Matthew Guo

Eribulin versus dacarbazine in previously treated patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma: a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUNDnA non-randomised, phase 2 study showed activity and tolerability of eribulin in advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. In this phase 3 study, we aimed to compare overall survival in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma who received eribulin with that in patients who received dacarbazine (an active control).nnnMETHODSnWe did this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study across 110 study sites in 22 countries. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with intermediate-grade or high-grade advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma who had received at least two previous systemic regimens for advanced disease (including an anthracycline). Using an interactive voice and web response system, an independent statistician randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive eribulin mesilate (1·4 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850 mg/m(2), 1000 mg/m(2), or 1200 mg/m(2) [dose dependent on centre and clinician] intravenously on day 1) every 21 days until disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by disease type, geographical region, and number of previous regimens for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma and in blocks of six. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327885, and is closed to recruitment, but treatment and follow-up continue.nnnFINDINGSnBetween March 10, 2011 and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned patients to eribulin (n=228) or dacarbazine (n=224). Overall survival was significantly improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to dacarbazine (median 13·5 months [95% CI 10·9-15·6] vs 11·5 months [9·6-13·0]; hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·62-0·95]; p=0·0169). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 224 (99%) of 226 patients who received eribulin and 218 (97%) of 224 who received dacarbazine. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common in patients who received eribulin (152 [67%]) than in those who received dacarbazine (126 [56%]), as were deaths (10 [4%] vs 3 [1%]); one death (in the eribulin group) was considered treatment-related by the investigators.nnnINTERPRETATIONnOverall survival was improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to an active control, suggesting that eribulin could be a treatment option for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma.nnnFUNDINGnEisai.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUNDnIn a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.nnnMETHODSnThis was an open-label, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial that recruited patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who had not received treatment for advanced disease, at 154 sites in 20 countries throughout the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system-with region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; and bodyweight as stratification factors-to receive oral lenvatinib (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg or 8 mg/day for bodyweight <60 kg) or sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation until the date of death from any cause. The efficacy analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle, and only patients who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The non-inferiority margin was set at 1·08. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01761266.nnnFINDINGSnBetween March 1, 2013 and July 30, 2015, 1492 patients were recruited. 954 eligible patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476). Median survival time for lenvatinib of 13·6 months (95% CI 12·1-14·9) was non-inferior to sorafenib (12·3 months, 10·4-13·9; hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·79-1·06), meeting criteria for non-inferiority. The most common any-grade adverse events were hypertension (201 [42%]), diarrhoea (184 [39%]), decreased appetite (162 [34%]), and decreased weight (147 [31%]) for lenvatinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (249 [52%]), diarrhoea (220 [46%]), hypertension (144 [30%]), and decreased appetite (127 [27%]) for sorafenib.nnnINTERPRETATIONnLenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinib were consistent with those previously observed.nnnFUNDINGnEisai Inc.

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer in the Phase III SELECT Trial

Purpose In the Study of (E7080) Lenvatinib in Differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid (SELECT), lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). This prespecified subanalysis investigated the effect of age on the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, phase III study enrolled patients with histologically confirmed RR-DTC stratified by age (≤ 65 or > 65 years). Patients (N = 392) received lenvatinib 24 mg/day (n = 261) or placebo (n = 131). The primary end point was PFS; secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety. Results In both treatment arms, median ages were 56 (younger group) and 71 years (older group). PFS benefit was maintained with lenvatinib versus placebo in the younger and older age groups, with median PFS of 20.2 versus 3.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.27; P < .001) and 16.7 versus 3.7 months (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.43; P < .001), respectively. PFS did not differ with age in either treatment arm. OS was improved in older lenvatinib-treated patients versus placebo (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.91; P = .020). Younger lenvatinib-treated patients showed significantly higher ORR (72% v 55%; P = .0038), longer time to first dose reduction (3.7 v 1.5 months), and lower proportion of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (67% v 89%; P < .001) compared with older patients. Conclusion This subanalysis demonstrated improved PFS with lenvatinib treatment versus placebo in both age groups, although higher toxicity was observed in older patients. Despite the allowance of crossover after disease progression, the OS benefit was observed in older patients, suggesting that lenvatinib should be considered for treatment of patients of any age with RR-DTC.

Pooled analyses of eribulin in metastatic breast cancer patients with at least one prior chemotherapy.

Eribulin is indicated in the EU for advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients following ≥1 prior chemotherapy for advanced disease, and anthracycline and taxane in adjuvant/metastatic setting. We pooled 1644 patients from two phase III trials and found that eribulin significantly increased survival versus control, particularly in some subgroups of interest like HER2- and triple-negative disease.

Activity of Eribulin in Patients With Advanced Liposarcoma Demonstrated in a Subgroup Analysis From a Randomized Phase III Study of Eribulin Versus Dacarbazine

Purpose A phase III study comparing eribulin with dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS) or leiomyosarcoma showed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the eribulin arm, with a manageable toxicity profile. We now report the histology-specific subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared with dacarbazine in patients with LPS, an independently randomized stratified subgroup of this phase III trial. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years with advanced or metastatic dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic LPS incurable by surgery or radiotherapy were included. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and two or more prior systemic treatment regimens, including one with anthracycline, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1) every 21 days. OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety were analyzed. Results In the LPS subgroup, OS was significantly improved: 15.6 versus 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; Pxa0< .001) with eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively. Longer OS with eribulin was observed in all LPS histologic subtypes and in all geographic regions evaluated. PFS was also improved with eribulin versus dacarbazine (2.9 v 1.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; P = .0015). Adverse events were similar between arms. Conclusion In patients with previously treated LPS, eribulin was associated with significantly superior OS and PFS compared with dacarbazine. Eribulin represents an important treatment option for patients with LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited effective systemic treatments are available. Further studies are justified to explore the role of eribulin in earlier lines of therapy as well as in combination with other agents.

Treatment-emergent hypertension and efficacy in the phase 3 Study of (E7080) lenvatinib in differentiated cancer of the thyroid (SELECT): Treatment-Emergent HTN With Lenvatinib in RR-DTC

Hypertension (HTN) is an established class effect of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibition. In the phase 3 Study of (E7080) Lenvatinib in Differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid (SELECT) trial, HTN was the most frequent adverse event of lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGFR1, VEGFR2, VEGFR3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1), FGFR2, FGFR3, FGFR4, platelet‐derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRα), ret proto‐oncogene (RET), and stem cell factor receptor (KIT). This exploratory analysis examined treatment‐emergent hypertension (TE‐HTN) and its relation with lenvatinib efficacy and safety in SELECT.

A randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study to compare the efficacy and safety of eribulin to treatment of physician’s choice in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract Background Eribulin is a microtubule dynamics inhibitor with a novel mechanism of action. This phase 3 study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) in patients with heavily pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving eribulin to treatment of physician’s choice (TPC). Patients and methods Patients with advanced NSCLC who had receivedu2009≥2 prior therapies, including platinum-based doublet and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or TPC (gemcitabine, pemetrexed, vinorelbine, docetaxel). The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and objective response rate. Results Five hundred and forty patients were randomized to either eribulin (nu2009=u2009270) or TPC (nu2009=u2009270). Median OS for eribulin and TPC was the same: 9.5u2009months [hazard ratio (HR): 1.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.95–1.41; Pu2009=u20090.13]. Progression-free survival for eribulin and TPC was 3.0 and 2.8u2009months, respectively (HR: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.90–1.32; Pu2009=u20090.39). The objective response rate was 12% for eribulin and 15% for TPC. Clinical benefit rate (eribulin, 57%; TPC, 55%) and disease control rate (eribulin, 63%; TPC, 58%) were similar between treatment arms. The most common adverse event was neutropenia, which occurred in 57% of eribulin patients and 49% of TPC patients at all grades. Other non-hematologic side-effects were manageable and similar in both groups except for peripheral sensory neuropathy (all grades; eribulin, 16%; TPC, 9%). Conclusion This phase 3 study did not demonstrate superiority of eribulin over TPC with regard to overall survival. However, eribulin does show activity in the third-line setting for NSCLC. Trial registration ID www.ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01454934.

Prolonged duration of response in lenvatinib responders with thyroid cancer

We present an updated analysis of lenvatinib in radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) with new duration of response (DOR) data unavailable for the primary analysis. In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, patients ≥18 years old with measurable, pathologically confirmed RR-DTC with independent radiologic confirmation of disease progression within the previous 13 months were randomized 2:1 to oral lenvatinib 24u2009mg/day or placebo. The main outcome measures for this analysis are DOR and progression-free survival (PFS). The median DOR for all lenvatinib responders (patients with complete or partial responses; objective response rate: 60.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 54.2–66.1) was 30.0 months (95% CI 18.4–36.7) and was generally similar across subgroups. DOR was shorter in patients with greater disease burden and with brain and liver metastases. Updated median PFS was longer in the overall lenvatinib group vs placebo (19.4 vs 3.7 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.24; 99% CI 0.17–0.35; nominal Pu2009<u20090.0001). In lenvatinib responders, median PFS was 33.1 months (95% CI 27.8–44.6) vs 7.9 months (95% CI 5.8–10.7) in non-responders. The median DOR of 30.0 months seen with patients who achieved complete or partial responses with lenvatinib (60.2%) demonstrates that lenvatinib responders can have prolonged, durable and clinically meaningful responses. Prolonged PFS (33.1 months) was also observed in these lenvatinib responders.

Subgroup analysis of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second-line setting from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study of eribulin mesilate versus capecitabine

This post hoc subgroup analysis of a large phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus capecitabine in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer who received second-line treatment. In the phase 3 study, women with advanced/metastatic breast cancer and ≤xa03 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to eribulin mesilate 1.4xa0mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8, or twice-daily oral capecitabine 1.25xa0g/m2 on days 1–14 (21-day cycles). This analysis included 392 patients. Median overall survival was longer in patients receiving eribulin compared with capecitabine (16.1 vs 13.5xa0months, respectively; HR 0.77, Pxa0=xa00.026). Median progression-free survival and response rates were similar between arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles.