A Randomized Study of Lenvatinib 18 mg vs 24 mg in Patients With Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Background: Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor approved to treat radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) at a starting dose of 24 mg/day. This study explored, in a double-blinded fashion, whether a starting dose of 18 mg/day would provide comparable efficacy with reduced toxicity. Methods: Patients with RR-DTC were randomized to lenvatinib 24 mg/day or 18 mg/day. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the odds ratio noninferiority margin was 0.4. The primary safety endpoint was frequency of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) as of week 24. Tumors were assessed using RECIST v1.1. TEAEs were monitored and recorded. Results: The ORRwk24 was 57.3% (95% CI 46.1, 68.5) in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 40.3% (95% CI 29.3, 51.2) in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, with an odds ratio (18/24 mg) of 0.50 (95% CI 0.26, 0.96). As of week 24, the rates of TEAEs grade ≥3 were 61.3% in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 57.1% in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, a difference of -4.2% (95% CI -19.8, 11.4). Conclusion: A starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to a starting dose of 24 mg/day as assessed by ORRwk24 in patients with RR-DTC. The results represent a clinically meaningful difference in ORRwk24. The safety profile was comparable, with no clinically relevant difference between arms. These results support the continued use of the approved starting dose of lenvatinib 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC and adjusting the dose as necessary. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02702388

Hypogonadism in male cancer patients: A cross-sectional study

Introduction. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the USA (2). Studies have shown a coexistence of cancer and hypogonadism (9,31,13). The majority of patients with cancer develop cachexia, which cannot be solely explained by anorexia seen in these patients. Testosterone is a male sex hormone which is known to increase muscle mass and strength, maintain cancellous bone mass, and increase cortical bone mass, in addition to improving libido, sexual desire, and fantasy (14). If a high prevalence of hypogonadism is detected in male cancer patients, and a significant difference exists in testosterone levels in cancer patients with cachexia versus those without cachexia, testosterone may be administered in future randomized trials to help alleviate cachexia. Study group and design The study group consisted of male cancer patients and non-cancer controls aged between 40 and 70 years. The primary study design was cross-sectional with a sample size of 135. The present data analysis is done on a subset convenience sample of 72 patients recruited between November 2006 and January 2010. Methods. Patients aged 40-70 years with or without a diagnosis of cancer were recruited into the study. All patients with a BMI over 35, significant edema, non-melanomatous skin cancer, current alcohol or illicit drug abuse, concomitant usage of medications interfering with gonadal axis, and anabolic agents, patients on tube feeds or parenteral nutrition within 3 months prior to enrollment were excluded from the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Baylor College of Medicine and is being conducted at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Houston. My thesis is a pilot data analysis that employs a smaller subset convenience sample of 72 patients determined by using the data available for the 72 patients (of the intended sample of 135 patients) recruited between November 2006 and January 2010. The primary aim of this analysis is to compare the proportion of patients with hypogonadism in the male cancer and non-cancer control groups, and to evaluate if a significant difference exists with respect to testosterone levels in male cancer patients with cachexia versus those without cachexia. The procedures of the study relevant to the current data analysis included blood collection to measure levels of testosterone and measurement of body weight to categorize cancer patients into cancer cachexia and cancer non-cachexia sub-groups. Results. After logarithmic transformation of data of cancer and control groups, the unpaired t test with unequal variances was done. The proportion of patients with hypogonadism in the male cancer and non-cancer control groups was 47.5% and 22.7% with a Pearson chi2 statistic of 1.6036 and a p value of 0.205. Comparing the mean calculated Bioavailable testosterone in male cancer patients and non-cancer controls resulted in a t statistic of 21.83 and a p value less than 0.001. When the cancer group alone was taken, the mean free testosterone, calculated bioavailable testosterone and total testosterone levels in the cancer non-cachexia sub-group were 3.93, 5.09, 103.51 respectively and in the cancer cachexia sub-group were 3.58, 4.17, 84.08 respectively. The unpaired t test with equal variances showed that the two sub-groups had p values of 0.2015, 0.1842, and 0.4894 with respect to calculated bioavailable testosterone, free testosterone, and total testosterone respectively. Conclusions. The small sample size of this exploratory study, resulting in a small power, does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions. For the given sub-sample, the proportion of patients with hypogonadism in the cancer group was not significantly different from that of patients with hypogonadism in the control group. Inferences on prevalence of hypogonadism in male cancer patients could not be made in this paper as the sub-sample is small and therefore not representative of the general population. However, there was a statistically significant difference in calculated Bioavailable testosterone levels in male cancer patients versus non-cancer controls. Analysis of cachectic and non-cachectic patients within the male cancer group showed no significant difference in testosterone levels (total, free, and calculated bioavailable testosterone) between both sub-groups. However, to re-iterate, this study is exploratory and the results may change once the complete dataset is obtained and analyzed. It however serves as a good template to guide further research and analysis

Pembrolizumab in a Patient with Treatment-Naïve Unresectable BRAF-Mutation Negative Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer

Immune check point inhibitor (ICI) therapy can be a potentially effective salvage treatment for anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) with progression despite standard of care therapies. We report a case of unresectable treatment-naïve ATC showing a dramatic and durable response to first-line pembrolizumab therapy. A 69-year-old male presented with a large, right-sided neck mass associated with compressive symptoms. A neck ultrasound showed a large, right-sided, and highly suspicious thyroid nodule. A fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy revealed tumor cells consistent with ATC that were positive for PD-L1, with an expression score of >95% and negative for the BRAF V600E mutation. Imaging studies were negative for distant metastases. The disease was declared surgically inoperable, and the patient declined chemotherapy/radiation therapy (XRT), but agreed to ICI therapy with intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every three weeks. The patient has received 25 doses of pembrolizumab to date, with rapid resolution of symptoms and a significant reduction in tumor size. He remains alive without disease progression 18 months since initial diagnosis

Tumour-agnostic efficacy and safety of selpercatinib in patients with RET fusion-positive solid tumours other than lung or thyroid tumours (LIBRETTO-001): a phase 1/2, open-label, basket trial

Background Selpercatinib is a first-in-class, highly selective RET kinase inhibitor with CNS activity that has shown efficacy in RET fission-positive lung and thyroid cancers. RET fusions occur rarely in other tumour types. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of selpercatinib in a diverse group of patients with RET fusion-positive non-lung or thyroid advanced solid tumours (ie, a tumour-agnostic population). Methods LIBRETTO-001 is an ongoing phase 1/2, single-group, open-label, basket trial of selpercatinib in patients aged 18 years and older (or >= 12 years, where permitted by regulatory authorities) with RET-altered cancers. The trial is being conducted at 89 sites in 16 countries; the tumour-agnostic population was enrolled at 30 sites (outpatient and inpatient medical facilities) across eight countries. A prespecified interim analysis of LIBRETTO-001 was planned to investigate the efficacy and safety of selpercatinib in a tumour-agnostic population of patients with RET fusionpositive advanced solid tumours; the data cutoff date was Sept 24, 2021. Eligible patients had disease progression on or after previous systemic therapies or no satisfactory therapeutic options and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Selpercatinib was orally administered in a continuous 28-day cycle. Patients enrolled in the phase 1 dose-escalation portion received between 20 mg once daily or 20-240 mg twice daily; the phase 2 recommended dose was 160 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate as determined by the independent review committee. The efficacy-evaluable tumour-agnostic population was defined as patients with RET fusion-positive cancer, other than non-small-cell lung cancer and thyroid cancer, who had at least 6 months of follow-up from the first study dose at the time of data cutoff (all responders at the time of data cutoff were followed up for at least 6 months from the onset of response unless they progressed or died earlier). Safety was analysed in the tumour-agnostic population of patients who had been enrolled and received selpercatinib on or before the data cutoff date. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03157128) and is still recruiting participants. Findings Between Dec 4, 2017, and Aug 4, 2021, 45 patients with RET fusion-positive tumour-agnostic cancers were enrolled from the phase 1 dose-escalation and phase 2 dose-expansion cohorts of the trial. 43 (96%) of 45 patients received a starting dose of selpercatinib at the recommended dose of 160 mg twice daily. Of the two patients who did not, one received a dose of 160 mg twice daily via intra-patient dose escalation (as allowed per protocol for patients enrolled in the phase 1 portion of the study at lower doses) and the other patient's starting dose of 120 mg twice daily was never escalated. Of the 41 efficacy-evaluable patients, the objective response rate as per the independent review committee was 43.9% (95% CI 28. 5-60. 3; 18 of 41 patients). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (ten [22%] of 45 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase (seven [16%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (six [13%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in 18 (40%) of 45 patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Selpercatinib showed clinically meaningful activity in the RET fission-positive tumour-agnostic population, with a safety profile consistent with that observed in other indications. Comprehensive genomic testing that includes RET fusions will be crucial for identifying patients who might benefit from selpercatinib. Copyright (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Health-related quality-of-life analyses from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase 2 study of patients with differentiated thyroid cancer treated with lenvatinib 18 or 24 mg/day.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 2 double-blind Study 211, a starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day was compared with the approved starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Predefined criteria for noninferiority for efficacy in the 18 mg arm were not met; safety was similar in both arms. Impact of lenvatinib treatment on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint of Study 211. METHODS: Patients with RR-DTC were randomly assigned to a blinded starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day or 24 mg/day. HRQoL was assessed at baseline, every 8 weeks until Week 24, then every 16 weeks, and at the off-treatment visit, using the EQ-5D-3L and FACT-G instruments. Completion and compliance rates, mean change from baseline, and times to first and definitive deterioration were evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline EQ-5D and FACT-G scores, and overall changes from baseline, were comparable between patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day (n = 77) and 24 mg/day arms (n = 75). For the 18 mg versus 24 mg arms, least squares mean differences were -0.42 (95% CI -4.88, 4.03) for EQ-5D-VAS and 0.47 (95% CI -3.45, 4.39) for FACT-G total. Time to first deterioration did not significantly favor either arm; EQ-5D-VAS HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.93 (95% CI 0.61-1.40), EQ-5D-HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.68 (95% CI 0.44-1.05), FACT-G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.73 (95% CI 0.48-1.12). Time to definitive deterioration did not significantly favor either arm, though EQ-5D-VAS showed a trend in favor of the 24 mg arm (HR [18 mg/24 mg] 1.72; 95% CI 0.99-3.01); EQ-5D-HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.96 (95% CI 0.57-1.63), FACT-G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.72 (95% CI 0.43-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: In Study 211, HRQoL for patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day arm was not statistically different from that of patients in the 24 mg/day arm. These data further support the use of the approved lenvatinib starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC. GOV NUMBER: NCT02702388