-
1.
Molecular therapies for HCC: Looking outside the box.
Faivre, S, Rimassa, L, Finn, RS
Journal of hepatology. 2020;(2):342-352
Abstract
Over the past decade, sorafenib has been the only systemic agent with proven clinical efficacy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, lenvatinib was shown to be non-inferior to sorafenib, while regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab were shown to be superior to placebo in patients failing sorafenib. In addition, trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors reported encouraging efficacy signals. However, apart from alpha-fetoprotein, which is used to select patients for ramucirumab, no biomarkers are available to identify patients that may respond to a specific treatment. Different synergisms have been postulated based on the potential interplay between antiangiogenic drugs and immunotherapy, with several clinical trials currently testing this hypothesis. Indeed, encouraging preliminary results of phase I studies of bevacizumab plus atezolizumab and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab have led to the design of ongoing phase III trials, including both antiangiogenics and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the front-line setting. Other important phase II studies have tested molecular therapies directed against different novel targets, such as transforming growth factor-beta, MET (hepatocyte growth factor receptor), and fibroblast growth factor receptor 4. These studies integrated translational research with the aim of better defining the biological tumour profile and identifying tumour and blood biomarkers that select patients who may really benefit from a specific molecular therapy. Importantly, good safety profiles make these drugs suitable for future combinations. In this review, we discuss the most recent data on novel combination strategies and targets, as well as looking ahead to the future role of molecular therapies in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC.
-
2.
Final Data Analysis Supports Tivozanib as Superior Treatment for Patients With RCC.
Wright, KM
Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.). 2020;(7):257
Abstract
Tivozanib (Fotivda) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with sorafenib (Nexavar), in patients with highly relapsed or refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to results from the phase 3 TIVO-3 trial presented at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology Virtual Scientific Program.
-
3.
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).
-
4.
Expert Consensus on the Management of Adverse Events During Treatment with Lenvatinib for Thyroid Cancer.
Reed, N, Glen, H, Gerrard, G, Good, J, Lei, M, Lyon, AR, Strachan, M, Wadsley, J, Newbold, K
Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)). 2020;(5):e145-e153
Abstract
AIMS: Lenvatinib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with progressive, locally advanced or metastatic, differentiated thyroid carcinoma refractory to radioactive iodine. MATERIALS AND METHODS A literature review was undertaken to inform the development of consensus-based guidance for the routine management of adverse events associated with lenvatinib. PubMed was searched on 24 October 2017; the search terms were 'lenvatinib' and 'thyroid cancer'. RESULTS Hypertension, diarrhoea, weight loss, skin toxicities and cardiovascular adverse events were considered. For grade 1/2 diarrhoea, initial treatment should be loperamide with a 1-week treatment interruption if diarrhoea persists and dose reduction if diarrhoea recurs on reinitiation of lenvatinib. Blood pressure should be monitored daily in patients with pre-existing hypertension, otherwise from 1 week after the initiation of lenvatinib and weekly for the first 2 months. For patients with systolic blood pressure ≥135 mmHg to <160 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥85 mmHg to <100 mmHg, lenvatinib should be continued but antihypertensive therapy initiated/intensified. For patients who remain hypertensive, a treatment break can be considered with lenvatinib reinitiated at a reduced dose once the patient's blood pressure has stabilised for at least 48 h. Weight loss of 10% of baseline body weight or the onset of anorexia should be managed with a 1-week treatment break; patients should maintain a healthy, active lifestyle. For patients with grade 2 proteinuria, lenvatinib may be continued, but an angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor should be commenced. For grade >3 proteinuria, lenvatinib should be interrupted until proteinuria returns to 1+. For chronic proteinuria, lenvatinib should be stopped. Skin toxicities should be managed with moisturisers or emollients and soap substitutes. CONCLUSIONS Prophylaxis, regular monitoring and symptomatic management with appropriate short treatment breaks and, for persistent adverse events, dose reductions, are recommended to enable patients to remain on the optimal dose regimen.
-
5.
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.
-
6.
Second-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib: Characterizing treatments used over the past 10 years and real-world eligibility for cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab.
Fung, AS, Tam, VC, Meyers, DE, Sim, HW, Knox, JJ, Zaborska, V, Davies, J, Ko, YJ, Batuyong, E, Samawi, H, et al
Cancer medicine. 2020;(13):4640-4647
Abstract
BACKGROUND The CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH-2 trials showed survival benefit of cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab, respectively, in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with sorafenib who had good performance status (ECOG 0-1) and liver function (Child-Pugh-A). This study characterizes subsequent treatments received by HCC patients after sorafenib, and determines the proportion of patients eligible for novel therapies if strict eligibility criteria (SEC) were utilized compared to more liberal modified eligibility criteria (MEC, including ECOG 2, Child-Pugh-B7). METHODS HCC patients who received sorafenib between 2008 and 2017 were included from the Canadian HCC CHORD Database. Patients were classified as eligible or ineligible based on available CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH-2 trial SEC or MEC. Median overall survival (mOS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS A total of 730 patients were identified; and 172 (23.6%) received subsequent treatment. Patients who received subsequent treatment had longer mOS than those who did not (12.1 vs 3.3 months; P < .001). Using SEC, only 13.1% of patients would be eligible for cabozantinib, regorafenib, or ramucirumab. Expanding eligibility to include patients who meet MEC increased the proportion of eligible patients to 31.7%. Higher ineligibility for regorafenib and ramucirumab was driven by trial-specific criteria, including sorafenib intolerance (28%) for RESORCE and AFP <400 (58.9%) for REACH-2. CONCLUSIONS A small proportion of real-world HCC patients would be eligible for cabozantinib, regorafenib, or ramucirumab if SEC in clinical trials were followed, while more than double would be eligible if MEC were applied. Patients who received subsequent treatment had improved mOS, regardless of whether they met SEC or MEC.
-
7.
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.
-
8.
Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
Fleeman, N, Houten, R, Bagust, A, Richardson, M, Beale, S, Boland, A, Dundar, Y, Greenhalgh, J, Hounsome, J, Duarte, R, et al
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2020;(2):1-180
Abstract
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.
-
9.
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.
-
10.
Targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Huang, A, Yang, XR, Chung, WY, Dennison, AR, Zhou, J
Signal transduction and targeted therapy. 2020;(1):146
Abstract
The last 3 years have seen the emergence of promising targeted therapies for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib has been the mainstay of treatment for a decade and newer modalities were ineffective and did not confer any increased therapeutic benefit until the introduction of lenvatinib which was approved based on its non-inferiority to sorafenib. The subsequent success of regorafenib in HCC patients who progress on sorafenib treatment heralded a new era of second-line treatment and was quickly followed by ramucirumab, cabozantinib, and the most influential, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Over the same period combination therapies, including anti-angiogenesis agents with ICIs, dual ICIs and targeted agents in conjunction with surgery or other loco-regional therapies, have been extensively investigated and have shown promise and provided the basis for exciting clinical trials. Work continues to develop additional novel therapeutic agents which could potentially augment the presently available options and understand the underlying mechanisms responsible for drug resistance, with the goal of improving the survival of patients with HCC.