Lenvatinib for the treatment of radioiodine-refractory follicular and papillary thyroid cancer

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.

Lenvatinib - A multikinase inhibitor for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer

Lenvatinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in February 2015. In a pivotal phase III study of 392 patients with progressive radioiodine-refractory thyroid cancer, the overall response rate of patients receiving lenvatinib was 64.8%, with complete response in four patients. The median progression-free survival was 18.3 months in the lenvatinib arm versus 3.6 months in patients receiving placebo. Median overall survival was not reached in either arm. Lenvatinib is a promising new treatment for patients with radioiodine (iodine-131)-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer.

Sorafenib for the treatment of thyroid cancer: an updated review

INTRODUCTION

Sorafenib (Nexavar) is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor targeting B-type Raf kinase (BRAF) (both wild type and BRAF(V600E)), VEGFR1, VEGFR2, VEGFR3, PDGFRβ and RET (also RET/PTC) influencing both differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) cell proliferation and angiogenesis.

AREAS COVERED

Encouraging results achieved in numerous Phase II trials were confirmed in a Phase III study conducted in radioiodine-refractory DTC. Sorafenib compared to placebo significantly prolongs progression-free survival, 10.8 versus 5.8 months, respectively. However, its administration resulted mainly in disease stabilization. No complete remission was obtained in any study. Beneficial effects were also demonstrated for medullary and anaplastic thyroid cancer; however further studies fulfilling evidence based medicine criteria are necessary. Its toxicity profile is convergent with other VEGFR inhibitors. The most common treatment-related side-effects involve skin toxicity (predominantly hand-foot skin reaction, different rashes and alopecia), gastrointestinal disturbances (diarrhea, abdominal pain), constitutional adverse reactions (anorexia, weight loss, fatigue) and hypertension. Although most adverse reactions are manageable, > 50% of patients required dose reduction.

EXPERT OPINION

Sorafenib constitutes the first line treatment option in advanced, radioiodine-refractory DTC. However, there are still no data on its efficacy in patients progressed after another tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Other applications of the drug, such as use as adjuvant therapy to 131-I treatment, requires further studies.