-
1.
Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers Predictive of Survival Benefit with Lenvatinib in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the Phase III REFLECT Study.
Finn, RS, Kudo, M, Cheng, AL, Wyrwicz, L, Ngan, RKC, Blanc, JF, Baron, AD, Vogel, A, Ikeda, M, Piscaglia, F, et al
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2021;(17):4848-4858
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE In REFLECT, lenvatinib demonstrated an effect on overall survival (OS) by confirmation of noninferiority to sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This analysis assessed correlations between serum or tissue biomarkers and efficacy outcomes from REFLECT. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Serum biomarkers (VEGF, ANG2, FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23) were measured by ELISA. Gene expression in tumor tissues was measured by the nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. Pharmacodynamic changes in serum biomarker levels from baseline, and associations of clinical outcomes with baseline biomarker levels, were evaluated. RESULTS Four hundred and seven patients were included in the serum analysis set (lenvatinib n = 279, sorafenib n = 128); 58 patients were included in the gene-expression analysis set (lenvatinib n = 34, sorafenib n = 24). Both treatments were associated with increases in VEGF; only lenvatinib was associated with increases in FGF19 and FGF23 at all time points. Lenvatinib-treated responders had greater increases in FGF19 and FGF23 versus nonresponders at cycle 4, day 1 (FGF19: 55.2% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.014; FGF23: 48.4% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.0022, respectively). Higher baseline VEGF, ANG2, and FGF21 correlated with shorter OS in both treatment groups. OS was longer for lenvatinib than sorafenib [median, 10.9 vs. 6.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.85; P-interaction = 0.0397] with higher baseline FGF21. In tumor tissue biomarker analysis, VEGF/FGF-enriched groups showed improved OS with lenvatinib versus the intermediate VEGF/FGF group (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = 0.0253). CONCLUSIONS Higher baseline levels of VEGF, FGF21, and ANG2 may be prognostic for shorter OS. Higher baseline FGF21 may be predictive for longer OS with lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, but this needs confirmation.
-
2.
Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.
Vogel, A, Qin, S, Kudo, M, Su, Y, Hudgens, S, Yamashita, T, Yoon, JH, Fartoux, L, Simon, K, López, C, et al
The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2021;(8):649-658
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during treatment is an important therapeutic goal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with lenvatinib versus sorafenib on HRQOL. METHODS REFLECT was a previously published multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and one or more measurable target lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C categorisation, Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or lower, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system; stratification factors for treatment allocation included region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; ECOG performance status; and bodyweight. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), collected at baseline, on day 1 of each subsequent cycle, and at the end of treatment, were evaluated in post-hoc analyses of secondary and exploratory endpoints in the analysis population, which was the subpopulation of patients with a PRO assessment at baseline. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated change from baseline in PROs, including European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and hepatocellular carcinoma-specific QLQ-HCC18 scales (both secondary endpoints of the REFLECT trial). Time-to-definitive-deterioration analyses were done based on established thresholds for minimum differences for worsening in PROs. Responder analyses explored associations between HRQOL and clinical response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01761266. FINDINGS Of 954 eligible patients randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476) between March 14, 2013, and July 30, 2015, 931 patients (n=468 for lenvatinib; n=463 for sorafenib) were included in this analysis. Baseline PRO scores reflected impaired HRQOL and functioning and considerable symptom burden relative to full HRQOL. Differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates in most PRO scales generally favoured the lenvatinib over the sorafenib group, although the differences were not nominally statistically or clinically significant. Patients treated with lenvatinib experienced nominally statistically significant delays in definitive, meaningful deterioration on the QLQ-C30 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·69-0·99), pain (0·80, 0·66-0·96), and diarrhoea (0·52, 0·42-0·65) domains versus patients treated with sorafenib. Significant differences in time to definitive deterioration were not observed for other QLQ-C30 domains, and there was no difference in time to definitive deterioration on the global health status/QOL score (0·89, 0·73-1·09). For most PRO scales, differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates favoured responders versus non-responders. Across all scales, HRs for time to definitive deterioration were in favour of responders; median time to definitive deterioration for responders exceeded those for non-responders by a range of 4·8 to 14·6 months. INTERPRETATION HRQOL for patients undergoing treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is an important therapeutic consideration. The evidence of HRQOL benefits in clinically relevant domains support the use of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib to delay functional deterioration in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.
-
3.
A Randomized, Phase III Study of Lenvatinib in Chinese Patients with Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.
Zheng, X, Xu, Z, Ji, Q, Ge, M, Shi, F, Qin, J, Wang, F, Chen, G, Zhang, Y, Huang, R, et al
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2021;(20):5502-5509
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Lenvatinib has shown efficacy in treating radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) in the multinational phase III SELECT study; however, it has not been tested in Chinese patients with RR-DTC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chinese patients with confirmed RR-DTC (n = 151) were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive lenvatinib 24 mg/day or placebo in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and key secondary endpoints included objective response rate and safety. Analyses for progression-free survival and objective response rate were conducted using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and confirmed by independent imaging review. All adverse events were assessed and monitored. RESULTS Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenvatinib treatment [n = 103; median 23.9 months; 95% confidence interval (CI), 12.9-not estimable] versus placebo (n = 48; median 3.7 months; 95% CI, 1.9-5.6; hazard ratio = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10-0.26; P < 0.0001). The objective response rate was 69.9% (95% CI, 61.0-78.8) in the lenvatinib arm and 0% (95% CI, 0-0) in the placebo arm. At data cutoff, 60.2% of patients receiving lenvatinib remained on treatment; treatment-emergent adverse events led to lenvatinib discontinuation in 8.7% of patients. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events of grade ≥3 occurred in 87.4% of patients in the lenvatinib arm, the most common being hypertension (62.1%) and proteinuria (23.3%). CONCLUSIONS Lenvatinib at a starting dose of 24 mg/day significantly improved progression-free survival and objective response rate in Chinese patients with RR-DTC versus placebo. There were no new or unexpected toxicities. Results are consistent with those from SELECT involving patients with RR-DTC.
-
4.
Carnitine insufficiency is associated with fatigue during lenvatinib treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Okubo, H, Ando, H, Ishizuka, K, Kitagawa, R, Okubo, S, Saito, H, Kokubu, S, Miyazaki, A, Ikejima, K, Shiina, S, et al
PloS one. 2020;(3):e0229772
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fatigue is a common adverse event during lenvatinib treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. One mechanism contributing to development of fatigue might involve abnormal adenosine triphosphate synthesis that is caused by carnitine deficiency. To address this possibility, we examined the relationship between carnitine levels and fatigue during lenvatinib treatment. METHODS This prospective study evaluated 20 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent lenvatinib treatment. Both blood and urine samples were collected from the patients before starting lenvatinib therapy (day 0), and on days 3, 7, 14, and 28 thereafter. Plasma and urine concentrations of free and acyl carnitine (AC) were assessed at each time point. The changes in daily fatigue were evaluated using the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). RESULTS Plasma levels of free carnitine (FC) at days 3 and 7 were significantly higher compared with baseline (p = 0.005, p = 0.005, respectively). The urine FC level at day 3 was significantly higher compared with baseline (p = 0.030) and that of day 7 tended to be higher compared with baseline (p = 0.057). The plasma AC concentration at days 14 and 28 was significantly higher compared with that of baseline (p = 0.002, p = 0.005, respectively). The plasma AC-to-FC (AC/FC) ratio on days 14 and 28 was significantly higher compared with baseline (p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). There were significant correlations between the plasma AC/FC ratio and the change in the BFI score at days 14 and 28 (r = 0.461, p = 0.041; r = 0.770, p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Longitudinal assessments of carnitine and fatigue in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma suggest that lenvatinib affects the carnitine system in patients undergoing lenvatinib therapy and that carnitine insufficiency increases fatigue. The occurrence of carnitine insufficiency may be a common cause of fatigue during the treatment.
-
5.
Covariate-adjusted analysis of the Phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Briggs, A, Daniele, B, Dick, K, Evans, TRJ, Galle, PR, Hubner, RA, Lopez, C, Siebert, U, Tremblay, G
British journal of cancer. 2020;(12):1754-1759
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the Phase 3 REFLECT trial in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), the multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, lenvatinib, was noninferior to sorafenib in the primary outcome of overall survival. Post-hoc review revealed imbalances in prognostic variables between treatment arms. Here, we re-analyse overall survival data from REFLECT to adjust for the imbalance in covariates. METHODS Univariable and multivariable adjustments were undertaken for a candidate set of covariate values that a physician panel indicated could be prognostically associated with overall survival in uHCC. The values included baseline variables observed pre- and post-randomisation. Univariable analyses were based on a stratified Cox model. The multivariable analysis used a "forwards stepwise" Cox model. RESULTS Univariable analysis identified alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) as the most influential variable. The chosen multivariable Cox model analysis resulted in an estimated adjusted hazard ratio for lenvatinib of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.699-0.948) when only baseline variables were included. Adjusting for post-randomisation treatment variables further increased the estimated superiority of lenvatinib. CONCLUSIONS Covariate adjustment of REFLECT suggests that the original noninferiority trial likely underestimated the true effect of lenvatinib on overall survival due to an imbalance in baseline prognostic covariates and the greater use of post-treatment therapies in the sorafenib arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION Trial number: NCT01761266 (Submitted January 2, 2013).
-
6.
REFLECT-a phase 3 trial comparing efficacy and safety of lenvatinib to sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of Japanese subset.
Yamashita, T, Kudo, M, Ikeda, K, Izumi, N, Tateishi, R, Ikeda, M, Aikata, H, Kawaguchi, Y, Wada, Y, Numata, K, et al
Journal of gastroenterology. 2020;(1):113-122
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND A phase 3, multinational, randomized, non-inferiority trial (REFLECT) compared the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib (LEN) and sorafenib (SOR) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). LEN had an effect on overall survival (OS) compared to SOR, statistically confirmed by non-inferiority [OS: median = 13.6 months vs. 12.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.06], and demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR) in the overall population. The results of a subset analysis that evaluated the efficacy and safety of LEN and SOR in the Japanese population are reported. METHODS The intent-to-treat population enrolled in Japan was analyzed. RESULTS Of 954 patients in the overall population, 168 Japanese patients were assigned to the LEN arm (N = 81) or the SOR arm (N = 87). Median OS was 17.6 months for LEN vs. 17.8 months for SOR (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.62-1.29). LEN showed statistically significant improvements over SOR in PFS (7.2 months vs. 4.6 months) and ORR (29.6% vs. 6.9%). The relative dose intensity of LEN and SOR in the Japanese population was lower than in the overall population. Frequently observed, related adverse events included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (PPES), hypertension, decreased appetite, and proteinuria in the LEN arm, and PPES, hypertension, diarrhea, and alopecia in the SOR arm. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy and safety of LEN in the Japanese population were similar to those in the overall population of REFLECT. With manageable adverse events, LEN is a new treatment option for Japanese patients with uHCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID ClinicalTrials.gov. No. NCT01761266.
-
7.
Final Overall Survival Results from a Phase 3 Study to Compare Tivozanib to Sorafenib as Third- or Fourth-line Therapy in Subjects with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Pal, SK, Escudier, BJ, Atkins, MB, Hutson, TE, Porta, C, Verzoni, E, Needle, MN, Powers, D, McDermott, DF, Rini, BI
European urology. 2020;(6):783-785
Abstract
Tivozanib is a potent and selective inhibitor of the VEGF receptor. In an open-label, randomized phase 3 trial, we compared tivozanib to sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who had received two or three prior therapies. We have previously reported that the study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in progression-free survival with tivozanib versus sorafenib (5.6 mo vs 3.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.94; p=0.016). The current report reflects the final assessment of overall survival, showing no difference between treatment with tivozanib and sorafenib (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.24). Given its activity and distinct tolerability profile, tivozanib represents a treatment option for patients with previously treated mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We show that tivozanib, a targeted therapy, can delay tumor growth relative to an already approved targeted therapy (sorafenib) in patients with kidney cancer who have received two or three prior treatments. No difference in survival was observed.
-
8.
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.
Evans, TRJ, Kudo, M, Finn, RS, Han, KH, Cheng, AL, Ikeda, M, Kraljevic, S, Ren, M, Dutcus, CE, Piscaglia, F, et al
British journal of cancer. 2019;(3):218-221
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
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.
-
9.
Efficacy of tivozanib treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: crossover of a phase 3 study.
Molina, AM, Hutson, TE, Nosov, D, Tomczak, P, Lipatov, O, Sternberg, CN, Motzer, R, Eisen, T
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2018;:87-94
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinases. This open-label, crossover clinical study (AV-951-09-902) provided access to tivozanib for patients who progressed on sorafenib in TIVO-1, comparing tivozanib with sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS Patients enrolled in this single-arm, phase 2 crossover study were previously randomised to sorafenib on TIVO-1, progressed and then crossed over to tivozanib. Patients received tivozanib (1.5 mg/day orally; 3 weeks on/1 week off) within 4 weeks after their last sorafenib dose. FINDINGS Crossover patients were exposed to tivozanib for a median of eight cycles. From the start of tivozanib treatment, median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-12.7) and median overall survival was 21.6 months (95% CI: 17.0-27.6). Best overall response was partial response in 29 (18%) patients and stable disease in 83 (52%) patients, with a median duration of response of 15.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. About 77% of patients experienced adverse events, most frequently hypertension (26%), followed by diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (13%); 53% of patients had treatment-related adverse events, including 24% grade ≥3. About 9% and 16% of patients had dose reductions and dose interruptions due to adverse events, respectively. A total of 30% of patients had serious adverse events, and 4% had treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION This crossover study of patients with advanced RCC demonstrated potent tivozanib anti-tumour activity. Safety and tolerability profiles were acceptable and consistent with the established adverse event profile of tivozanib.
-
10.
Prolonged duration of response in lenvatinib responders with thyroid cancer.
Gianoukakis, AG, Dutcus, CE, Batty, N, Guo, M, Baig, M
Endocrine-related cancer. 2018;(6):699-704
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
We present an updated analysis of lenvatinib in radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) with new duration of response (DOR) data unavailable for the primary analysis. In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, patients ≥18 years old with measurable, pathologically confirmed RR-DTC with independent radiologic confirmation of disease progression within the previous 13 months were randomized 2:1 to oral lenvatinib 24 mg/day or placebo. The main outcome measures for this analysis are DOR and progression-free survival (PFS). The median DOR for all lenvatinib responders (patients with complete or partial responses; objective response rate: 60.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 54.2-66.1) was 30.0 months (95% CI 18.4-36.7) and was generally similar across subgroups. DOR was shorter in patients with greater disease burden and with brain and liver metastases. Updated median PFS was longer in the overall lenvatinib group vs placebo (19.4 vs 3.7 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.24; 99% CI 0.17-0.35; nominal P < 0.0001). In lenvatinib responders, median PFS was 33.1 months (95% CI 27.8-44.6) vs 7.9 months (95% CI 5.8-10.7) in non-responders. The median DOR of 30.0 months seen with patients who achieved complete or partial responses with lenvatinib (60.2%) demonstrates that lenvatinib responders can have prolonged, durable and clinically meaningful responses. Prolonged PFS (33.1 months) was also observed in these lenvatinib responders.