Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Clinical Trials: Targeted Therapy

Serum Alpha-fetoprotein Levels and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III CELESTIAL Study of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Robin Kate Kelley, Tim Meyer, Lorenza Rimassa, Philippe Merle, Joong-Won Park, Thomas Yau, Stephen L. Chan, Jean-Frederic Blanc, Vincent C. Tam, Albert Tran, Vincenzo Dadduzio, David W. Markby, Rajesh Kaldate, Ann-Lii Cheng, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry and Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa
Robin Kate Kelley
1UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: katie.kelley@ucsf.edu
Tim Meyer
2Royal Free Hospital and UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Tim Meyer
Lorenza Rimassa
3Humanitas Cancer Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
4Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lorenza Rimassa
Philippe Merle
5Groupement Hospitalier Lyon Nord, Lyon, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joong-Won Park
6National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joong-Won Park
Thomas Yau
7Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen L. Chan
8The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean-Frederic Blanc
9Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincent C. Tam
10Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Vincent C. Tam
Albert Tran
11Groupe Hospitalier L'Archet, Nice, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincenzo Dadduzio
12Medical Oncology Unit 1, Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David W. Markby
13Exelixis, Inc., Alameda, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rajesh Kaldate
13Exelixis, Inc., Alameda, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann-Lii Cheng
14National Taiwan University Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony B. El-Khoueiry
15USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa
16Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
17Weill Medical College at Cornell University, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3884 Published September 2020
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: The phase III CELESTIAL study demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with previously treated, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We analyzed outcomes by baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and on-treatment AFP changes.

Patients and Methods: Serum AFP was measured every 8 weeks by blinded, centralized testing. Outcomes were analyzed by baseline AFP bifurcated at 400 ng/mL and by on-treatment AFP response (≥20% decrease from baseline at Week 8). The optimal cutoff for change in AFP at Week 8 was evaluated using maximally selected rank statistics.

Results: Median OS for cabozantinib versus placebo was 13.9 versus 10.3 months [HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62–1.04] for patients with baseline AFP <400 ng/mL, and 8.5 versus 5.2 months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54–0.94) for patients with baseline AFP ≥400 ng/mL. Week 8 AFP response rate was 50% for cabozantinib versus 13% for placebo. In the cabozantinib arm, median OS for patients with and without AFP response was 16.1 versus 9.1 months (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45–0.84). AFP response was independently associated with longer OS. The optimal cutoff for association with OS in the cabozantinib arm was ≤0% change in AFP at Week 8 [AFP control; HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35–0.71)]. HRs for PFS were consistent with those for OS.

Conclusions: Cabozantinib improved outcomes versus placebo across a range of baseline AFP levels. On-treatment AFP response and control rates were higher with cabozantinib than placebo, and were associated with longer OS and PFS with cabozantinib.

Translational Relevance

Cabozantinib is approved for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have received prior sorafenib, based on the randomized phase III CELESTIAL study. With the recent expansion of treatment options in the second-line setting for HCC, there is an urgent need for biomarkers of response to help guide treatment decisions. High serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) are associated with poor prognosis in patients with HCC, and studies suggest a correlation between on-treatment decrease in AFP and improved outcomes. In this exploratory analysis of the CELESTIAL study, we show that cabozantinib prolonged OS and PFS relative to placebo across a range of baseline AFP levels. On-treatment AFP response, defined as a decrease of ≥20% from baseline in serum AFP, was more common with cabozantinib than placebo and was associated with improved OS and PFS in the cabozantinib arm. Further analysis of AFP kinetics in large, prospective, randomized studies is warranted.

Introduction

High serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) are associated with poor prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) across stages of disease. Studies have shown an association of pretreatment AFP level with tumor size, pathologic grade, tumor stage, and survival (1, 2). Elevated preoperative AFP has been associated with recurrence in patients undergoing surgical resection or transplant (3, 4). In patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization or surgery, postintervention AFP decreases are associated with improved outcomes, including longer time to progression or recurrence, while increases indicate disease progression (5–7). Retrospective studies of patients with HCC receiving systemic therapy also suggest an association between AFP decline on treatment and improved survival (8–15). There is no consensus definition of AFP-based response or progression; criteria vary across studies, with thresholds of 20% and 50% change from baseline AFP frequently used (5, 10–12, 16, 17). Furthermore, studies of AFP response and progression in advanced HCC have primarily included patients treated with chemotherapy or sorafenib, with limited data for new and emerging targeted systemic agents (18).

Tumors with high AFP expression may represent a distinct biological subtype of HCC, providing a basis for the observed prognostic effects of serum AFP. Gene expression profiling has identified three major molecular subtypes of HCC; one of these (the “S2” subtype) is characterized by elevated AFP and aggressive clinical features such as large tumor size, increased proliferation, and poor differentiation (19, 20). Preclinical and clinical studies also suggest a correlation between elevated AFP levels and high VEGF expression, suggesting that VEGF pathway inhibitors may be particularly effective for these tumors (21–25). Consistent with this mechanism, the monoclonal antibody ramucirumab which targets the VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2) isoform demonstrated improved survival in patients with baseline AFP ≥400 ng/mL (26), although it did not demonstrate a survival benefit in a study population without baseline AFP selection (27).

Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor whose targets include VEGF receptors, MET, and the TAM family of kinases (TYRO3, AXL, MER; ref. 28). Cabozantinib is approved for patients with advanced HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib, based on outcomes from the pivotal phase III CELESTIAL study (29). In CELESTIAL, cabozantinib significantly prolonged overall survival [OS; HR, 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63–0.92] and progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36–0.52) relative to placebo. Subgroup analyses of OS and PFS favored cabozantinib across subgroups based on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and biomarker levels, including baseline AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL and <400 ng/mL (29–31). Here, we describe exploratory analyses of outcomes in the phase III CELESTIAL study based on AFP levels at baseline and AFP changes during treatment.

Patients and Methods

The study design and methods for CELESTIAL have been described previously (29). Briefly, 707 patients were randomized between September 2013 through June 2017 in a 2:1 ratio to receive either cabozantinib (60 mg once daily) or placebo. Patients must have received prior sorafenib and could have received up to two prior systemic regimens for HCC. Other key inclusion criteria were Child–Pugh class A liver function and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints were PFS and objective response rate (ORR). Tumor response and progression were assessed every 8 weeks by the investigator according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. Serum AFP levels were measured centrally (Covance Inc.) at baseline, and every 8 weeks thereafter using an FDA-approved chemiluminescence assay (Access AFP Immunoassay kit, Beckman Coulter) using a Beckman Coulter DXI 800 Access immunoassay analyzer (normal reference range, 0.4–300,000 ng/mL). Investigators and patients were blinded to treatment arm and to central AFP results.

The protocol was approved by the ethics committee or institutional review board at each center, and the trial was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from every patient.

Baseline AFP

Baseline characteristics and outcomes were analyzed for patients according to the baseline serum AFP level, using a cutoff of 400 ng/mL. This cutoff was based on prior studies demonstrating the prognostic value of this threshold (13, 27, 32). Outcomes included OS, PFS, tumor response, and safety. Additional analyses of OS and PFS were carried out using cutoffs of 20 ng/mL and 200 ng/mL, based on alternative cutoffs used in the literature (16, 33).

AFP response

On-treatment AFP response was evaluated at Week 8 (Week 9 Day 1), which was also the timepoint for the first tumor assessment. AFP response was defined as ≥20% decrease from baseline in serum AFP at Week 8, in patients with baseline AFP ≥20 ng/mL and less than the upper limit of quantitation (300,000 ng/mL). This definition is consistent with previous studies (11, 12, 16). Outcomes including OS, PFS, tumor response, and safety were assessed according to AFP response. Additional analyses of OS and PFS were carried out in the same group of patients using alternative cutoffs based on review of the literature, including AFP response defined as a ≥50% decrease from baseline, and varying thresholds of AFP progression such as ≥20% or ≥50% increase (5, 11–13, 16).

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics in baseline AFP subgroups were compared using χ2 tests in the case of two categorical factors, or ANOVA in the case of a categorical and a continuous factor.

Efficacy analyses included all randomized patients, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. OS and PFS were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method. No adjustments for multiplicity were made for subgroup analyses. CIs are considered descriptive, and all HRs are unstratified. Survival analyses were adjusted for guarantee-time bias using the landmark method (34), which excluded patients with an event prior to Week 8.

To determine whether AFP response was independently associated with survival in the cabozantinib group, multivariable analyses were carried out using the Cox proportional hazard regression model to complement univariate analyses. The model also included the following baseline variables: baseline AFP level (<400 or ≥400 ng/mL), ECOG PS (0 or ≥1), macrovascular invasion (MVI; no or yes), extrahepatic spread (no or yes), age (<65 or ≥65 years), gender, and etiology (hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, or other).

For analysis of the optimal AFP response cutoff, maximally selected rank statistics were used to determine the percent change in AFP from baseline to Week 8 that had the most significant association with OS. A rank statistic was calculated at each percent cutoff, and the statistics were then maximized using the method of Hothorn and Lausen (35).

To characterize the relationship between AFP response and radiographic response, a nonexact Spearman correlation test was performed between AFP percent change from baseline at Week 8, and percent change from baseline in the sum of diameters of target lesions at Week 8.

Results

Patients

The distribution of baseline AFP levels was similar between the cabozantinib and placebo treatment arms (Fig. 1). Median baseline AFP was 154.7 ng/mL [interquartile range (IQR), 14.0–2,988.9] for patients in the cabozantinib arm and 202.5 ng/mL (IQR, 10.2–5,174.9) for patients in the placebo arm. Baseline characteristics and demographics according to baseline AFP level are shown in Table 1 and were generally balanced between the cabozantinib and placebo arms; however, some differences were noted between subgroups with baseline AFP levels <400 ng/mL versus ≥400 ng/mL. The proportion of patients with hepatitis B virus etiology was 33% and 45% for subgroups with baseline AFP levels <400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL, respectively. A smaller proportion of patients had MVI in the subgroup with an AFP level <400 ng/mL relative to those with ≥400 ng/mL (24% vs. 38%).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Logarithmic density plot of baseline AFP distribution in cabozantinib (A) and placebo groups (B). Density refers to the probability distribution of AFP such that the area under the curve equals 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline characteristics according to baseline AFP.

Overall, 236 of 470 (50%) patients in the cabozantinib group and 111 of 237 (47%) patients in the placebo group were evaluable for AFP response at Week 8. Reasons for lack of evaluable AFP response at Week 8 are listed in Supplementary Table S1; the primary reasons for non-evaluability were baseline AFP <20 ng/mL [139 (30%) patients in the cabozantinib group and 77 (32%) patients in the placebo group] and discontinuation or death before Week 8 [59 (13%) patients in the cabozantinib group and 38 (16%) patients in the placebo group].

Efficacy outcomes according to baseline AFP

OS and PFS were improved with cabozantinib relative to placebo in both baseline AFP subgroups (Fig. 2). For patients with baseline AFP levels <400 ng/mL, median OS was 13.9 months with cabozantinib versus 10.3 months with placebo (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62–1.04), and 8.5 months versus 5.2 months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54–0.94) for patients with baseline AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL (Fig. 2A and B). For patients with baseline AFP levels <400 ng/mL, median PFS was 5.5 months with cabozantinib versus 1.9 months with placebo (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37–0.60), and 3.9 months versus 1.9 months (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32–0.55) for patients with baseline AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL (Fig. 2C and D). Subsequent anticancer therapy according to AFP subgroups is shown in Supplementary Table S2. For patients with baseline AFP <400 ng/mL, 26% and 35% of patients in the cabozantinib and placebo groups went on to receive subsequent therapy; for AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL, this value was 23% for both treatment groups.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Outcomes according to baseline AFP. Overall survival (A and B) and progression-free survival (C and D) by baseline AFP.

For baseline AFP <400 ng/mL, ORR was 5% (95% CI, 2.5–7.9) with cabozantinib and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.0–4.0) with placebo, and for baseline AFP ≥400 ng/mL, ORR was 3% (95% CI, 0.9–6.0) with cabozantinib versus 0% with placebo (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Best overall tumor response.

Additional PFS and OS analyses used cutoffs of 20 ng/mL and 200 ng/mL for baseline AFP. The survival benefit with cabozantinib relative to placebo was similar using the alternative cutoffs, with the exception of OS for patients with <20 ng/mL baseline AFP which showed an HR of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.67–1.40; Supplementary Fig. S1).

Efficacy outcomes according to AFP response (≥20% decrease from baseline)

Change from baseline in serum AFP for patients in the cabozantinib group and the placebo group at Week 8 are shown in Fig. 3. AFP response (defined as ≥20% decrease from baseline) occurred in 50% of evaluable patients in the cabozantinib group compared with 13% in the placebo group. Owing to the low rate of AFP response in the placebo group, analysis of outcomes by AFP response focused primarily on the cabozantinib group. Baseline characteristics according to AFP response in the cabozantinib arm are shown in Supplementary Table S3 and were generally balanced between subgroups.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Change in serum AFP from baseline at Week 8 for patients in the cabozantinib arm (A) and the placebo arm (B). aIncludes patients with baseline AFP levels ≥20 ng/mL, who were evaluable for an AFP response at Week 8.

In patients evaluable for AFP response (baseline AFP ≥20 ng/mL), OS and PFS were improved in patients who had an AFP response (defined as ≥20% decrease from baseline to Week 8) relative to those with no AFP response, irrespective of treatment. In the cabozantinib group, median OS for patients with an AFP response (n = 117) and without an AFP response (n = 119) was 16.1 months and 9.1 months (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45–0.84), while median PFS for these subgroups was 7.3 months and 4.0 months (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41–0.74; Fig. 4A and B). For the subgroup of 139 patients (30%) in the cabozantinib group who were not evaluable for response analysis due to baseline AFP <20 ng/mL, median OS and PFS were 14.4 months and 5.6 months, respectively, in the cabozantinib group (Supplementary Fig. S1).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Overall survival and progression-free survival in the cabozantinib group by AFP response (defined as ≥20% decrease in AFP level from baseline at Week 8; A and B) and AFP control (defined as reduction or no change from baseline at Week 8; C and D). Evaluable patients were those who had baseline AFP levels ≥20 ng/mL.

The proportion of patients in the cabozantinib group who went on to receive at least one subsequent anticancer therapy was similar for patients with and without an AFP response (28% vs. 27%; Supplementary Table S2). In the placebo group, median OS was 11.3 months for patients with an AFP response (n = 14) and 7.2 months for patients without an AFP response (n = 97; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41–1.55), while median PFS for these subgroups was 3.8 months and 1.9 months (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27–0.96).

Landmark analyses of OS and PFS were performed to adjust for guarantee-time bias. For OS, results of the landmark and unadjusted analyses were identical because only patients who were alive at Week 8 were included in the unadjusted analysis. Landmark analysis of PFS at Week 8 was similar to the unadjusted analysis; median PFS for patients with and without an AFP response in the cabozantinib group was 7.4 and 5.4 months from randomization, respectively (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46–0.87).

Additional analyses of the cabozantinib group explored the association of OS and PFS with AFP response (≥20% decrease from baseline to Week 8) in subgroups of patients with low baseline AFP (20 to <400 ng/mL) and high baseline AFP (>400 ng/mL; Supplementary Fig. S2). For both subgroups, outcomes favored patients with an AFP response versus those without an AFP response, with an HR for OS of 0.59 in the low baseline AFP subgroup and 0.69 in the high baseline AFP subgroup, and corresponding HRs for PFS of 0.47 and 0.69, respectively.

ORR for patients with and without an AFP response in the cabozantinib arm was 7% and 3% (Table 2). The rate of progressive disease as best response per RECIST version 1.1 in the AFP response subgroup was approximately half that of the AFP nonresponse subgroup (15% vs. 29%).

Alternative cutoffs for AFP response and AFP control

Using an alternative cutoff of ≥50% decrease from baseline to define AFP response, HRs for OS and PFS were consistent with those for the ≥20% decrease cutoff (Supplementary Fig. S2). In the cabozantinib group, 21 patients experienced an AFP response accompanied by a decrease in AFP level to <20 ng/mL at Week 8, compared with three patients in the placebo group. Median OS with cabozantinib was 20.4 months for patients with AFP reduction to <20 ng/mL versus 10.6 months for patients who did not achieve this threshold (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29–0.90), and median PFS was 14.6 months versus 5.4 months (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21–0.6).

Next, we conducted an exploratory analysis using maximally selected rank statistics to determine the optimal cutoff for percent change in AFP from baseline to Week 8 that provided the strongest association with OS. For patients with baseline AFP ≥20 ng/mL, the optimal cutoff was estimated as 0% change from baseline in AFP (Supplementary Fig. S3); this cutoff grouped patients by those who had AFP control at Week 8 (a reduction or no change from baseline) and patients without AFP control (any increase from baseline). Using this cutoff, 61% (144/236) of evaluable patients in the cabozantinib group and 23% (26/111) of patients in the placebo group had AFP control at Week 8. Median OS with cabozantinib was 17.0 months for patients with AFP control (n = 144) and 8.1 months for patients without AFP control (n = 92; HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35–0.71; P < 0.0001); median PFS was 7.3 and 3.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34–0.67; Fig. 4C and D).

We also explored the impact of AFP progression on OS and PFS, with progression defined as an increase of ≥20% or ≥50% from baseline AFP level to Week 8. AFP progression was associated with shorter OS and PFS at both cutoffs, and HRs were similar for both cutoffs (Supplementary Fig. S2).

The association of AFP change from baseline with OS and PFS was also evaluated using continuous analysis. Among patients evaluable for AFP response at Week 8 in the cabozantinib group, the percent increase in AFP from baseline was significantly associated with OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03–1.36; P = 0.016) and PFS (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.22–1.58; P < 0.0001).

Multivariable analyses

In multivariable analyses, an AFP response defined as a ≥20% decrease from baseline (HR, 0.60; P = 0.0002) was independently associated with longer OS in the cabozantinib group, as were baseline AFP level <400 ng/mL (HR, 0.74; P = 0.02), ECOG PS 0 (HR, 0.66; P = 0.002), and the absence of MVI (HR, 0.68; P = 0.007). AFP response (HR, 0.56; P = 0.0002) and baseline AFP <400 ng/mL (HR, 0.63; P = 0.004) were also associated with improved PFS in the cabozantinib group (Supplementary Table S4).

AFP response and radiographic response

The relationship between AFP kinetics and radiographic tumor response at Week 8 was investigated. The percent change in target lesion sum of diameters was positively correlated with percent change in AFP as assessed using a non-exact Spearman correlation test (ρ = 0.509, P < 0.0001 in the pooled treatment groups; Supplementary Fig. S4). Among 376 patients in the cabozantinib group evaluable for tumor response at Week 8, 22 patients (6%) had a radiographic response, defined as ≥30% reduction in target lesion sum of diameters from baseline. Using this definition and noting the small number of patients meeting the response criteria, radiographic response at Week 8 was not significantly associated with OS in the cabozantinib group; median OS from randomization was 16.0 months for patients with a radiographic response (n = 22) and 11.5 months for patients without a response (n = 354; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37–1.12; P = 0.12).

Safety

For the subgroup of patients with AFP levels <400 ng/mL, median duration of exposure was 3.9 months (range, 0.1–37.3) for cabozantinib and 2.1 months (range, 0.1–27.2) for placebo; median average daily dose was 35.5 mg for cabozantinib and 59.0 mg for placebo. For those with AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL, median duration of exposure for cabozantinib and placebo was 3.7 months (range, 0.1–26.5) and 1.9 months (range, 0.0–13.5), respectively; median average daily dose was 36.3 mg and 57.4 mg. The rate of all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events in the cabozantinib and placebo groups was 70% and 38% for patients with baseline AFP levels <400 ng/mL, and 64% and 35% for patients with AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL. The rate of discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) in the cabozantinib and placebo groups was similar for patients with AFP levels <400 ng/mL (15% vs. 3%) and ≥400 ng/mL (18% vs. 3%).

Within the cabozantinib treatment arm, patients with an AFP response (≥20% decrease) had a higher median duration of exposure to the drug (5.7 months; range, 1.9–37.3) compared with those without an AFP response (3.7 months; range, 1.4–22.6); the median average daily dose of cabozantinib for these subgroups was 39.2 mg and 33.9 mg, respectively. All-cause grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 75% of patients with an AFP response and 69% of patients without an AFP response, and the rate of discontinuation due to TRAEs was 13% for both groups. Supplementary Table S5 lists grade 3/4 AEs occurring at ≥5.0% frequency in either treatment arm in the overall safety population, according to AFP subgroup.

Discussion

The phase III CELESTIAL study showed an improvement in OS and PFS with cabozantinib relative to placebo in patients with previously treated, advanced HCC (29). Results of the current analysis are consistent with those of the overall population; cabozantinib improved OS and PFS compared with placebo across a range of baseline AFP levels. On-treatment AFP response (≥20% decrease from baseline in serum AFP) or AFP control (reduction or no change from baseline) at Week 8 was more frequent in the cabozantinib arm versus placebo. In the cabozantinib arm, patients who achieved AFP response, or control, had improved OS and PFS relative to those who did not, while those with AFP progression had worse outcomes. The safety profile of cabozantinib according to the various AFP subgroups was consistent with that of the primary analysis.

High baseline AFP levels were associated with shorter median OS in both treatment arms, consistent with other phase III studies and with high baseline AFP levels as a negative prognostic indicator (33, 36). Our results are similar to those reported in phase III studies of the multikinase inhibitors regorafenib and sorafenib, which showed a survival benefit relative to placebo across baseline AFP subgroups defined by cutoffs of 400 ng/mL and 200 ng/mL, respectively (32, 33). In contrast, the phase III REACH study of the VEGFR2-targeted antibody ramucirumab did not show an OS benefit relative to placebo in the overall patient population, but subgroup analyses showed that patients with high AFP (≥400 ng/mL) had an OS benefit with ramucirumab, while those with low AFP (<400 ng/mL) did not (27). The ensuing REACH-2 study exclusively enrolled patients with baseline AFP levels ≥400 ng/mL and confirmed the OS benefit of ramucirumab relative to placebo in this patient population (26), suggesting increased dependence on VEGF pathway signaling in tumors with high AFP expression. Unlike ramucirumab, however, multikinase inhibitors demonstrate efficacy across a range of baseline AFP values suggesting that the inhibition of additional targets may contribute to antitumor activity across a broader range of tumor biology.

The association of on-treatment AFP response, or control, with improved survival in CELESTIAL is consistent with retrospective analyses of patients treated with targeted therapies including sorafenib, ramucirumab, and regorafenib (9–13, 15, 37, 38). Conversely, shorter survival in patients whose AFP levels increased during treatment has also been reported (39). High AFP levels are associated with advanced stages of HCC, and less differentiated, larger tumors (1, 40); it is likely, therefore, that AFP levels may increase as the disease progresses (41). On the whole, these data suggest a potential role for on-treatment serum AFP kinetics as a surrogate endpoint. In HCC, radiographic assessment methods such as RECIST version 1.1, and modified RECIST are challenged by the nodularity and heterogeneity of background cirrhotic liver, scarring or devascularization from prior treatment, or heterogeneity in the timing of injection of contrast dye and subsequent acquisition time (42). The addition of serum biomarkers to radiographic assessment of tumor response may help to address limitations of imaging in HCC; moreover, serum biomarkers have the potential to provide an early indication of treatment efficacy prior to radiographic assessment, and may be particularly useful for therapies such as TKIs, which have a low radiographic response rate. Indeed, the low radiographic response rate at Week 8 in CELESTIAL likely accounted for the lack of a significant association with OS in the cabozantinib group, though median survival was longer for those with a radiographic response (n = 22, median OS 16.0 months) versus those without (n = 354, median OS 11.5 months).

It is important to note the lack of standardized cutoff values for AFP response, which have varied across studies (5, 10–13, 16). Cutoffs of at least 20% and 50% decrease from baseline are commonly used, though these have not been validated and the optimal biologic cutoff has not been established. In this analysis, HRs for PFS and OS were almost identical with cutoffs of 20% and 50%, prompting further analysis to identify an optimal cut-off value. By using maximally ranked statistics, we estimated the optimal cutoff for change in AFP from baseline to Week 8 was 0% for OS; this essentially categorized on-treatment change in AFP into AFP control (reduction or no change) and no AFP control (any increase from baseline). Patients receiving cabozantinib who achieved AFP control by Week 8 had longer OS and PFS compared with those who did not achieve AFP control, suggesting that AFP control could help to inform treatment decisions.

There are multiple limitations inherent to this study, owing to the exploratory, retrospective nature of the analysis. Approximately 50% of patients in both treatment arms were unevaluable for AFP response; reasons included baseline AFP <20 ng/mL in 30% of patients, consistent with other cohort analyses (11, 13), or lack of AFP assessment at Week 8 in an additional 20%. Several studies, including ours, have included only patients with ≥20 ng/mL baseline AFP in their response analyses, given that underlying viral hepatitis or other causes of hepatic inflammation may contribute to AFP elevation, particularly at lower levels (5, 9, 12, 16). Therefore, it is important to note that the utility of AFP kinetics in this setting is presumably limited to patients with baseline AFP levels above the chosen threshold of 20 ng/mL for response analysis, which accounted for 70% of the CELESTIAL study population and represents the majority of patients with advanced HCC. Another important consideration is that AFP kinetics may be dependent upon therapeutic mechanism of action. AFP response, control, and progression kinetics warrant examination for association with clinical outcomes in patients treated with other systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibition and combinations thereof.

A strength of this study is the independent, centralized testing of AFP using a standardized assay, without reporting back to investigators who were blinded to treatment arm as well as AFP results. Treatment decisions and response assessments therefore were performed independently of central AFP values, further strengthening the observed associations with clinical response.

Prospective studies evaluating changes in AFP on treatment as a surrogate endpoint for efficacy outcomes are lacking, and rigorous validation studies are needed. Future studies should seek to prospectively analyze AFP kinetics in large, randomized studies according to type of treatment, as has been done with biomarkers in other tumor types such as prostate cancer where the kinetics of prostate-specific antigen have an integral role in response assessment and treatment decisions (43). Such studies should be adequately powered for evaluation of appropriate AFP cutoffs for response and progression, as well as baseline threshold for evaluability.

In conclusion, our analysis shows improved outcomes with cabozantinib relative to placebo in patients with previously treated, advanced HCC across a range of baseline AFP levels. The on-treatment AFP response and control rates were greater with cabozantinib than with placebo, while the rate of AFP progression was higher for placebo-treated patients. In the cabozantinib group, AFP response and control rates were associated with longer OS and PFS. Given the rapidly expanding treatment landscape in HCC, further investigation of AFP kinetics in patients treated with newly available therapies is warranted.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

R.K. Kelley reports grants from Exelixis (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial) and other from Ipsen (travel support for presentation at satellite symposium ESMO 2019) during the conduct of the study; grants from Adaptimmune (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), Agios (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial and steering committee membership), AstraZeneca (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial and steering committee membership), Bayer (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), BMS (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), Merck (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial and steering committee membership), Novartis (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), QED (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), Taiho (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), Partner Therapeutics (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), and Eli Lilly (research support to institution for conduct of clinical trial), and personal fees from Genentech/Roche (IDMC membership and advisory board participation) and Gilead (advisory board participation) outside the submitted work. T. Meyer reports personal fees from IPSEN (consultancy), Eisai (consultancy), BMS (consultancy), MSD (consultancy), Beigene (consultancy), and Roche (consultancy) outside the submitted work. L. Rimassa reports grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Exelixis (research funding to institution; consulting fees; medical writing support) during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, ArQule, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Eisai, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Sanofi (consulting fees); personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Gilead, Ipsen, Lilly, Roche, Sanofi (lecture), nonfinancial support from Ipsen (travel grants); and grants from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD (research funding to institution) outside the submitted work. P. Merle reports other from Bayer (advisory board), other from Eisai (advisory board), other from Exelixis (advisory board), grants and other from Ipsen (advisory board), other from Lilly (advisory board), other from Roche (advisory board), grants and other from Onxeo (advisory board), other from BMS (advisory board), other from AstraZeneca (advisory board), and other from MSD (advisory board) during the conduct of the study; other from Bayer (advisory board), other from Eisai (advisory board), other from Lilly (advisory board), grants and other from Onxeo (advisory board), other from Roche (advisory board), other from AstraZeneca (advisory board), other from BMS (advisory board), and other from MSD (advisory board) outside the submitted work. J. Park reports personal fees from Roche-Genentech, BMS, Bayer, Ipsen, Eisai, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. T. Yau reports personal fees from Exelixis (honorarium for advisory board), Ipsen (honorarium for advisory board) during the conduct of the study; personal fees from BMS (honorarium for advisory board), MSD (honorarium for advisory board), Roche (honorarium for advisory board), and AstraZeneca (honorarium for advisory board) outside the submitted work. S.L. Chan reports grants from Ipsen outside the submitted work. J. Blanc reports personal fees from Bayer, IPSEN, Eisai, BMS, Astrazeneca, and Roche outside the submitted work. V.C. Tam reports grants from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada (research grant to institution) and personal fees from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada (honoraria/advisory boards) outside the submitted work. V. Dadduzio reports personal fees from Bayer, MSD, Eisai, and Ipsen outside the submitted work. D.W. Markby reports other from Exelixis, Inc (employee and shareholder) during the conduct of the study. R. Kaldate reports that he was employed by Exelixis Inc. and received salary and stock compensation. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

R.K. Kelley: Conceptualization, formal analysis, supervision, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). T. Meyer: Conceptualization, supervision, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). L. Rimassa: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). P. Merle: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). J.-W. Park: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). T. Yau: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). S.L. Chan: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). J.-F. Blanc: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). V.C. Tam: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). A. Tran: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). V. Dadduzio: Writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). D.W. Markby: Formal analysis, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing. R. Kaldate: Formal analysis, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing. A.-L. Cheng: Conceptualization, supervision, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). A.B. El-Khoueiry: Conceptualization, supervision, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.). G.K. Abou-Alfa: Supervision, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.).

Acknowledgments

We thank the patients, their families, the investigators and site staff, and the study teams who participated in the CELESTIAL trial. This study was funded by Exelixis, Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Karen O'Leary and Michael Raffin of Fishawack Communications, Inc. and funded by Exelixis, Inc. Biostatistics support was provided by Exelixis, Inc. and Fios Genomics Ltd, funded by Exelixis, Inc.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:4795–804

  • Received November 27, 2019.
  • Revision received May 5, 2020.
  • Accepted July 1, 2020.
  • Published first July 7, 2020.
  • ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bai DS,
    2. Zhang C,
    3. Chen P,
    4. Jin SJ,
    5. Jiang GQ
    . The prognostic correlation of AFP level at diagnosis with pathological grade, progression, and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci Rep 2017;7:12870.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Silva JP,
    2. Gorman RA,
    3. Berger NG,
    4. Tsai S,
    5. Christians KK,
    6. Clarke CN,
    7. et al.
    The prognostic utility of baseline alpha-fetoprotein for hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Surg Oncol 2017;116:831–40.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Schraiber Ldos S,
    2. de Mattos AA,
    3. Zanotelli ML,
    4. Cantisani GP,
    5. Brandao AB,
    6. Marroni CA,
    7. et al.
    Alpha-fetoprotein level predicts recurrence after transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma. Medicine 2016;95:e2478.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Soong RS,
    2. Yu MC,
    3. Chan KM,
    4. Chou HS,
    5. Wu TJ,
    6. Lee CF,
    7. et al.
    Analysis of the recurrence risk factors for the patients with hepatocellular carcinoma meeting University of California San Francisco criteria after curative hepatectomy. World J Surg Oncol 2011;9:9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Rungsakulkij N,
    2. Suragul W,
    3. Mingphruedhi S,
    4. Tangtawee P,
    5. Muangkaew P,
    6. Aeesoa S
    . Prognostic role of alpha-fetoprotein response after hepatocellular carcinoma resection. World J Clin Cases 2018;6:110–20.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Zhang YQ,
    2. Jiang LJ,
    3. Wen J,
    4. Liu DM,
    5. Huang GH,
    6. Wang Y,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of alpha-fetoprotein criteria and modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for the prediction of overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after transarterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018;29:1654–61.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. He C,
    2. Zhang X,
    3. Li C,
    4. Peng W,
    5. Wen TF,
    6. Yan LN,
    7. et al.
    Changes of alpha-fetoprotein levels could predict recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma survival after trans-arterial chemoembolization. Oncotarget 2017;8:85599–611.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lee S,
    2. Kim BK,
    3. Kim SU,
    4. Park JY,
    5. Kim do Y,
    6. Ahn SH,
    7. et al.
    Early alpha-fetoprotein response predicts survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2015;2:39–47.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Liu L,
    2. Zhao Y,
    3. Jia J,
    4. Chen H,
    5. Bai W,
    6. Yang M,
    7. et al.
    The prognostic value of alpha-fetoprotein response for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib combined with transarterial chemoembolization. Sci Rep 2016;6:19851.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Sanchez AIP,
    2. Roces LV,
    3. Garcia IZ,
    4. Lopez EL,
    5. Hernandez MAC,
    6. Parejo MIB,
    7. et al.
    Value of alpha-fetoprotein as an early biomarker for treatment response to sorafenib therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncol Lett 2018;15:8863–70.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Shao YY,
    2. Lin ZZ,
    3. Hsu C,
    4. Shen YC,
    5. Hsu CH,
    6. Cheng AL
    . Early alpha-fetoprotein response predicts treatment efficacy of antiangiogenic systemic therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 2010;116:4590–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Yau T,
    2. Yao TJ,
    3. Chan P,
    4. Wong H,
    5. Pang R,
    6. Fan ST,
    7. et al.
    The significance of early alpha-fetoprotein level changes in predicting clinical and survival benefits in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib. Oncologist 2011;16:1270–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Chau I,
    2. Park JO,
    3. Ryoo BY,
    4. Yen CJ,
    5. Poon R,
    6. Pastorelli D,
    7. et al.
    Alpha-fetoprotein kinetics in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving ramucirumab or placebo: an analysis of the phase 3 REACH study. Br J Cancer 2018;119:19–26.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Chan SL,
    2. Mo FK,
    3. Johnson PJ,
    4. Hui EP,
    5. Ma BB,
    6. Ho WM,
    7. et al.
    New utility of an old marker: serial alpha-fetoprotein measurement in predicting radiologic response and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing systemic chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:446–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. He C,
    2. Peng W,
    3. Liu X,
    4. Li C,
    5. Li X,
    6. Wen TF
    . Post-treatment alpha-fetoprotein response predicts prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Medicine 2019;98:e16557.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Personeni N,
    2. Bozzarelli S,
    3. Pressiani T,
    4. Rimassa L,
    5. Tronconi MC,
    6. Sclafani F,
    7. et al.
    Usefulness of alpha-fetoprotein response in patients treated with sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012;57:101–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Vora SR,
    2. Zheng H,
    3. Stadler ZK,
    4. Fuchs CS,
    5. Zhu AX
    . Serum alpha-fetoprotein response as a surrogate for clinical outcome in patients receiving systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncologist 2009;14:717–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Galle PR,
    2. Foerster F,
    3. Kudo M,
    4. Chan SL,
    5. Llovet JM,
    6. Qin S,
    7. et al.
    Biology and significance of alpha-fetoprotein in hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int 2019;39:2214–29.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Hoshida Y,
    2. Moeini A,
    3. Alsinet C,
    4. Kojima K,
    5. Villanueva A
    . Gene signatures in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Oncol 2012;39:473–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Hoshida Y,
    2. Nijman SM,
    3. Kobayashi M,
    4. Chan JA,
    5. Brunet JP,
    6. Chiang DY,
    7. et al.
    Integrative transcriptome analysis reveals common molecular subclasses of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res 2009;69:7385–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Meng W,
    2. Li X,
    3. Bai Z,
    4. Li Y,
    5. Yuan J,
    6. Liu T,
    7. et al.
    Silencing alpha-fetoprotein inhibits VEGF and MMP-2/9 production in human hepatocellular carcinoma cell. PLoS One 2014;9:e90660.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Yamashita T,
    2. Forgues M,
    3. Wang W,
    4. Kim JW,
    5. Ye Q,
    6. Jia H,
    7. et al.
    EpCAM and alpha-fetoprotein expression defines novel prognostic subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res 2008;68:1451–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lee L,
    2. Huber L,
    3. Stewart J,
    4. Mathews M,
    5. Falcon B,
    6. Chintharlapalli S
    . Evaluation of AFP expression as a predictive marker for response to anti-VEGFR-2 inhibition. Ann Oncol 2017;28:19–20.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Zhang W,
    2. Kim R,
    3. Quintini C,
    4. Hashimoto K,
    5. Fujiki M,
    6. Diago T,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic role of plasma vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2015;21:101–11.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Montal R,
    2. Andreu-Oller C,
    3. Bassaganyas L,
    4. Esteban-Fabro R,
    5. Moran S,
    6. Montironi C,
    7. et al.
    Molecular portrait of high alpha-fetoprotein in hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for biomarker-driven clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2019;121:340–3.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Zhu AX,
    2. Kang YK,
    3. Yen CJ,
    4. Finn RS,
    5. Galle PR,
    6. Llovet JM,
    7. et al.
    Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased alpha-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:282–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Zhu AX,
    2. Park JO,
    3. Ryoo BY,
    4. Yen CJ,
    5. Poon R,
    6. Pastorelli D,
    7. et al.
    Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:859–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Yakes FM,
    2. Chen J,
    3. Tan J,
    4. Yamaguchi K,
    5. Shi Y,
    6. Yu P,
    7. et al.
    Cabozantinib (XL184), a novel MET and VEGFR2 inhibitor, simultaneously suppresses metastasis, angiogenesis, and tumor growth. Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10:2298–308.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Abou-Alfa GK,
    2. Meyer T,
    3. Cheng AL,
    4. El-Khoueiry AB,
    5. Rimassa L,
    6. Ryoo BY,
    7. et al.
    Cabozantinib in patients with advanced and progressing hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018;379:54–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Rimassa L,
    2. Kelley RK,
    3. Meyer T,
    4. Ryoo B-Y,
    5. Merle P,
    6. Park J-W,
    7. et al.
    Outcomes based on plasma biomarkers for the phase III CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib (C) versus placebo (P) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Ann Oncol 2019;30:v257–8.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Meyer T,
    2. Kelley RK,
    3. Mangeshkar M,
    4. Cheng A-L,
    5. El-Khoueiry AB,
    6. Abou-Alfa GK
    . Prognostic and predictive factors from the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib versus placebo in previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2019;30:v287–8.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Bruix J,
    2. Qin S,
    3. Merle P,
    4. Granito A,
    5. Huang YH,
    6. Bodoky G,
    7. et al.
    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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Bruix J,
    2. Cheng AL,
    3. Meinhardt G,
    4. Nakajima K,
    5. De Sanctis Y,
    6. Llovet J
    . Prognostic factors and predictors of sorafenib benefit in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of two phase III studies. J Hepatol 2017;67:999–1008.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Anderson JR,
    2. Cain KC,
    3. Gelber RD
    . Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:710–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  35. 35.↵
    1. Hothorn T,
    2. Lausen B
    . Maximally Selected Rank Statistics in R. R News 2002;2:3–5.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Kudo M,
    2. Finn RS,
    3. Qin S,
    4. Han KH,
    5. Ikeda K,
    6. Piscaglia F,
    7. et al.
    Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018;391:1163–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Finn RS,
    2. Kudo M,
    3. Kang Y-K,
    4. Yen C-J,
    5. Galle PR,
    6. Llovet JM,
    7. et al.
    Ramucirumab as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and elevated baseline α-fetoprotein (AFP): an analysis of AFP kinetics in the phase 3 REACH-2 study. J Clin Oncol 37:4s, 2019 (suppl; abstr 326).
  38. 38.↵
    1. Bruix J,
    2. Reig M,
    3. Merle P,
    4. Kudo M,
    5. Meinhardt G,
    6. Zhang M,
    7. et al.
    Alpha-fetoprotein response in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 3 RESORCE trial. Ann Oncol 2019;30:v254–324.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Hess LM,
    2. Cui ZL,
    3. Sugihara T,
    4. Fang Y,
    5. Girvan A,
    6. Abada PB
    . Relationship between change in α-fetoprotein (AFP) and patient survival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): a real-world electronic medical records (EMR) database study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress; Jun 20-23 2018; Munich, Germany. Lugano, Switzerland: ESMO; 2018.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Lee JS,
    2. Chu IS,
    3. Heo J,
    4. Calvisi DF,
    5. Sun Z,
    6. Roskams T,
    7. et al.
    Classification and prediction of survival in hepatocellular carcinoma by gene expression profiling. Hepatology 2004;40:667–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Abou-Alfa GK
    . Ramucirumab and the controversial role of alpha-fetoprotein in hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:177–9.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Fournier L,
    2. Ammari S,
    3. Thiam R,
    4. Cuenod CA
    . Imaging criteria for assessing tumour response: RECIST, mRECIST, Cheson. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014;95:689–703.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Cornford P,
    2. Bellmunt J,
    3. Bolla M,
    4. Briers E,
    5. De Santis M,
    6. Gross T,
    7. et al.
    EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017;71:630–42.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 26 (18)
September 2020
Volume 26, Issue 18
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Serum Alpha-fetoprotein Levels and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III CELESTIAL Study of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Serum Alpha-fetoprotein Levels and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III CELESTIAL Study of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Robin Kate Kelley, Tim Meyer, Lorenza Rimassa, Philippe Merle, Joong-Won Park, Thomas Yau, Stephen L. Chan, Jean-Frederic Blanc, Vincent C. Tam, Albert Tran, Vincenzo Dadduzio, David W. Markby, Rajesh Kaldate, Ann-Lii Cheng, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry and Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa
Clin Cancer Res September 15 2020 (26) (18) 4795-4804; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3884

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Serum Alpha-fetoprotein Levels and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III CELESTIAL Study of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Robin Kate Kelley, Tim Meyer, Lorenza Rimassa, Philippe Merle, Joong-Won Park, Thomas Yau, Stephen L. Chan, Jean-Frederic Blanc, Vincent C. Tam, Albert Tran, Vincenzo Dadduzio, David W. Markby, Rajesh Kaldate, Ann-Lii Cheng, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry and Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa
Clin Cancer Res September 15 2020 (26) (18) 4795-4804; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3884
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • NUC-1031 in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer
  • Phase I Study of Evofosfamide and Ipilimumab in Solid Tumors
  • Phase Ib/II Study of Eribulin + Pembrolizumab in mTNBC
Show more Clinical Trials: Targeted Therapy
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement