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.

Sorafenib and thyroid cancer

Sorafenib (Nexavar) is a multikinase inhibitor, which has demonstrated both anti-proliferative and anti-angiogenic properties in vitro and in vivo, inhibiting the activity of targets present in the tumor cell [c-RAF (proto-oncogene serine/threonine-protein kinase), BRAF, (V600E)BRAF, c-KIT, and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3] and in tumor vessels (c-RAF, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-3, and platelet-derived growth factor receptor β). For several years, sorafenib has been approved for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and advanced renal cell carcinoma. After previous studies showing that sorafenib was able to inhibit oncogenic RET mutants, (V600E)BRAF, and angiogenesis and growth of orthotopic anaplastic thyroid cancer xenografts in nude mice, some clinical trials demonstrated the effectiveness of sorafenib in advanced thyroid cancer. Currently, the evaluation of the clinical safety and efficacy of sorafenib for the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer is ongoing. This article reviews the anti-neoplastic effect of sorafenib in thyroid cancer. Several completed (or ongoing) studies have evaluated the long-term efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib in patients with papillary and medullary aggressive thyroid cancer. The results suggest that sorafenib is a promising therapeutic option in patients with advanced thyroid cancer that is not responsive to traditional therapeutic strategies.

RET TKI: potential role in thyroid cancers

The increasing incidence of thyroid cancer is associated with a higher number of advanced disease characterized by the loss of cancer differentiation and metastatic spread. The knowledge of the molecular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of thyroid cancer has made possible the development of new therapeutic drugs able to blockade the oncogenic kinases (RET/PTC) or signaling kinases (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor [VEGFR]) involved in cellular growth and proliferation. Some clinical trials have been conducted showing the ability of targeted therapies able to inhibit RET(sorafenib, imatinib, vandetanib) in stabilizing the course of the disease. The aim of the introduction of these targeted therapies is to extend life duration assuring a good quality of life; however, further studies are needed to reach these goals.

Targeted therapy in refractory thyroid cancer: current achievements and limitations

Thyroid cancer refractory to conventional treatments lacks effective treatment. Targeted therapy is an emerging therapeutic strategy for these cancers, based on preliminary promising results. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors target both specific oncogenic pathways involved in thyroid cancer progression and aspecific mechanisms such as neoangiogenesis. They are generally well tolerated and most adverse events have low-to-moderate severity. Other classes of drugs have been tested, alone or in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but so far the results have been limited. The aim of this article is to describe the benefits and limitations of innovative drugs that are currently under investigation in patients with refractory thyroid cancer.