UNASSIGNED: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are commonly used to assess therapeutic response in clinical trials but not in routine care; thus, RECIST-based end points are difficult to include in observational studies. Clinician-anchored approaches for measuring clinical response have been validated but not widely compared with clinical trial data, limiting their use as evidence for clinical decision-making.
UNASSIGNED: To compare response- and progression-based end points in clinical trial and observational cohorts of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective cohort study used patient-level data from the IMpower132 trial (conducted April 7, 2016, to May 31, 2017) and a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database (data collected January 1, 2011, to March 31, 2022). Patients in the observational cohort were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the IMpower132 trial. All patients in the observational cohort had stage IV NSCLC.
UNASSIGNED: All patients were randomized to or received first-line carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed.
UNASSIGNED: End points included response rates, duration of response, and progression-free survival, compared between the trial and observational cohorts before and after weighting. Response rates for the observational cohort were derived from the EHR.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 769 patients met inclusion criteria, 494 in the observational cohort (median [IQR] age, 67 [60-74] years; 228 [46.2%] female; 45 [9.1%] Black or African American; 352 [71.3%] White; 53 [10.7%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial) and 275 in the trial cohort (median [IQR] age, 63 [56-68] years; 90 [32.7%] female; 4 [1.5%] Black or African American; 194 [70.5%] White; 65 [23.6%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial). All 3 end points were comparable between the study cohorts. Trial patients had a higher number of response assessments compared with patients in the weighted observational cohort. The EHR-derived response rate was numerically higher than the objective response rate after weighting (100.3 of 249.3 [40.2%] vs 105 of 275 [38.2%]) due to higher rates of observed partial response than RECIST-based partial response. Among patients with at least 1 response assessment, the EHR-derived response rate remained higher than the objective response rate (100.3 of 193.4 [51.9%] vs 105 of 256 [41.0%]) due to a higher proportion of patients in the observational cohort with no response assessment.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, response- and progression-based end points were similar between clinical trial and weighted observational cohorts, which increases confidence in the reliability of observational end points and can inform their interpretation in relation to trial end points. Additionally, the difference observed in response rates (including vs excluding patients with no response assessment) highlights the importance of future research adopting this 2-way approach when evaluating the relationship of EHR-derived and objective response rates.

BACKGROUND: Transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) is a cytokine with multiple functions, including cell growth regulation, extracellular matrix production, angiogenesis homeostasis adjustment and et al. TGF-β pathway activation promotes tumor metastasis/progression and mediates epithelial-mesenchymal transmission suppressing immunosurveillance in advanced tumors. GFH018, a small molecule inhibitor blocking TGF-β signal transduction, inhibits the progression and/or metastasis of advanced cancers. This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of GFH018 monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors.
METHODS: This phase I, open-label, multicenter study used a modified 3+3 dose escalation and expansion design. Adult patients with advanced solid tumors failing the standard of care were enrolled. Starting at 5 mg, eight dose levels up to 85 mg were evaluated. Patients received GFH018 BID (14d-on/14d-off) starting on the 4th day after a single dose on cycle 1, day 1. Subsequent cycles were defined as 28 days. The study also explored the safety of 85 mg BID 7d-on/7d-off. Adverse events were graded using NCI criteria for adverse events (NCI-CTCAE v5.0). PK was analyzed using a noncompartmental method. Efficacy was evaluated using RECIST 1.1. Blood samples were collected for biomarker analysis.
RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of GFH018. No dose-limiting toxicity occurred, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Forty-three patients (86.0%) had at least one treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), and three patients (6.0%) had ≥ G3 TRAEs. The most common TRAEs (any grade/grade ≥3) were AST increased (18%/0%), proteinuria (14%/2%), anemia (14%/2%), and ALT increased (12%/0%). No significant cardiotoxicity or bleeding was observed. GFH018 PK was linear and dose-independent, with a mean half-life of 2.25-8.60 h from 5 - 85 mg. Nine patients (18.0%) achieved stable disease, and one patient with thymic carcinoma achieved tumor shrinkage, with the maximum target lesion decreased by 18.4%. Serum TGF-β1 levels were not associated with clinical responses. The comprehensive recommended dose for Phase II was defined as 85 mg BID 14d-on/14d-off.
CONCLUSIONS: GFH018 monotherapy presented a favorable safety profile without cardiac toxicity or bleeding. Modest efficacy warrants further studies, including combination strategies.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrial. gov ( https://www.
RESULTS: gov/ ), NCT05051241. Registered on 2021-09-02.

BACKGROUND: RECIST criteria for progressive disease, partial response, and complete response, reflecting +20%, -30%, and -100% tumor size changes, respectively, are critical outcome variables in oncology clinical trials. Herein, we evaluated post-immunotherapy tumor size change correlation with outcomes.
METHODS: We used a unique clinical trial data resource, a multicenter basket trial in patients with rare solid tumors treated with nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) between 2017 and 2023 (National Cancer Institute/Southwest Oncology Group-sponsored DART trial [NCT02834013]) (open at 1083 sites at its peak). Outcome associations were evaluated by survival analysis techniques including Martingale residuals.
RESULTS: In 638 evaluable patients, we found strong linear relationships between percent change in tumor measurement up to a 40%-50% increase and progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (both Cox regression P < .001; landmark analyses based on day 65). Pearson R correlation between survival estimates and tumor change category were -0.94, -0.89, and -0.89 (PFS) and -0.84, -0.90, and -0.90 (OS) for median, 6-month (PFS), and 1-year (OS) and for 1-year (PFS) and 2-year (OS) estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: Percent change in tumor measurement per RECISTv1.1 (the sum of longest dimensions of target lesions) has a linear association with PFS and OS up to a 40% to 50% increase in tumor measurement in this cohort of patients with rare cancers who received combination immune checkpoint blockade. Quantitative first scan tumor measurement changes include important information to evaluate the potential efficacy of a therapy beyond the proportion of patients who achieve an objective response.

BACKGROUND: In a disease like unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, overall survival is an inadequate outcome measure for evaluating the effectiveness of treatments given the high risk of death from liver failure. There is an unmet need for reliable alternative end points for clinical trials and daily clinical practice. To evaluate treatment response in patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (mHCC), imaging-related end points are often used, whereas serologic end points have been developed for patients with serum alpha-fetoprotein levels >20 ng/mL. The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical trials that report concomitant assessment of radiographic and serologic response in patients with mHCC.
METHODS: After a systematic review, studies that evaluated response according to radiographic and serologic criteria were selected. A correlation between progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was performed, and a linear regression of each response-related outcome measure with OS was reported. Finally, the effect of eight baseline variables on OS and response-related measures was evaluated.
RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included, including 16 first-line studies and 10 second-line studies. PFS and response rates demonstrated a significant relationship with OS, whereas disease control rates did not. The responses were correlated with OS, particularly in the first-line setting, after targeted therapy, and whenever assessment was early. Among the baseline variables, only performance status had a prognostic role, whereas hepatitis B virus-related liver disease was associated with higher radiographic response rates.
CONCLUSIONS: PFS and radiographic and serologic response rates appear to be reliable intermediate end points in patients with mHCC who are undergoing systemic antineoplastic therapy. However, the serologic response is available earlier.

AdAPT-001 is an oncolytic adenovirus (OAV) with a transforming growth factor beta (TGF-ß) trap, which neutralizes the immunosuppressive and profibrotic cytokine, TGF-ß. The aim or purpose of this phase 1 study was to assess the safety and tolerability and, secondarily, the efficacy of AdAPT-001 after single intratumoral injection (IT) (Part 1) and multidose IT injection (Part 2) in patients with superficially accessible, advanced refractory solid tumors. Part 1 enrolled 9 patients with a 3 + 3 single dose-escalation safety run-in involving 2.5 × 1011, 5.0 × 1011, 1.0 × 1012 viral particles (vps). No dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were seen. In Part 2, a dose-expansion phase, 19 patients received AdAPT-001 at 1.0 × 1012 vps until disease progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or RECIST 1.1. The overall responses to treatment included confirmed partial responses (3), durable stable disease ≥ 6 months (5), and progressive disease (13). AdAPT-001 is well tolerated. Evidence of an anti-tumor effect was seen in both injected and uninjected lesions. The recommended Phase 2 dose was 1.0 × 1012 vp administered by intratumoral injection once every 2 weeks. Combination of AdAPT-001 with a checkpoint inhibition is enrolling.

CA-125 alone is widely used to diagnose progressive disease (PD) in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) on chemotherapy. However, there are increasing concerns regarding its accuracy. We assessed concordance between progression defined by CA-125 and RECIST using data from the CALYPSO trial.
We computed concordance rates for PD by CA-125 and RECIST to determine the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV).
Of 769 (79%) evaluable participants, 387 had CA-125 PD, where only 276 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV 71%, 95% CI 67-76%). For 382 without CA-125 PD, 255 had RECIST PD but 127 did not (NPV 33%, 95% CI 29-38). There were significant differences in NPV according to baseline CA-125 (≤100 vs >100: 42% vs 25%, P < 0.001); non-measurable vs measurable disease (51% vs 26%, P < 0.001); and platinum-free-interval (>12 vs 6-12 months: 41% vs 14%, P < 0.001). We observed falling CA-125 levels in 78% of patients with RECIST PD and CA-125 non-PD.
Approximately 2 in 3 women with PSROC have RECIST PD but not CA-125 PD by GCIG criteria. Monitoring CA-125 levels alone is not reliable for detecting PD. Further research is required to investigate the survival impact of local therapy in radiological detected early asymptomatic PD.

QL1604 is a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death protein 1. This first-in-human, open-label phase I study aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability and to identify the recommended doses of QL1604 for future studies. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) and preliminary antitumor activity were also assessed.
Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors who failed or had no standard therapies available were recruited. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were treated with QL1604 at 0.3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, and 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 2 weeks (Q2W) in an accelerated titration with a traditional 3 + 3 design, followed by a dose-expansion phase at 3 mg/kg Q2W, 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (Q3W), 10 mg/kg Q2W and a fixed dose of 200 mg Q3W. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed during the first 28 days after the first dose of study drug. Adverse events (AEs) were graded per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, and antitumor activity of QL1604 was evaluated by investigators on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.
A total of 35 patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were enrolled. DLTs were reported in one patient at the dose level of 3 mg/kg Q2W (grade 3 immune-mediated myositis and myasthenia gravis), and maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most frequent treatment-related AEs (≥10%) were fatigue (37.1%), anemia (22.9%), increased blood thyroid-stimulating hormone (17.1%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (17.1%), increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (14.3%), decreased white blood cell (WBC) count (11.4%), rash (14.3%), and pruritus (14.3%). AEs leading to discontinuation of QL1604 occurred in three of the 35 patients (8.6%). Partial responses (PRs) occurred in seven patients, resulting in an objective response rate of 20.0% (7/35). Single dose of QL1604 exhibited a dose-dependent increase in the exposure ranging from 0.3 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg. Mean receptor occupancy (RO) for QL1604 at the dose of 3 mg/kg (Q2W and Q3W) and 200 mg (Q3W) was greater than 80% during cycle 1 after one infusion.
QL1604 monotherapy exhibited favorable safety, PK, and signal of antitumor activity in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors, and the results supported further clinical studies of QL1604. On the basis of the safety, PK, and RO data, the recommended dosage for further clinical trials is 3 mg/kg or a fixed dose of 200 mg given every 3 weeks.
https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05649761?term=QL1604&draw=2&rank=1, identifier NCT05649761.

OBJECTIVE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is grounded on the assumption that target lesion selection is objective and representative of the change in total tumor burden (TTB) during therapy. A computer simulation model was designed to challenge this assumption, focusing on a particular aspect of subjectivity: target lesion selection.
METHODS: Disagreement among readers and the disagreement between individual reader measurements and TTB were analyzed as a function of the total number of lesions, affected organs, and lesion growth.
RESULTS: Disagreement rises when the number of lesions increases, when lesions are concentrated on a few organs, and when lesion growth borders the thresholds of progressive disease and partial response. There is an intrinsic methodological error in the estimation of TTB via RECIST 1.1, which depends on the number of lesions and their distributions. For example, for a fixed number of lesions at 5 and 15, distributed over a maximum of 4 organs, the error rates are observed to be 7.8% and 17.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that RECIST can deliver an accurate estimate of TTB in localized disease, but fails in cases of distal metastases and multiple organ involvement. This is worsened by the \"selection of the largest lesions,\" which introduces a bias that makes it hardly possible to perform an accurate estimate of the TTB. Including more (if not all) lesions in the quantitative analysis of tumor burden is desirable.

Even with liver-targeted therapies, uveal melanoma with hepatic metastasis remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients treated with either SIRT or CS-PHP. We included 62 patients with hepatic metastasized uveal melanoma (n = 34 with SIRT, receiving 41 cycles; n = 28 with CS-PHP, receiving 56 cycles) that received their treatments between 12/2013 and 02/2020 at a single center. We evaluated their response according to the RECIST 1.1, as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), after the initiation of the first cycle of the liver-directed treatment using Cox regression, adjusted via propensity score analysis for confounders, including the amount of hepatic involvement. The disease control rate was 18% for SIRT and 30% for CS-PHP. The median (range) of PFS was 127.5 (19-1912) days for SIRT and 408.5 (3-1809) days for CS-PHP; adjusted Cox regression showed no significant difference (p = 0.090). The median (range) of OS was 300.5 (19-1912) days for SIRT and 516 (5-1836) days for CS-PHP; adjusted Cox regression showed a significant difference (p = 0.006). In our patient cohort, patients treated with CS-PHP showed a significantly longer OS than patients treated with SIRT. CS-PHP might therefore be preferable for patients with liver-dominant metastatic uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) has evolved. This study examined US prescribing patterns and clinical decision-making for first-line (1L) and first-line maintenance (1LM) treatment.
METHODS: US-based oncologists (N = 150) completed an online survey on patient demographics, practice patterns, and important factors considered in 1L/1LM selection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with more vs less frequent 1L/1LM prescribing.
RESULTS: Physician reports estimated that 23% of patients with la/mUC had not received any systemic therapy in the previous 6 months; however, 46% received 1L, 32% received second-line, and 22% received subsequent-line systemic treatments. Of patients who were receiving 1L treatment, 72% were estimated to be receiving 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Around 69% of patients eligible for 1LM received the treatment. Physicians categorized as frequent prescribers reported overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and rate of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) as factors associated with 1L treatment selection (all P < .05). OS, rate of grade 3/4 immune-mediated AEs, and inclusion in institutional guidelines were reported as attributes used in 1LM treatment selection (all P < .05). Multivariable analysis revealed OS, DCR, and rate of grade 3/4 AEs as important factors in oncologists\' 1L treatment selection; academic practice setting and use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 were associated with 1LM use (all P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: OS and AEs were found to be relevant factors associated with offering 1L and 1LM treatment. Variability exists in physicians\' decision-making in the real-world setting for la/mUC.