Sorafenib for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer

A Profile of Avelumab Plus Axitinib in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma

Until recently, the approved first-line treatment for metastatic RCC (mRCC) consisted of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR) monotherapy. The landscape of first-line treatment has been transformed in the last few years with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or VEGFR TKI plus ICI combinations. This article focuses on the profile of one of these ICI plus VEGFR TKI combination, avelumab plus axitinib. We detail the characteristics of each drug separately, and then we explore the rationale for their association, its efficacy and the resulting toxicity. Finally, we examine the factors associated with avelumab plus axitinib outcomes, and their impact on therapeutic strategy.

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.

Axitinib in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: design, development, and place in therapy

Since 2005, the approved first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma consists in tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Axitinib is an oral second-generation TKI and a potent VEGFR inhibitor with a half maximal inhibitory concentration for the VEGF family receptors 10-fold lower than other TKIs. Axitinib activity in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients has been studied in various settings and particularly as second-line treatment. In this setting, axitinib with clinically based dose escalation compared to sorafenib has demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival in a randomized Phase III trial leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval. In the first-line setting, axitinib failed to demonstrate improved efficacy over sorafenib, but the field of RCC treatment is rapidly changing with novel TKIs as cabozantinib or the emergence of check point inhibitors as nivolumab and the place of axitinib in therapy is therefore challenged. In this review, we focus on axitinib pharmacological and clinical properties in RCC patients and discuss its place in the treatment of patients with RCC.

Inhibition of the Ras/Raf interaction and repression of renal cancer xenografts in vivo by an enantiomeric iridium(iii) metal-based compound

Targeting protein-protein interactions (PPIs) offers tantalizing opportunities for therapeutic intervention for the treatment of human diseases. Modulating PPI interfaces with organic small molecules has been found to be exceptionally challenging, and few candidates have been successfully developed into clinical drugs. Meanwhile, the striking array of distinctive properties exhibited by metal compounds renders them attractive scaffolds for the development of bioactive leads. Here, we report the identification of iridium(iii) compounds as inhibitors of the H-Ras/Raf-1 PPI. The lead iridium(iii) compound 1 exhibited potent inhibitory activity against the H-Ras/Raf-1 interaction and its signaling pathway in vitro and in vivo, and also directly engaged both H-Ras and Raf-1-RBD in cell lysates. Moreover, 1 repressed tumor growth in a mouse renal xenograft tumor model. Intriguingly, the Δ-enantiomer of 1 showed superior potency in the biological assays compared to Λ-1 or racemic 1. These compounds could potentially be used as starting scaffolds for the development of more potent Ras/Raf PPI inhibitors for the treatment of kidney cancer or other proliferative diseases.

Phase I dose-finding study of sorafenib with FOLFOX4 as first-line treatment in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and efficacy of sorafenib in combination with FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/5-fluorouracil) as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer, we performed a phase I dose-finding study in nine evaluable patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

According to modified Fibonacci method, the design of this study was to guide elevation of the sorafenib dosage to the next level (from 200 mg twice daily to 400 mg twice daily and then, if tolerated, 600 mg twice daily). If the patient achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) after eight cycles of treatment, combination chemotherapy was scheduled to be discontinued and sorafenib monotherapy continued at the original dose until either disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

In sorafenib 200 mg twice daily group, DLT was observed in 1 of 6 patients, and in 400 mg twice daily group, it was observed in 2 of 3 patients. Seven of 9 (77.8%) evaluable patients achieved PR, with a median overall survival (OS) of 11.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.9-14.7] months. Common adverse effects include hand-foot syndrome, leukopenia, neutropenia, anorexia, and nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

Twice-daily dosing of sorafenib 200 mg in combination with FOLFOX4 was proven effective and safe for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, and could be an appropriate dosage for subsequent phase II clinical studies.