SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Maternal thyroid status”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

258 records · Page 15Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Venetoclax added to dose-adjusted EPOCH-R for newly diagnosed double-hit lymphomas: phase 2 results from ALLIANCE A051701, an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-grade B-cell lymphoma with rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6, known as double-hit lymphoma, is a highly aggressive malignancy with poor outcomes after standard chemoimmunotherapy. We aimed to study whether the addition of the BCL2-inhibitor venetoclax to chemoimmunotherapy in patients with double-hit lymphoma resulted in superior efficacy compared with chemotherapy alone. METHODS: ALLIANCE A051701 is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2-3 trial in separate cohorts of patients with double-hit lymphoma and patients with double-expressor lymphoma. In this analysis, we report phase 2 results from the double-hit lymphoma cohort. Patients aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed double-hit lymphoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 were recruited from 41 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) either alone (DA-EPOCH-R group) or with venetoclax (DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group) using permuted block randomisation schedule. All patients and investigators were aware of group assignment. DA-EPOCH-R was administered on a 21-day schedule for up to six total cycles. Venetoclax was given as 600 mg by mouth daily on days 4-8 of cycle 1 and on days 1-5 of cycles 2-6. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the modified intent-to-treat population inclusive of all eligible patients with centrally confirmed double-hit lymphoma. The safety analysis population consisted of all evaluable patients who received at least one dose of protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03984448) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: 36 patients were randomly assigned to the DA-EPOCH-R group and 37 to the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group between Oct 22, 2019, and Sept 18, 2020. Median age was 65 years (IQR 56-73) and baseline demographic factors were well balanced between groups, with 30 (45%) female and 36 (55%) male patients. Most patients (59 [89%]) were white, two (3%) were Asian, one (2%) was Black or African American, and four (6%) had unknown or unreported ethnicity. The majority of patients had MYC-BCL2 double-hit lymphoma (59 [89%] patients), advanced stage disease (57 [86%] patients), and high-intermediate/high-risk IPI score (42 [64%] patients). Median follow-up was 34·7 months (IQR 30·1-36·8). Median progression-free survival was 28·4 months (95% CI 5·2-not estimable) in the DA-EPOCH-R group (n=30) and 7·7 months (95% CI 4·7-NE) in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (n=36; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·53-2·37; p=0·75). Deaths on treatment occurred in one (3%) patient in the DA-EPOCH-R group (due to dyspnoea; possibly related to treatment) and six (17%) patients in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (four due to sepsis [three at least possible related and one unrelated], two due to cardiac arrest [at least possibly related]), prompting early closure of the double-hit lymphoma cohort. The most common grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse event was febrile neutropenia, occurring in 15 (43%) of 35 patients in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group and 11 (37%) of 30 patients in the DA-EPOCH-R group. The median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The 24-month overall survival estimates were 72% (95% CI 52-85) in the DA-EPOCH-R group compared with 52% (95% CI 33-68) in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (HR 2·49, 95% CI 1·03-6·04; p=0·038). INTERPRETATION: The addition of venetoclax to DA-EPOCH-R resulted in excess mortality, prompting early study closure. Robust accrual shows that prospective multicentre trials are feasible in double-hit lymphoma, and the outcomes in the DA-EPOCH-R group serve as a benchmark for future studies. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy for response-adapted organ preservation in early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer (STAR-TREC): 12-month results of an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for most early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer but can cause substantial perioperative morbidity, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) could increase organ preservation and reduce surgery, toxicity, and quality-of-life harms without compromising oncological outcomes. METHODS: STAR-TREC is an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial in five European countries. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older in the UK or aged 18 years or older elsewhere, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and rectal adenocarcinoma (≤40 mm staged as mrT1-T3bN0). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to LCCRT-based organ preservation (LCCRT-OP; 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily), SCRT-based organ preservation (SCRT-OP; 25 Gy in five fractions), or primary TME. Phase 2 assessed feasibility, with recruitment at months 12 and 24 as the primary endpoint and feasibility thresholds of four or more and six or more randomisations per month, respectively. Phase 3 adopted a partially randomised patient-preference design, allowing participants to choose either organ preservation or TME. Participants that chose organ preservation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LCCRT-OP or SCRT-OP using centralised, computer-generated assignment, with stratification by country and MRI T category (≤T3a vs T3b) using minimisation. The phase 3 primary endpoint was organ-preservation 30 months after treatment initiation, defined as absence of TME, stoma, or local recurrence, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants in phase 2 and phase 3. After a planned interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data, the trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee recommended reporting a 12-month, modified intention-to-treat analysis of implementation outcomes for participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023. This study is registered with ISRCTN (14240288) and is closed. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2017, and April 8, 2024, 503 participants were enrolled at 37 sites. Phase 2 enrolled 120 participants, with recruitment rates of three and six participants per month at months 12 and 24, respectively. Overall, 12-month TME-free survival was 60% (47 of 78 participants). After phase 3 recruitment ended, interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data showed an early TME-free survival benefit with LCCRT versus SCRT (12-month median TME-free survival not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 7·6 months [95% CI 6·4-not reached]; hazard ratio [HR] 3·7 [95% CI 1·7-8·0]; posterior probability of superiority >99·5%). The trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee therefore recommended expanded analysis of 426 participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023: 120 from phase 2 and 306 from phase 3. 17 participants withdrew before treatment, leaving 409 in the modified intention-to-treat population: 163 allocated to LCCRT, 168 to SCRT, and 78 to primary TME. 116 (28%) participants were female and 293 (72%) were male. Among participants who opted for organ preservation, 12-month TME-free survival was 78·5% (95% CI 72·4-85·1) with LCCRT and 60·6% (53·6-68·4) with SCRT (HR 1·90 [95% CI 1·29-2·81]). The most common grade 3-4 serious adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (four [2%] with LCCRT vs six [4%] with SCRT vs six [8%] with TME) and procedural complications (three [2%] with LCCRT vs five [3%] with SCRT vs five [6%] with TME). One participant allocated to primary TME died after an anastomotic leak. INTERPRETATION: These early results support a response-adapted organ-preservation approach, with LCCRT appearing more effective than SCRT at 12 months. Organ-preservation might also reduce treatment-related toxicity compared with primary TME. Longer follow-up is needed for the prespecified 30-month endpoint and definitive functional and oncological outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society, Kom Op Tegen Kanker, Cancerfonden, ALF Region Stockholm, RCC Region Stockholm.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a multicentre, randomised, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ifebemtinib is a potent oral focal adhesion kinase inhibitor. Preclinical evidence supports combining ifebemtinib with the KRASG12C inhibitor garsorasib. This study aimed to evaluate this combination in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. METHODS: This multicentre, phase 1b/2 study had a phase 1b component to establish the recommended phase 2 dose and a phase 2 multitumour expansion component. In phase 1b, the safety and tolerability of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib was assessed using a 3 + 3 design in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed, and the recommended phase 2 dose was established as ifebemtinib 100 mg orally once daily plus garsorasib 600 mg orally twice daily. Here, we report the results of the cohort of previously treated KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer from phase 2 expansion. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) who had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer harbouring the KRASG12C mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0 or 1, and had disease progression after previous irinotecan-based or oxaliplatin-based combination therapy, were recruited from seven of nine participating tertiary hospitals in China. On the basis of the recommended phase 2 dose, phase 2 comprised a single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib and an open-label, randomised study in which patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ifebemtinib plus garsorasib or garsorasib alone, by use of centralised computer-generated block randomisation with no stratification. Investigators were masked to the block size. The primary efficacy endpoint of phase 2 was investigator-assessed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1), assessed in the safety analysis set in the single-arm study and in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population) in the randomised study. At least six objective responses (safety analysis set) were required in the single-arm study to proceed to the randomised study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06166836 and NCT05379946, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2023 and Dec 13, 2024, 51 patients were enrolled in phase 2 (15 in the single-arm study and 36 in the randomised study). In the single-arm study, the median age was 53 years (IQR 39 to 63), nine (60%) patients were female, six (40%) were male, and all were Asian. In the randomised study, the median age was 51 years (IQR 42 to 59) in the combination group and 63 years (IQR 54 to 66) in the monotherapy group, 24 (67%) were female, 12 (33%) were male, and all patients were Asian. In the single-arm part, the confirmed objective response rate was 46·7% (95% CI 21·3 to 73·4). Seven patients had partial responses, triggering progression to the randomised study. In the randomised study, the confirmed objective response rate was 38·9% (95% CI 17·3 to 64·3) with the combination therapy versus 16·7% (95% CI 3·6 to 41·4) with garsorasib alone (between-group difference 22·2%, 95% CI -7·7 to 49·1; one-sided p=0·068). In the single-arm study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four (27%) of 15 patients, and in the randomised study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in six (33%) of 18 patients in the combination group and five (28%) of 18 in the garsorasib group. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least two patients were diarrhoea (six [18%]), proteinuria (two [6%]), and intestinal obstruction (two [6%]) in patients treated with combination therapy (combined), and increased alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyltransferase (two [11%] each) in patients treated with garsorasib alone. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (30%) patients in the combination group and in four (22%) patients in the monotherapy group. One patient in the garsorasib monotherapy group died due to the underlying malignancy within 30 days after completing study treatment, which was reported as a serious adverse event. The death was assessed by the investigators as not related to garsorasib. No grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported across all cohorts. INTERPRETATION: The combination of ifebemtinib and garsorasib showed promising anticancer activity and manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. Although the improvement in response rate did not reach statistical significance in the randomised study, these findings support further evaluation of ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in this population. FUNDING: InxMed, InventisBio, National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Jian Bing Ling Yan + X Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province, and the Zhejiang Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

APOL1 kidney disease: a critical narrative review of molecular mechanisms, clinical heterogeneity, and the emerging therapeutic landscape.

BACKGROUND: The G1 and G2 variants of the APOL1 gene represent significant genetic risk factors for APOL1 kidney disease and contribute substantially to the excess burden of renal disease observed in individuals of African ancestry. Importantly, both variants exhibit incomplete penetrance, with only approximately 15-20% of high-risk genotype carriers ultimately developing overt nephropathy. OBJECTIVE: To provide a critically appraised, clinically oriented narrative synthesis of APOL1 kidney disease that (i) assigns an explicit certainty rating to each major mechanistic and clinical claim, (ii) identifies where published estimates diverge, where associations remain contested, and where conclusions have been overstated in the secondary literature, and (iii) aligns terminology, testing guidance and therapeutic expectations with the conclusions of the 2025 KDIGO Controversies Conference and with clinical trial data available to August 2026. METHODS: This literature narrative review was performed using a literature search of PubMed and Scopus focusing on APOL1-related nephropathy. Mainly studies published from 2010 to 2026 were considered; however, some selected historical papers from 2005 to 2010 were used for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and history. Used search terms were "APOL1," "APOL1 risk variants," "chronic kidney disease," AMPLITUDE trial, MZE829, HORIZON trial, "focal segmental glomerulosclerosis," "HIV-associated nephropathy," "podocyte injury," "inaxaplin," "VX-147," KDIGO 2025, and "antisense oligonucleotides." Trial status and topline results for agents in development were additionally verified against ClinicalTrials.gov registrations and sponsor disclosures. The literature search was last updated on 10 August 2026. The inclusion criteria of the study were peer-reviewed original articles, genome-wide association studies, randomised controlled trials, translational studies, mechanistic investigations, and high-quality review articles published in the English language. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts without peer review, duplicate papers, non-English publications with unreliable translation, and case reports with no relevance to the underlying mechanisms. More attention was paid to studies focusing on molecular pathogenesis of APOL1 nephropathy, second-hit pathophysiology, genotypes/phenotypes, and new therapies (e.g. inhibitors such as Inaxaplin). The review method and design have been prepared according to SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) criteria. Among eligible articles, priority was given to studies with larger sample sizes, more recent publication dates, higher-impact peer-reviewed journals, and direct clinical or mechanistic relevance to APOL1-associated nephropathy; where multiple studies addressed the same question, the most methodologically rigorous and most recent source was preferentially cited. To move beyond description, each principal claim carried forward into this review was assigned a qualitative certainty rating (high, moderate, low or very low) on the basis of study design, consistency across independent cohorts, directness of the evidence to human disease, and precision of the estimate. These ratings, together with the study design that would be required to resolve each remaining uncertainty, are presented in Table 5. This grading represents a structured judgement by the authors and is not a formal GRADE assessment. RESULTS: Pathogenic actions of APOL1 risk alleles depend on toxic gain-of-function activities that result from the disruption of ion channels. Mitochondrial dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammasome activation play roles as secondary downstream modulators of podocyte damage. The existence of incomplete penetrance and lack of symptoms in people with high-risk alleles highlights the need for secondary triggers, including environmental, infectious, and inflammatory factors, for disease onset and progression. High-risk APOL1 genotypes increase the likelihood of rapidly progressing kidney diseases like FSGS, which amplify susceptibility in HIVAN when accompanied by secondary causes like HIV infection. Management is mainly through renin-angiotensin antagonists, but recent treatments include antisense oligonucleotides, immunomodulators, and small molecule inhibitors like inaxaplin. Although promising, inaxaplin (VX-147) showed a ~47% reduction in urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) in Phase 2a trial; however, these findings are based on a relatively small sample size, an open-label study design, and short-term follow-up, and therefore require confirmation in ongoing Phase 3 studies. As this is a narrative review rather than a primary study, no new patient-level data are reported. Across the studies synthesised, high-risk APOL1 genotypes were consistently associated with podocyte injury and with a faster decline in kidney function than low-risk genotypes; however, the magnitude of this association varied substantially with how cohorts were ascertained. The association is robust and reproducible for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, HIV-associated nephropathy, and hypertension-attributed kidney failure, and remains inconsistent for diabetic kidney disease. Therapeutic development has accelerated, but the supporting clinical evidence remains early phase. Inaxaplin (VX-147) reduced the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio by approximately 47.6% at week 13 in a 16-participant, single-group, open-label Phase 2a study, and is now being evaluated in the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 AMPLITUDE trial (NCT05312879), whose pre-specified week 48 interim analysis is anticipated in early 2027. MZE829, an orally administered APOL1 inhibitor, produced a mean 35.6% reduction in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio at 12 weeks in the Phase 2 HORIZON study; because HORIZON was a small, open-label, single-arm basket study (15 participants enrolled, 12 evaluable) whose primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, this reduction is neither placebo adjusted nor the result of a formal test of efficacy. To date, no APOL1-targeted agent has demonstrated benefit on a hard kidney endpoint. CONCLUSION: APOL1 is the clearest current example of a genetically defined, mechanism-targetable kidney disease, but its evidence base is uneven. The genetic association is firmly established; whereas much of the mechanistic literature derives from overexpression systems, several downstream pathways remain contested, and every APOL1-targeted therapy is so far supported only by short-term, surrogate-endpoint data. The principal unresolved issues are the determinants of incomplete penetrance, the absence of a validated progression biomarker and of any model reproducing the common slowly progressive phenotype, and the long-term efficacy and safety of APOL1-directed therapy. Genotype-guided risk stratification is therefore best regarded as clinically reasonable but not yet proven, and routine population-level screening is not currently supported.

AMPLITUDE trial↗

PubMed2026

Durvalumab and tremelimumab, with or without lenvatinib, combined with transarterial chemoembolisation in participants with embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (EMERALD-3): a global, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), a standard treatment for embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), induces tumour immune responses. Single tremelimumab regular interval durvalumab (STRIDE) is a standard treatment in advanced HCC. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of STRIDE, with or without lenvatinib, plus TACE, in participants with embolisation-eligible HCC. METHODS: EMERALD-3 is a phase 3, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded study, conducted at 177 medical sites in 21 countries. Eligible participants were 18 years or older (aged ≥21 years in Egypt or Singapore) at screening and had confirmed HCC (by imaging or histopathologically from biopsy specimen, surgery, or both) not amenable to curative surgery, curative ablation, or transplantation but amenable to TACE. Participants had Child-Pugh class A liver function, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable target intrahepatic lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, STRIDE plus TACE, or TACE until each group reached its preplanned enrolment target of 175 participants. After the STRIDE plus TACE group reached its enrolment target, randomisation was adjusted to continue in a 1:1 ratio between the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group and TACE group until approximately 275 participants were enrolled in each of these two groups. Randomisation used a centrally assigned interactive response technology system, stratified by region, baseline tumour burden, and previous palliative embolisation. In the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group, on the first day, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab intravenously, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab plus oral lenvatinib (8 mg for <60 kg bodyweight or 12 mg for ≥60 kg bodyweight); participants then received 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks plus once-daily lenvatinib for up to 36 cycles. In the STRIDE plus TACE group, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab and 1500 mg durvalumab intravenously on the first day, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks. The technique and number of TACE procedures were at the investigators' discretion, with the first procedure administered at least 7 days after the first dose of durvalumab in the two investigation treatment groups and within 7 days of random allocation in the TACE group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE and progression-free survival and overall survival for STRIDE plus TACE versus TACE. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05301842), with enrolment completed. FINDINGS: From March 28, 2022, to Nov 20, 2024, 1124 participants were screened. The full analysis set comprised 760 participants, who were randomly allocated to STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (n=293), STRIDE plus TACE (n=175), or TACE (n=292). 633 (83%) participants were male and 127 (17%) were female; 548 (72%) were Asian. At the first data cutoff (Sept 2, 2025); the overall median follow-up for progression-free survival was 10·0 months (IQR 4·6-17·2); median follow-up for progression-free survival was 11·0 months (IQR 4·8-18·4) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 8·3 months (4·1-15·5) for TACE. Median progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 12·2-16·7) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus 9·8 months (8·0-11·4) for TACE (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·86]; p=0·0007). At the second data cutoff (Feb 23, 2026) and a median follow-up for overall survival of 24·6 months (IQR 16·5-31·5) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 22·9 months (14·9-30·2) for TACE, median overall survival was 39·5 months (95% CI 34·1-not reached) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 34·7 months (28·8-not reached) for TACE (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]; p=0·18). At this data cutoff, median progression-free survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 10·2-15·9) for STRIDE plus TACE and 8·1 months (6·5-10·2) for the first 175 participants randomised to TACE (HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·56-0·91]), with median follow-up of 10·3 months (IQR 4·6-23·7) for STRIDE plus TACE and 7·7 months (3·0-18·5) for the first 175 participants randomly allocated to TACE. The most common adverse events of maximum grade 3 or 4 were hypertension (34 [12%] of 287) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, post-embolisation syndrome and anaemia (ten [6%] of 175 each) for STRIDE plus TACE, and post-embolisation (17 [6%] of 290) for TACE. 184 (64%) participants receiving STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, 89 (51%) receiving STRIDE plus TACE, and 68 (23%) receiving TACE had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events with an outcome of death during the treatment-emergent period occurred in seven (2%) of 287 participants who received STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (two for myocarditis; and one each for hepatic failure, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, septic shock, cardiac failure, and unknown cause), none of 175 participants who received STRIDE plus TACE, and two (1%) of 290 participants who received TACE (one each for acute myocardial infarction and unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE showed a statistically significant progression-free survival improvement versus TACE. These findings support a STRIDE-based regimen as a potential new treatment option for people with embolisation-eligible HCC; additional follow-up is being conducted for final analysis of overall survival across treatment groups. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Adult↗