0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer: An early exploratory analysis of real‐world data

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 3 , 21 , 6 , 22 , 23 , 7 , 24 , 5 , 25 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 1 , 2 , 26 , 5 , 22 , 23 , 3 , 27 , 28 , 28 , 1 , 2 , 7 , 24 , 6 , 29 , 1 , 2
      Liver International
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The TOPAZ‐1 phase III trial reported a survival benefit with the anti‐programmed death cell ligand 1 (anti‐PD‐L1) durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of this new standard treatment in a real‐world setting.

          Methods

          The analysed population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the biliary tract treated with durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin at 17 Italian centres. The primary endpoint of the study was progression‐free survival (PFS), whereas secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) by baseline characteristics were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.

          Results

          From February 2022 to November 2022, 145 patients were enrolled. After a median follow‐up of 8.5 months (95% CI: 7.9–13.6), the median PFS was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.4–11.7). Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.9–12.9). The investigator‐assessed confirmed ORR was 34.5%, and the disease control rate was 87.6%. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 137 patients (94.5%). Grades 3–4 AEs occurred in 51 patients (35.2%). The rate of immune‐mediated AEs (imAEs) was 22.7%. Grades 3–4 imAEs occurred in 2.1% of the patients. In univariate analysis, non‐viral aetiology, ECOG PS >0 and NLR ≥3 correlated with shorter PFS.

          Conclusion

          The results reported in this first real‐world analysis mostly confirmed the results achieved in the TOPAZ‐1 trial in terms of PFS, ORR and safety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

          The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed encouraging antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b trial involving patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Noncolorectal High Microsatellite Instability/Mismatch Repair–Deficient Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study

            Genomes of tumors that are deficient in DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) have high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and harbor hundreds to thousands of somatic mutations that encode potential neoantigens. Such tumors are therefore likely to be immunogenic, triggering upregulation of immune checkpoint proteins. Pembrolizumab, an anti‒programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody, has antitumor activity against MSI-H/dMMR cancer. We report data from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study of pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated, advanced noncolorectal MSI-H/dMMR cancer. Eligible patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed MSI-H/dMMR advanced noncolorectal cancer who experienced failure with prior therapy received pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 2 years or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. Radiologic imaging was performed every 9 weeks for the first year of therapy and every 12 weeks thereafter. The primary end point was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, as assessed by independent central radiologic review. Among 233 enrolled patients, 27 tumor types were represented, with endometrial, gastric, cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic cancers being the most common. Median follow up was 13.4 months. Objective response rate was 34.3% (95% CI, 28.3% to 40.8%). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.4 to 4.9 months) and median overall survival was 23.5 months (95% CI, 13.5 months to not reached). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 151 patients (64.8%). Thirty-four patients (14.6%) had grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 5 pneumonia occurred in one patient; there were no other treatment-related fatal adverse events. Our study demonstrates the clinical benefit of anti–programmed death-1 therapy with pembrolizumab among patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancer. Toxicity was consistent with previous experience of pembrolizumab monotherapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer.

              There is no established standard chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. We initially conducted a randomized, phase 2 study involving 86 patients to compare cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine alone. After we found an improvement in progression-free survival, the trial was extended to the phase 3 trial reported here. We randomly assigned 410 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampullary cancer to receive either cisplatin (25 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles) or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks for six cycles) for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months and 327 deaths, the median overall survival was 11.7 months among the 204 patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 8.1 months among the 206 patients in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 5.0 months in the gemcitabine-only group (P<0.001). In addition, the rate of tumor control among patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group was significantly increased (81.4% vs. 71.8%, P=0.049). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, with the exception of more neutropenia in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group; the number of neutropenia-associated infections was similar in the two groups. As compared with gemcitabine alone, cisplatin plus gemcitabine was associated with a significant survival advantage without the addition of substantial toxicity. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is an appropriate option for the treatment of patients with advanced biliary cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262769.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Liver International
                Liver International
                Wiley
                1478-3223
                1478-3231
                August 2023
                July 14 2023
                August 2023
                : 43
                : 8
                : 1803-1812
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Medical Oncology Department IRCSS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan Italy
                [2 ] Department of Oncology Vita‐Salute San Raffaele University Milan Italy
                [3 ] Medical Oncology University Hospital of Pisa Pisa Italy
                [4 ] Medical Oncology 3 Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV – IRCCS Padua Italy
                [5 ] Medical Oncology Department Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Milan Italy
                [6 ] Clinical Oncology Unit Careggi University Hospital Florence Italy
                [7 ] Medical Oncology and Hematology Unit, Humanitas Cancer Center IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano (Milan) Italy
                [8 ] Division of Medical Oncology Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio‐Medico Rome Italy
                [9 ] Unit of Medical Oncology and Biomolecular Therapy Policlinico Riuniti Foggia Italy
                [10 ] Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences University of Foggia Foggia Italy
                [11 ] Medical Oncology University and University Hospital Cagliari Italy
                [12 ] Department of Oncology and Palliative Care Cardinale G Panico, Tricase City Hospital Tricase Italy
                [13 ] Medical Oncology Unit 1 Ospedale Policlinico San Martino – IRCCS Genoa Italy
                [14 ] Department of Medical Oncology IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) “Dino Amadori” Meldola Italy
                [15 ] Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedale del Mare Napoli Italy
                [16 ] Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Precision Medicine Università Degli Studi Della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” Naples Italy
                [17 ] Medical Oncology Unit University Hospital of Parma Parma Italy
                [18 ] Department of Oncology San Bortolo General Hospital, Azienda ULSS8 Berica Vicenza Italy
                [19 ] Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hematology Belcolle Hospital Viterbo Italy
                [20 ] Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine Tor Vergata University Hospital Rome Italy
                [21 ] Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery University of Pisa Pisa Italy
                [22 ] Medical Oncology 1 Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV – IRCCS Padua Italy
                [23 ] Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology University of Padua Padua Italy
                [24 ] Department of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele (Milan) Italy
                [25 ] Computational Oncology, Molecular Precision Oncology Program, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
                [26 ] Oncology Unit San Martino Hospital Oristano Italy
                [27 ] Institute of Interdisciplinary Research “Health Science”, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Pisa Italy
                [28 ] Hepatobiliary Surgery Division Vita‐Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan Italy
                [29 ] Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine University of Florence Florence Italy
                Article
                10.1111/liv.15641
                37452505
                28bd6825-8578-4234-bddb-42ebbaddefe4
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article