OLIE, ITCC-082: a Phase II trial of lenvatinib plus ifosfamide and etoposide in relapsed/refractory osteosarcoma

Lenvatinib Plus Ifosfamide and Etoposide in Children and Young Adults With Relapsed Osteosarcoma: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The combination of ifosfamide and etoposide (IE) is commonly used to treat relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma; however, second-line treatment recommendations vary across guidelines.

Objective

To evaluate whether the addition of lenvatinib to IE (LEN-IE) improves outcomes in children and young adults with relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The OLIE phase II, open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted globally across Europe, Asia and the Pacific, and North America. From March 22, 2020, through November 11, 2021, the trial enrolled patients aged 2 to 25 years with high-grade osteosarcoma, measurable or evaluable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), and 1 to 2 prior lines of systemic treatment. The data analyses were performed between March 22, 2020 (first patient in) and June 22, 2022 (data cutoff for the primary analysis), and September 29, 2023 (end of study final database lock).

Interventions

The OLIE trial assessed the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib (14 mg/m2 taken orally once daily) combined with up to 5 cycles of ifosfamide (3000 mg/m2 intravenously) and etoposide (100 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 1 to 3 of each cycle vs IE alone at the same doses. Patients randomized to IE could cross over to receive lenvatinib upon disease progression by independent imaging review.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1 by independent imaging review. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the PFS distribution, with a prespecified 1-sided significance threshold of .025 by stratified log-rank test. Secondary end points included PFS rate at 4 months and overall survival. Adverse events were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 81 patients were enrolled (median [IQR] age, 15.0 [12.0-18.0] years; 46 males [56.8%]), with 40 in the LEN-IE arm and 41 in the IE arm. Median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.7-8.2 months) for the LEN-IE arm and 5.5 months (95% CI, 2.9-6.5 months) for the IE arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.08; 1-sided P = .04). The rate of PFS at 4 months was 76.3% (95% CI, 59.3%-86.9%) in the LEN-IE arm and 66.0% (95% CI, 47.7%-79.2%) in the IE arm. Median overall survival was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.1 months to not estimable) with LEN-IE and 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.2 months to not estimable) with IE (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.60-2.70; 1-sided nominal P = .75). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35 of 39 patients (89.7%) in the LEN-IE arm and 31 of 39 patients (79.5%) in the IE arm.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although LEN-IE did not meet prespecified statistical significance for improved PFS vs IE, this study demonstrates the importance of international collaboration and randomized clinical trials in patients with relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma and may inform future trial design.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04154189.

A systematic review of recent phase-II trials in refractory or recurrent osteosarcoma: Can we inform future trial design?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To analyze changes in recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma phase II trials over time to inform future trials in this population with poor prognosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of trials registered on trial registries between 01/01/2017-14/02/2022. Comparison of 98 trials identified between 2003 and 2016. Publication search/analysis for both periods, last update on 01/12/2022.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2022, 71 phase-II trials met our selection criteria (19 osteosarcoma-specific trials, 14 solid tumor trials with and 38 trials without an osteosarcoma-specific stratum). The trial number increased over time: 13.9 versus 7 trials/year (p = 0.06). Monotherapy remained the predominant treatment (62% vs. 62%, p = 1). Targeted therapies were increasingly evaluated (66% vs. 41%, P = 0.001). Heterogeneity persisted in the trial characteristics. The inclusion criteria were measurable disease (75%), evaluable disease (14%), and surgical remission (11%). 82% of the trials included pediatric or adolescent patients. Biomarker-driven trials accounted for 25% of the total trials. The survival endpoint use (rather than response) slightly increased (40% versus 31%), but the study H1/H0 hypotheses remained heterogeneous. Single-arm designs predominated over multiarm trials (n = 7). Available efficacy data on 1361 osteosarcoma patients in 58 trials remained disappointing, even though 21% of these trials were considered positive, predominantly those evaluating multi-targeted kinase inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Despite observed changes in trial design and an increased number of trials investigating new therapies, high heterogeneity remained with respect to patient selection, study design, primary endpoints, and statistical hypotheses in recently registered phase II trials for osteosarcoma. Continued optimization of trial design informed by a deeper biological understanding should strengthen the development of new therapies.