
==== Front
Cancer Immunol Immunother
Cancer Immunol Immunother
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII
0340-7004
1432-0851
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39235596
3806
10.1007/s00262-024-03806-2
Research
SAFFRON-104: a phase Ib/II study of sitravatinib alone or with tislelizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer
Li Jin 1
Bai Yuxian 2
Chen Zhendong 3
Ying Jieer 4
Guo Yabing 5
Fang Weijia 6
Zhang Feng 7
Xiong Jianping 8
Zhang Tao 9
Meng Zhiqiang 10
Zhang Jingdong 11
Ren Zhenggang 12
Hao Chunyi 13
Chen Yajin 14
Lin Xiaoyan 15
Pan Hongming 16
Zhou Fuxiang 17
Li Xin 18
Yu Fan 19
Zhang Juan 18
Zhang Zhang 18
Qin Shukui qinsk@csco.org.cn

20
1 grid.24516.34 0000000123704535 Department of Oncology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
2 https://ror.org/01f77gp95 grid.412651.5 0000 0004 1808 3502 Department of Gastroenterology, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China
3 Department of Oncology, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical Hospital, Hefei, China
4 https://ror.org/0144s0951 grid.417397.f 0000 0004 1808 0985 Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Gastric Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
5 grid.284723.8 0000 0000 8877 7471 Department of Infectious Diseases, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
6 https://ror.org/00a2xv884 grid.13402.34 0000 0004 1759 700X Department of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
7 https://ror.org/05p38yh32 grid.413606.6 0000 0004 1758 2326 Department of Hepatic & Biliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China
8 https://ror.org/05gbwr869 grid.412604.5 0000 0004 1758 4073 Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
9 grid.33199.31 0000 0004 0368 7223 Department of Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
10 https://ror.org/00my25942 grid.452404.3 0000 0004 1808 0942 Department of Minimally Invasive Therapy Center, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
11 grid.412449.e 0000 0000 9678 1884 Medical Oncology Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
12 grid.8547.e 0000 0001 0125 2443 Department of Hepatic Oncology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
13 https://ror.org/00nyxxr91 grid.412474.0 0000 0001 0027 0586 Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China
14 grid.12981.33 0000 0001 2360 039X Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
15 https://ror.org/055gkcy74 grid.411176.4 0000 0004 1758 0478 Department of Medical Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
16 https://ror.org/00ka6rp58 grid.415999.9 0000 0004 1798 9361 Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
17 https://ror.org/01v5mqw79 grid.413247.7 0000 0004 1808 0969 Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
18 grid.459355.b 0000 0004 6014 2908 BeiGene (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
19 grid.459355.b 0000 0004 6014 2908 BeiGene (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China
20 https://ror.org/01sfm2718 grid.254147.1 0000 0000 9776 7793 GI Cancer Center, Nanjing Tianyinshan Hospital of China Pharmaceutical University, Gulou, Nanjing, Jiangsu China
5 9 2024
5 9 2024
11 2024
73 11 21929 4 2024
8 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

Sitravatinib is a spectrum-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER), VEGFR-2, KIT, and MET. SAFFRON-104 (NCT03941873) was a multicohort phase Ib/II study investigating sitravatinib with/without tislelizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC).

Methods

Eligible patients had histologically/cytologically confirmed advanced HCC or GC/GEJC. Phase I determined the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of sitravatinib with/without tislelizumab. Phase II evaluated sitravatinib monotherapy in patients with pretreated HCC, and sitravatinib plus tislelizumab in anti-PD-(L)1–naïve or –treated HCC and anti-PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability (phase I) and objective response rate (ORR) (phase II).

Results

At data cutoff (March 31, 2023), 111 patients were enrolled; 102 were efficacy-evaluable (median study follow-up 9.1 months [range: 0.7–36.9]). The RP2D of sitravatinib was determined as 120 mg orally once daily. In patients receiving sitravatinib monotherapy and sitravatinib in combination with tislelizumab, grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 14 (51.9%) and 42 (50.0%) patients, respectively. The ORR was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.7–49.1) in patients with pretreated HCC receiving sitravatinib monotherapy. In patients receiving sitravatinib with tislelizumab, the ORR was 11.5% (95% CI 2.4–30.2) with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC, 9.5% (95% CI 1.2–30.4) with anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC, and 16.1% (95% CI 5.5–33.7) in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC.

Conclusions

Sitravatinib with/without tislelizumab was generally well tolerated and showed preliminary antitumor activity in patients with advanced HCC and GC/GEJC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00262-024-03806-2.

Keywords

Clinical trials
Phase II
Drug therapy
Combination therapy
Immune checkpoint inhibitors
Immunotherapy
BeiGene, Ltdissue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) are among the most common causes of cancer death worldwide; both diseases have an extremely poor prognosis and therefore, an unmet need for alternative treatment options [1–4].Therapies targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have been transformative in the treatment of multiple cancer types [5, 6]. Despite some success with monoclonal antibodies targeting the PD-1–PD-L1 (PD-[L]1) immune checkpoint in HCC and GC/GEJC [7, 8], most patients respond poorly to available monotherapies, and many tumors develop resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors [9, 10]. One mechanism behind PD-(L)1 resistance is immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment (TME) [11]. It is hypothesized that combining anti-PD-(L)1 agents with immunomodulatory therapies can overcome these barriers and enhance antitumor activity; combination therapy has emerged as a key strategy to improve outcomes in patients with little or no response to single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors [7, 8, 12].

Tislelizumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody engineered to have reduced Fc gamma receptor binding on macrophages to minimize antibody-dependent phagocytic resistance pathways [13].Tislelizumab has demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy versus sorafenib in a phase III trial for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC [14] and in combination with chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in the phase III RATIONALE-305 study in first-line GC/GEJC, with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile [15, 16]. Sitravatinib is an oral selective receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER) family members as well as vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), KIT, and MET [17]. Targeting TAM receptors reduces TME immunosuppression by influencing macrophage phenotypes and promoting their immunostimulatory properties [18]. Additionally, targeting of VEGFR and KIT reduces the number of immunosuppressive cell subtypes, such as regulatory T cells and monocyte-derived suppressor cells [19, 20] and induces a more favorable TME for immune checkpoint blockade while helping to overcome resistance to immune checkpoint inhibition [21]. As such, sitravatinib is being tested in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors and has recently demonstrated clinical activity in combination with tislelizumab in a phase I trial in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [22]. Antitumor activity of the combination was seen in both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients, as well as in those with PD-(L)1–treated disease, while no new safety signals were identified [22].

Here, we present the safety and preliminary clinical activity of sitravatinib with or without tislelizumab from the phase Ib/II SAFFRON-104 study in patients with advanced HCC or GC/GEJC.

Methods

Study design and treatment

SAFFRON-104 (NCT03941873) was an open-label, multicenter, multicohort, phase Ib/II study conducted in China to determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of sitravatinib as monotherapy or in combination with tislelizumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic HCC, and in combination with tislelizumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC.

In phase I, a modified 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was used to investigate two dose levels of free base sitravatinib (80 mg orally once daily [QD] and 120 mg QD) either as monotherapy or in combination with tislelizumab (200 mg intravenously on Cycle 1 Day 1 and once every 3 weeks [Q3W] thereafter in both sitravatinib dose cohorts) (Supplementary Fig. S1). The upper limit of sitravatinib dose was set at 120 mg once daily based on findings from the first-in-human study 516–001 [23]. Dose escalation proceeded if none of the first three evaluable patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT); if one of the first three evaluable patients experienced a DLT, additional patients (minimum of six) were enrolled to that cohort. If less than one-third of evaluable patients experienced a DLT, escalation proceeded to the next dose level; if more than one-third experienced a DLT, dose escalation was stopped. The safety monitoring committee confirmed the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of sitravatinib as monotherapy and in combination with tislelizumab based on all available data (safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and exploratory). Phase II (dose expansion) evaluated four cohorts (Supplementary Fig. S1): sitravatinib monotherapy in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve or –treated HCC, and sitravatinib plus tislelizumab in anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC, anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC, and anti-PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC. All patients received study treatment until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity, death, withdrawal of consent, or study termination.

Patients

Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had histologically or cytologically confirmed unresectable locally advanced or metastatic HCC or GC/GEJC, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1 and adequate organ function. In addition, patients with HCC had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage C or BCLC Stage B disease that was not amenable to curative treatment, as well as a Child–Pugh A liver function classification, and no loco-regional therapy to the liver within 28 days of the first dose of study drug(s). Patients with GC/GEJC had no history of gastrointestinal perforation and/or fistulae within 6 months or clinically significant bleeding within 3 months of first dose of study drug(s). Patients recruited to phase II had at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) and had received up to two lines of prior systemic treatment (patients with HCC only); patients with advanced GC/GEJC had failed current standard-of-care treatment (or it was not appropriate).

Key exclusion criteria for all patients included active leptomeningeal disease or uncontrolled brain metastasis, active autoimmune diseases or history of autoimmune diseases that may relapse, any active malignancy within 2 years of first dose of study drug(s) (except for the specific cancer under investigation), any systemic chemotherapy within 28 days from first dose of study drug(s), and any condition that required systemic treatment with either corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive medication within 14 days before the first dose of study drug(s).

Endpoints and assessments

The primary endpoint for phase I was sitravatinib safety and tolerability as monotherapy or in combination with tislelizumab throughout the study. Secondary endpoints of phase I included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS), based on RECIST v1.1. The primary endpoint of phase II was investigator-assessed ORR per RECIST v1.1. Phase II secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed DoR, DCR, and PFS per RECIST v1.1, and sitravatinib safety and tolerability as monotherapy and in combination with tislelizumab.

Safety assessments included vital signs, physical examinations, 12-lead electrocardiograms, and laboratory safety tests (hematology, clinical chemistry, and urinalysis). Adverse events (AEs) were coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 18.1 or higher and were assessed and graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs with an onset, or worsening in severity from baseline, on or after the first dose of study drug, and up to 30 days following study drug discontinuation or initiation of new anticancer therapy (whichever occurred first). Treatment-related TEAEs (TRAEs) were those considered by the investigator to be related to study treatment or with missing assessment of the causal relationship.

Tumor imaging was performed with computed tomography (preferred) or contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; other known or suspected sites of disease were included in the assessments. Imaging took place within 28 days prior to the first dose of study drug(s), then every 6 weeks in the first year and every 9 weeks thereafter. ORR was defined as the proportion of patients achieving a confirmed (for at least 4 weeks) complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). DCR was defined as the proportion of patients with a best overall response of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD). Clinical benefit rate (CBR) was defined as the proportion of patients with a confirmed PR, confirmed CR, or durable (for at least 24 weeks) SD. DoR was assessed among responders (CR or PR) and defined as the time between the date of the earliest qualifying response and the date of PD or any-cause death, whichever occurred first. PFS was defined as the time from the date of the first dose of study drug(s) to the date of the first documentation of PD or death, whichever occurred first. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from the date of the first dose of study drug(s) to the date of death due to any cause.

Statistical analyses

The study planned to enroll approximately 98–116 patients, including ~ 18–36 DLT-evaluable patients to phase I and ~ 80 patients to phase II (~ 20 patients per cohort). Enrollment into, and evaluation of, these cohorts were independent. The sample size was not driven by statistical considerations.

The safety population included all patients from phase I and II receiving at least one dose of study drug (any component for the combination therapy). The efficacy-evaluable population included all patients from phase I and II receiving at least one dose of study drug with measurable disease at baseline (per RECIST v1.1) and at least one postbaseline tumor assessment (unless treatment was discontinued due to clinical PD or early death [within 13 weeks of the first dose date]). The DLT-evaluable analysis set for sitravatinib monotherapy included patients in phase I who received at least 75% of the assigned total dose for the DLT assessment window and had sufficient safety evaluation. For sitravatinib plus tislelizumab, the DLT-evaluable analysis set included patients in phase I who received at least 75% of the assigned total dose of sitravatinib and at least 67% of the assigned total dose for tislelizumab for the DLT assessment window. Patients not meeting these criteria but who had a DLT event were also included.

Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Incidence of DLT events, TEAEs, and TRAEs were reported as number (percentage) of patients with TEAEs by system organ class and preferred term. Patients were counted only once by the highest severity grade, even if more than one TEAE was observed. Phase I and phase II data were pooled to provide safety and efficacy analyses based on tumor type, treatment received, and demographics. ORR was estimated along with Clopper–Pearson two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and presented by indication. DCR and CBR were analyzed similarly to ORR. Median DoR and median PFS (and 95% CIs) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier (KM) methodology with 95% CIs estimated using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method with log–log transformation. OS at different timepoints was estimated using KM methodology; patients who remained alive before data cutoff or discontinuation of study (other than from death) were censored at the time of data cutoff or last date known to be alive.

Results

Patient characteristics

Between February 21, 2019, and April 19, 2021, 151 patients from 18 sites across China were screened, of whom 111 were enrolled (Fig. 1). At data cutoff (March 31, 2023), 24 patients had received treatment in phase I and 87 in phase II. No patients remained on the study; the main reason for discontinuation across all cohorts was PD (Fig. 1). The overall median study follow-up was 9.1 months (range: 0.7–36.9). Median study follow-up was 5.9 months (range: 0.8–15.4) in phase I and 12.6 months (range: 0.7–36.9) in phase II. Patient demographics and baseline disease characteristics are shown in Table 1. Further disease history for patients with HCC is shown in Supplementary Table S1.Fig. 1 Patient flow. aAfter the study was terminated by the sponsor, all patients who were still on treatment were transferred to the long-term extension study to continue treatment as assigned

Table 1 Baseline characteristics (safety analysis set from phase I and phase II)

Indication	HCC	GC/GEJC	
Treatment	Sitravatinib monotherapy	Sitravatinib plus tislelizumab	Sitravatinib plus tislelizumab	
Prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment status	Naïve or treated (n = 24)	Naïve (n = 27)	Treated (n = 24)	Subtotal (n = 51)	Naïve (n = 32)	
Median age, years (range)	51.5 (31–70)	61.0 (30–70)	49.0 (29–71)	55.0 (29–71)	62.5 (44–74)	
 < 65 years, n (%)	19 (79.2)	21 (77.8)	20 (83.3)	41 (80.4)	20 (62.5)	
 ≥ 65 years, n (%)	5 (20.8)	6 (22.2)	4 (16.7)	10 (19.6)	12 (37.5)	
Sex, n (%)	
 Male	23 (95.8)	23 (85.2)	22 (91.7)	45 (88.2)	27 (84.4)	
 Female	1 (4.2)	4 (14.8)	2 (8.3)	6 (11.8)	5 (15.6)	
ECOG performance status, n (%)						
 0	10 (41.7)	14 (51.9)	13 (54.2)	27 (52.9)	3 (9.4)	
 1	14 (58.3)	13 (48.1)	11 (45.8)	24 (47.1)	29 (90.6)	
PD-L1 TC score	
 TC < 1%	8 (33.3)	10 (37.0)	0 (0.0)	10 (19.6)	8 (25.0)	
 TC ≥ 1%	1 (4.2)	1 (3.7)	0 (0.0)	1 (2.0)	2 (6.3)	
 Unknown	15 (62.5)	16 (59.3)	24 (100.0)	40 (78.4)	22 (68.8)	
Alcohol consumption, n (%)	
 Never	15 (62.5)	19 (70.4)	13 (54.2)	32 (62.7)	20 (62.5)	
 Current	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (4.2)	1 (2.0)	1 (3.1)	
 Former	9 (37.5)	8 (29.6)	10 (41.7)	18 (35.3)	11 (34.4)	
Disease stage,an (%)	
 Unresectable locally advanced	1 (4.2)	5 (18.5)	4 (16.7)	9 (17.6)	1 (3.1)	
 Metastatic	23 (95.8)	22 (81.5)	20 (83.3)	42 (82.4)	31 (96.9)	
Number of metastatic sites,an (%)	
 1	8 (33.3)	10 (37.0)	4 (16.7)	14 (27.5)	17 (53.1)	
 2	8 (33.3)	7 (25.9)	8 (33.3)	15 (29.4)	8 (25.0)	
 ≥ 3	7 (29.2)	5 (18.5)	8 (33.3)	13 (25.5)	6 (18.8)	
Prior anticancer therapy, n (%)	23 (95.8)	27 (100.0)	24 (100.0)	51 (100.0)	32 (100.0)	
 Prior immunotherapy	1 (4.2)	0 (0.0)	24 (100.0)	24 (47.1)	0 (0.0)	
 Prior TKI	23 (95.8)	26 (96.3)	20 (83.3)	46 (90.2)	8 (25.0)	
Number of prior treatment lines, n (%)	
 0	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.1)	
 1	15 (62.5)	18 (66.7)	12 (50.0)	30 (58.8)	14 (43.8)	
 2	8 (33.3)	9 (33.3)	12 (50.0)	21 (41.2)	14 (43.8)	
 ≥ 3	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (9.4)	
aAt study entry. Data from phase I and phase II were pooled per the tumor characteristics; four patients with GC/GEJC in phase I were excluded because they could not be mapped to any indication group, either due to unknown prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment status (n = 1) or because they received sitravatinib monotherapy (n = 3)

ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, GC/GEJC gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, PD-1 programmed cell death protein 1, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, TC tumor cell, TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Safety and tolerability

Median duration of exposure to sitravatinib was 4.8 months (range: 0.6–29.7) in sitravatinib monotherapy–treated patients and 3.4 months (range: 0.1–28.2) for patients treated with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab; median number of treatment cycles was 7.0 and 5.5, respectively. Median duration of exposure to tislelizumab was 4.1 months (range: 0.7–28.6) for patients treated with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab; median number of treatment cycles was 4.5. Of the DLT-evaluable set (n = 22), no DLTs were reported in patients receiving sitravatinib monotherapy at the 80 mg (n = 3) or 120 mg (n = 4) QD doses. Two DLTs were reported in patients receiving sitravatinib 120 mg QD plus tislelizumab 200 mg Q3W (n = 12): one (grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome) among six patients with HCC and one (grade 3 proteinuria) among six patients with GC/GEJC. No DLTs were observed among patients receiving sitravatinib 80 mg QD plus tislelizumab 200 mg Q3W (n = 3). RP2D of sitravatinib was determined as 120 mg QD, either as monotherapy or in combination with tislelizumab 200 mg Q3W.

All patients (100%) receiving sitravatinib monotherapy at either the 80 mg QD dose (n = 3) or the 120 mg QD dose (n = 24) in the safety analysis set (phases I and II combined) reported a TRAE (Table 2). Of patients receiving the sitravatinib 120 mg QD dose as monotherapy, grade ≥ 3 TRAEs were reported in 45.8% (n = 11/24), and 25.0% (n = 6/24) had serious TRAEs. One (4.2%) patient had a TRAE that led to treatment discontinuation and 17 (70.8%) patients had TRAEs that led to treatment modification.Table 2 Summary of treatment-related adverse events (safety analysis set from phase I and phase II)

N (%)	Sitravatinib 80 mg monotherapy (n = 3)	Sitravatinib 120 mg monotherapy (n = 24)	Sitravatinib monotherapy combined (n = 27)	Sitravatinib 80 mg plus tislelizumab (n = 3)	Sitravatinib 120 mg plus tislelizumab (n = 81)	Sitravatinib plus tislelizumab combined (n = 84)	
Any TRAE	3 (100.0)	24 (100.0)	27 (100.0)	3 (100.0)	73 (90.1)	76 (90.5)	
 Related to sitravatinib	3 (100.0)	24 (100.0)	27 (100.0)	3 (100.0)	73 (90.1)	76 (90.5)	
 Related to tislelizumab	–	–	–	3 (100.0)	67 (82.7)	70 (83.3)	
Grade ≥ 3	3 (100.0)	11 (45.8)	14 (51.9)	2 (66.7)	40 (49.4)	42 (50.0)	
 Related to sitravatinib	3 (100.0)	11 (45.8)	14 (51.9)	2 (66.7)	40 (49.4)	42 (50.0)	
 Related to tislelizumab	–	–	–	1 (33.3)	23 (28.4)	24 (28.6)	
Serious	0 (0.0)	6 (25.0)	6 (22.2)	1 (33.3)	17 (21.0)	18 (21.4)	
 Related to sitravatinib	0 (0.0)	6 (25.0)	6 (22.2)	1 (33.3)	15 (18.5)	16 (19.0)	
 Related to tislelizumab	–	–	–	1 (33.3)	11 (13.6)	12 (14.3)	
Leading to death	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (4.9)	4 (4.8)	
 Related to sitravatinib	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (4.9)	4 (4.8)	
 Related to tislelizumab	–	–	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (3.7)	3 (3.6)	
Leading to treatment discontinuation	0 (0.0)	1 (4.2)	1 (3.7)	1 (33.3)	8 (9.9)	9 (10.7)	
Leading to dose modificationa	1 (33.3)	17 (70.8)	18 (66.7)	2 (66.7)	51 (63.0)	53 (63.1)	
TRAEs reported in ≥ 10% of patients	
 Proteinuria	2 (66.7)	13 (54.2)	15 (55.6)	2 (66.7)	44 (54.3)	46 (54.8)	
 ALT increased	2 (66.7)	12 (50.0)	14 (51.9)	2 (66.7)	36 (44.4)	38 (45.2)	
 AST increased	2 (66.7)	12 (50.0)	14 (51.9)	3 (100.0)	35 (43.2)	38 (45.2)	
 PPE syndrome	2 (66.7)	17 (70.8)	19 (70.4)	0 (0.0)	30 (37.0)	30 (35.7)	
 Diarrhea	2 (66.7)	14 (58.3)	16 (59.3)	0 (0.0)	26 (32.1)	26 (31.0)	
 Hypertension	3 (100.0)	4 (16.7)	7 (25.9)	2 (66.7)	28 (34.6)	30 (35.7)	
 Platelet count decreased	2 (66.7)	10 (41.7)	12 (44.4)	0 (0.0)	22 (27.2)	22 (26.2)	
 Blood CPK MB increased	0 (0.0)	2 (8.3)	2 (7.4)	1 (33.3)	23 (28.4)	24 (28.6)	
 Decreased appetite	1 (33.3)	3 (12.5)	4 (14.8)	1 (33.3)	17 (21.0)	18 (21.4)	
 Hypothyroidism	2 (66.7)	2 (8.3)	4 (14.8)	1 (33.3)	15 (18.5)	16 (19.0)	
 Anemia	1 (33.3)	5 (20.8)	6 (22.2)	1 (33.3)	11 (13.6)	12 (14.3)	
 Blood bilirubin increased	1 (33.3)	3 (12.5)	4 (14.8)	0 (0.0)	13 (16.0)	13 (15.5)	
 Blood thyroid stimulating hormone increased	0 (0.0)	2 (8.3)	2 (7.4)	0 (0.0)	14 (17.3)	14 (16.7)	
 Hypoalbuminemia	0 (0.0)	2 (8.3)	2 (7.4)	1 (33.3)	13 (16.0)	14 (16.7)	
 GGT increased	0 (0.0)	4 (16.7)	4 (14.8)	0 (0.0)	12 (14.8)	12 (14.3)	
 WBC count decreased	1 (33.3)	2 (8.3)	3 (11.1)	0 (0.0)	13 (16.0)	13 (15.5)	
 Blood CPK increased	0 (0.0)	1 (4.2)	1 (3.7)	0 (0.0)	14 (7.3)	14 (16.7)	
 Blood AP increased	0 (0.0)	2 (8.3)	2 (7.4)	0 (0.0)	11 (13.6)	11 (13.1)	
 Blood LDH increased	0 (0.0)	2 (8.3)	2 (7.4)	0 (0.0)	11 (13.6)	11 (13.1)	
 Abdominal pain upper	0 (0.0)	2 (8.3)	2 (7.4)	0 (0.0)	11 (13.6)	11 (13.1)	
 Nausea	0 (0.0)	2 (8.3)	2 (7.4)	1 (33.3)	10 (12.3)	11 (13.1)	
 Vomiting	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (33.3)	11 (13.6)	12 (14.3)	
 Dysphonia	0 (0.0)	5 (20.8)	5 (18.5)	0 (0.0)	8 (9.9)	8 (9.5)	
 Weight decreased	1 (33.3)	3 (12.5)	4 (14.8)	1 (33.3)	7 (8.6)	8 (9.5)	
 Fatigue	0 (0.0)	1 (4.2)	1 (3.7)	1 (3.33)	6 (7.4)	7 (8.3)	
 Hypokalemia	0 (0.0)	3 (12.5)	3 (11.1)	0 (0.0)	6 (7.4)	6 (7.1)	
 Neutrophil count decreased	1 (33.3)	1 (4.2)	2 (7.4)	0 (0.0)	5 (6.2)	5 (6.0)	
 Hypocalcemia	0 (0.0)	1 (4.2)	1 (3.7)	1 (3.33)	3 (3.7)	4 (4.8)	
 Hypercalcemia	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.33)	2 (2.5)	3 (3.6)	
 Stomatitis	1 (33.3)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.7)	0 (0.0)	3 (3.7)	3 (3.6)	
 Coagulopathy	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.33)	1 (1.2)	2 (2.4)	
 Hematuria	1 (33.3)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.7)	0 (0.0)	2 (2.5)	2 (2.4)	
 Blood pressure increased	0 (0.0)	3 (12.5)	3 (11.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.2)	1 (1.2)	
 Malnutrition	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (33.3)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.2)	
 Venous thrombosis limb	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (33.3)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.2)	
Data cutoff: March 31, 2023

Adverse events were graded based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0

aDose modification includes dose reduction and/or drug interruption for sitravatinib, and dose delay and/or interruption for tislelizumab

ALT alanine aminotransferase, AP alkaline phosphatase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, CPK creatine phosphokinase, GGT gamma glutamyltransferase, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, MB, myocardial band, PPE palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, TRAE treatment-related adverse event, WBC white blood cell

The majority (n = 81/84) of patients treated with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab received the sitravatinib 120 mg QD dose, of whom 90.1% (n = 73/81) experienced a TRAE; 90.1% of patients had events that were considered related to sitravatinib, and 82.7% had events considered related to tislelizumab (Table 2). Approximately half of all patients treated with sitravatinib 120 mg QD plus tislelizumab 200 mg Q3W (49.4%; n = 40/81) reported grade ≥ 3 TRAEs considered related to sitravatinib; 28.4% (n = 23/81) reported grade ≥ 3 TRAEs considered related to tislelizumab. Fifteen (18.5%) serious TRAEs considered related to sitravatinib and 11 (13.6%) serious TRAEs considered related to tislelizumab were reported. Eight (9.9%) TRAEs led to treatment discontinuation and 51 (63.0%) to treatment modification (Table 2).

Across all patients treated with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab, the most common TRAEs (occurring in > 30.0% of patients) were proteinuria, alanine aminotransferase increased, aspartate aminotransferase increased, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, hypertension, and diarrhea (Table 2); the most common grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (occurring in > 5.0% of patients) were hypertension, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and platelet count decreased.

In total, three (3.7%) patients treated with sitravatinib 120 mg QD plus tislelizumab reported an infusion-related reaction (IRR), one of whom reported a grade ≥ 3 IRR (1.2%), leading to treatment discontinuation. Immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) occurred in 36.9% (n = 31/84) of patients receiving sitravatinib plus tislelizumab (80 mg QD, 33.3% [n = 1/3]; 120 mg QD, 37.0% [n = 30/81]) (Supplementary Table S2). Overall, 29.8% (n = 25/84) and 35.7% (n = 30/84) of patients receiving sitravatinib plus tislelizumab reported imAEs that were considered related to sitravatinib and tislelizumab, respectively. Two patients (2.4%) treated with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab reported imAEs that led to treatment discontinuation, and six (7.1%) reported imAEs that led to treatment modification, comprising rash (n = 3), hyperthyroidism (n = 1), hypothyroidism (n = 1), and immune-mediated encephalitis (n = 1).

Twelve patients experienced TEAEs leading to death in the sitravatinib 120 mg QD plus tislelizumab group, fatal TEAEs that occurred in ≥ 2 patients included death (7 patients, 8.6%, reported terms were all unexplained death) and respiratory failure (2 patients, 2.5%). Four fatal TEAEs were considered to be treatment related; one TRAE of respiratory failure (related to both sitravatinib and tislelizumab) and three TRAEs of death due to unknown reasons (one fatal event with missing assessment of causality was reported as the preferred term of ‘death’ [reported term: unexplained death] and counted as treatment related). All TEAEs are summarized in Supplementary Table S3; all TRAEs are summarized in Supplementary Table S4.

Efficacy

In the efficacy-evaluable set, the confirmed ORR with sitravatinib monotherapy was 25.0% (95% CI 8.7–49.1) in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve or anti-PD-(L)1–treated advanced HCC (Table 3); all responses were PRs. Best percent change from baseline in target lesion sum of diameters is shown in Fig. 2A. Disease control was achieved in 90.0% (95% CI 68.3–98.8) of these patients, and median DoR was 7.7 months (95% CI 2.8–not estimable [NE]). In the safety analysis set (phases I and II combined), median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI 4.0–7.4) (Fig. 3A). In the safety analysis set (phase II only, n = 20), during a median follow-up of 34.1 months, median OS was determined to be 26.7 months (95% CI 9.1–NE) (Fig. 4A).Table 3 Analysis of confirmed disease response based on investigator-assessment per RECIST v1.1 (efficacy evaluable analysis set from phase I and phase II)

Indication	HCC	GC/GEJC	
Treatment	Sitravatinib monotherapy	Sitravatinib plus tislelizumab	Sitravatinib plus tislelizumab	
Prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment status	Naïve or treated (n = 20)	Naïve (n = 26)	Treated (n = 21)	Subtotal (n = 47)	Naïve (n = 31)	
ORR, n (%)

95% CI

	5 (25.0)

8.7–49.1

	3 (11.5)

2.4–30.2

	2 (9.5)

1.2–30.4

	5 (10.6)

3.5–23.1

	5 (16.1)

5.5–33.7

	
 Best overall response, n (%)						
  CR	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	
  PR	5 (25.0)	3 (11.5)	2 (9.5)	5 (10.6)	5 (16.1)	
  SD	13 (65.0)	19 (73.1)	15 (71.4)	34 (72.3)	17 (54.8)	
  PD	2 (10.0)	3 (11.5)	3 (14.3)	6 (12.8)	6 (19.4)	
  Not determineda	0 (0.0)	1 (3.8)	1 (4.8)	2 (4.3)	3 (9.7)	
DCR, n (%)

95% CI

	18 (90.0)

68.3–98.8

	22 (84.6)

65.1–95.6

	17 (81.0)

58.1–94.6

	39 (83.0)

69.2–92.4

	22 (71.0)

52.0–85.8

	
Median DoR, months

95% CI

	7.7

2.8–NE

	5.7

4.1–NE

	NR

5.4–NE

	5.7

4.1–NE

	5.5

2.7–NE

	
CBR, n (%)

95% CI

	11 (55.0)

31.5–76.9

	12 (46.2)

26.6–66.6

	6 (28.6)

11.3–52.2

	18 (38.3)

24.5–53.6

	10 (32.3)

16.7–51.4

	
Data cutoff: March 31, 2023

aDue to no post-baseline response assessment. Data from phase I and phase II were pooled per the tumor characteristics; four patients with GC/GEJC in phase I were excluded because they could not be mapped to any indication group, either due to unknown prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment status (n = 1) or because they received sitravatinib monotherapy (n = 3)

CBR clinical benefit rate, CI confidence interval, CR complete response, DCR disease control rate, DoR duration of response, GC/GEJC gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, NE not estimable, NR not reached, ORR objective response rate, PD progressive disease, PD-1 programmed cell death protein 1, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, PR partial response, RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, SD stable disease

Fig. 2 Best percent change from baseline in target lesion sum of diameters by best confirmed overall response (efficacy-evaluable population from phase I and phase II). Best percent change from baseline in target lesion sum of diameters in A sitravatinib-treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve or –treated HCC; B sitravatinib with tislelizumab–treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC; C sitravatinib with tislelizumab–treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC; D sitravatinib with tislelizumab–treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC. Responses are investigator-assessed based on RECIST v1.1. GC/GEJC gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, PD-1 programmed cell death protein 1, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

Fig. 3 Progression-free survival (safety analysis set from phase I and phase II). KM plot of PFS in A sitravatinib-treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve or –treated HCC; B sitravatinib with tislelizumab–treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve and –treated HCC; C sitravatinib with tislelizumab–treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC. Four patients with GC/GEJC cancer in phase I were excluded, either due to unknown prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment status or because they received sitravatinib monotherapy. CI confidence interval, GC/GEJC gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, KM Kaplan–Meier, PD-1 programmed cell death protein 1, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, PFS progression-free survival, Sitra sitravatinib, Tisle tislelizumab

Fig. 4 Overall survival (safety analysis set from phase II only). KM plot of OS in A sitravatinib-treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve or –treated HCC; B sitravatinib with tislelizumab–treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve and –treated HCC; C sitravatinib with tislelizumab–treated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC. CI confidence interval, GC/GEJC gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, KM Kaplan–Meier, NE not estimable, OS overall survival, PD-1 programmed cell death protein 1, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, Sitra sitravatinib, Tisle tislelizumab

The ORR with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab was 11.5% (95% CI 2.4–30.2) in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve, pretreated HCC and 9.5% (95% CI 1.2–30.4) in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC. Best percent change from baseline in target lesion sum of diameters is shown in Fig. 2B and C, respectively. Disease control was achieved in 84.6% (95% CI 65.1–95.6) and 81.0% (95% CI 58.1–94.6) of these patients, respectively. Median DoR was 5.7 months (95% CI 4.1–NE) in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC. Two patients with anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC responded; one patient had a DoR of 5.4 months (95% CI 5.4–NE), while for the other patient, response was ongoing at up to 20 months of follow-up. Median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI 2.8–8.3) and 4.2 months (95% CI 2.7–6.8) in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve and anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC, respectively (Fig. 3B). In the safety analysis set (phase II only), median OS was 20.5 months (95% CI 7.4–NE) and 12.4 months (95% CI 7.0–14.1), respectively (Fig. 4B), with a median follow-up of 30.9 months and 28.8 months, respectively.

In patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve, pretreated GC/GEJC, the ORR with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab was 16.1% (95% CI 5.5–33.7); the DCR was 71.0% (52.0–85.8); the median DoR was 5.5 months (Table 3); and the median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI 2.8–4.7) (Fig. 3C). Best percent change from baseline in target lesion sum of diameters is shown in Fig. 2D. In the safety analysis set (phase II only, n = 24), median OS was 8.9 months (95% CI 4.7–16.0) (Fig. 4C), with a median follow-up of 27.6 months.

Discussion

Despite recent advances in immunotherapies, there remains unmet medical need for greater tumor control without significantly compromising treatment tolerability. Promising efficacy and manageable tolerability were observed in SAFFRON-104 with sitravatinib monotherapy in a predominantly pretreated, anti-PD-(L)1–naïve patient population with advanced HCC, and in combination with tislelizumab in pretreated patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve and anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC, and pretreated patients with PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC. Phase I determined the RP2D of sitravatinib to be 120 mg QD, both as monotherapy and in combination with tislelizumab. No new safety signals were identified. Of note, this study provides relatively more data for HCC than GC/GEJC.

Sitravatinib has been evaluated in multiple phase I–III clinical studies in advanced and metastatic solid tumors [22, 24–27]. Safety data from these studies have identified frequent but mild-moderate severity (grade < 3) AEs with sitravatinib as monotherapy or in combination with PD-1 inhibitors including tislelizumab [24–27]. In the current study, TRAEs were reported in all patients receiving sitravatinib monotherapy and 90.5% of patients receiving sitravatinib with tislelizumab. Most TRAEs were manageable by dose reduction or interruption and supportive treatment.

The safety profile for sitravatinib as monotherapy is generally consistent with the observed safety profiles of other TKI monotherapies [28, 29]. Furthermore, the safety profile of sitravatinib with tislelizumab in this study is consistent with that reported in the phase Ib SAFFRON-103 study of sitravatinib plus tislelizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC [22]. Additionally, the safety findings of the combination are in accordance with those of other TKI and PD-1 inhibitor combinations [29, 30]. Common AEs reported here—hypertension, proteinuria, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome—are also noted within the well-established AE profile of other VEGF inhibitors [31, 32].

In SAFFRON-104, grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in approximately half of patients (51.9% of patients treated with monotherapy; 50.0% with combination therapy); however, few TRAEs led to treatment discontinuation (3.7% and 10.7%, respectively). In a phase II trial of sitravatinib plus nivolumab in patients with non-squamous NSCLC who progressed on or after checkpoint inhibitor therapy, 58.3% of patients experienced grade 3–4 TRAEs, with hypertension occurring in 16.7% of patients (vs. 10.7% in SAFFRON-104) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 2.6% (vs. 6.0% in SAFFRON-104); 14.1% experienced any-grade TRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (vs. 10.7% in SAFFRON–104) [33].

In the current study, sitravatinib monotherapy demonstrated promising antitumor activity in the second- or third-line setting in a primarily anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC population, with a confirmed ORR of 25.0%, the highest ORR with TKI single-agent therapy reported to date in this setting [28, 34]. The encouraging ORR was also successfully transformed into a promising median PFS (6.8 months, n = 24) and median OS (26.7 months, n = 20). Preliminary antitumor activity was also demonstrated with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab, with a moderate ORR and higher median OS observed in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC (11.5% and 20.5 months, respectively) compared with anti-PD-(L)1–treated HCC (9.5% and 12.4 months, respectively). Counterintuitively, the efficacy of sitravatinib monotherapy was comparable with or higher than that of the combination of sitravatinib plus tislelizumab, including a higher ORR and OS and a similar median PFS and DCR. This could possibly be attributed to the limited sample size in each group. Considering the non-randomized design of the current study, and the later initiation of phase II in patients with anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC treated with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab (almost 10 months later than for patients treated with sitravatinib monotherapy), there may have been an imbalance in the patient populations’ disease characteristics, despite enrollment under the same inclusion/exclusion criteria. These findings require confirmation in larger cohorts.

While cross-trial comparisons are confounded by differences in factors such as study design, patient characteristics, and sample size, the meaningful and durable responses of sitravatinib monotherapy in patients with advanced HCC shown in SAFFRON-104 are superior to the responses in the phase III RESORCE study, which reported an ORR of 11% and median OS of 10.6 months following treatment with the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in 379 patients with HCC who progressed during treatment with sorafenib [28]. Furthermore, the durable responses reported in patients with advanced anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC receiving combination treatment with sitravatinib plus tislelizumab complement the findings from the KEYNOTE-524 study of lenvatinib with pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable anti-PD-(L)1–naïve HCC [30]. Of 100 patients in KEYNOTE-524, disease control was reported in 86.0% (vs. 84.6% in SAFFRON-104) and median OS was 22.0 months (vs. 20.5 months in SAFFRON-104) [30].

While this study does not provide substantial data for patients with advanced.

anti-PD-(L)1–naïve GC/GEJC, preliminary antitumor activity is reported (ORR, 16.1%; median OS, 8.9 months; median PFS, 3.6 months). Treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy has demonstrated efficacy in patients from a global population with treatment-naïve, advanced GC/GEJC in the phase III RATIONALE-305 study [15, 16], which reported an ORR of 47.3% and median OS of 15.0 months [15, 16]. As VEGFR2 inhibitors, both ramucirumab (anti-VEGFR2 monoclonal antibody) and apatinib (anti-VEGFR2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor) have demonstrated efficacy in patients with pretreated, advanced GC/GEJC, and have been approved either as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel in later line settings [35–37]. These data along with the results of the SAFFRON-104 study support the investigation of anti-PD-1 inhibitors and sitravatinib in this setting.

Current treatment options for patients with HCC or GC/GEJC are limited, and there is an urgent need for new therapies [1–4]. Following the approval of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab as the new standard of care, the treatment landscape has been rapidly evolving [38]; however, a broader range of therapies is essential to improve overall patient survival [39]. For patients with GC/GEJC, standard-of-care options are associated with low efficacy rates and toxicity with extended use [40]. The results from the SAFFRON-104 study add to the clinical evidence supporting the rationale for anti-PD-(L)1 and multi-targeted TKI combination therapies and further support continued investigation of these combinations in the clinical setting.

Conclusions

Sitravatinib as monotherapy or in combination with tislelizumab was generally well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity with durable responses in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic HCC and GC/GEJC. The results from this phase Ib/II study support further investigation of sitravatinib as monotherapy and in combination with tislelizumab as a potential treatment option for patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic HCC and GC/GEJC.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (DOCX 221 KB)

Abbreviations

AE Adverse event

ALT Alanine aminotransferase

AP Alkaline phosphatase

AST Aspartate aminotransferase;

BCLC Barcelona clinic liver cancer

CBR Clinical benefit rate

CI Confidence interval

CPK Creatine phosphokinase;

CR Complete response

DCR Disease control rate

DLT Dose-limiting toxicity

DoR Duration of response

ECOG Eastern cooperative oncology group

Fc Fragment crystallizable

GC/GEJC Gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer

GGT Gamma glutamyltransferase

HCC Hepatocellular carcinoma

ImAE Immune adverse event

KM Kaplan–Meier

LDH Lactate dehydrogenase

MB Myocardial band

MET Mesenchymal epithelial transition factor receptor

NE Not estimable

NR Not reached

NSCLC Non-small cell lung cancer

ORR Objective response rate

OS Overall survival

PD Progressive disease

PD-1 Programmed cell death protein 1

PD-L1 Programmed cell death-ligand 1

PFS Progression-free survival

PPE Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia

PR Partial response

PS Performance status

Q3W Once every 3 weeks

QD Once daily

RECIST v1.1 Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1

RP2D Recommended phase II dose

SD Stable disease

TAM TYRO3, AXL, MER

TC Tumor cell

TEAE Treatment-emergent adverse event

TKI Tyrosine kinase inhibitor

TME Tumor microenvironment

TRAE Treatment-related adverse event

VEGF Vascular endothelial growth factor

VEGFR Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor

WBC White blood cell

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the study participants, investigators, and site staff for their contributions to the study. Medical writing support, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Gemma Walker, BSc, of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and Steven Moore, PhD, and Camile Semighini Grubor, PhD, of Envision Pharma Group and was funded by BeiGene, Ltd.

Author contribution

Conceptualization and study design: Jin Li, Xin Li, Fan Yu, Juan Zhang, Zhang Zhang, Shukui Qin. Acquisition of data: Jin Li, Yuxian Bai, Zhendong Chen, Jieer Ying, Yabing Guo, Weijia Fang, Feng Zhang, Jianping Xiong, Tao Zheng, Zhiqiang Meng, Jingdong Zhang, Zhenggang Ren, Chunyi Hao, Yajin Chen, Xiaoyan Lin, Hongming Pan, Fuxiang Zhou, Shukui Qin. Data analysis: Xin Li, Fan Yu, Juan Zhang, Zhang Zhang. Data interpretation: Jin Li, Xin Li, Fan Yu, Juan Zhang, Zhang Zhang, Shukui Qin. Writing––original draft: All authors. Writing––review & editing: All authors. Funding acquisition: BeiGene, Ltd.

Funding

This study was sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd.

Data availability

On request, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, BeiGene, Ltd., will provide access to individual de-identified participant data from BeiGene-sponsored global interventional clinical studies conducted for medicines (1) for indications that have been approved or (2) in programs that have been terminated. BeiGene will also consider requests for the protocol, data dictionary, and statistical analysis plan. Data requests may be submitted to DataDisclosure@beigene.com.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Jin Li reports payments or honoraria for consulting or speakers bureaus from ArteMed Hospital, Novartis, HengRui, BI, and Lilly; Jieer Ying and Hongming Pan report stocks or shares in BeiGene (institutional relationship with financial interest); Zhenggang Ren reports a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Roche, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; Zhang Zhang and Juan Zhang report financial relationships with BeiGene; Xin Li and Fan Yu report full-time employment by BeiGene; Yuxian Bai, Zhendong Chen, Yabing Guo, Weijia Fang, Feng Zhang, Jianping Xiong, Tao Zhang, Zhiqiang Meng, Jingdong Zhang, Chunyi Hao, Yajin Chen, Xiaoyan Lin, Fuxiang Zhou, and Shukui Qin have no potential conflict of interest to report.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guidelines, and the principles of informed consent. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to screening. The protocol was approved by an independent ethics committee prior to initiation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Akinyemiju T Abera S The burden of primary liver cancer and underlying etiologies from 1990 to 2015 at the global, regional, and national level: results from the Global Burden of Disease study 2015 JAMA Oncol 2017 3 1683 1691 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.3055 28983565
Akinyemiju T, Abera S et al (2017) The burden of primary liver cancer and underlying etiologies from 1990 to 2015 at the global, regional, and national level: results from the Global Burden of Disease study 2015. JAMA Oncol 3:1683–169128983565 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.3055
2. Rumgay H Ferlay J de Martel C Georges D Ibrahim AS Zheng R Wei W Lemmens V Soerjomataram I Global, regional and national burden of primary liver cancer by subtype Eur J Cancer 2022 161 108 118 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.11.023 34942552
Rumgay H, Ferlay J, de Martel C, Georges D, Ibrahim AS, Zheng R, Wei W, Lemmens V, Soerjomataram I (2022) Global, regional and national burden of primary liver cancer by subtype. Eur J Cancer 161:108–118. 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.11.02334942552 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.11.023
3. Ajani JA Lee J Sano T Janjigian YY Fan D Song S Gastric adenocarcinoma Nat Rev Dis Primers 2017 3 17036 10.1038/nrdp.2017.36 28569272
Ajani JA, Lee J, Sano T, Janjigian YY, Fan D, Song S (2017) Gastric adenocarcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 3:17036. 10.1038/nrdp.2017.3628569272 10.1038/nrdp.2017.36
4. Casamayor M Morlock R Maeda H Ajani J Targeted literature review of the global burden of gastric cancer ecancer 2018 12 883 10.3332/ecancer.2018.883
Casamayor M, Morlock R, Maeda H, Ajani J (2018) Targeted literature review of the global burden of gastric cancer. ecancer 12:883. 10.3332/ecancer.2018.88310.3332/ecancer.2018.883
5. Ma W Xue R Zhu Z Farrukh H Song W Li T Zheng L Pan CX Increasing cure rates of solid tumors by immune checkpoint inhibitors Exp Hematol Oncol 2023 12 10 10.1186/s40164-023-00372-8 36647169
Ma W, Xue R, Zhu Z, Farrukh H, Song W, Li T, Zheng L, Pan CX (2023) Increasing cure rates of solid tumors by immune checkpoint inhibitors. Exp Hematol Oncol 12:10. 10.1186/s40164-023-00372-836647169 10.1186/s40164-023-00372-8
6. Sun Q Hong Z Zhang C Wang L Han Z Ma D Immune checkpoint therapy for solid tumours: clinical dilemmas and future trends Signal Transduct Target Ther 2023 8 320 10.1038/s41392-023-01522-4 37635168
Sun Q, Hong Z, Zhang C, Wang L, Han Z, Ma D (2023) Immune checkpoint therapy for solid tumours: clinical dilemmas and future trends. Signal Transduct Target Ther 8:320. 10.1038/s41392-023-01522-437635168 10.1038/s41392-023-01522-4
7. Huang Y Zhang Y Zhang M Combined immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: how to maximize immune checkpoint blockade synergic anti-tumor effect Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2023 189 104070 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104070 37468083
Huang Y, Zhang Y, Zhang M et al (2023) Combined immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: how to maximize immune checkpoint blockade synergic anti-tumor effect. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 189:104070. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.10407037468083 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104070
8. Karim F Amin A Liu M Vishnuvardhan N Amin S Shabbir R Swed B Khan U Role of checkpoint inhibitors in the management of gastroesophageal cancers Cancers 2023 15 4099 10.3390/cancers15164099 37627127
Karim F, Amin A, Liu M, Vishnuvardhan N, Amin S, Shabbir R, Swed B, Khan U (2023) Role of checkpoint inhibitors in the management of gastroesophageal cancers. Cancers 15:4099. 10.3390/cancers1516409937627127 10.3390/cancers15164099
9. Ruiz de Galarreta M Bresnahan E Molina-Sánchez P β-Catenin activation promotes immune escape and resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma Cancer Discov 2019 9 1124 1141 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0074 31186238
Ruiz de Galarreta M, Bresnahan E, Molina-Sánchez P et al (2019) β-Catenin activation promotes immune escape and resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Discov 9:1124–1141. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-007431186238 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0074
10. Baxter MA Middleton F Cagney HP Petty RD Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancers Br J Cancer 2021 125 1068 1079 10.1038/s41416-021-01425-7 34230609
Baxter MA, Middleton F, Cagney HP, Petty RD (2021) Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancers. Br J Cancer 125:1068–1079. 10.1038/s41416-021-01425-734230609 10.1038/s41416-021-01425-7
11. Minchom A Popat S Sitravatinib and acquired immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance: a gem for the future? J Thorac Oncol 2023 18 830 833 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.03.023 37348988
Minchom A, Popat S (2023) Sitravatinib and acquired immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance: a gem for the future? J Thorac Oncol 18:830–833. 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.03.02337348988 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.03.023
12. Lu L Zhan M Li XY Clinically approved combination immunotherapy: current status, limitations, and future perspective Curr Res Immunol 2022 3 118 127 10.1016/j.crimmu.2022.05.003 35676925
Lu L, Zhan M, Li XY et al (2022) Clinically approved combination immunotherapy: current status, limitations, and future perspective. Curr Res Immunol 3:118–127. 10.1016/j.crimmu.2022.05.00335676925 10.1016/j.crimmu.2022.05.003
13. Zhang T Song X Xu L The binding of an anti-PD-1 antibody to FcγRΙ has a profound impact on its biological functions Cancer Immunol Immunother 2018 67 1079 1090 10.1007/s00262-018-2160-x 29687231
Zhang T, Song X, Xu L et al (2018) The binding of an anti-PD-1 antibody to FcγRΙ has a profound impact on its biological functions. Cancer Immunol Immunother 67:1079–1090. 10.1007/s00262-018-2160-x29687231 10.1007/s00262-018-2160-x
14. Qin S Kudo M Meyer T Tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial JAMA Oncol 2023 9 1651 1659 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.4003 37796513
Qin S, Kudo M, Meyer T et al (2023) Tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 9:1651–165937796513 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.4003
15. Moehler MH Kato K Arkenau H-T Rationale 305: Phase 3 study of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment (1L) of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC) J Clin Oncol 2023 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.4_suppl.286 37713657
Moehler MH, Kato K, Arkenau H-T et al (2023) Rationale 305: Phase 3 study of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment (1L) of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC). J Clin Oncol. 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.4_suppl.28637713657 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.4_suppl.286
16. Xu RH Oh DY Kato K LBA80 Tislelizumab (TIS) plus chemotherapy (chemo) vs placebo (PBO) plus chemo as first-line (1L) treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC): final analysis results of the RATIONALE-305 study Ann Oncol 2023 34 S1320 S1321 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.081
Xu RH, Oh DY, Kato K et al (2023) LBA80 Tislelizumab (TIS) plus chemotherapy (chemo) vs placebo (PBO) plus chemo as first-line (1L) treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC): final analysis results of the RATIONALE-305 study. Ann Oncol 34:S1320–S1321. 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.08110.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.081
17. Du W Huang H Sorrelle N Brekken RA Sitravatinib potentiates immune checkpoint blockade in refractory cancer models JCI Insight 2018 3 e124184 10.1172/jci.insight.124184 30385724
Du W, Huang H, Sorrelle N, Brekken RA (2018) Sitravatinib potentiates immune checkpoint blockade in refractory cancer models. JCI Insight 3:e124184. 10.1172/jci.insight.12418430385724 10.1172/jci.insight.124184
18. Akalu YT Rothlin CV Ghosh S TAM receptor tyrosine kinases as emerging targets of innate immune checkpoint blockade for cancer therapy Immunol Rev 2017 276 165 177 10.1111/imr.12522 28258690
Akalu YT, Rothlin CV, Ghosh S (2017) TAM receptor tyrosine kinases as emerging targets of innate immune checkpoint blockade for cancer therapy. Immunol Rev 276:165–177. 10.1111/imr.1252228258690 10.1111/imr.12522
19. Garton AJ Seibel S Lopresti-Morrow L Anti-KIT monoclonal antibody treatment enhances the antitumor activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors by reversing tumor-induced immunosuppression Mol Cancer Ther 2017 16 671 680 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0676 28138031
Garton AJ, Seibel S, Lopresti-Morrow L et al (2017) Anti-KIT monoclonal antibody treatment enhances the antitumor activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors by reversing tumor-induced immunosuppression. Mol Cancer Ther 16:671–680. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-067628138031 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0676
20. Pircher A Wolf D Heidenreich A Hilbe W Pichler R Heidegger I Synergies of targeting tumor angiogenesis and immune checkpoints in non-small cell lung cancer and renal cell cancer: from basic concepts to clinical reality Int J Mol Sci 2017 18 2291 10.3390/ijms18112291 29088109
Pircher A, Wolf D, Heidenreich A, Hilbe W, Pichler R, Heidegger I (2017) Synergies of targeting tumor angiogenesis and immune checkpoints in non-small cell lung cancer and renal cell cancer: from basic concepts to clinical reality. Int J Mol Sci 18:2291. 10.3390/ijms1811229129088109 10.3390/ijms18112291
21. Oliva M Chepeha D Araujo DV Antitumor immune effects of preoperative sitravatinib and nivolumab in oral cavity cancer: SNOW window-of-opportunity study J Immunother Cancer 2021 9 e003476 10.1136/jitc-2021-003476 34599023
Oliva M, Chepeha D, Araujo DV et al (2021) Antitumor immune effects of preoperative sitravatinib and nivolumab in oral cavity cancer: SNOW window-of-opportunity study. J Immunother Cancer 9:e003476. 10.1136/jitc-2021-00347634599023 10.1136/jitc-2021-003476
22. Zhao J Yu X Huang D SAFFRON-103: a phase 1b study of the safety and efficacy of sitravatinib combined with tislelizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer J Immunother Cancer 2023 11 e006055 10.1136/jitc-2022-006055 36808075
Zhao J, Yu X, Huang D et al (2023) SAFFRON-103: a phase 1b study of the safety and efficacy of sitravatinib combined with tislelizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Immunother Cancer 11:e006055. 10.1136/jitc-2022-00605536808075 10.1136/jitc-2022-006055
23. Bauer T Cho BC Heist R First-in-human phase 1/1b study to evaluate sitravatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors Invest New Drugs 2022 40 990 1000 10.1007/s10637-022-01274-y 35767205
Bauer T, Cho BC, Heist R et al (2022) First-in-human phase 1/1b study to evaluate sitravatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. Invest New Drugs 40:990–1000. 10.1007/s10637-022-01274-y35767205 10.1007/s10637-022-01274-y
24. Msaouel P Siefker-Radtke AO Sweis R 705MO Sitravatinib (sitra) in combination with nivolumab (nivo) demonstrates clinical activity in checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) naïve, platinum-experienced patients (pts) with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) Ann Oncol 2020 31 S556 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.777
Msaouel P, Siefker-Radtke AO, Sweis R et al (2020) 705MO Sitravatinib (sitra) in combination with nivolumab (nivo) demonstrates clinical activity in checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) naïve, platinum-experienced patients (pts) with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Ann Oncol 31:S556. 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.77710.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.777
25. Doshi GK Vogelzang NJ Richards DA Phase II study of sitravatinib in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) after checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT) J Clin Oncol 2019 37 TPS498 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.7_suppl.TPS498
Doshi GK, Vogelzang NJ, Richards DA et al (2019) Phase II study of sitravatinib in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) after checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT). J Clin Oncol 37:TPS498. 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.7_suppl.TPS49810.1200/JCO.2019.37.7_suppl.TPS498
26. Goh J Coward J Gao B 153P Safety/tolerability and antitumor activity of sitravatinib plus tislelizumab (TIS) in patients with advanced platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) Ann Oncol 2021 32 S1446 S1447 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.10.172
Goh J, Coward J, Gao B et al (2021) 153P Safety/tolerability and antitumor activity of sitravatinib plus tislelizumab (TIS) in patients with advanced platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Ann Oncol 32:S1446–S1447. 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.10.17210.1016/j.annonc.2021.10.172
27. Liu X Peng T Liu C Wang J Zhu G Zhang X 39TiP A phase II study of tislelizumab (TIS) plus sitravatinib as adjuvant therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of recurrence after surgical resection Ann Oncol 2022 33 S1444 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.049
Liu X, Peng T, Liu C, Wang J, Zhu G, Zhang X (2022) 39TiP A phase II study of tislelizumab (TIS) plus sitravatinib as adjuvant therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of recurrence after surgical resection. Ann Oncol 33:S1444. 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.04910.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.049
28. Bruix J Qin S Merle P Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial Lancet 2017 389 56 66 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32453-9 27932229
Bruix J, Qin S, Merle P et al (2017) Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 389:56–66. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32453-927932229 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32453-9
29. Kelley RK Rimassa L Cheng AL Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2022 23 995 1008 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00326-6 35798016
Kelley RK, Rimassa L, Cheng AL et al (2022) Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 23:995–1008. 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00326-635798016 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00326-6
30. Finn RS Ikeda M Zhu AX Phase Ib study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma J Clin Oncol 2020 38 2960 2970 10.1200/JCO.20.00808 32716739
Finn RS, Ikeda M, Zhu AX et al (2020) Phase Ib study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 38:2960–2970. 10.1200/JCO.20.0080832716739 10.1200/JCO.20.00808
31. Schmidinger M Understanding and managing toxicities of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors EJC Suppl 2013 11 172 191 10.1016/j.ejcsup.2013.07.016 26217127
Schmidinger M (2013) Understanding and managing toxicities of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. EJC Suppl 11:172–191. 10.1016/j.ejcsup.2013.07.01626217127 10.1016/j.ejcsup.2013.07.016
32. Meadows KL Rushing C Honeycutt W Latta K Howard L Arrowood CA Niedzwiecki D Hurwitz HI Treatment of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) with topical sildenafil: a pilot study Support Care Cancer 2015 23 1311 1319 10.1007/s00520-014-2465-z 25341548
Meadows KL, Rushing C, Honeycutt W, Latta K, Howard L, Arrowood CA, Niedzwiecki D, Hurwitz HI (2015) Treatment of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) with topical sildenafil: a pilot study. Support Care Cancer 23:1311–1319. 10.1007/s00520-014-2465-z25341548 10.1007/s00520-014-2465-z
33. He K Berz D Gadgeel SM MRTX-500 phase 2 trial: sitravatinib with nivolumab in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC progressing on or after checkpoint inhibitor therapy or chemotherapy J Thorac Oncol. 2023 18 907 921 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.02.016 36842467
He K, Berz D, Gadgeel SM et al (2023) MRTX-500 phase 2 trial: sitravatinib with nivolumab in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC progressing on or after checkpoint inhibitor therapy or chemotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 18:907–92136842467 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.02.016
34. Qin S Li Q Gu S Apatinib as second-line or later therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHELP): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021 6 559 568 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00109-6 33971141
Qin S, Li Q, Gu S et al (2021) Apatinib as second-line or later therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHELP): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 6:559–568. 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00109-633971141 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00109-6
35. Wilke H Muro K Van Cutsem E Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2014 15 1224 1235 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70420-6 25240821
Wilke H, Muro K, Van Cutsem E et al (2014) Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15:1224–1235. 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70420-625240821 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70420-6
36. Fuchs CS Tomasek J Yong CJ Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial Lancet 2014 383 31 39 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61719-5 24094768
Fuchs CS, Tomasek J, Yong CJ et al (2014) Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 383:31–39. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61719-524094768 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61719-5
37. Li J Qin S Xu J Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of apatinib in patients with chemotherapy-refractory advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction J Clin Oncol 2016 34 1448 1454 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.5995 26884585
Li J, Qin S, Xu J et al (2016) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of apatinib in patients with chemotherapy-refractory advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. J Clin Oncol 34:1448–1454. 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.599526884585 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.5995
38. Zhu AX Abbas AR de Galarreta MR Molecular correlates of clinical response and resistance to atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma Nat Med 2022 28 1599 1611 10.1038/s41591-022-01868-2 35739268
Zhu AX, Abbas AR, de Galarreta MR et al (2022) Molecular correlates of clinical response and resistance to atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Med 28:1599–1611. 10.1038/s41591-022-01868-235739268 10.1038/s41591-022-01868-2
39. Galle PR Dufour JF Peck-Radosavljevic M Trojan J Vogel A Systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma Future Oncol 2021 17 1237 1251 10.2217/fon-2020-0758 33307782
Galle PR, Dufour JF, Peck-Radosavljevic M, Trojan J, Vogel A (2021) Systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Future Oncol 17:1237–1251. 10.2217/fon-2020-075833307782 10.2217/fon-2020-0758
40. Taieb J Moehler M Boku N Ajani JA Yañez Ruiz E Ryu MH Guenther S Chand V Bang YJ Evolution of checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancers: current status and future perspectives Cancer Treat Rev 2018 66 104 113 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.04.004 29730461
Taieb J, Moehler M, Boku N, Ajani JA, Yañez Ruiz E, Ryu MH, Guenther S, Chand V, Bang YJ (2018) Evolution of checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancers: current status and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev 66:104–113. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.04.00429730461 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.04.004
