Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Corrigendum: Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1223282.].

Characterization and Management of Adverse Reactions in Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer Receiving Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) regardless of microsatellite instability status or histologic subtype, who had disease progression following prior platinum-based therapy, in Study-309/KEYNOTE-775. The safety profile of the combination was generally consistent with that of each monotherapy drug and of the combination in patients with endometrial cancer and other solid tumors. Given the medical complexity of patients with aEC, this paper aims to characterize key adverse reactions (ARs) of the combination treatment and review management strategies, providing a guide for AR management to maximize anticancer benefits and minimize treatment discontinuation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In Study-309/KEYNOTE-775, patients received lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). The incidence and median time to the first onset of ARs, dose modifications, and concomitant medications are described. Key ARs characterized include hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, musculoskeletal disorders, nausea, decreased appetite, vomiting, stomatitis, weight decreased, proteinuria, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome.

RESULTS

As expected, the most common any-grade key ARs included: hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and musculoskeletal disorders. Grades 3-4 key ARs with incidence ≥10% included: hypertension, fatigue, and weight decreased. Key ARs first occurred within approximately 3 months of treatment initiation. AR management strategies consistent with the prescribing information and the study protocol are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Successful AR management strategies for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab include education of the patient and entire treatment team, preventative measures and close monitoring, and judicious use of dose modifications and concomitant medications.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID

NCT03517449.

Pembrolizumab With or Without Lenvatinib for First-Line Metastatic NSCLC With Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Tumor Proportion Score of at least 1% (LEAP-007): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was found to have antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated metastatic NSCLC. We evaluated first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in metastatic NSCLC in the LEAP-007 study (NCT03829332/NCT04676412).

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without targetable EGFR/ROS1/ALK aberrations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo once daily; all patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival (OS). We report results from a prespecified nonbinding futility analysis of OS performed at the fourth independent data and safety monitoring committee review (futility bound: one-sided p < 0.4960).

RESULTS

A total of 623 patients were randomized. At median follow-up of 15.9 months, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS was 14.1 (11.4‒19.0) months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 16.4 (12.6‒20.6) months in the placebo plus pembrolizumab group (hazard ratio = 1.10 [95% CI: 0.87‒1.39], p = 0.79744 [futility criterion met]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 6.6 (6.1‒8.2) months versus 4.2 (4.1‒6.2) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64‒0.95]). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.9% of patients (179 of 309) versus 24.4% (76 of 312). Per data and safety monitoring committee recommendation, the study was unblinded and lenvatinib and placebo were discontinued.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not have a favorable benefit‒risk profile versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy remains an approved treatment option in many regions for first-line metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without EGFR/ALK alterations.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms

Introduction

The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features.

Methods

In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology.

Results

In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern.

Conclusion

Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

Lenvatinib dose, efficacy, and safety in the treatment of multiple malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Lenvatinib is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown efficacy and manageable safety across multiple cancer types. The recommended starting doses for lenvatinib differ across cancer types and indications based on whether it is used as monotherapy or as combination therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers clinical trials that established the dosing paradigm and efficacy of lenvatinib and defined its adverse-event profile as a monotherapy; or in combination with the mTOR inhibitor, everolimus; or the anti-PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab; and/or chemotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Lenvatinib has been established as standard-of-care either as a monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer agents for the treatment of radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and endometrial carcinoma, and is being investigated further across several other tumor types. The dosing and adverse-event management strategies for lenvatinib have been developed through extensive clinical trial experience. Collectively, the data provide the rationale to start lenvatinib at the recommended doses and then interrupt or dose reduce as necessary to achieve required dose intensity for maximized patient benefit. The adverse-event profile of lenvatinib is consistent with that of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and clinicians are encouraged to review and adopt relevant symptom-management strategies.

Phase I/II study of single-agent lenvatinib in children and adolescents with refractory or relapsed solid malignancies and young adults with osteosarcoma (ITCC-050)☆

Background

We report results from the phase I dose-finding and phase II expansion part of a multicenter, open-label study of single-agent lenvatinib in pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors, including osteosarcoma and radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) (NCT02432274).

Patients and methods

The primary endpoint of phase I was to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of lenvatinib in children with relapsed/refractory solid malignant tumors. Phase II primary endpoints were progression-free survival rate at 4 months (PFS-4) for patients with relapsed/refractory osteosarcoma; and objective response rate/best overall response for patients with RR-DTC at the RP2D.

Results

In phase I, 23 patients (median age, 12 years) were enrolled. With lenvatinib 14 mg/m², three dose-limiting toxicities (hypertension, n = 2; increased alanine aminotransferase, n = 1) were reported, establishing 14 mg/m² as the RP2D. In phase II, 31 patients with osteosarcoma (median age, 15 years) and 1 patient with RR-DTC (age 17 years) were enrolled. For the osteosarcoma cohort, PFS-4 (binomial estimate) was 29.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.2% to 48.0%; full analysis set: n = 31], PFS-4 by Kaplan–Meier estimate was 37.8% (95% CI 20.0% to 55.4%; full analysis set) and median PFS was 3.0 months (95% CI 1.8-5.4 months). The objective response rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.8% to 22.1%). The patient with RR-DTC had a best overall response of partial response. Some 60.8% of patients in phase I and 22.6% of patients in phase II (with osteosarcoma) had treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events of grade ≥3.

Conclusions

The lenvatinib RP2D was 14 mg/m². Single-agent lenvatinib showed activity in osteosarcoma; however, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. The safety profile was consistent with previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor studies. Lenvatinib is currently being investigated in osteosarcoma in combination with chemotherapy as part of a randomized, controlled trial (NCT04154189), in pediatric solid tumors in combination with everolimus (NCT03245151), and as a single agent in a basket study with enrollment ongoing (NCT04447755).

•

The recommended phase II dose of lenvatinib in children with relapsed/refractory solid malignant tumors is 14 mg/m².

•

This dose is equivalent to the recommended dose of 24 mg/day for single-agent lenvatinib in adults with DTC.

•

Single-agent lenvatinib showed activity of interest in children and young adults with osteosarcoma.

•

Based on this initial report, lenvatinib is currently being investigated in combination with chemotherapy in osteosarcoma.

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

While survival rates for patients with relapsed/refractory osteosarcoma are low, kinase inhibitors have shown efficacy in its treatment. The multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib, plus ifosfamide and etoposide, showed antitumor activity in a Phase II study in patients with relapsed/refractory osteosarcoma. This Phase II randomized controlled trial (OLIE) will assess whether the combination of lenvatinib + ifosfamide + etoposide is superior to ifosfamide + etoposide alone in children, adolescents and young adults with relapsed/refractory osteosarcoma. The primary end point is progression-free survival; secondary and exploratory end points include, but are not limited to, overall survival, objective response rate, safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetic characterization of lenvatinib in the combination treatment, quality of life and quantification of baseline unresectable lesions that are converted to resectable.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with either treatment-naive or previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Study 111/KEYNOTE-146): a phase 1b/2 study

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an unmet need for options to address disease progression during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib are active as monotherapies in RCC; thus, we aimed to evaluate the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients.

METHODS

We report results of the metastatic RCC cohort from an open-label phase 1b/2 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients aged at least 18 years with selected solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Oral lenvatinib at 20 mg was given once daily along with intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg once every 3 weeks. Patients remained on study drug treatment until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy was analysed in patients with clear cell metastatic RCC receiving study drug by previous therapy grouping: treatment naive, previously treated ICI naive (previously treated with at least one line of therapy but not with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 ICI), and ICI pretreated (ie, anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) patients. Safety was analysed in all enrolled and treated patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate at week 24 per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST) by investigator assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02501096) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT2017-000300-26), and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between July 21, 2015, and Oct 16, 2019, 145 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had non-clear cell RCC and were excluded from the efficacy analysis (one in the treatment-naive group and one in the ICI-pretreated group); thus, the population evaluated for efficacy comprised 143 patients (n=22 in the treatment-naive group, n=17 in the previously treated ICI-naive group, and n=104 in the ICI-pretreated group). All 145 enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. The median follow-up was 19·8 months (IQR 14·3-28·4). The number of patients with an objective response at week 24 by irRECIST was 16 (72·7%, 95% CI 49·8-89·3) of 22 treatment-naive patients, seven (41·2%, 18·4-67·1) of 17 previously treated ICI-naive patients, and 58 (55·8%, 45·7-65·5) of 104 ICI-pretreated patients. Of 145 patients, 82 (57%) had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and ten (7%) had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (30 [21%] of 145 patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 36 (25%) patients, and there were three treatment-related deaths (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sudden death, and pneumonia).

INTERPRETATION

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed encouraging antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile and might be an option for post-ICI treatment of metastatic RCC.

FUNDING

Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Positively selected modifications in the pore of TbAQP2 allow pentamidine to enter Trypanosoma brucei

Mutations in the Trypanosoma brucei aquaporin AQP2 are associated with resistance to pentamidine and melarsoprol. We show that TbAQP2 but not TbAQP3 was positively selected for increased pore size from a common ancestor aquaporin. We demonstrate that TbAQP2’s unique architecture permits pentamidine permeation through its central pore and show how specific mutations in highly conserved motifs affect drug permeation. Introduction of key TbAQP2 amino acids into TbAQP3 renders the latter permeable to pentamidine. Molecular dynamics demonstrates that permeation by dicationic pentamidine is energetically favourable in TbAQP2, driven by the membrane potential, although aquaporins are normally strictly impermeable for ionic species. We also identify the structural determinants that make pentamidine a permeant although most other diamidine drugs are excluded. Our results have wide-ranging implications for optimising antitrypanosomal drugs and averting cross-resistance. Moreover, these new insights in aquaporin permeation may allow the pharmacological exploitation of other members of this ubiquitous gene family.

African sleeping sickness is a potentially deadly illness caused by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei. The disease is treatable, but many of the current treatments are old and are becoming increasingly ineffective. For instance, resistance is growing against pentamidine, a drug used in the early stages in the disease, as well as against melarsoprol, which is deployed when the infection has progressed to the brain. Usually, cases resistant to pentamidine are also resistant to melarsoprol, but it is still unclear why, as the drugs are chemically unrelated.

Studies have shown that changes in a water channel called aquaglyceroporin 2 (TbAQP2) contribute to drug resistance in African sleeping sickness; this suggests that it plays a role in allowing drugs to kill the parasite. This molecular ‘drain pipe’ extends through the surface of T. brucei, and should allow only water and a molecule called glycerol in and out of the cell. In particular, the channel should be too narrow to allow pentamidine or melarsoprol to pass through. One possibility is that, in T. brucei, the TbAQP2 channel is abnormally wide compared to other members of its family. Alternatively, pentamidine and melarsoprol may only bind to TbAQP2, and then ‘hitch a ride’ when the protein is taken into the parasite as part of the natural cycle of surface protein replacement.

Alghamdi et al. aimed to tease out these hypotheses. Computer models of the structure of the protein were paired with engineered changes in the key areas of the channel to show that, in T. brucei, TbAQP2 provides a much broader gateway into the cell than observed for similar proteins. In addition, genetic analysis showed that this version of TbAQP2 has been actively selected for during the evolution process of T. brucei. This suggests that the parasite somehow benefits from this wider aquaglyceroporin variant.

This is a new resistance mechanism, and it is possible that aquaglyceroporins are also larger than expected in other infectious microbes. The work by Alghamdi et al. therefore provides insight into how other germs may become resistant to drugs.

A phase I/II study of lenvatinib (LEN) plus everolimus (EVE) in recurrent and refractory pediatric solid tumors, including CNS tumors

10527

Background: Proangiogenic signaling pathways cooperate with mTOR-mediated regulation of cell growth and maintenance to drive development of many pediatric cancers. We report results of the phase 1 dose escalation for LEN + EVE in pediatric patients (pts) with recurrent solid and CNS tumors conducted by Children’s Oncology Group. Methods: Dose escalation was conducted using a rolling-6 design. Pts received LEN + EVE orally once daily in continuous 28-day cycles. Dose determination was based on toxicity (CTCAE v4.03) during cycle 1. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of plasma LEN and EVE were monitored. Results: 17 pts were enrolled (9 male; 8 female). Median (range) age was 10 (3–21) years; 8 pts had CNS tumors. 17 were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Enrollment started at dose level 1 (DL 1; LEN 11 mg/m2 + EVE 3 mg/m2) and, after treatment of 3 pts, was initially de-escalated to DL –1 (LEN 8 mg/m2 + EVE 3 mg/m2) due to DLT of proteinuria in 1 pt and self-resolving headache in another who, on review, did not meet the definition of DLT. No pts enrolled at DL –1 (n = 5) experienced DLT. Overall, DLTs were observed in 2 of the first 6 patients enrolled at DL 1: the initial pt with proteinuria and 1 more pt with hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesteremia. Because 2 pts had reversible DLT of different categories not related to Cmax or AUC, the DL 1 cohort was expanded to enroll an additional 6 pts, none of whom had DLT. Thus, 2/12 pts experienced DLT at DL 1. Overall, most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; ≥ 50% of pts) were diarrhea, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache, and hypothyroidism. 47% of pts had ≥ 1 treatment-related TEAE grade ≥ 3; the most frequent was proteinuria (n = 2). On cycle 1 day 15, mean (SD) Cmax (ng/mL) for LEN at DL –1 and DL 1, respectively, was 314 (150) and 359 (270), and mean (SD) AUC0-8h (hr•ng/mL) for LEN was 1570 (935) and 1780 (1100). Taking all toxicities and PK into account, no further dose escalation was recommended. Best overall response in pts with measurable disease was 2/11 stable disease, 7/11 progressive disease, and 2/11 not evaluable. Conclusions: The recommended phase 2 dose of LEN + EVE in children with solid and CNS tumors was LEN 11 mg/m2 + EVE 3 mg/m2, with maximum daily doses capped at 18 mg and 5 mg, respectively. The toxicity profile was no more than additive to single-agent therapy. PK exposure was comparable with children on single-agent LEN and to adults receiving LEN + EVE. Enrollment to the phase 2 portion (Ewing sarcoma, high-grade glioma, and rhabdomyosarcoma strata) is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03245151.