He, Philip

379 Background: A single priming dose of T (anti-CTLA-4) added to D (anti-PD-L1) in the STRIDE (Single T Regular Interval D) regimen, formerly T300+D, showed encouraging clinical activity and limited toxicity in a phase 2 uHCC study (Study 22, NCT02519348), suggesting single exposure to T is sufficient to improve upon D activity. HIMALAYA (NCT03298451) evaluated the efficacy and safety of STRIDE or D vs sorafenib (S) in uHCC. Methods: HIMALAYA is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study, in which pts with uHCC and no prior systemic therapy were initially randomized to STRIDE (T 300 mg plus D 1500 mg [one dose] plus D 1500 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]), D (1500 mg Q4W), S (400 mg twice daily), or T 75 mg Q4W (4 doses) plus D 1500 mg Q4W (T75+D). Recruitment to T75+D ceased after a planned analysis of Study 22 showed T75+D did not meaningfully differ from D. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) for STRIDE vs S. The secondary objective was OS noninferiority (NI) of D to S (NI margin: 1.08). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v.1.1), duration of response (DoR), and safety. Results: In total, 1171 pts were randomized to STRIDE (N=393), D (N=389), or S (N=389). At data cutoff (DCO), the primary objective was met: OS was significantly improved for STRIDE vs S (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 96% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.92; p=0.0035; Table). D met the objective of OS NI to S (HR, 0.86; 96% CI, 0.73–1.03). ORRs were higher for STRIDE (20.1%) and D (17.0%) than for S (5.1%). No new safety signals were identified. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 25.8% (STRIDE), 12.9% (D), and 36.9% (S) of pts. Grade 3/4 hepatic TRAEs occurred in 5.9% (STRIDE), 5.2% (D), and 4.5% (S) of pts. No TRAE of esophageal varices hemorrhage occurred. Rates of TRAEs leading to discontinuation were 8.2% (STRIDE), 4.1% (D), and 11.0% (S). Conclusions: HIMALAYA was the first large phase 3 trial with a diverse, representative uHCC population and extensive long-term follow-up to assess both mono- and combination immunotherapy. D was noninferior to S with favorable safety. The combination of a single priming dose of T plus D in STRIDE displayed superior efficacy and a favorable benefit-risk profile vs S. STRIDE is a proposed, novel, first-line standard of care systemic therapy for uHCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03298451. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

4508 Background: The combination of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) T (anti–CTLA-4) and D (anti–PD-L1) showed tolerability with a promising objective response rate (ORR) in the initial cohort of this study (NCT02519348). Subsequent evaluation of pts with solid tumors treated with increasing doses of T suggested priming with a higher dose of T may induce a stronger immune response and enhance anti-tumor activity. Thus, the randomized expansion cohorts comprised 4 arms evaluating T and D as monotherapies and 2 T+D regimens, including a novel T+D regimen featuring a single, priming dose of T. Methods: ICI-naïve pts with aHCC who progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomized to one of two T+D combinations: T300+D (T 300 mg + D 1500 mg 1 dose followed by D Q4 weekly [Q4W]) or T75+D (T 75 mg Q4W + D 1500 mg Q4W [4 doses] followed by D Q4W); or single agent D (1500 mg Q4W) or T (750 mg Q4W). Safety was the primary endpoint. ORR by blinded, independent central review using RECIST v1.1, duration of response (DoR), circulating lymphocytes, and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (09/02/2019), 332 pts were enrolled. Median follow-ups were 11.7 months (mo) for T300+D, 14.6 (T75+D), 8.9 (D), and 15.8 (T). Treatment-related adverse event (trAE) incidences are shown (Table); no deaths were attributed to trAEs for T300+D or T. The T300+D arm had the highest confirmed ORR (DoR not reached [NR]) and longest OS (Table). A unique proliferative T cell profile was identified for pts in the T300+D arm, suggesting additive biologic activity for the combination, and showed pts with an OR exhibited high cytotoxic (CD8) counts. Conclusions: The encouraging clinical activity and tolerable safety profile suggest T300+D provides the best benefit-risk profile as opposed to T75+D or monotherapies. The unique pharmacodynamic activity of the T300+D regimen further supports its use in aHCC. T300+D and D are being evaluated in the ongoing phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in first-line HCC vs sorafenib. Funding: AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT02519348 . [Table: see text]

Purpose This phase III randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103) compared eribulin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Women with MBC who had received prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or capecitabine as their first-, second-, or third-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Stratification factors were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status and geographic region. Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Median OS times for eribulin (n = 554) and capecitabine (n = 548) were 15.9 and 14.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = .056). Median PFS times for eribulin and capecitabine were 4.1 and 4.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.25; P = .30). Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.5% for capecitabine. Global health status and overall quality-of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles consistent with their known adverse effects; most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion In this phase III study, eribulin was not shown to be superior to capecitabine with regard to OS or PFS.