Phase Ib Study of Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE The immunomodulatory effect of lenvatinib (a multikinase inhibitor) on tumor microenvironments may contribute to antitumor activity when combined with programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) signaling inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We report results from a phase Ib study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) in unresectable HCC (uHCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS In this open-label multicenter study, patients with uHCC received lenvatinib (bodyweight $60 kg, 12 mg; , 60 kg, 8 mg) orally daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 21- day cycle. The study included a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) phase and an expansion phase (first-line patients). Primary objectives were safety/tolerability (DLT phase), and objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by modified RECIST (mRECIST) and RECIST version 1.1 (v1.1) per independent imaging review (IIR; expansion phase). RESULTS A total of 104 patients were enrolled. No DLTs were reported (n 5 6) in the DLT phase; 100 patients (expansion phase; included n 5 2 from DLT phase) had received no prior systemic therapy and had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (n 5 29) or C disease (n 5 71). At data cutoff, 37$ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 67% (grade 5, 3%) of patients. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has promising antitumor activity in uHCC. Toxicities were manageable, with no unexpected safety signals

Impact of subsequent therapies in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LEN + PEMBRO) or sunitinib (SUN) in the CLEAR study

4514 Background: In the open-label, randomized, phase 3 CLEAR study, LEN + PEMBRO had significant PFS (primary endpoint) and OS (key secondary endpoint) benefits over SUN among pts with aRCC in the 1L setting (Motzer 2021, NEJM). We evaluated PFS on next-line therapy (“PFS2”) and explored the effect of subsequent anticancer therapy on OS in the LEN + PEMBRO and SUN treatment arms of CLEAR. Methods: PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to disease progression (as assessed by investigator) on next-line treatment or death from any cause (whichever occurred first). PFS2 was evaluated in all pts randomly assigned to LEN 20 mg orally QD + PEMBRO 200 mg IV Q3W (n=355) or SUN 50 mg orally QD (4 wks on/2 wks off) (n=357) using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and compared between treatment arms via a log-rank test stratified by geographic region and MSKCC prognostic groups. The HR and corresponding CI were estimated using the Cox regression model with Efron’s method for ties, using the same stratification factors. A post hoc analysis accounting for the effect of subsequent anticancer therapy on OS (time from randomization to death from any cause) in the LEN + PEMBRO and SUN arms using 2-stage estimation was conducted. Results: Among pts who received subsequent anticancer therapy in the LEN + PEMBRO (n=117 pts) and SUN (n=206 pts) arms (Table), median time to next-line therapy was 12.2 mos (range 1.45–37.36) and 6.4 mos (range 0.39–28.52), respectively. Median duration of first subsequent anticancer therapy was 5.2 mos (range 0.10–30.23) in the LEN + PEMBRO arm and 6.8 mos (range 0.03–30.72) in the SUN arm. Among all pts, PFS2 was longer with LEN + PEMBRO than with SUN (median not reached vs 28.7 mos; HR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.39–0.65; nominal P<0.0001); PFS2 rates at 24 and 36 mos are in the Table. The unadjusted OS HR for LEN + PEMBRO vs SUN (from the primary analysis [Motzer 2021, NEJM]) was 0.66 (95% CI 0.49–0.88); the HR for OS adjusted for subsequent therapy was 0.54 (bootstrap 95% CI 0.39–0.72). Conclusions: LEN + PEMBRO had a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit over SUN in the CLEAR study. These findings remained consistent after accounting for subsequent therapies, as evidenced by prolonged PFS2 and adjusted OS. Results further support LEN + PEMBRO as a standard of care in 1L aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02811861. [Table: see text

Health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus versus sunitinib (CLEAR): a randomised, phase 3 study

Background: Results from the phase 3 CLEAR study showed that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes from the CLEAR study. Methods: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study was done across 200 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries. Patients were required to be 18 years or older, with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher. Patients who had received previous systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma were not eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to lenvatinib (oral 20 mg per day) plus pembrolizumab (intravenous 200 mg every 21 days), lenvatinib (oral 18 mg per day) plus everolimus (oral 5 mg per day) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (oral 50 mg per day, 4 weeks on followed by 2 weeks off). Patients were assigned to treatments with a computer-generated randomisation scheme and were stratified by geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was progression-free survival, and HRQOL was a secondary endpoint. Most HRQOL analyses were done in patients who underwent randomisation, received at least one dose of study treatment, and had any HRQOL data. Completion and compliance analyses were done in the full analysis set. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EQ-5D-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) preference questionnaire were administered at baseline and on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861, and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 355 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 to the sunitinib group. Median follow-up for HRQOL analyses was 12·9 months (IQR 5·6–22·3). Because of the promising efficacy and safety results of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, we focus the HRQOL results in this report on that combination versus sunitinib. Mean change from baseline in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was –1·75 (SE 0·59) versus –2·19 (0·66) for FKSI-DRS, –5·93 (0·86) versus –6·73 (0·94) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), and –4·96 (0·85) versus –6·64 (0·94) for the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS). Median time to first deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 9·14 weeks (95% CI 6·43–12·14) versus 12·14 weeks (9·14–15·29; HR 1·13 [95% CI 0·94–1·35], log-rank p=0·20) for FKSI-DRS, 12·00 weeks (7·29–15·14) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29–12·14; 0·88 [0·74–1·05], log-rank p=0·17) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 9·43 weeks (6·43–12·29) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29–12·00; 0·83 [0·70–0·99], log-rank p=0·041) for the EQ-5D VAS. Median time to definitive deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 134·14 weeks (95% CI 120·00–not estimable) versus 117·43 weeks (90·14–131·29; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·92], log-rank p=0·0081) for FKSI-DRS, 114·29 weeks (102·14–153·29) versus 75·14 weeks (57·29–105·14; 0·60 [0·47–0·77], log-rank p<0·0001) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 124·86 weeks (94·71–134·57) versus 74·86 weeks (54·14–96·00; 0·67 [0·53–0·85], log-rank p=0·0012) for the EQ-5D VAS. No outcomes on any of the instruments significantly favoured sunitinib over lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab. Most HRQOL comparisons of lenvatinib plus everolimus versus sunitinib were similar or favoured sunitinib. Interpretation: These HRQOL results demonstrate that patients given lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment had similar or favourable scores compared with patients given sunitinib, particularly with respect to time to definitive deterioration. These results support the efficacy and safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Funding: Eisai (Nutley, NJ, USA) and Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck &amp; Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA).</p

Phase 3 trial of lenvatinib (LEN) plus pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) or everolimus (EVE) versus sunitinib (SUN) monotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (CLEAR study)

269 Background: In pts with advanced RCC, second-line treatment with LEN + EVE prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with EVE alone. LEN + PEMBRO, also showed preliminary efficacious evidence in a phase 1/2 RCC study. Here, we describe the investigational study results of first-line LEN + PEMBRO or LEN + EVE versus SUN in pts with advanced RCC. Methods: Pts were randomized (1:1:1) to receive LEN 20 mg orally once daily + PEMBRO 200 mg IV every 3 weeks (wks); or LEN 18 mg + EVE 5 mg orally once daily; or SUN 50 mg orally once daily (4 wks on/2 wks off). Eligible pts had advanced RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Randomization was stratified by geographic region and MSKCC prognostic group. The primary endpoint was PFS by Independent Review Committee per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. A sequential approach was used to test PFS first, then OS and ORR. PFS and OS were compared across arms by a stratified log-rank test; hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by a stratified Cox regression model. Results: 1069 pts were randomized (Table). After a median follow-up of 27 months (data cutoff August 28, 2020), PFS was significantly improved with LEN + PEMBRO (median 24 months [mos]) vs SUN (median 9 mos; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.32–0.49) and LEN + EVE (median 15 mos) vs SUN (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53–0.80). OS was significantly longer with LEN + PEMBRO vs SUN (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49–0.88), whereas OS with LEN + EVE vs SUN was not statistically different (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88–1.50). ORR was significantly greater with LEN + PEMBRO (ORR 71%; complete response [CR] 16%) vs SUN (ORR 36%; CR 4%; odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.16–5.97) and LEN + EVE (ORR 54%; CR 10%) vs SUN (odds ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.57–2.93). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 72% of pts in the LEN + PEMBRO arm and 73% of pts in the LEN + EVE arm compared with 59% of pts in the SUN arm. Conclusions: LEN + PEMBRO demonstrated significant improvements in PFS, OS and ORR vs SUN. LEN + EVE demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR vs SUN. Safety was manageable and consistent with the known single-agent profiles. Clinical trial information: NCT02811861 . [Table: see text

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study

Background In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up.Methods This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression -free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861.Findings Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27middot8 months (IQR 20middot3-33middot8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19middot4 months (5middot5-32middot5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23middot3 months (95% CI 20middot8-27middot7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9middot2 months (6middot0-11middot0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0middot42 [95% CI 0middot34-0middot52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33middot7 months (IQR 27middot4-36middot9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33middot4 months (26middot7-36middot8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41middot5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38middot4-not estimable]; HR 0middot72 [95% CI 0middot55-0middot93]).Interpretation Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up.These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.Funding Eisai and Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme.Copyright (c) 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.)