Iyer, Renuka

Abstract Purpose: The addition of MEK inhibition (MEKi) to programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Although MEK inhibitors may increase tumor cell immunogenicity, they can impair T-cell priming/effector function, limiting combination efficacy. We hypothesized that the addition of a CD27 agonist could restore T-cell function and enhance antitumor immunity in this combination. Patients and Methods: We conducted a randomized, phase II trial evaluating atezolizumab (840 mg, intravenously, days 1 and 15) in combination with the CD27 costimulatory monoclonal antibody [CDX-1127/varlilumab (3 mg/kg, intravenously, days 1 and 15)], with/without the addition of an MEK inhibitor [cobimetinib (60 mg, orally, daily, days 1–21, off days 22–28)] in unresectable biliary tract cancer following at least one metastatic therapy. Overall response rate (ORR) and PFS were coprimary endpoints. Treatment-related changes in CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) were the primary correlative outcomes. Results: The trial was closed early following interim preplanned ORR analysis. At closure, 57 patients had been enrolled [n = 29 in the cobimetinib + atezolizumab + varlilumab (CAV) arm; n = 28 in the atezolizumab + varlilumab (AV) arm]. A majority (67%) had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 32% were immunotherapy experienced. Both regimens were well tolerated without new safety signals. Objective responses were rare [0% (CAV); 3.8% (AV)]. The median PFS (mPFS) was 2.40 (CAV) and 1.84 (AV) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38–1.18]. Among immunotherapy-experienced patients, the mPFS was 3.62 (CAV) and 1.84 (AV) months (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.18–1.62). Treatment with CAV increased intratumoral CD8+ T-cell density compared with treatment with AV. Conclusions: The combinations of atezolizumab and varlilumab with/without cobimetinib were safe, but neither meaningfully improved outcomes in biliary tract cancer treated in the later lines. Correlative tissue studies validated preclinical work that MEKi increases CD8+ TILs.

PURPOSE SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs). METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 , cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 , and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); P = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); P = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction P = .14 for OS and P = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction P = .01), but not OS (interaction P = .28). CONCLUSION The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.