PHOCUS: A Phase 3, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Sequential Treatment with Pexa-Vec (JX-594) and Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction: Intratumoral administration of pexa-vec (pexastimogene devacirepvec), an oncolytic and immunotherapeutic vaccinia virus, given to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is associated with both local and distant tumor responses. We hypothesized subsequent treatment with sorafenib could demonstrate superior efficacy. Methods: This random phase III open-label study evaluated the sequential treatment with pexa-vec followed by sorafenib compared to sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and no prior systemic treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival, overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: The study was conducted at 142 sites in 16 countries. From December 30, 2015, to the interim analysis on August 2, 2019, 459 patients were randomly assigned (pexa-vec plus sorafenib: 234, sorafenib: 225). At the interim analysis, the median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.89, 14.95) in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib arm and 14.0 months (95% CI: 11.01, 18.00) in the sorafenib arm. This led to the early termination of the study. The median TTP was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.77, 2.96) and 4.2 months (95% CI: 2.92, 4.63); ORR was 19.2% (45 patients) and 20.9% (47 patients); and DCR was 50.0% (117 patients) and 57.3% (129 patients) in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib and sorafenib arms, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 117 (53.7%) patients in the pexa-vec plus sorafenib and 77 (35.5%) patients in the sorafenib arm. Liver failure was the most frequently reported in both groups. Conclusion: Sequential pexa-vec plus sorafenib treatment did not demonstrate increased clinical benefit in advanced HCC and fared worse compared to sorafenib alone. The advent of the added value of checkpoint inhibitors should direct any further development of oncolytic virus therapy strategies.