Introduction: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was found to be noninferior compared to sorafenib in terms of overall survival. Here, we analyze the effects of lenvatinib in the real-life experience of several centers across the world and identify clinical factors that could be significantly associated with survival outcomes. Methods: The study population was derived from retrospectively collected data of HCC patients treated with lenvatinib. The overall cohort included western and eastern populations from 23 center in five countries. Results: We included 1,325 patients with HCC and treated with lenvatinib in our analysis. Median OS was 16.1 months. Overall response rate was 38.5%. Multivariate analysis for OS highlighted that HBsAg positive, NLR >3, and AST >38 were independently associated with poor prognosis in all models. Conversely, NAFLD/NASH-related etiology was independently associated with good prognosis. Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Multivariate analysis for progression-free survival revealed that NAFLD/NASH, BCLC, NLR, and AST were independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. A proportion of 75.2% of patients suffered from at least one adverse effect during the study period. Multivariate analysis exhibited the appearance of decreased appetite grade ≥2 versus grade 0–1 as an independent prognostic factor for worse progression-free survival. 924 patients of 1,325 progressed during lenvatinib (69.7%), and 827 of them had a follow-up over 2 months from the beginning of second-line treatment. From first-line therapy, the longest median OS was obtained with the sequence lenvatinib and immunotherapy (47.0 months), followed by TACE (24.7 months), ramucirumab (21.2 months), sorafenib (15.7 months), regorafenib (12.7 months), and best supportive care (10.8 months). Conclusions: Our study confirms in a large and global population of patients with advanced HCC, not candidates for locoregional treatment the OS reported in the registration study and a high response rate with lenvatinib.

Background: Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib. Aims and Methods: To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival. Results: Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34– 0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. Conclusion: Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.

Background and Aims: In the global, Phase 3 HIMALAYA study in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), STRIDE significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus sorafenib; durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib. Immune checkpoint inhibitor studies have shown an association between the occurrence of immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) and improved OS. We assessed potential associations between the occurrence of imAEs and OS, and temporal patterns of imAEs, in HIMALAYA. Approach and Results: OS in participants who did and did not experience imAEs and the frequency and timing of imAEs were assessed for STRIDE and durvalumab in the safety analysis set of HIMALAYA. imAEs occurred in 139/388 (35.8%) and 64/388 (16.5%) participants with STRIDE and durvalumab, respectively; most were low grade. OS hazard ratios (95% CI) in participants who experienced imAEs versus those who did not were 0.73 (0.56-0.95) for STRIDE and 1.14 (0.82-1.57) for durvalumab. The 36-month OS rate (95% CI) for STRIDE was 36.2% (28.1-46.7) and 27.7% (22.4-34.2) in participants who did and did not experience imAEs, respectively. The most common imAE category with STRIDE was endocrine events (16.5%). Most imAEs occurred ≤3 months after treatment initiation. Conclusions: Participants who experienced imAEs with STRIDE had a numerical improvement in OS versus those who did not, which was not observed for durvalumab. Long-term OS with STRIDE was observed regardless of imAEs. Most imAEs were low grade, manageable, and occurred in the first 3 months after treatment initiation. Results continue to support the benefits of STRIDE in a diverse population that reflects unresectable HCC globally. Export

Introduction: The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) is a multiparametric score introduced by Onodera based on the blood levels of lymphocytes and albumin in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms. Regarding hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its prognostic role has been shown in patients treated with sorafenib and lenvatinib. The aim of this real-world study was to investigate the association between clinical outcomes and PNI in patients being treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Methods: The overall cohort of this multicentric study included 871 consecutive HCC patients from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line therapy. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin concentration (g/dL) + 0.005 × peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3). Results: Data regarding lymphocyte counts and albumin levels were available for 773 patients; therefore, these patients were included in the final analysis. The cut-off point of the PNI was determined to be 41 by receiver operating characteristic analysis. 268 patients (34.7%) were categorized as the PNI-low group, while the remaining 505 (65.3%) patients as the PNI-high group. At the univariate analysis, high PNI was associated with longer overall survival (OS) (22.5 vs. 10.1 months, HR 0.34, p <0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs. 5.8 months, HR 0.63, p <0.01) compared to patients with low PNI. At the multivariate analysis, high versus low PNI resulted as an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.49, p <0.01) and PFS (HR 0.82, p = 0.01). There was no difference in objective response rate between the two groups (high 26.1% vs. low 19.8%, p = 0.09), while disease control rate was significantly higher in the PNI-high group (76.8% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.01). Conclusion: PNI is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS in HCC patients on first-line treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is considered a standard option in the upfront treatment of clinically selected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer irrespective of RAS and BRAF molecular status. The randomised MACBETH and VOLFI studies showed that a modified FOLFOXIRI regimen in combination with cetuximab or panitumumab, respectively, achieved high therapeutic activity in RAS and BRAF wild-type patients with an acceptable toxicity profile. Drawing from these considerations, we designed TRIPLETE study aiming at comparing two different chemotherapy backbones (mFOLFOXIRI or mFOLFOX6) in combination with panitumumab in the first-line treatment of patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods This is a prospective, open-label, multicentre phase III trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients are randomised to receive a standard treatment with mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or an experimental regimen with modified FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 150 mg/m², oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², L-leucovorin 200 mg/m², 5-fluoruracil 2400 mg/m² 48-hour continuous infusion) plus panitumumab up to 12 cycles, followed by panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil and L-leucovorin until disease progression. The primary endpoint is overall response rate according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. Discussion The relative benefit of chemotherapy intensification when using an anti-EGFR-based regimen in molecularly selected patients is unknown; TRIPLETE study aims at filling this gap of knowledge. The study is sponsored by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest Cooperative Group and is currently ongoing at 42 Italian centres. Clinical trial information NCT03231722.

Re-treatment with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies offers a promising approach to extend the continuum of care of patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with no mutations of resistance in their circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at the time of treatment re-exposure. PARERE (NCT04787341) is an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II trial investigating the optimal sequencing of panitumumab and regorafenib in chemorefractory RAS and BRAF wt mCRC patients, who previously derived benefit from first-line anti-EGFR-containing regimens, then received at least one intervening anti-EGFR-free line of treatment, and were prospectively selected for the absence of RAS and BRAF mutations in their ctDNA. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive anti-EGFR re-treatment with panitumumab followed by regorafenib after progression (arm A) versus the reverse sequence (arm B). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Between December 2020 and December 2024, 428 patients underwent molecular screening, and 213 with RAS/BRAF ctDNA wt were randomized (arm A/B = 106/107). At a median follow-up of 31.9 months, no difference in terms of OS was observed between treatment arms, with a median OS of 11.7 and 11.6 months in arms B and A, respectively (hazard ratio 1.13, 85% confidence interval 0.90-1.41, P = 0.441). However, re-treatment with panitumumab was associated with higher objective response rate (ORR; first ORR: 16% versus 2%, P = 0.003; second ORR: 18% versus 0%, P = 0.013) and disease control rate (DCR; first DCR: 61% versus 36%, P < 0.001; second DCR: 62% versus 38%, P = 0.003), and longer progression-free survival (PFS; first PFS: 4.2 versus 2.4 months, P = 0.103; second PFS: 3.9 versus 2.7 months, P = 0.019) than regorafenib, regardless of the sequence of the study treatments. Anti-EGFR re-treatment should be regarded as an option in the continuum of care of chemorefractory mCRC patients with RAS and BRAF wt tumors, with no alterations of acquired resistance in their ctDNA.