Search

Hari Deshpande1,3, Vicky Marler3, Julie Ann Sosa2,31Department of Medicine, 2Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, 3Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USAAbstract: Vandetanib (ZD6474) became the first systemic agent to be approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced medullary thyroid cancer. It was a proof of principle, because it is an orally bioavailable medication that targets the growth factors felt to be important in the pathogenesis of this disease, ie, the rearranged during transfection proto-oncogene and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. It was tested initially in two Phase II studies at doses of 100 mg and 300 mg daily. Although activity was seen at both doses, the higher dose was chosen for a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II study. This trial, which accrued more than 300 patients, showed a statistically significant benefit for the group taking vandetanib compared with those taking placebo medication. Progression-free survival for the vandetanib arm has not been reached, compared with 19 months for the placebo arm. The main toxicity appears to be diarrhea, although some patients experienced significant side effects, including torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, it is now necessary for practitioners to enroll in a Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy before being allowed to prescribe this medication, to reduce the risk of serious side effects occurring.Keywords: ZD6474, medullary thyroid cancer, vandetanib

Hari A Deshpande1, Scott Gettinger1, Julie Ann Sosa21Yale Cancer Center, Department of Medical Oncology, 2Division of Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USAIntroduction: Thyroid cancer is a rare disease with an incidence of around 37,000 cases per year. However, its incidence is rising faster than many other cancers and for men this disease ranks highest overall in the rate of increase (2.4% annual increase) in cancer deaths. As the number of radioactive iodine-resistant thyroid cancers increases, the need for newer treatments has become more important. Axitinib is one of many new small molecule inhibitors of growth factor receptors that have shown promise in the treatment of many cancers. It targets the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3.Aims: The goal of this article is to review the published evidence for the use of axitinib in the treatment of thyroid cancer and define its therapeutic potential. Evidence review: The major evidence of axitinib activity has appeared in meeting report abstracts. One phase II study has been published. This included patients with any histological type of thyroid cancer that was not amenable to treatment with radioactive iodine. Clinical potential: To date, in phase II clinical studies axitinib has demonstrated antitumor activity in advanced refractory thyroid cancer. As a monotherapy it resulted in a 30% response rate with another 38% of patients having stable disease. Axitinib appears to have a good tolerability profile, with hypertension being the most common grade 3 or greater side effect. Keywords: axitinib, thyroid cancer, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.