Ding, Beiying

Abstract Background: Atezolizumab (atezo) and bevacizumab (bev) combination therapy has demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with unresectable HCC who have not received prior systemic therapy (Lee et al., APPLE 2019; Cheng et al., ESMO Asia 2019). In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to identify tumor-based molecular biomarkers that may be associated with clinical response or resistance to atezo + bev. We also investigated how VEGF blockade with bev could potentiate PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition with atezo in pts with advanced HCC. Methods: Archival tumor tissues or fresh biopsies taken prior to treatment were collected from HCC pts enrolled in the Phase 1b trial GO30140 (NCT02715531). Arm A (n = 104) was a single-arm evaluation of atezo + bev; Arm F (n = 119) was a randomized arm comparing atezo + bev with atezo. Whole-exome sequencing was carried out on these tumor tissues to determine tumor mutation burden (TMB). Gene expression in tumors was profiled by RNAseq analysis. The association between biomarker expression and clinical response (responders [R] vs. non-responders [NR]) or PFS was assessed by t-tests or Cox regression models, respectively. All p-values are descriptive. Results: In Arm A, 90/104 pts were biomarker evaluable. TMB was not associated with response to atezo + bev or PFS. In contrast, analysis of baseline tumor gene expression showed that pre-existing immunity appeared to be associated with clinical response and longer PFS, which included high expression of CD274 (PD-L1) (R vs. NR, p < 2.1 × 10−5; PFS: HR = 0.42 [0.25-0.72]), and T effector signature (GZMB, PRF1, CXCL9) (R vs. NR, p < 0.0004; PFS: HR = 0.46 [0.27-0.78]). Gene expression related to Notch pathway activation (i.e. high expression of HES1) appeared to be associated with lack of response to atezo + bev (p < 0.039) and shorter PFS (HR = 2.1 [1.3-3.6]). In Arm F, 91/119 pts were biomarker evaluable. High expression of VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2; HR = 0.36 [0.16-0.81]), Treg (HR = 0.35 [0.15-0.82]), myeloid inflammation (HR = 0.43 [0.19-0.95]), and TREM1/MDSC signatures (HR = 0.43 [0.19-0.94]) was associated with longer PFS in patients treated with atezo + bev than in those treated with atezo alone. Analysis of 12 serial biopsy pairs confirmed reduced levels of VEGFR2 and Treg signatures after atezo + bev treatment. Conclusion: We identified candidate biomarkers for predicting response to atezo + bev in HCC. Furthermore, the findings in Arm F are consistent with previous preclinical studies supporting a multi-faceted role of VEGF/VEGFR signaling in promoting immune suppression in addition to angiogenesis. Overall, the data presented here further support the mechanistic hypotheses on how anti-VEGF may combine with immune checkpoint blockade to increase its clinical benefit. As these results are exploratory, future study is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population. Citation Format: Andrew X. Zhu, Yinghui Guan, Alexander R. Abbas, Hartmut Koeppen, Shan Lu, Chih-Hung Hsu, Kyung-Hun Lee, Michael S. Lee, Aiwu Ruth He, Amit Mahipal, Beiying Ding, Jessica Spahn, Wendy Verret, Baek-Yeol Ryoo, Yulei Wang. Genomic correlates of clinical benefits from atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab vs. atezolizumab alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT044.

3531 Background: ctDNA has emerged as a promising biomarker for noninvasive monitoring of treatment response and disease progression in many tumor types. However, the clinical use of ctDNA in patients with HCC has not been established. Here, we evaluated longitudinal and personalized detection of ctDNA for monitoring the treatment response to atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) in patients with unresectable HCC not previously treated with systemic therapy. Methods: A subset (n = 48) of 104 patients with HCC who enrolled in Arm A of GO30140 (NCT02715531; Phase 1b) and received atezo + bev treatment were included in this study. These patients had 10 CR, 11 PR, 12 SD and 15 PD per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1. Serial plasma samples were collected at baseline (Cycle [C]1 Day [D]1), during treatment (C2D1, C4D1) and at disease progression. Somatic mutations in individual tumors were identified via whole exome sequencing of archival tumor tissues or fresh biopsies collected before treatment. Personalized ctDNA assays (Signatera 16-plex multiplex PCR next-generation sequencing assay) specific to each patient’s tumor mutational signatures were successfully designed for 47 of 48 patients. Results: At C1D1, a median of 25.7 ng of cell-free DNA was extracted from 2-mL plasma samples. ctDNA was detected in 45 of 47 patients (96%), with a median of 70.6 mean tumor molecules/mL of plasma (MTM/mL) and a median of 1.8% mean variant allele frequency (mean VAF) in plasma. Higher ctDNA levels detected at C1D1 appeared to be associated with increased tumor burden ( P < 0.03). Dynamic changes in ctDNA levels post-treatment were associated with response at C4D1. ctDNA status changed from positive at baseline to negative in 7 of 10 CR (70%), 3 of 11 PR (27%), 1 of 11 SD (9%) and 0 of 11 PD (0%) patients. Longer PFS was observed in patients whose ctDNA became undetectable post-treatment. The median PFS in patients with ctDNA present vs cleared at C4D1 was 6.5 months and not reached, respectively (HR, 12 [1.7-93], log-rank P < 0.00029). Conclusions: Our study showed that Signatera, a personalized and tumor-informed ctDNA assay, could be used as a sensitive method for detecting ctDNA in patients with unresectable HCC. More importantly, our results illustrate the promise of ctDNA as an emerging biomarker that may potentially help to monitor treatment responses and disease progression in patients with HCC.

Objective To evaluate patient‐reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression‐free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and methods Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks ( n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks ( n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6‐week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2‐point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. Results Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue‐related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22–0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12–0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22–0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusion PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

4515 Background: The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved PFS with atezo + bev vs sun in patients (pts) whose tumors were PD-L1+ and corroborated the activity of atezo monotherapy in previously untreated mRCC. This study offers an opportunity to evaluate PROs with immunotherapy and VEGF-directed therapy alone and in combination. Methods: Pts randomized to atezo 1200 mg IV q3w alone or with bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w, or sun 50 mg po qd for 4 wk on/2 wk off completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) q3w of each 6-wk cycle until progression (RECIST 1.1). Time to deterioration (TTD; first ≥ 2-point score increase over baseline [BL]) and change from BL (effect size [ES] ≥ 0.2 suggests a clinically important difference vs sun) in MDASI symptom severity and interference and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores are reported for all-comers. Results: Completion rates were > 90% at BL and ≥ 80% at most visits across arms. BL PRO scores indicating mild symptoms and interference were similar across arms. Delayed TTD of symptom severity and interference with daily life was seen with atezo vs sun and atezo + bev vs sun and was longest with atezo alone (Table). Pts reported milder symptoms and less interference during the first 6 cycles with atezo vs sun: ES mean (range) was 0.36 (0.07-0.68) for core symptom severity and 0.36 (0.04-0.83) for symptom interference. The 5 worst pt-reported symptoms during tx (dry mouth, fatigue, rash, drowsiness, lack of appetite) were all in the sun arm; all 16 symptoms measured were milder with atezo vs sun. Conclusions: PROs suggest that atezo alone or with bev maintained daily function with minimal symptom interference vs sun. Clinical activity, safety and PRO data for atezo support its investigation in adjuvant tx of high-risk RCC pts (IMmotion010; NCT03024996). Clinical trial information: NCT01984242. [Table: see text]