Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2024 Sep 5;73(11):219.
doi: 10.1007/s00262-024-03806-2.

SAFFRON-104: a phase Ib/II study of sitravatinib alone or with tislelizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

SAFFRON-104: a phase Ib/II study of sitravatinib alone or with tislelizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer

Jin Li et al. Cancer Immunol Immunother. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Clinical trials; Combination therapy; Drug therapy; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Phase II.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

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.

Figures

Fig. 1
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
Fig. 2
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
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
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

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. 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 3:1683–1691 - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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.2021.11.023 - PubMed
    1. Ajani JA, Lee J, Sano T, Janjigian YY, Fan D, Song S (2017) Gastric adenocarcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 3:17036. 10.1038/nrdp.2017.36 - PubMed
    1. 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.2018.883 - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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/s40164-023-00372-8 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances