-2.8) and 13.1 months (95% CI, 8.9-17.3), respectively; whereas in patients who achieved disease control the median PFS and overall survival were 3.8 and 15.4 months, respectively. In an additional cohort of 13 patients treated at same dose with a weekly schedule, there was no increased toxicity and 2 patients experienced PFS longer than 10 months. CONCLUSION Based on tolerability and preliminary evidence of disease control in heavily pretreated CRC patients, NGR-hTNF deserves further evaluation in combination with standard chemotherapy.

MicroRNA-425-3p predicts response to sorafenib therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Sorafenib is the standard of care in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), however no criteria have been established to select patients likely to benefit from this therapy. In this study, we evaluated the predictive role of microRNAs (miRNAs) in this setting of patients.

Metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma to the heart: a case report and review of the literature.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with extension or metastasis to the right atrium is an uncommon form of cardiac malignancy. This report describes a rare case of right intraventricular metastasis from HCC in a patient who had undergone a partial hepatectomy for HCC more than two years earlier. Open heart surgery was performed and the mass was partially excised. Symptoms (dyspnea, edema of the lower extremities, palpitations) improved after surgery. Two months later a recurrence of the ventricular mass was observed. Systemic chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin resulted in significant tumor reduction. The patient died of progressive hepatic failure six months later. In addition to this case report, a review of the literature on heart involvement from HCC is presented.

A randomized, multicenter, phase II study of vandetanib monotherapy versus vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus placebo in subjects with advanced biliary tract cancer: the VanGogh study.

BACKGROUND The management of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) is complex due to limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach. This phase II multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vandetanib monotherapy compared with vandetanib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced BTC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to three treatment groups: vandetanib 300 mg monotherapy (V), vandetanib 100 mg plus gemcitabine (V/G), gemcitabine plus placebo (G/P). Vandetanib (300 mg or 100 mg) or placebo was given in single oral daily doses. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was i.v. infused on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, duration of response, performance status and safety outcomes. RESULTS A total of 173 patients (mean age 63.6 years) were recruited at 19 centers across Italy. Median (95% confidence intervals) PFS (days) were 105 (72-155), 114 (91-193) and 148 (71-225), respectively, for the V, V/G and G/P treatment groups, with no statistical difference among them (P = 0.18). No statistical difference between treatments was observed for secondary end points, except ORR, which slightly favored the V/G combination over other treatments. The proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) was similar for the three groups (96.6% in V arm, 91.4% in the V/G arm and 89.3% in the G/P arm). CONCLUSIONS Vandetanib treatment did not improve PFS in patients with advanced BTC. The safety profile of vandetanib did not show any additional AEs or worsening of already known AEs. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER NCT00753675.