Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined.

REVIEW METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC.

RESULTS

Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS

We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Lenvatinib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of lenvatinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

This multicenter, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation study included patients aged 20 to 80 years, refractory to standard therapy, and stratified by hepatic function measured using Child-Pugh (CP) scores: CP-A (score, 5-6) and CP-B (score, 7-8). Lenvatinib was administered continually once daily for 4-week cycles. MTD was defined as the maximum dose associated with ≤ 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurring in cycle 1 among 6 patients.

RESULTS

In total, 20 patients (9 in CP-A and 11 in CP-B) were enrolled. The MTD was 12 and 8 mg once daily in CP-A and CP-B, respectively; DLTs included proteinuria, hepatic encephalopathy, and hyperbilirubinemia. The most common grade 3 toxicities included hypertension in CP-A and hyperbilirubinemia in CP-B. Lenvatinib plasma concentration at 24 hours after administration (C24 h) for 12 mg once daily was higher in patients with HCC than in patients with other solid tumors shown in a previous phase I study, but C24 h for 25 mg once daily lenvatinib was comparable. After lenvatinib treatment, the number of circulating endothelial and c-Kit(+) cells decreased and the levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL10, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and vascular endothelial growth factor increased (P < 0.05). Partial responses were observed in 3 patients and tumor shrinkage occurred in 14 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib (12 mg once daily) demonstrated preliminary efficacy with manageable toxicity and is the recommended dose for phase II studies in patients with HCC and CP-A.

Development of molecular targeted drugs for advanced thyroid cancer in Japan

Up until now there have been no promising drugs for the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer, but the development of novel therapeutic agents is now anticipated as a result of the advent of molecular targeted drugs that inhibit tumor growth signals or angiogenesis. Against a background in which the development of numerous molecular targeted drugs for advanced thyroid cancer is being pursued worldwide, the development of sorafenib, vandetanib, and lenvatinib is currently also under way in Japan. All three of these compounds are undergoing phase 3 trials or have been approved abroad, and because they are in the final stage of development in Japan, they are expected to be introduced in clinical settings in the near future. After they have been introduced, it will be necessary to understand the differences between these compounds and to administer them to patients appropriately.

Model-based treatment optimization of a novel VEGFR inhibitor

AIM

To evaluate dosing and intervention strategies for the phase II programme of a VEGF receptor inhibitor using PK-PD modelling and simulation, with the aim of maximizing (i) the number of patients on treatment and (ii) the average dose level during treatment.

METHODS

A previously developed PK-PD model for lenvatinib (E7080) was updated and parameters were re-estimated (141 patients, once daily and twice daily regimens). Treatment of lenvatinib was simulated for 16 weeks, initiated at 25 mg once daily. Outcome measures included the number of patients on treatment and overall drug exposure. A hypertension intervention design proposed for phase II studies was evaluated, including antihypertensive treatment and dose de-escalation. Additionally, a within-patient dose escalation was investigated, titrating up to 50 mg once daily unless unacceptable toxicity occurred.

RESULTS

Using the proposed antihypertension intervention design, 82% of patients could remain on treatment, and the mean dose administered was 21.5 mg day⁻¹. The adverse event (AE) guided dose titration increased the average dose by 4.6 mg day⁻¹, while only marginally increasing the percentage of patients dropping out due to toxicity (from 18% to 20.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed hypertension intervention design is expected to be effective in maintaining patients on treatment with lenvatinib. The AE-guided dose titration with blood pressure as a biomarker yielded a higher overall dose level, without relevant increases in toxicity. Since increased exposure to lenvatinib seems correlated with increased treatment efficacy, the adaptive treatment design may thus be a valid approach to improve treatment outcome.

Sorafenib and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma: phase I and open-label phase II studies

Method:

The safety of oral sorafenib up to a maximum protocol-specified dose combined with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic, histologically confirmed melanoma was investigated in a phase I dose-escalation study and the activity of the combination was explored in an open-label phase II study.

Results:

In the phase I study, three patients were treated with sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) plus 1000 mg m⁻² dacarbazine on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and 15 patients had the sorafenib dose escalated to 400 mg b.i.d. without reaching the maximum tolerated dose of the combination. In the phase II study (n=83), the overall response rate was 12% (95% CI: 6, 21): one complete and nine partial, with median response duration of 46.7 weeks. Stable disease was the best response in 37% median duration was 13.3 weeks. Median overall survival (OS) was 37.0 weeks (95% CI: 33.9, 46.0).

Conclusion:

Oral sorafenib combined with dacarbazine had acceptable toxicity and some antineoplastic activity against metastatic melanoma.

Novel molecular targeted therapies for refractory thyroid cancer

The incidence of thyroid cancer continues to increase and this neoplasia remains the most common endocrine malignancy. No effective systemic treatment currently exists for iodine-refractory differentiated or medullary thyroid carcinoma, but recent advances in the pathogenesis of these diseases have revealed key targets that are now being evaluated in the clinical setting. RET (rearranged during transfection)/PTC (papillary thyroid carcinoma) gene rearrangements, B-Raf gene mutations, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) angiogenesis pathways are some of the known genetic alterations playing a crucial role in the development of thyroid cancer. Several novel agents have demonstrated promising responses. Of the treatments studied, multi-kinase inhibitors such as axitinib, sorafenib, motesanib, and XL-184 have shown to be the most effective by inducing clinical responses and stabilizing the disease process. Randomized clinical trials are currently evaluating these agents, results that may soon change the management of thyroid cancer.

Phase I dose-escalation study and biomarker analysis of E7080 in patients with advanced solid tumors

PURPOSE

E7080, an oral multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has antiangiogenic and antitumor activity. This Phase I study investigated maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and efficacy in patients with advanced solid tumors.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

In this sequential, dose-escalation, open-label study E7080 was administered orally twice daily in a 2-week-on/1-week-off cycle. Plasma angiogenic proteins, circulating endothelial cells (CEC) and circulating progenitor cells (CEP) were measured for biomarker analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (median age 53 years, performance status 0/1) were enrolled. E7080 was escalated from 0.5 to 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 20 mg bid by conventional 3-patient cohorts. During cycle 1, no grade 3/4 toxicity was observed up to 13 mg bid. DLTs included grade 3 AST/ALT increase in 1 patient at 16 mg bid and grade 3 platelet count decrease in 2 patients at 20 mg bid. The MTD of 13 mg bid was determined. After repeated doses, C(max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve increased in a dose-dependent manner. After 14 days' treatment, c-kit(+) CEPs and CECs significantly decreased in cycle 1, but c-kit(-) CEPs and CECs did not. Change from baseline in c-kit(+) CEC ratio in cycle 1 and baseline SDF1α, c-kit(+) CEPs and c-kit(+) CEP ratio significantly correlated with the E7080 therapeutic effect.

CONCLUSION

E7080 has manageable toxicity up to 13 mg bid when administered in a 2-week-on/1-week-off cycle and shows preliminary activity for durable disease control. Biomarker analysis suggested antiangiogenic activity correlated with antitumor activity in patients with a wide range of solid tumors.