Citations

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers (BTCs) provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts is convened at least once annually to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. This manuscript focuses on the adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation treatment options for BTCs as well as the systemic treatment recommendations for patients with advanced BTCs.

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.

4017 Background: Combined MEK inhibition (MEKi) and PD-L1 blockade significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus PD-L1 monotherapy in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) following first-line chemotherapy (NCT03201458). Further study has shown MEKi enhances tumor immunogenicity but impairs host T cell activation/priming. The addition of immune agonists, e.g. a CD27 agonist, can rescue T cell function in the setting of systemic MEKi in vivo and may be an effective strategy to optimize MEKi’s immunomodulatory potential when used in combination with checkpoint blockade. Methods: We conducted a randomized ph 2 trial (NCT04941287) evaluating Atezolizumab in combination with the CD27 immune agonist (CDX-1127 [Varlilumab]) with or without the addition of a MEKi (Cobimetinib) in patients with unresectable, previously treated, BTC. Adults with pathologically-confirmed BTC, s/p at least 1 prior line (no more than 2) of systemic therapy, measurable disease, and ECOG PS ≤1 were enrolled. Patients who had received previous PD-[L]1 were eligible. The study was planned for 64 evaluable subjects randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by BTC site, to either AV (Atezolizumab [840mg IV days 1,15])+ Varlilumab [3mg/kg IV days 1, 15]) or CAV (Cobimetinib [60mg oral daily days 1-21, off 22-28] + Atezolizumab + Varlilumab). Overall response rate (ORR) and PFS were co-primary endpoints. The primary correlative outcome was treatment-related changes in CD8+ infiltrating T cells. Results: A preplanned interim analysis based on objective response rates did not meet the threshold for continuance in either treatment arm, so the trial was closed early for futility. In total, 57 patients were enrolled (n = 29 [CAV], n = 28 [AV], 67% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 33% had received previous PD-[L]1. Both CAV and AV regimens were well-tolerated without new safety signals. Adding CDX-1127 did not appear to meaningful increase immunotoxicity beyond established PD-L1 toxicity profiles. ORR was 0% (CAV) and 4% (AV). With a median follow up time of 6.2 months, median PFS was 2.2 (CAV) and 1.8 (AV) months (HR 0.71 [0.40,1.25]). In PD[L]1-experienced patients, median PFS was 3.6 (CAV) and 1.7 (AV) months (HR 0.44 [0.14,1.33]). Median OS was 10.2 (CAV) and 6.1 (AV) months (HR 0.76 [0.37,1.55]). In PD[L]1-experienced patients, median OS was 6.4 (CAV) and 4.4 (AV) months for CAV and AV (HR 0.68 [0.19,2.42]). Primary correlative endpoint and updated survival will be reported at time of meeting. Conclusions: The combination of Atezolizumab and Varlilumab with or without Cobimetinib was safe but did not improve clinical outcomes in advanced stage BTC patients treated in later lines. Though not statistically significant, treatment with CAV demonstrated numerically favorable PFS/OS compared AV among immunotherapy-experienced patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03201458 .

LBA490 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with a dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine-based regimens are the standard of care in advanced disease, but median overall survival (OS) is roughly 12 months. The addition of albumin-bound paclitaxel to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GAP) demonstrated promising efficacy in a 60 patient, single-arm phase II study (Shroff et al, JAMA Oncol 2019), with observed median OS of 19.2 months. Methods: SWOG 1815 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial comparing GAP to gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC). The study included newly diagnosed advanced BTC patients (pts), randomized 2:1 to GAP vs. GC. GAP included gemcitabine at 800 mg/m2, cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 and albumin-bound paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. GC included standard dosing of gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Pts were treated until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with a target hazard ratio of 0.7 with 90% power and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025; randomization was stratified by disease site (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [CCA] vs gallbladder adenocarcinoma [GBC] vs extrahepatic CCA), disease stage (locally advanced vs metastatic), and Zubrod PS 0 vs 1. Results: Of 441 eligible pts randomized, 55% were female. 67% of patients had intrahepatic CCA, 16% had GBC and 17% had extrahepatic CCA. Most pts had metastases (73%). Median OS with GAP vs. GC was 14 vs. 12.7 mo respectively (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.19, p=0.58), ORR (confirmed and unconfirmed) 34% vs 25% (p=0.11) and median PFS 8.2 vs 6.4 mo (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.16, p=0.47), respectively. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) in ≥10% of pts for GAP and GC were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. GAP had more ≥ grade 3 hematologic AEs compared to the GC arm (60% vs. 45%, p=0.003). Discontinuation due to toxicity was at 24% vs 19% (p=0.26) with GAP vs GC. In exploratory subset analyses, GAP vs GC improved OS in pts with locally advanced disease (medians 19.2 vs 13.7 mo; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42-1.06, p=0.09) and in GBC pts (medians 17.0 vs 9.3 mo; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.35, p=0.33). ORR for GAP vs GC in GBC was 50% vs 24% (p=0.09) and for locally advanced disease 28 vs 21% p=0.74. Conclusions: SWOG 1815 did not result in a statistically significant improvement in median OS with GAP vs. GC. The GAP regimen had higher rates of TRAEs without a statistically significant difference in discontinuation rates. Pts with locally advanced disease and GBC may benefit from the use of GAP. Further analyses are ongoing to understand potential benefit of GAP in subsets of BTC pts. Funding: NIH/National Cancer Institute grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, and CA180868; and in part by Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (subsidiary of Bristol Myer Squibb). Clinical trial information: NCT#03768414 .

In 2023, the NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers were divided into 2 separate guidelines: Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Biliary Tract Cancers. The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts meets at least on an annual basis to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. These Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers as well as the newly published section on principles of molecular testing.

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, including esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, gastric, duodenal and distal small bowel, biliary tract, pancreatic, colon, rectal, and anal cancer, comprise a heterogeneous group of malignancies that impose a significant global burden. Immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape for several GI cancers, offering some patients durable responses and prolonged survival. Specifically, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), either as monotherapies or in combination regimens, have gained tissue site-specific regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic disease and in the resectable setting. Indications for ICIs in GI cancer, however, have differing biomarker and histology requirements depending on the anatomic site of origin. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles compared with other systemic treatments that have long been the mainstay for GI cancer, such as chemotherapy. With the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of GI cancer. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the expert panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using ICIs to treat GI cancers, with topics including biomarker testing, therapy selection, and patient education and quality of life considerations, among others.

TPS629 Background: The anti–PD-L1 antibody ATEZO prevents PD-L1 from interacting with PD-1 and B7.1, thus reinvigorating antitumor T cell activity. Anti-VEGF BEV can increase dendritic cell maturation, enhance T cell infiltration, and reduce myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T-cells in tumors. This combination has been FDA approved for first-line treatment of advanced HCC based on the IMbrave150 study. On the other hand, locoregional radiotherapy (e.g., Y90 TARE) enhances the diversity of the intratumoral T cell receptor repertoire. It is the standard of care for pts with intermediate-stage HCC (iHCC). Based on preclinical and clinical data, we hypothesize that the combination of Y90 TARE, BEV, and ATEZO induces synergistic tumor-killing. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II study of Y90 TARE and BEV plus ATEZO compared with Y90 TARE alone in pts with unresectable IHCC (NCT04541173). The primary study objective is to assess and compare the progression-free survival (PFS) (per mRECIST 1.1) of pts in each arm. The main secondary objective is to determine the safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5) of TARE combined with ATEZO and BEV in pts with HCC. Exploratory objectives are to assess the role of the immunoscore and PD-L1 expression levels in the prediction of improved clinical outcome in pts receiving Y-90 TARE and BEV plus ATEZO; the composition of tumor-infiltrating immune cell subtypes in predicting response to a chosen therapy; how Y90 therapy affects the proportion of antigen-presenting cells in the tumor; and symptoms experienced by pts receiving TARE and BEV plus ATEZO treatment, using patient-reported outcomes. Eligible pts have either HCC that is not amenable to surgical resection, confirmed by pathology review, or at least BCLC stage B HCC outside of downstaging criteria. Other standard eligibility criteria apply. Pts must have a pretreatment liver biopsy taken and then be randomized 1:1 to TARE (Arm A) or TARE followed by ATEZO and BEV (Arm B). Pts will have TARE mapping during week (wk) 1 and TARE treatment during wk 2. In Arm B, pts will start BEV plus ATEZO 4 wks (±1 wk) after TARE treatment. Pts will have abdominal MRI or CT scans every 12 weeks, CT scans of the chest every 24 wks. Disease progression will be captured by both RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. We plan to assess the safety of TARE with BEV and ATEZO in the first 10 pts randomized to Arm B for two cycles. If there are no Grade ≥ 3 unexpected toxicities possibly, probably or definitely related to combined TARE plus BEV plus ATEZO, the study will continue to accrue 128 pts in total. Pts will continue study treatment (Arm B) for a total of 24 months from initiation of TARE or until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occur, whichever is earlier. Clinical trial information: NCT04541173 .

TPS4177 Background: The anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab (ATEZO) prevents PD-L1 from interacting with PD-1 and B7.1, thus reinvigorating antitumor T cell activity. Anti-VEGF bevacizumab (BEV) increases dendritic cell maturation, enhances T cell infiltration, and reduces myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T cells in tumors. ATEZO + BEV is FDA approved for first-line treatment of advanced HCC based on the IMbrave 150 study. Locoregional radiotherapy (e.g., Y90 TARE) enhances the diversity of the intratumoral T cell receptor repertoire and increases tumor antigen release. We hypothesize that the Y90 TARE + BEV + ATEZO combination induces synergistic tumor killing and prolongs progression-free survival in patients (pts) receiving Y90 TARE (HR = 0.6 when compared to Y-90 TARE alone). Methods: Eligible pts have HCC that cannot be surgically resected (confirmed by pathology review), is at least BCLC stage B, and is outside Milan criteria. Other requirements include ECOG PS of 0-1 at screening, measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, no prior systemic therapy, and FLR estimated at ≥ 40% post local therapy. Pts must have a pretreatment liver biopsy taken and then be randomized 1:1 to TARE (Arm A) or TARE + ATEZO + BEV (Arm B). Pts will have TARE mapping followed by TARE treatment. In Arm B, pts will begin TARE treatment followed by BEV + ATEZO (4 wks [± 1 wk] later). Pts will have abdominal MRI or CT scans every 12 weeks and CT scans of the chest every 24 wks. The primary study objective is to assess and compare pts' progression-free survival (per mRECIST 1.1) in each study arm. The main secondary objective is to determine the safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5) of pts in Arm B. Exploratory objectives are to define the use of cellular and circulating biomarkers in the prediction of improved clinical outcomes of pts in Arm B. Symptoms experienced by pts in both arms using patient-reported outcomes will be assessed. Disease progression will be captured by both RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. We plan to assess the safety of Y90 TARE + BEV + ATEZO in the first 10 pts randomized to Arm B for two cycles, and if there are no grade ≥ 3 unexpected toxicities possibly, probably, or definitely related to combined TARE + BEV + ATEZO, continue to accrue 128 pts in total (current enrollment n- = 5). Pts will continue study treatment (Arm B) for a total of 24 months from initiation of TARE or until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occur, whichever is earlier. Enrollment began in September 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT04541173.