Salta alla navigazione principale Salta alla ricerca Salta al contenuto principale

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma

  • Bernhard Scheiner
  • , Daniel Roessler
  • , Samuel Phen
  • , Mir Lim
  • , Katharina Pomej
  • , Tiziana Pressiani
  • , Antonella Cammarota
  • , Thorben W. Fründt
  • , Johann von Felden
  • , Kornelius Schulze
  • , Vera Himmelsbach
  • , Fabian Finkelmeier
  • , Ansgar Deibel
  • , Alexander R. Siebenhüner
  • , Kateryna Shmanko
  • , Pompilia Radu
  • , Birgit Schwacha-Eipper
  • , Matthias P. Ebert
  • , Andreas Teufel
  • , Angela Djanani
  • Florian Hucke, Lorenz Balcar, Alexander B. Philipp, David Hsiehchen, Marino Venerito, Friedrich Sinner, Michael Trauner, Antonio D'Alessio, Claudia A.M. Fulgenzi, David J. Pinato, Markus Peck-Radosavljevic, Jean François Dufour, Arndt Weinmann, Andreas E. Kremer, Amit G. Singal, Enrico N. De Toni, Lorenza Rimassa, Matthias Pinter

Risultato della ricerca: Contributo su rivista › Articolo in rivista › peer review

Abstract

Background & Aims: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. Methods: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. Results: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. Conclusions: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. Impact and implications: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Lingua originaleInglese
Numero di articolo100620
RivistaJHEP Reports
Volume5
Numero di pubblicazione1
DOI
Stato di pubblicazionePubblicato - gen 2023

OSS delle Nazioni Unite

Questo processo contribuisce al raggiungimento dei seguenti obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile

  1. SDG 3 - Salute e benessere
    SDG 3 Salute e benessere

Fingerprint

Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo