Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the phase 2 multicohort LEAP-005 study.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 2, multicohort, open-label LEAP-005 study evaluated lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors. We report outcomes from the ovarian cancer cohort. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic/unresectable ovarian cancer and had received 3 previous lines of therapy. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg/day plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or (for pembrolizumab) completion of 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1 and safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. 39% had high grade serous ovarian cancer, 23% were platinum-sensitive, 55% were platinum-resistant, 23% were platinum-refractory, and 84% had tumors that had a PD-L1 combined positive (CPS) score ≥1. ORR (95% CI) was 26% (12%-45%) by investigator assessment and 35% (19%-55%) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Per BICR, median DOR was 9.2 (1.5+ to 37.8+) months. ORRs (95% CI) by BICR were 35% (9/26 patients; 17%-56%) for PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 disease and 50% (2/4 patients; 7%-93%) for PD-L1 CPS < 1 disease. Median (95% CI) PFS by BICR and OS were 6.2 (4.0-8.5) months and 21.3 (11.7-32.3) months, respectively. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 94% of patients (grade 3-4, 77%). One patient died from treatment-related hypovolemic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity as fourth line therapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, and no unanticipated safety signals were identified. Responses were observed regardless of PD-L1 status.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib plus placebo for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-002): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapies have improved the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is still a need to further enhance overall survival in first-line advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib versus lenvatinib plus placebo in the first-line setting for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-002), patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child Pugh class A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no previous systemic treatment were enrolled at 172 global sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a central interactive voice-response system (block size of 4) to receive lenvatinib (bodyweight <60 kg, 8 mg/day; bodyweight ≥60 kg, 12 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or lenvatinib plus placebo. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, macrovascular portal vein invasion or extrahepatic spread or both, α-fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Dual primary endpoints were overall survival (superiority threshold at final overall survival analysis, one-sided p=0·019; final analysis to occur after 532 events) and progression-free survival (superiority threshold one-sided p=0·002; final analysis to occur after 571 events) in the intention-to-treat population. Results from the final analysis are reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03713593, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2019, and April 28, 2020, of 1309 patients assessed, 794 were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=395) or lenvatinib plus placebo (n=399). Median age was 66·0 years (IQR 57·0-72·0), 644 (81%) of 794 were male, 150 (19%) were female, 345 (43%) were Asian, 345 (43%) were White, 22 (3%) were multiple races, 21 (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 (3%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 13 (2%) were Black or African American, and 46 (6%) did not have available race data. Median follow up as of data cutoff for the final analysis (June 21, 2022) was 32·1 months (IQR 29·4-35·3). Median overall survival was 21·2 months (95% CI 19·0-23·6; 252 [64%] of 395 died) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 19·0 months (17·2-21·7; 282 [71%] of 399 died) with lenvatinib plus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·71-1·00; stratified log-rank p=0·023). As of data cutoff for the progression-free survival final analysis (April 5, 2021), median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·4-8·4; 270 events occurred [42 deaths; 228 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 8·0 months (6·3-8·2; 301 events occurred [36 deaths; 265 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus placebo (HR 0·87; 95% CI 0·73-1·02; stratified log-rank p=0·047). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (69 [17%] of 395 patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group vs 68 [17%] of 395 patients) in the lenvatinib plus placebo group), increased aspartate aminotransferase (27 [7%] vs 17 [4%]), and diarrhoea (25 [6%] vs 15 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome [n=1 each] and hepatic encephalopathy [n=2]) and in three (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus placebo group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage, hepatorenal syndrome, and cerebrovascular accident [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: In earlier studies, the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shown promising clinical activity; however, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not meet prespecified significance for improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus lenvatinib plus placebo. Our findings do not support a change in clinical practice. FUNDING: Eisai US, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck.

Overall survival and objective response in advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A subanalysis of the REFLECT study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Validated surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) are important for expediting the clinical study and drug-development processes. Herein, we aimed to validate objective response as an independent predictor of OS in individuals with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving systemic anti-angiogenic therapy. METHODS: We investigated the association between objective response (investigator-assessed mRECIST, independent radiologic review [IRR] mRECIST and RECIST v1.1) and OS in REFLECT, a phase III study of lenvatinib vs. sorafenib. We conducted landmark analyses (Simon-Makuch) of OS by objective response at 2, 4, and 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: Median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI 18.6-24.5) for responders (investigator-assessed mRECIST) vs. 11.9 months (95% CI 10.7-12.8) for non-responders (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76; p <0.001). Objective response by IRR per mRECIST and RECIST v1.1 supported the association with OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.51-0.72; p <0.001 and HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.39-0.65; p <0.001, respectively). OS was significantly prolonged for responders vs. non-responders (investigator-assessed mRECIST) at the 2-month (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76; p <0.001), 4-month (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.80; p <0.001), and 6-month (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86; p <0.001) landmarks. Results were similar when assessed by IRR, with both mRECIST and RECIST v1.1. An exploratory multivariate Cox regression analysis identified objective response by investigator-assessed mRECIST (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.44-0.68; p <0.0001) and IRR-assessed RECIST v1.1 (HR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.64; p <0.0001) as independent predictors of OS in individuals with unresectable HCC. CONCLUSIONS: Objective response was an independent predictor of OS in individuals with unresectable HCC in REFLECT; additional studies are needed to confirm surrogacy. Participants achieving a complete or partial response by mRECIST or RECIST v1.1 had significantly longer survival vs. those with stable/progressive/non-evaluable disease. GOV NUMBER: NCT01761266. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: This analysis of data taken from a completed clinical trial (REFLECT) looked for any link between objective response and overall survival time in individuals with unresectable HCC receiving anti-angiogenic treatments. Significantly longer median overall survival was found for responders (21.6 months) vs. non-responders (11.9 months). Overall survival was also significantly longer for responders vs. non-responders (based on objective response status at 2, 4, and 6 months) in the landmark analysis. Our results indicate that objective response is an independent predictor of overall survival in this setting, confirming its validity as a rapid marker of efficacy that can be applied in phase II trials; however, further validation is required to determine is validity for other systemic treatments (e.g. immunotherapies), or as a surrogate of overall survival.

Correlative serum biomarker analyses in the phase 2 trial of lenvatinib-plus-everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No biomarkers have been established to predict treatment efficacy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In an exploratory retrospective analysis of a Phase 2 study, we constructed composite biomarker scores (CBSs) to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic RCC randomised to receive lenvatinib-plus-everolimus. METHODS: Of 40 biomarkers tested, the 5 most strongly associated with PFS (HGF, MIG, IL-18BP, IL-18, ANG-2) or OS (TIMP-1, M-CSF, IL-18BP, ANG-2, VEGF) were used to make a 5-factor PFS-CBS or OS-CBS, respectively. A 2-factor CBS was generated with biomarkers common to PFS-CBS and OS-CBS. Patients were divided into groups accordingly (5-factor-CBS high: 3-5, CBS-low: 0-2; 2-factor-CBS high: 1-2, CBS-low: 0). RESULTS: PFS/OS with lenvatinib-plus-everolimus were significantly longer in the 5-factor CBS-high group versus the CBS-low group (P = 0.0022/P < 0.0001, respectively). In the CBS-high group, PFS/OS were significantly longer with lenvatinib-plus-everolimus versus everolimus (P < 0.001/P = 0.0079, respectively); PFS was also significantly longer with lenvatinib-plus-everolimus versus lenvatinib (P = 0.0046). The 5-factor-CBS had a predictive role in PFS and OS after multivariate analysis. Similar trends were observed with the 2-factor-CBS for PFS (i.e., lenvatinib-plus-everolimus versus everolimus). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-factor CBS may identify patients with metastatic RCC who would benefit from lenvatinib-plus-everolimus versus everolimus; additional validation is required. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration number is NCT01136733.

The LEAP program: lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced solid tumors.

Tumor progression and immune evasion result from multiple oncogenic and immunosuppressive signals within the tumor microenvironment. The combined blockade of VEGF and inhibitory immune checkpoint signaling has been shown to enhance immune activation and tumor destruction in preclinical models. The LEAP clinical trial program is evaluating the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib (a multikinase inhibitor) plus pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) across several solid tumor types. Preliminary results from ongoing trials demonstrate robust antitumor activity and durable responses across diverse tumor types with a manageable safety profile. Thus, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is anticipated to be an important potential new regimen for several solid cancers that currently have limited therapeutic options. Clinical trial registration: NCT03884101, NCT03713593, NCT03820986, NCT03776136, NCT03797326, NCT03829319, NCT03829332, NCT03976375, NCT04428151, NCT04199104, NCT03898180, NCT04246177 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Second-line lenvatinib in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of lenvatinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with unresectable endometrial cancer. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent radiologic review (IRR). Secondary end points included median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical benefit rate. Exploratory end points examined the association of baseline levels of plasma biomarkers (50 circulating cytokine and/or angiogenic factors measured by immunoassays) with efficacy outcomes. METHODS: An international, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 trial was conducted. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed unresectable endometrial cancer that relapsed after 1 prior systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received once-daily oral lenvatinib 24 mg in a 28-day dosing cycle. RESULTS: There were 133 patients in the study. By IRR, 19 patients had a confirmed objective response for an ORR of 14.3% (95% CI: 8.8-21.4). Durable stable disease (≥23 weeks) was observed in 31 patients (23.3%) and the clinical benefit rate was 37.6% (95% CI: 29.3-46.4). Median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.7-6.3), and median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI: 8.9-14.9). The most common (any grade) treatment-related adverse events were fatigue/asthenia (48%), hypertension (49%), nausea/vomiting (32%), decreased appetite (32%), and diarrhea (31%). Lower baseline levels of angiopoietin-2 were associated with longer PFS, OS, and a higher ORR. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recurrent endometrial cancer treated with second-line lenvatinib experienced modest antitumor activity and treatment was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: an interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3, and other receptor tyrosine kinases. Pembrolizumab, an antibody targeting PD-1, has moderate efficacy in biomarker-unselected endometrial cancer. We aimed to assess the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma, after establishing the maximum tolerated dose in a phase 1b study. METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done at 11 centres in the USA, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had metastatic endometrial cancer (unselected for microsatellite instability or PD-L1), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had received no more than two previous systemic therapies, had measurable disease according to the immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST), and had a life expectancy of 12 weeks or longer. Patients received 20 mg oral lenvatinib daily plus 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint of this interim analysis was the proportion of patients with an objective response at week 24 as assessed by investigators according to irRECIST in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02501096. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2015, and July 24, 2017, 54 patients were enrolled, 53 of whom were included in the analysis. At the cutoff date for anti-tumour activity data (Dec 15, 2017), median study follow-up was 13·3 months (IQR 6·7-20·1). 21 (39·6% [95% CI 26·5-54·0]) patients had an objective response at week 24. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16 (30%) patients, and one treatment-related death was reported (intracranial haemorrhage). The most frequently reported any-grade treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (31 [58%]), fatigue (29 [55%]), diarrhoea (27 [51%]), and hypothyroidism (25 [47%]). The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (18 [34%]) and diarrhoea (four [8%]). No grade 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported. Five (9%) patients discontinued study treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced recurrent endometrial cancer with a safety profile that was similar to those previously reported for lenvatinib and pembrolizumab monotherapies, apart from an increased frequency of hypothyroidism. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab could represent a new potential treatment option for this patient population, and is being investigated in a randomised phase 3 study. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck.

Correction: Urine protein:creatinine ratio vs 24-hour urine protein for proteinuria management: analysis from the phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib vs sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

This article was originally published under a standard license to Publish, but has now been made available under a CC BY license. The PDF and HTML versions of the paper have been modified accordingly.An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Urine protein:creatinine ratio vs 24-hour urine protein for proteinuria management: analysis from the phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib vs sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Proteinuria monitoring is required in patients receiving lenvatinib, however, current methodology involves burdensome overnight urine collection. METHODS: To determine whether the simpler urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) calculated from spot urine samples could be accurately used for proteinuria monitoring in patients receiving lenvatinib, we evaluated the correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein results from the phase 3 REFLECT study. Paired data (323 tests, 154 patients) were analysed. RESULTS: Regression analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein (R2: 0.75; P < 2 × 10-16). A UPCR cut-off value of 2.4 had 96.9% sensitivity, 82.5% specificity for delineating between grade 2 and 3 proteinuria. Using this UPCR cut-off value to determine the need for further testing could reduce the need for 24-hour urine collection in ~74% of patients. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of UPCR into the current algorithm for proteinuria management can enable optimisation of lenvatinib treatment, while minimising patient inconvenience. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01761266.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial that recruited patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who had not received treatment for advanced disease, at 154 sites in 20 countries throughout the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system-with region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; and bodyweight as stratification factors-to receive oral lenvatinib (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg or 8 mg/day for bodyweight <60 kg) or sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation until the date of death from any cause. The efficacy analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle, and only patients who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The non-inferiority margin was set at 1·08. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013 and July 30, 2015, 1492 patients were recruited. 954 eligible patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476). Median survival time for lenvatinib of 13·6 months (95% CI 12·1-14·9) was non-inferior to sorafenib (12·3 months, 10·4-13·9; hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·79-1·06), meeting criteria for non-inferiority. The most common any-grade adverse events were hypertension (201 [42%]), diarrhoea (184 [39%]), decreased appetite (162 [34%]), and decreased weight (147 [31%]) for lenvatinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (249 [52%]), diarrhoea (220 [46%]), hypertension (144 [30%]), and decreased appetite (127 [27%]) for sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinib were consistent with those previously observed. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

Lenvatinib plus everolimus or pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: study design and rationale.

AIM: Lenvatinib plus everolimus is approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a Phase I/II trial of RCC. METHODS: We describe the rationale and design of the CLEAR study, a three-arm Phase III trial comparing lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib monotherapy for first-line treatment of RCC. Eligible patients must have advanced clear cell RCC and must not have received any prior systemic anticancer therapy. The primary end point is progression-free survival; secondary end points include objective response rate, overall survival, safety, health-related quality of life and pharmacokinetics. Biomarker evaluations are included as exploratory end points.

A Phase II study of the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib in patients with advanced thyroid cancer.

AIM: To investigate the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib in advanced thyroid cancer. PATIENTS/METHODS: In this Phase II study, 51 Japanese patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC), medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) or anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) received once-daily lenvatinib 24 mg. The primary end point was safety. RESULTS: All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE); only one patient experienced an AE leading to discontinuation. The most common any-grade AEs were hypertension, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue and proteinuria. Response rates for RR-DTC: 68%; MTC: 22%; ATC: 24%. Median progression-free survival for RR-DTC: 25.8 months; MTC: 9.2 months; ATC: 7.4 months. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, proven antitumor activity in RR-DTC and promising efficacy in MTC and ATC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01728623.

Treatment-emergent hypertension and efficacy in the phase 3 Study of (E7080) lenvatinib in differentiated cancer of the thyroid (SELECT).

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) is an established class effect of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibition. In the phase 3 Study of (E7080) Lenvatinib in Differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid (SELECT) trial, HTN was the most frequent adverse event of lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGFR1, VEGFR2, VEGFR3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1), FGFR2, FGFR3, FGFR4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRα), ret proto-oncogene (RET), and stem cell factor receptor (KIT). This exploratory analysis examined treatment-emergent hypertension (TE-HTN) and its relation with lenvatinib efficacy and safety in SELECT. METHODS: In the multicenter, double-blind SELECT trial, 392 patients with progressive radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) were randomized 2:1 to lenvatinib (24 mg/d on a 28-day cycle) or placebo. Survival endpoints were assessed with Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests. The influence of TE-HTN on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed with univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 73% of lenvatinib-treated patients and 15% of placebo-treated patients experienced TE-HTN. The median PFS for lenvatinib-treated patients with (n = 190) and without TE-HTN (n = 71) was 18.8 and 12.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.88; P = .0085). For lenvatinib-treated patients, the objective response rate was 69% with TE-HTN and 56% without TE-HTN (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.98-3.01). The median change in tumor size for patients with and without TE-HTN was -45% and -40%, respectively (P = .2). The median OS was not reached for patients with TE-HTN; for those without TE-HTN, it was 21.7 months (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27-0.69; P = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Although HTN is a clinically significant adverse event that warrants monitoring and management, TE-HTN was significantly correlated with improved outcomes in patients with RR-DTC, indicating that HTN may be predictive for lenvatinib efficacy in this population. Cancer 2018;124:2365-72. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of E6201 in patients with advanced solid tumours, including melanoma: results of a phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 first-in-human study aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities, and safety of E6201, and to establish recommended dosing in patients with advanced solid tumours, expanded to advanced melanoma. METHODS: Part A (dose escalation): sequential cohorts received E6201 intravenously (IV) over 30 min (once-weekly [qw; days (D)1 + 8 + 15 of a 28-day cycle]), starting at 20 mg/m2, increasing to 720 mg/m2 or the MTD. Part B (expansion): patients with BRAF-mutated or wild-type (WT) melanoma received E6201 320 mg/m2 IV over 60 minutes qw (D1 + 8 + 15 of a 28-day cycle) or 160 mg/m2 IV twice-weekly (D1 + 4 + 8 + 11 + 15 + 18 of a 28-day cycle; BRAF-mutated only). RESULTS: MTD in Part A (n = 25) was 320 mg/m2 qw, confirmed in Part B (n = 30). Adverse events included QT prolongation (n = 4) and eye disorders (n = 3). E6201 exposure was dose-related, with PK characterised by extensive distribution and fast elimination. One patient achieved PR during Part A (BRAF-mutated papillary thyroid cancer; 480 mg/m2 qw) and three during Part B (2 BRAF-mutated melanoma; 1 BRAF-WT melanoma; all receiving 320 mg/m2 qw). CONCLUSIONS: An intermittent regimen of E6201 320 mg/m2 IV qw for the first 3 weeks of a 28-day cycle was feasible and reasonably well-tolerated in patients with advanced solid tumours, including melanoma with brain metastases, with evidence of clinical efficacy.

Lenvatinib versus placebo in radioiodine-refractory thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, fibroblast growth factor receptors 1 through 4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed clinical activity in a phase 2 study involving patients with differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory to radioiodine (iodine-131). METHODS: In our phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study involving patients with progressive thyroid cancer that was refractory to iodine-131, we randomly assigned 261 patients to receive lenvatinib (at a daily dose of 24 mg per day in 28-day cycles) and 131 patients to receive placebo. At the time of disease progression, patients in the placebo group could receive open-label lenvatinib. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 18.3 months in the lenvatinib group and 3.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.21; 99% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.31; P<0.001). A progression-free survival benefit associated with lenvatinib was observed in all prespecified subgroups. The response rate was 64.8% in the lenvatinib group (4 complete responses and 165 partial responses) and 1.5% in the placebo group (P<0.001). The median overall survival was not reached in either group. Treatment-related adverse effects of any grade, which occurred in more than 40% of patients in the lenvatinib group, were hypertension (in 67.8% of the patients), diarrhea (in 59.4%), fatigue or asthenia (in 59.0%), decreased appetite (in 50.2%), decreased weight (in 46.4%), and nausea (in 41.0%). Discontinuations of the study drug because of adverse effects occurred in 37 patients who received lenvatinib (14.2%) and 3 patients who received placebo (2.3%). In the lenvatinib group, 6 of 20 deaths that occurred during the treatment period were considered to be drug-related. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib, as compared with placebo, was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and the response rate among patients with iodine-131-refractory thyroid cancer. Patients who received lenvatinib had more adverse effects. (Funded by Eisai; SELECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01321554.).

Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01136733. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months [95% CI 5·9-20·1] vs 5·5 months [3·5-7·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·24-0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months [95% CI 5·6-10·2]; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38-0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 [50%]) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 [79%]) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 [71%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten [20%]), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten [19%]), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six [12%]). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

Eribulin monotherapy in patients aged 70 years and older with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Following the demonstrated efficacy and safety of eribulin mesylate in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer, an exploratory analysis was performed to investigate the effect of age in these patients. METHODS: Data were pooled from two single-arm phase II studies and one open-label randomized phase III study in which patients received eribulin mesylate at 1.4 mg/m(2) as 2- to 5-minute intravenous infusions on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. The effect of age on median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and incidence of adverse events (AEs) was calculated for four age groups (<50 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, ≥ 70 years). RESULTS. Overall, 827 patients were included in the analysis (<50 years, n = 253; 50-59 years, n = 289; 60-69 years, n = 206; ≥ 70 years, n = 79). Age had no significant impact on OS (11.8 months, 12.3 months, 11.7 months, and 12.5 months, respectively; p = .82), PFS (3.5 months, 2.9 months, 3.8 months, and 4.0 months, respectively; p = .42), ORR (12.7%, 12.5%, 6.3%, and 10.1%, respectively), or CBR (20.2%, 20.8%, 20.4%, and 21.5%, respectively). Although some AEs had higher incidence in either the youngest or the oldest subgroup, there was no overall effect of age on the incidence of AEs (including neuropathy, neutropenia, and leukopenia). CONCLUSION: Eribulin monotherapy in these selected older patients with good baseline performance status led to OS, PFS, ORR, CBR, and tolerability similar to those of younger patients with metastatic breast cancer. The benefits and risks of eribulin appear to be similar across age groups.

Pembrolizumab With or Without Lenvatinib for First-Line Metastatic NSCLC With Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Tumor Proportion Score of at least 1% (LEAP-007): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was found to have antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated metastatic NSCLC. We evaluated first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in metastatic NSCLC in the LEAP-007 study (NCT03829332/NCT04676412). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without targetable EGFR/ROS1/ALK aberrations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo once daily; all patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival (OS). We report results from a prespecified nonbinding futility analysis of OS performed at the fourth independent data and safety monitoring committee review (futility bound: one-sided p < 0.4960). RESULTS: A total of 623 patients were randomized. At median follow-up of 15.9 months, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS was 14.1 (11.4‒19.0) months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 16.4 (12.6‒20.6) months in the placebo plus pembrolizumab group (hazard ratio = 1.10 [95% CI: 0.87‒1.39], p = 0.79744 [futility criterion met]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 6.6 (6.1‒8.2) months versus 4.2 (4.1‒6.2) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64‒0.95]). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.9% of patients (179 of 309) versus 24.4% (76 of 312). Per data and safety monitoring committee recommendation, the study was unblinded and lenvatinib and placebo were discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not have a favorable benefit‒risk profile versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy remains an approved treatment option in many regions for first-line metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without EGFR/ALK alterations.

Evaluation of potential biomarkers for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab among patients with advanced endometrial cancer: results from Study 111/KEYNOTE-146.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit in patients with previously treated advanced endometrial carcinoma in Study 111/KEYNOTE-146 (NCT02501096). In these exploratory analyses from this study, we evaluated the associations between clinical outcomes and gene expression signature scores and descriptively summarized response in biomarker subpopulations defined by tumor mutational burden (TMB) and DNA variants for individual genes of interest. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic endometrial carcinoma received oral lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for 35 cycles. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was obtained from all patients. T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) and 11 other gene signatures were evaluated by RNA sequencing. TMB, hotspot mutations in PIK3CA (oncogene), and deleterious mutations in PTEN and TP53 (tumor suppressor genes) were evaluated by whole-exome sequencing (WES). RESULTS: 93 and 79 patients were included in the RNA-sequencing-evaluable and WES-evaluable populations, respectively. No statistically significant associations were observed between any of the RNA-sequencing signature scores and objective response rate or progression-free survival. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for response ranged from 0.39 to 0.54; all 95% CIs included 0.50. Responses were seen regardless of TMB (≥175 or <175 mutations/exome) and mutation status. There were no correlations between TcellinfGEP and TMB, TcellinfGEP and microvessel density (MVD), or MVD and TMB. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated efficacy for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab regardless of biomarker status. Results from this study do not support clinical utility of the evaluated biomarkers. Further investigation of biomarkers for this regimen is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02501096.