EMERALD-1: A phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study of transarterial chemoembolization combined with durvalumab with or without bevacizumab in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for embolization.
Riccardo Lencioni,Masatoshi Kudo,Joseph Erinjeri,Shukui Qin,Zhenggang Ren,Stephen Chan,Yasuaki Arai,Jeong Heo,Ahn Mai,Jose Escobar,Yamil Alonso Lopez Chuken,Jung-Hwan Yoon,Won Young Tak,Tanita Suttichaimongkol,Mohamed Bouattour,Shi-Ming Lin,Magdalena Żotkiewicz,Stephanie Udoye,Gordon Cohen,Bruno Sangro
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.lba432
IF: 45.3
2024-01-20
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:LBA432 Background: For >20 years, TACE has been a standard of care for embolization-eligible uHCC; however, most people with uHCC treated with TACE progress within 1 year. Embolization creates a proinflammatory tumor microenvironment and increases VEGF signals; clinical studies have established the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs; e.g. D) and VEGF inhibitors (e.g. B) in advanced HCC. Methods: In EMERALD-1 (NCT03778957; double-blind, global, Phase 3 study), participants (pts) with embolization-eligible uHCC, Child-Pugh A to B7 liver function, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, and no evidence of extrahepatic disease were randomized 1:1:1 to the D+B+TACE, D+TACE, or TACE arms. TACE was cTACE or DEB-TACE (investigator choice). Pts received D (1500 mg) or placebo for D (Q4W) plus TACE. After completion of last TACE, pts received D (1120 mg) or placebo for D plus B (15 mg/kg) or placebo for B (Q3W). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) for D+B+TACE vs TACE. Secondary endpoints included PFS for D+TACE vs TACE, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), and safety for D+B+TACE or D+TACE vs TACE. PFS, ORR, and TTP were assessed by blinded independent central review (RECIST v1.1). Results: In total, 616 pts with BCLC Stage A (25.8%), Stage B (57.3%), and Stage C (16.1%) were randomized to D+B+TACE (n=204), D+TACE (n=207), or TACE (n=205). Demographic and baseline characteristics were generally balanced across arms. At final PFS analysis, the primary objective was met: PFS significantly improved for D+B+TACE vs TACE (median [m]PFS 15.0 vs 8.2 months [mo]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.98; p=0.032 [threshold 0.0434]). Results were consistent across most prespecified subgroups. The secondary endpoint of PFS for D+TACE vs TACE was not statistically significant (mPFS 10.0 vs 8.2 mo; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75–1.19; p=0.638). ORR was 43.6%, 41.0%, and 29.6%, and mTTP was 22.0, 11.5, and 10.0 mo for D+B+TACE, D+TACE, and TACE, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. In the D+B+TACE (n=154), D+TACE (n=232), and TACE (n=200) safety analysis sets, respectively, 32.5%, 15.1%, and 13.5% of pts had maximum Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 8.4%, 4.3%, and 3.5% discontinued due to TRAEs; and 0%, 1.3%, and 2.0% died due to TRAEs. Pts continue to be followed for OS. Conclusions: D+B+TACE is the first ICI-based regimen in a global Phase 3 trial to show statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, vs TACE, in pts with embolization-eligible uHCC. Safety was manageable and consistent with the safety profiles of D, B, and TACE in uHCC. D+B+TACE has the potential to set a new standard of care in uHCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03778957 .
oncology