Nicola Personeni

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).

Phase III Trial Comparing Protracted Intravenous Fluorouracil Infusion Alone or With Yttrium-90 Resin Microspheres Radioembolization for Liver-Limited Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapy

PURPOSE Liver dissemination is a major cause of mortality among patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Hepatic intra-arterial injection of the beta-emitting isotope yttrium-90 ((90)Y) bound to resin microspheres (radioembolization) delivers therapeutic radiation doses to liver metastases with minimal damage to adjacent tissues. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized phase III trial in patients with unresectable, chemotherapy-refractory liver-limited metastatic CRC (mCRC) comparing arm A (fluorouracil [FU] protracted intravenous infusion 300 mg/m(2) days 1 through 14 every 3 weeks) and arm B (radioembolization plus intravenous FU 225 mg/m(2) days 1 through 14 then 300 mg/m(2) days 1 through 14 every 3 weeks) until hepatic progression. The primary end point was time to liver progression (TTLP). Cross-over to radioembolization was permitted after progression in arm A. RESULTS Forty-six patients were randomly assigned and 44 were eligible for analysis (arm A, n = 23; arm B, n = 21). Median follow-up was 24.8 months. Median TTLP was 2.1 and 5.5 months in arms A and B, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.72; P = .003). Median time to tumor progression (TTP) was 2.1 and 4.5 months, respectively (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.94; P = .03). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were recorded in six patients after FU monotherapy and in one patient after radioembolization plus FU treatment (P = .10). Twenty-five of 44 patients received further treatment after progression, including 10 patients in arm A who received radioembolization. Median overall survival was 7.3 and 10.0 months in arms A and B, respectively (HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.78; P = .80). CONCLUSION Radioembolization with (90)Y-resin microspheres plus FU is well tolerated and significantly improves TTLP and TTP compared with FU alone. This procedure is a valid therapeutic option for chemotherapy-refractory liver-limited mCRC.

Clinical Usefulness of EGFR Gene Copy Number as a Predictive Marker in Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Cetuximab: A Fluorescent In situ Hybridization Study

Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness and the pitfalls inherent to the assessment of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number (GCN) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for outcome prediction to cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. The value of testing KRAS mutation status, in addition to EGFR GCN, was also explored. Experimental Design: FISH analysis of 87 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab was done, recording individual GCN per cell and using different samples per tumor. Performances of published cutoff points and different summaries of EGFR GCN distribution were assessed for response prediction. Results: In our data set, two published cutoff points performed less well than in their training set, yielding positive predictive values and negative predictive values between 40.0% and 48.3% and between 81.0% and 86.5%, respectively. Among summaries of GCN distribution explored, mean and right-tailed distribution of GCN yielded the highest performances. A mean EGFR GCN ≥2.83 provided an area under the curve of 0.71. Important heterogeneity of repeated measures of mean EGFR GCN was observed within tumors (intraclass correlation, 0.61; within-class SD, 0.40), leading to potential misclassifications of FISH status in 7 of 18 (38.8%) patients if a cutoff point were used. In multivariable analysis, EGFR GCN testing provided significant information independent of the KRAS status to predict response (P = 0.016) and overall survival (P = 0.005). Conclusions: We confirm the association between increased EGFR GCN and outcome after cetuximab. However, because of reproducibility concerns, any decision making based on published cutoff points is not warranted.

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.

Standardisation of EGFR FISH in colorectal cancer: results of an international interlaboratory reproducibility ring study

Aims Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number evaluated by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) can discriminate among KRAS wild-type patients those with better outcome to EGFR-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, further enhancing selection of patients. Nevertheless, enumeration of gene copies is challenging and the lack of analytical standardisation has limited incorporation of the test into the clinical practice. We therefore assessed EGFR FISH interlaboratory consensus among five molecular diagnostic reference centres. Methods A set of 12 colorectal cancer samples circulated among laboratories, and samples were scored according to commonly agreed guidelines. Reproducibility was quantified using the standard error of measurement (SEM). Results A SEM of 0.865 and a within-subject coefficient of variation (WSCV) of 26.8% for mean EGFR gene/nuclei and a SEM of 0.235 and a WSCV of 19.4% for the mean EGFR gene/CEP7 ratio were observed. Measurement of the fraction of cells displaying chromosome 7 polysomy showed WSCV of 46.6%, 34.0% and 51.0% for percentage of cells displaying ≤2, ≥3 and ≥4 EGFR signals, respectively. Among different slides of the same specimen, the WSCV was 6.1% for mean EGFR gene/nuclei and 3.9% for mean of EGFR gene/CEP7 ratios. Conclusions Molecular diagnosis of EGFR gene copy number by FISH varied largely among pathology centres, with fluctuations covering the whole range of proposed cut-offs of predictive usefulness from literature. Definition of a detailed scoring system and implementation of comprehensive training programmes for laboratories are therefore necessary before including the test into clinical practice.

A Phase II Randomized Dose Escalation Trial of Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Sorafenib has proven survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The viability of continuing sorafenib at a higher dosage in patients who experienced radiologic disease progression was investigated. METHODS Patients who experienced disease progression while on sorafenib 400 mg twice daily were randomized to sorafenib 600 mg twice daily (n = 49) or best supportive care (n = 52). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Time to progression, overall survival, and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS The study did not meet its primary end point. The difference in PFS between the sorafenib arm (3.91 months) and the best supportive care arm (2.69 months) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.086). Adverse events were mainly grade 1-2 and similar across both groups. In the sorafenib arm, the most frequent events were diarrhea (80%), weight loss (75%), fatigue (67%), hand-foot-skin reaction (49%), abdominal pain (37%), and stomatitis (26%). CONCLUSIONS Escalated-dose sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC who progressed while on sorafenib, failed to provide any clinical benefit. Second-line treatment still remains an open issue to be explored in appropriate clinical trials.

Tivantinib: a new promising mesenchymal–epithelial transition factor inhibitor in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Tivantinib (ARQ 197) is an orally administered, selective small molecule that inhibits mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) via a novel, ATP-independent binding mechanism. Preclinical studies demonstrated that tivantinib has a broad-spectrum anti-tumor activity, especially in cells expressing high levels of MET. A randomized Phase II study in second-line hepatocellular carcinoma showed statistically significant improvement in time to progression with tivantinib compared to a placebo. Noteworthy, a significant pronounced benefit in time to progression and overall survival was observed in MET-high patients. In addition, MET expression was defined as a negative prognostic factor. The most frequent adverse events were hematologic events. A Phase III study in the MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma is actively recruiting patients. Phase II and III studies in non-small-cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer are ongoing.

Tumor and circulating biomarkers in patients with second-line hepatocellular carcinoma from the randomized phase II study with tivantinib

ARQ 197-215 was a randomized placebo-controlled phase II study testing the MET inhibitor tivantinib in second-line hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. It identified tumor MET as a key biomarker in HCC. Aim of this research was to study the prognostic and predictive value of tumor (MET, the receptor tyrosine kinase encoded by the homonymous MNNG-HOS transforming gene) and circulating (MET, hepatocyte growth factor [HGF], alpha-fetoprotein [AFP], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]) biomarkers in second-line HCC. Tumor MET-High status was centrally assessed by immunohistochemistry. Circulating biomarkers were centrally analyzed on serum samples collected at baseline and every 4-8 weeks, using medians as cut-off to determine High/Low status. Tumor MET, tested in 77 patients, was more frequently High after (82%) versus before (40%) sorafenib. A significant interaction (p = 0.04) between tivantinib and baseline tumor MET in terms of survival was observed. Baseline circulating MET and HGF (102 patients) High status correlated with shorter survival (HR 0.61, p = 0.03, and HR 0.60, p = 0.02, respectively), while the association between AFP (104 patients) or VEGF (103 patients) status and survival was non-significant. Conclusions: Tumor MET levels were higher in patients treated with sorafenib. Circulating biomarkers such as MET and HGF may be prognostic in second-line HCC. These results need to be confirmed in larger randomized clinical trials.

Epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number in esophageal cancer and outcome prediction to gefitinib: does intratumoral heterogeneity matter?

TO THE EDITOR: I read with great interest the recently published study by Janmaat et al, who reported on biologic and clinical factors associated with gefitinib therapy outcome in advanced esophageal cancer. Within a panel of candidate predictive markers, they analyzed epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and EGFR gene copy number by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH). Twenty-four tumors were evaluated for EGFR expression by IHC and nine were deemed highly positive (3 ) for EGFR. High-level EGFR expression was significantly associated with disease control (response stable disease) in six of these nine cases. In contrast, analysis of EGFR copy number was performed only on 16 available tumors, of which four exhibited high EGFR expression. Two of these tumors, both with high EGFR expression, were deemed CISH positive and were eventually associated with a partial response in one of the two cases. The authors concluded that assessment of EGFR level of expression by IHC predicts outcome to gefitinib therapy more effectively than EGFR copy number by CISH. Despite the small patient cohort, this study, however, does raise a few points which may help to interpret the lack of predictive value yielded by CISH and as such warrant further discussion. The report by Hanawa et al, quoted by Janmaat et al, found that 17 of 18 high-level EGFR expressing tumors had either EGFR amplification or low level amplification/polysomy by fluorescent in situ hybridization, thus suggesting that an increased number of gene copies influences the high protein expression in 94% of cases. This figure, among tumors with strong EGFR expression, is much higher than the prevalence that Janmaat et al reported in their study (50%), although the cut offs adopted in both studies to score EGFR by in situ hybridization were similar. By mere extrapolation, this discrepancy still persists when analysis of EGFR copy number is extended to 1 and 2 EGFR staining tumors, questioning the prevalence of increased EGFR copy number in esophageal cancer, and the relationship with protein expression. In several cancer types, a correlation between increasing levels of EGFR protein expression by IHC and increased gene copy number suggests that the addictive effect of gene amplification or chromosome polysomy is a relevant mechanism underlying protein expression. Remarkably, using serial sections, it has been demonstrated that regions with EGFR amplification in esophageal cancer coincided with those exhibiting 2 or 3 degrees of immunoreactivity by IHC. In particular, neoplastic cells showing such immunohistochemical features were found to constitute between 10% and 90% of the total cells. Consistent with previous investigations, these findings imply that the proportion of tumor cells displaying EGFR gene increased copy number may also vary across a tumor according to the area and the section being analyzed. As a result, the significant heterogeneity inherent to EGFR genetic alterations could contribute to foci with EGFR increased copy number being overlooked, and might provide an explanation for the low prevalence of tumors with EGFR increased copy number reported by Janmaat et al in their study. Furthermore, these observations might explain the disagreement between the reported rates of strong EGFR protein expression and the rates of increased gene copy number, especially if assays were not performed on serial sections, as could be the case in this study. This also raises the possibility that the results obtained from tumor cross section analysis may not be representative of the whole tumor. Though several studies evaluated EGFR gene status by fluorescent in situ hybridization or CISH in a variety of tumors, there are no definitive recommendations on how to proceed with EGFR scoring. Given the real and perceived heterogeneity of EGFR distribution in tumor sections, a score based on the mean number of EGFR copies per cell or the mean ratio of gene to chromosome copy, as it is currently recommended with respect to evaluation of HER2 gene status in breast cancer, still requires thorough validation. Conversely, an approach based on the percentage of cells displaying specific patterns of EGFR and chromosome 7 copy numbers has proven useful in segregating subgroups of non–small-cell lung cancer patients with different outcomes after gefitinib therapy. This kind of approach might hold promise also in evaluating response prediction to tyrosine kinase inhibitors through EGFR gene and protein assessments within heterogeneous cancers, such as esophageal cancer. Unless investigators validate their methodology taking into account intratumoral genetic heterogeneity, and unless the studies are conducted on large cohorts of patients, a problem might present itself in evaluating EGFR copy number with in situ hybridization techniques.

Biomarkers in Hepatocellular Carcinoma—Letter

We read with great interest the study by Llovet and colleagues ([1][1]), who reported on plasma biomarkers in a phase III trial of sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; ref. [2][2]). One of the main scopes of this correlative study was to identify predictive markers of survival and