Health-related quality-of-life analyses from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase 2 study of patients with differentiated thyroid cancer treated with lenvatinib 18 or 24 mg/day.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 2 double-blind Study 211, a starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day was compared with the approved starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Predefined criteria for noninferiority for efficacy in the 18 mg arm were not met; safety was similar in both arms. Impact of lenvatinib treatment on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint of Study 211. METHODS: Patients with RR-DTC were randomly assigned to a blinded starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day or 24 mg/day. HRQoL was assessed at baseline, every 8 weeks until Week 24, then every 16 weeks, and at the off-treatment visit, using the EQ-5D-3L and FACT-G instruments. Completion and compliance rates, mean change from baseline, and times to first and definitive deterioration were evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline EQ-5D and FACT-G scores, and overall changes from baseline, were comparable between patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day (n = 77) and 24 mg/day arms (n = 75). For the 18 mg versus 24 mg arms, least squares mean differences were -0.42 (95% CI -4.88, 4.03) for EQ-5D-VAS and 0.47 (95% CI -3.45, 4.39) for FACT-G total. Time to first deterioration did not significantly favor either arm; EQ-5D-VAS HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.93 (95% CI 0.61-1.40), EQ-5D-HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.68 (95% CI 0.44-1.05), FACT-G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.73 (95% CI 0.48-1.12). Time to definitive deterioration did not significantly favor either arm, though EQ-5D-VAS showed a trend in favor of the 24 mg arm (HR [18 mg/24 mg] 1.72; 95% CI 0.99-3.01); EQ-5D-HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.96 (95% CI 0.57-1.63), FACT-G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.72 (95% CI 0.43-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: In Study 211, HRQoL for patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day arm was not statistically different from that of patients in the 24 mg/day arm. These data further support the use of the approved lenvatinib starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC. GOV NUMBER: NCT02702388.

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Starting Doses of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The ORRwk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORRwk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used.

A Randomized Study of Lenvatinib 18 mg vs 24 mg in Patients With Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor approved to treat radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) at a starting dose of 24 mg/day. This study explored, in a double-blinded fashion, whether a starting dose of 18 mg/day would provide comparable efficacy with reduced toxicity. METHODS: Patients with RR-DTC were randomized to lenvatinib 24 mg/day or 18 mg/day. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the odds ratio noninferiority margin was 0.4. The primary safety endpoint was frequency of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) as of week 24. Tumors were assessed using RECIST v1.1. TEAEs were monitored and recorded. RESULTS: The ORRwk24 was 57.3% (95% CI 46.1, 68.5) in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 40.3% (95% CI 29.3, 51.2) in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, with an odds ratio (18/24 mg) of 0.50 (95% CI 0.26, 0.96). As of week 24, the rates of TEAEs grade ≥3 were 61.3% in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 57.1% in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, a difference of -4.2% (95% CI -19.8, 11.4). CONCLUSION: A starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to a starting dose of 24 mg/day as assessed by ORRwk24 in patients with RR-DTC. The results represent a clinically meaningful difference in ORRwk24. The safety profile was comparable, with no clinically relevant difference between arms. These results support the continued use of the approved starting dose of lenvatinib 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC and adjusting the dose as necessary.

First-in-human phase I study of immunomodulatory E7046, an antagonist of PGE2-receptor E-type 4 (EP4), in patients with advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: E7046 is a highly selective, small-molecule antagonist of the E-type prostanoid receptor 4 (EP4) for prostaglandin E2, an immunosuppressive mediator of the tumor immune microenvironment. This first-in-human phase 1 study assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose of E7046. METHODS: This first-in-human study enrolled 30 patients with advanced tumors of cancer types associated with high levels of myeloid infiltrates. E7046 was administered orally once-daily in sequential escalating dose cohorts (125, 250, 500, and 750 mg) with ≥6 patients per cohort. Tumor assessments were performed every 6 weeks. Paired tumor biopsies and blood samples, before and on treatment, were collected for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characterization of the treatment. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and the MTD was not reached. E7046 had an elimination half-life (t1/2) of 12 hours, and drug exposure increased dose-dependently from 125 to 500 mg. Target modulation by E7046 was supported by changes in genes downstream of EP4 with concurrent enhanced antitumoral immune responses. A best response of stable disease (per irRECIST) was reported in 23% of patients treated with E7046 (n=30) (125 mg: n=2; 250 mg: n=2; 750 mg: n=3). Over half (4/7) of the patients with stable disease had treatment duration of 18 weeks or more, and three patients (3/15; 20%) achieved metabolic responses. CONCLUSIONS: In this first-in-human study, E7046 administered orally once daily demonstrated manageable tolerability, immunomodulatory effects, and a best response of stable disease (≥18 weeks) in several heavily pretreated patients with advanced malignancies. The 250 and 500 mg doses are proposed for further development in the combination setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02540291.

"New" metastases are associated with a poorer prognosis than growth of pre-existing metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) endpoints often only weakly correlate. This analysis investigates how different progression events impact on OS, using data from two phase 3 studies with eribulin in women with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: In Study 301, 1102 women with ≤2 prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC were randomized to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 21 days). Study 305/EMBRACE enrolled 762 patients following two to five prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC, randomized to eribulin (as above) or treatment of physician's choice. We analyzed OS and PFS post hoc for patients whose disease progressed due to development of "new" metastases, growth of pre-existing lesions, and patients with no reported disease progression. RESULTS: In both clinical studies, development of new metastases was associated with an increased risk of death (p < 0.0001). The time to development of new metastasis or death was significantly longer with eribulin than the comparator in Study 305 (p = 0.0017), but not in Study 301 (p = 0.46). Significantly longer OS was observed in the eribulin compared with the comparator arm for the new metastases subgroup in Study 301 (p = 0.008), but not in Study 305 (p = 0.16), compared with other progression subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MBC progressing with new metastases have a worse prognosis than those whose disease progresses due to growth of existing lesions or patients with no reported disease progression. These findings have potentially important implications for the interpretation of clinical study data and clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration IDs: Study 301: NCT00337103 ; Study 305: NCT00388726 .