Kournoutas, Ioannis

Abstract Background Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is a leading cause of cancer death. FDA-approved first-line systemic therapies include atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and durvalumab/tremelimumab (durva/treme); however, there is a lack of comparative data. Methods We reviewed outcomes of patients with uHCC who initiated atezo/bev or durva/treme between 2017 and 2024, across six institutions. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier and Cox models, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Four hundred fifty-two uHCC pts were included. Median age: 68 years; 77% male; 81% white. Most common etiologies were viral hepatitis (38.9%) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (19.5%). Disease progression was the primary reason for treatment discontinuation, atezo/bev (56%) and durva/treme (42%). Outcomes were not statistically significant (median OS [month, m]: 14.0 vs 14.6 [P = .66]; median TTD [m]: 4.9 vs 3.9 [P = .42] for atezo/bev vs durva/treme). Outcomes were significantly different between Child-Pugh classes (CP: A, B7, B8/9, C) respectively, median OS(m): 19.0, 6.1, 5.1, 2.0 (P < .001); median TTD(m): 6.1, 2.3, 3.0, 1.3 (P < .001). Conclusions In this real-world study of uHCC, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between atezo/bev and durva/treme in the first-line setting. CP scores were a key prognostic variable with both regimens.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics, clinical outcomes, and resource use of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) treated with first-line (1L) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) at five United States (US) institutions: the Mayo Clinic, Houston Methodist, Moffitt Cancer Center, Mays Cancer Center, and University of Arizona. Methods: Treating oncologists extracted data from medical charts of patients with uHCC who were treated with A+B after 1 January 2019. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method for the overall cohort and for a “trial-like” subgroup with characteristics similar to those in the IMbrave150 trial (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0–1, Child–Pugh [CP] class A, albumin–bilirubin grade 1–2). Results: Of the 300 patients in the overall cohort (median age of 68 years; 12% ECOG PS ≥ 2; 73% CP A; 26% CP B; median follow-up of 8.7 months), the median rwPFS was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8, 8.4) months, and the median OS was 14.4 (95% CI: 12.3, 18.2) months. In the trial-like subgroup (n = 194), the median rwPFS was 8.8 (95% CI: 7.6, 12.1) months and the median OS was 19.5 (95% CI: 14.6, 24.7) months. A significantly lower proportion of patients with CP A compared with CP B (39.7% vs. 73.4%) experienced hospitalization within one year of A+B initiation, whereas hospitalizations due to treatment-related adverse events were similar. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the real-world effectiveness of 1L A+B in a diverse US patient cohort, with results from trial-like patients supporting the reproducible efficacy of A+B in clinical practice.

12038 Background: CIPN, primarily associated with sensory neuropathy rather than motor or autonomic dysfunction, is a potentially long-term complication of cancer treatment including taxanes and platinums (T/Ps), and can negatively impact quality of life for breast cancer (BC) survivors. This project aims to quantify the severity of neuropathic symptoms at one and three years after diagnosis in BC survivors, comparing recipients of T/P to non-recipients. Methods: In the Mayo Clinic Breast Registry (MCBDR), a longitudinal cohort, surveys and medical record data from patients with stage 1-3 BC were used to understand the burden of neuropathic symptoms at 1- and 3-years post-diagnosis (denoted as Y1 and Y3). Y1 and Y3 raw scores from The Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 (CIPN20) composite (CIPN20-C) and sensory subscale (CIPN-S) were converted to a 0-100 point scale, with lower scores corresponding to worse symptoms. Patients with BC recurrence prior to Y3 or incomplete surveys were excluded. We used two sample t-tests and multivariable linear regression modeling to compare recipients of T/P to non-recipients of T/P (with threshold for statistical significance p <0.05). Results: 786 patients were included, 112 of whom (14.2%) received T/P. T/P recipients were younger (p<0.001), more likely to have Stage II/III disease (p<0.001), and less likely to have received endocrine therapy (p<0.001). Univariate analyses revealed worse CIPN20-C score at Y1 (p=0.02) and worse CIPN20-S scores (p=0.004) at Y1 and Y3 in T/P recipients compared to non-recipients (Table). However, differences between the groups were no longer statistically significant after adjustment for age, stage and endocrine therapy. Conclusions: In this cohort, neuropathic symptom severity at Y1 and Y3 after a breast cancer diagnosis did not differ between recipients of taxane and/or platinum agents and nonrecipients after adjustment for age, stage, and endocrine therapy. These data may reassure patients and clinicians who are concerned about CIPN and considering use of these chemotherapies in this setting. Patient demographics and CIPN20 results. Clinical characteristic T/P recipients Non-recipients of T/P Age at diagnosis, mean (SD) 55.3 (11.6)* 59.8 (11.9) White race, N (%) 108 (96.4%) 660 (97.9%) Clinical stage II/III, N (%) 76 (68.5%)* 250 (37.5%) Endocrine therapy, N (%) 73 (65.2%)* 636 (94.4%) Diabetes mellitus, N (%) 9 (8.9%) 52 (8.6%) Y1 CIPN20-C score, mean (SD) 89.6 (10.9)* 92.0 (9.7) Y3 CIPN-C score, mean (SD) 89.4 (11.4) 91.1 (9.7) Y1 CIPN20- S score, mean (SD) 87.3 (15.1)* 91.3 (13.0) Y3 CIPN20-S score, mean (SD) 88.2 (14.1)* 91.1 (11.7) *Statistically significant (p <0.05) on univariate analysis.

537 Background: A+B is the preferred first-line (1L) standard of care for uHCC, with emerging RW evidence supporting its use in a broad patient (pt) cohort. We evaluated pt characteristics, clinical and treatment outcomes in pts treated at five U.S. institutions: Mayo Clinic, Houston Methodist, Moffitt Cancer Center, Mays Cancer Center, and University of Arizona. Methods: This is a retrospective study of uHCC pts who initiated A+B after January 1, 2019. De-identified pt data were extracted by treating oncologists. Overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods for all pts and for a “trial-like” subgroup with characteristics similar to those in the IMbrave150 trial (ECOG performance status [PS] 0-1, Child-Pugh [CP] class A, albumin-bilirubin [ALBI] grade 1-2). HCC-related hospitalizations were evaluated within 1 year of A+B initiation. Results: A total of 300 eligible pts were treated with 1L A+B (median age 68 years, 79% male, 79% White, 82% BCLC C, 44% viral etiology,12% ECOG PS >1). Liver function was CP A in 73% (36% A5, 31% A6, 6% not reported), CP B in 26% pts (15% B7, 7% B8, 5% B9), and CP C in 2 (<1%) pts. Compared with CP A, more CP B pts had characteristics of compromised liver function (CP A vs B: cirrhosis: 61% vs 91%; ascites: 7% vs 46%; encephalopathy: 4% vs 17%; esophageal varices: 14% vs 32%), bile duct invasion (2% vs 11%), and ECOG PS>1 (8% vs 22%), all Ps<0.001. Over a median follow-up of 8.7 mos, 244 (81%) pts discontinued A+B, primarily due to disease progression. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation and hospitalizations due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were similar between the two groups (Table). Median OS (mOS) was 14.4 mos (95% CI: 12.3, 18.2) and median rwPFS was 6.8 mos (95% CI: 5.8, 8.4). In the trial-like subgroup (n=194), mOS was 19.5 mos (95%CI: 14.6, 24.7) and median rwPFS was 8.8 mos (95% CI: 7.6, 12.1). In the CP B subgroup, mOS was 5.6 mos (95% CI: 4.6, 11.3) and median rwPFS was 3.1 mos (95% CI: 2.4, 5.8). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the RW outcomes of 1L A+B in a diverse pt cohort. Results from the “trial-like” pts further confirm the reproducible efficacy of A+B in clinical practice. Although pts with CP-B had higher hospitalization rates due to disease progression or symptoms, consistent with their underlying liver complications, they had similar rates of toxicity-related treatment discontinuation and TRAE-related hospitalizations compared to CP-A. Further characterization of safety for A+B in CP B pts within a prospective, controlled trial is warranted. N (%) CP A (n=219) CP B (n=79) Treatment discontinuation* 167 (76) 75 (95) Atezolizumab-related toxicity 20 (12) 13 (17) Bevacizumab-related toxicity 26 (16) 16 (21) Hospitalization* 87 (40) 58 (73) Symptom-related 42 (48) 35 (60) Progression 8 (9) 11 (19) TRAE 7 (8) 6 (10) *P-value comparing CP A vs CP B <0.001.

532 Background: HCC accounts for 80% of primary liver cancers, and worldwide, is the third common cause of cancer-related death. Two FDA approved 1st line systemic treatment options include atezo/bev and durva ± treme. Herein we report outcomes of these regimens in the 1st line setting via a real-world, multi-institutional retrospective cohort study. Methods: We reviewed clinical outcomes of patients (pts) who initiated 1st line atezo/bev or durva ± treme for unresectable HCC between March 2017 and February 2024, across 5 institutions (Mayo Clinic, University of Alabama, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and University of Michigan). Time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Best (objective) response was tabulated. Multivariable analyses were performed using Cox models and logistic regression for time-to-event and binary outcomes, respectively, while adjusting for age, sex, race, HCC etiology, Child-Pugh class, and ALBI grade. Results: A total of 433 HCC pts were included; atezo/bev (336), durva ± treme (97). Median age at the start of therapy was 68 years; 77% were male, 82% were Caucasian. Etiologies of HCC were viral hepatitis (38%), MASLD (20%), alcohol (10%), non-viral multifactorial (10%), or unknown (22%). Pts receiving durva ± treme were less likely to have cirrhosis (11% vs. 28%, p<0.01) but similar in terms of macrovascular invasion (63% vs. 58%, p=0.35) compared to pts receiving atezo/bev. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were similar between the two groups, with the most common being disease progression - atezo/bev (56%) and durva ± treme (47%). The differences in clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly and remained consistent after multivariable adjustment. (Table, atezo/bev as the reference group). Outcomes were significantly different between Child-Pugh classes (CP: A,B,C) respectively, OS: 19.0 m, 6.4 m, 1.9 m (p<0.001); TTF: 6.1 m, 2.7 m, 1.3 m (p<0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective cohort study of unresectable HCC, the differences in overall survival, objective response, and time to treatment failure were not statistically significant between atezo/bev and durva ± treme in the 1st line setting. Outcome Atezo/bev Durva±treme Univariate p-value Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) Multivariable adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) Overall Survival, Median (month) 14.0 14.6 0.77 0.78 (0.54-1.14) --- Time to Treatment Failure, Median (month) 4.9 4.1 0.71 0.95 (0.72-1.26) --- Objective response, % 26.3% 21.1% 0.31 --- 0.78 (0.43-1.39)

573 Background: Immunotherapy has shown great efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No clear consensus exists on when to stop the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) after complete response (CR), and clinical course after stopping ICI remains unknown. Methods: We identified 138 HCC patients who received ICI at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Mayo Clinic Rochester from 2016-2023. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was used to assess treatment response. We further described the clinical course of patients who achieved CR after ICI discontinuation, including cancer recurrence, subsequent treatment, liver transplantation (LT) listing and outcomes. Results: The median age at ICI initiation was 68 years; 79% were male; 55.9% were white; 51.5% were BCLC stage C. 9.4% CRs, 25.4% partial responses, 39.9% stable diseases, and 25.4% progressive disease. Hepatitis C etiology was associated with higher likelihood of CR (P=0.005). Among 13 patients who achieved CR, 10 stopped ICI (60% for LT evaluation, 40% for toxicity). After stopping ICI, 40% had recurrence (Table). 3 patients underwent local therapy for recurrent HCC within Milan criteria and 1 patient restarted ICI for recurrence beyond Milan criteria. Among CR patients, 9 patients underwent LT evaluation after stopping ICI and 7 patients were waitlisted. After listing, 3 dropouts were observed, due to recurrent HCC beyond Milan criteria, sepsis leading to death, and personal preference. 4 patients underwent LT. 2 patients underwent local therapy before LT for recurrent HCC (Table). All transplanted patients had the last dose of ICI more than 1 year before LT (12, 21, 24, and 29 months). On explanted livers, 2 patients had no residual viable tumor and 2 patients had residual HCC within Milan criteria. 1 patient developed acute cellular rejection and was treated with immunosuppressants and maintained stable graft function. None had graft loss or evidence of HCC recurrence in the follow-up period at 8, 20, 28, and 51 months. Conclusions: Immunotherapy demonstrated excellent effects on a subset of HCC patients, including 9.4% who achieved CR. After stopping ICI, 40% had cancer recurrence but 3 out of 4 were within Milan criteria. 4 underwent successful LTs (2.9%) with excellent post LT outcome. Larger prospective data is needed to establish a protocol for ICI use, especially to determine the optimal timing for ICI discontinuation after CR. BCLC at ICI initiation ICI cycles before stopping, ICI Recurrence after last ICI (days) Within Milan at recurrence Treatment(s) received after recurrence and outcomes OS (days) Patient 1 B 7, Nivolumab 730 No Nivolumab. Died from GI bleeding 1065 Patient 2 B 64, Atezo/Bev 149 Yes TACE with CR, followed by LT without recurrence. 1203 Patient 3 A 8, Nivolumab 1393 Yes Y90 with CR. No recurrence. 1984 Patient 4 C NA, Pembrolizumab 407 Yes TACE and MWA with CR, followed by LT without recurrence. 1722

Abstract Background Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A/B) received FDA approval as the first-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2020. However, optimal subsequent treatment options are unclear. Here, we describe clinical outcomes of advanced HCC patients following first-line treatment with A/B. Patients and Methods We conducted a multi-site analysis of patients with HCC treated with first-line A/B between January 2018 and December 2022 at Mayo Clinic. This study cohort included all patients receiving second-line systemic therapy after A/B. Median overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Child Pugh (CP) scores are also described at diagnosis, prior to first line, and prior to second-line therapy. Results Of the 342 patients who received A/B, 107 (31.3%) received second-line treatments including anti-VEGF therapy or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and were included in the final analysis. Median OS for all patients was 11.1 months from initiation of second-line therapy. Median OS was 10.7 months (95% CI: 7.2-12.8) and 15.7 months (95%CI: 6.8-NE) for those receiving anti-VEGF inhibitors and ICI ( P = .50). Median TTD for second-line therapies was 2.4 months (95% CI: 1.7-3.3) and 2.6 months (95% CI: 1.5-5.1) for anti-VEGF inhibitors and ICI, respectively (P = .87). In multivariate analyses, CP was significantly associated with survival. Conclusion Following first-line A/B treatment, there is no statistically significant difference in survival between ICI and anti-VEGF therapy, nor in time to treatment discontinuation. CP score remains an important prognostic tool.