Liver cancer, more specifically hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is the second leading cause of cancer-related death and its incidence is increasing globally. Around 50% of patients with HCC receive systemic therapies, traditionally sorafenib or lenvatinib in the first line and regorafenib, cabozantinib or ramucirumab in the second line. In the past 5 years, immune-checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the management of HCC. The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has been shown to improve overall survival relative to sorafenib, resulting in FDA approval of this regimen. More recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab yielded superior overall survival versus sorafenib and atezolizumab plus cabozantinib yielded superior progression-free survival. In addition, pembrolizumab monotherapy and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab have received FDA Accelerated Approval in the second-line setting based on early efficacy data. Despite these major advances, the molecular underpinnings governing immune responses and evasion remain unclear. The immune microenvironment has crucial roles in the development and progression of HCC and distinct aetiology-dependent immune features have been defined. Inflamed and non-inflamed classes of HCC and genomic signatures have been associated with response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors, yet no validated biomarker is available to guide clinical decision-making. This Review provides information on the immune microenvironments underlying the response or resistance of HCC to immunotherapies. In addition, current evidence from phase III trials on the efficacy, immune-related adverse events and aetiology-dependent mechanisms of response are described. Finally, we discuss emerging trials assessing immunotherapies across all stages of HCC that might change the management of this disease in the near future.

Immunotherapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) or its ligand PD-L1 rescue T cells from exhausted status and revive immune response against cancer cells. Based on the immense success in clinical trials, ten α-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab, sintilimab, camrelizumab, toripalimab, tislelizumab, zimberelimab, prolgolimab, and dostarlimab) and three α-PD-L1 antibodies (atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab) have been approved for various types of cancers. Nevertheless, the low response rate of α-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy remains to be resolved. For most cancer patients, PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is not the sole speed-limiting factor of antitumor immunity, and it is insufficient to motivate effective antitumor immune response by blocking PD-1/PD-L1 axis. It has been validated that some combination therapies, including α-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy, radiotherapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, targeted therapy, other immune checkpoint inhibitors, agonists of the co-stimulatory molecule, stimulator of interferon genes agonists, fecal microbiota transplantation, epigenetic modulators, or metabolic modulators, have superior antitumor efficacies and higher response rates. Moreover, bifunctional or bispecific antibodies containing α-PD-1/PD-L1 moiety also elicited more potent antitumor activity. These combination strategies simultaneously boost multiple processes in cancer-immunity cycle, remove immunosuppressive brakes, and orchestrate an immunosupportive tumor microenvironment. In this review, we summarized the synergistic antitumor efficacies and mechanisms of α-PD-1/PD-L1 in combination with other therapies. Moreover, we focused on the advances of α-PD-1/PD-L1-based immunomodulatory strategies in clinical studies. Given the heterogeneity across patients and cancer types, individualized combination selection could improve the effects of α-PD-1/PD-L1-based immunomodulatory strategies and relieve treatment resistance. 

/pdf/combination-strategies-with-pd-1-pd-l1-blockade-current-3ibhyxay.pdf

Combination strategies with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: current advances and future directions

https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12943-021-01489-2

Systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: An EASL position paper

Abstract Objective To evaluate sintilimab versus placebo in combination with chemotherapy (cisplatin plus paclitaxel or cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil) as first line treatment of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Design Multicentre, randomised, double blind, phase 3 trial. Setting 66 sites in China and 13 sites outside of China between 14 December 2018 and 9 April 2021. Participants 659 adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who had not received systemic treatment. Intervention Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive sintilimab or placebo (3 mg/kg in patients weighing <60 kg or 200 mg in patients weighing ≥60 kg) in combination with cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every three weeks. The trial was amended to allow investigators to choose the chemotherapy regimen: cisplatin plus paclitaxel or cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m2 continuous infusion on days 1-5). Main outcome measures Overall survival in all patients and in patients with combined positive scores of ≥10 for expression of programmed cell death ligand 1. Results 659 patients were randomly assigned to sintilimab (n=327) or placebo (n=332) with chemotherapy. 616 of 659 patients (93%) received sintilimab or placebo in combination with cisplatin plus paclitaxel and 43 of 659 patients (7%) received sintilimab or placebo in combination with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil. At the interim analysis, sintilimab with chemotherapy showed better overall survival compared with placebo and chemotherapy in all patients (median 16.7 v 12.5 months, hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.78, P<0.001) and in patients with combined positive scores of ≥10 (17.2 v 13.6 months, 0.64, 0.48 to 0.85, P=0.002). Sintilimab and chemotherapy significantly improved progression free survival compared with placebo and chemotherapy in all patients (7.2 v 5.7 months, 0.56, 0.46 to 0.68, P<0.001) and in patients with combined positive scores of ≥10 (8.3 v 6.4 months, 0.58, 0.45 to 0.75, P<0.001). Adverse events related to treatment occurred in 321 of 327 patients (98%) in the sintilimab-chemotherapy group versus 326 of 332 (98%) patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Rates of adverse events related to treatment, grade ≥3, were 60% (196/327) and 55% (181/332) in the sintilimab-chemotherapy and placebo-chemotherapy groups, respectively. Conclusions Compared with placebo, sintilimab in combination with cisplatin plus paclitaxel showed significant benefits in overall survival and progression free survival as first line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Similar benefits of sintilimab with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil seem promising. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748134.

/pdf/sintilimab-versus-placebo-in-combination-with-chemotherapy-284zxlx0.pdf

Sintilimab versus placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ORIENT-15): multicentre, randomised, double blind, phase 3 trial

Summary Background China has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the main causative factor. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have a poor prognosis and a substantial unmet clinical need. The phase 2–3 ORIENT-32 study aimed to assess sintilimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus IBI305, a bevacizumab biosimilar, versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods This randomised, open-label, phase 2–3 study was done at 50 clinical sites in China. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically diagnosed or clinically confirmed unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, no previous systemic treatment, and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients received intravenous sintilimab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus intravenous IBI305 (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). In the phase 3 part, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either sintilimab plus IBI305 (sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily; sorafenib group), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was done using permuted block randomisation, with a block size of six, via an interactive web response system, and stratified by macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis, baseline α-fetoprotein, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 part of the study was safety, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The co-primary endpoints of the phase 3 part of the study were overall survival and independent radiological review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03794440 . The study is closed to new participants and follow-up is ongoing for long-term outcomes. Findings Between Feb 11, 2019 and Jan 15, 2020, we enrolled 595 patients: 24 were enrolled directly into the phase 2 safety run-in and 571 were randomly assigned to sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar (n=380) or sorafenib (n=191). In the phase 2 part of the trial, 24 patients received at least one dose of the study drug, with an objective response rate of 25·0% (95% CI 9·8–46·7). Based on the preliminary safety and activity data of the phase 2 part, in which grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in seven (29%) of 24 patients, the randomised phase 3 part was started. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2020), the median follow-up was 10·0 months (IQR 8·5–11·7) in the sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group and 10·0 months (8·4–11·7) in the sorafenib group. Patients in the sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group had a significantly longer IRRC-assessed median progression-free survival (4·6 months [95% CI 4·1–5·7]) than did patients in the sorafenib group (2·8 months [2·7–3·2]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·46–0·70; p Interpretation Sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefit versus sorafenib in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with unresectable, HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, with an acceptable safety profile. This combination regimen could provide a novel treatment option for such patients. Funding Innovent Biologics. Translation For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study.

Xuetao Shi

Papers

Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study.