Search

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and RET signaling. This placebo-controlled trial assessed whether vandetanib conferred an overall survival benefit in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after prior treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor and one or two chemotherapy regimens., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare the outcomes between the two arms with respect to overall survival., Results: Overall, 924 patients received vandetanib (n = 617) or placebo (n = 307). No significant increase in overall survival was detected in the vandetanib cohort compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95.2% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P = .527); median overall survival was 8.5 months versus 7.8 months for vandetanib and placebo patients, respectively. Statistically significant advantages favoring vandetanib were observed for progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.63; P < .001) and objective response rate (2.6% v 0.7%; P = .028). Postprogression therapy was balanced across the cohorts in both number and type. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies of vandetanib 300 mg; common events occurring with a greater frequency in the vandetanib arm versus placebo included diarrhea (46% v 11%), rash (42% v 11%), and hypertension (26% v 3%)., Conclusion: The study did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit for vandetanib versus placebo. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with vandetanib.

Purpose: There is no effective therapy for patients with advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC). Vandetanib, a once-daily oral inhibitor of RET kinase, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling, has previously shown antitumor activity in a phase II study of patients with advanced hereditary MTC., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced MTC were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d or placebo. On objective disease progression, patients could elect to receive open-label vandetanib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), determined by independent central Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) assessments., Results: Between December 2006 and November 2007, 331 patients (mean age, 52 years; 90% sporadic; 95% metastatic) were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib (231) or placebo (100). At data cutoff (July 2009; median follow-up, 24 months), 37% of patients had progressed and 15% had died. The study met its primary objective of PFS prolongation with vandetanib versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.69; P < .001). Statistically significant advantages for vandetanib were also seen for objective response rate (P < .001), disease control rate (P = .001), and biochemical response (P < .001). Overall survival data were immature at data cutoff (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.65). A final survival analysis will take place when 50% of the patients have died. Common adverse events (any grade) occurred more frequently with vandetanib compared with placebo, including diarrhea (56% v 26%), rash (45% v 11%), nausea (33% v 16%), hypertension (32% v 5%), and headache (26% v 9%)., Conclusion: Vandetanib demonstrated therapeutic efficacy in a phase III trial of patients with advanced MTC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00410761).

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens., Patients and Methods: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted., Results: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively)., Conclusion: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients (N = 534) were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 100 mg/d plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) every 21 days (n = 256) or placebo plus pemetrexed (n = 278). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point; overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, time to deterioration of symptoms, and safety were secondary assessments., Results: There was no significant difference in PFS between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 97.58% CI, 0.69 to 1.06; P = .108). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR, 0.86; 97.54% CI, 0.65 to 1.13; P = .219). Statistically significant improvements in objective response rate (19% v 8%; P < .001) and time to deterioration of symptoms (HR, 0.71; P = .0052; median, 18.1 weeks for vandetanib and 12.1 weeks for placebo) were observed in patients receiving vandetanib. Adding vandetanib to pemetrexed increased the incidence of some adverse events, including rash, diarrhea, and hypertension, while showing a reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting, anemia, fatigue, and asthenia with no reduction in the dose intensity of pemetrexed., Conclusion: This study did not meet the primary end point of statistically significant PFS prolongation with vandetanib plus pemetrexed versus placebo plus pemetrexed. The vandetanib combination showed a significantly higher objective response rate and a significant delay in the time to worsening of lung cancer symptoms versus the placebo arm as well as an acceptable safety profile in this patient population.

Purpose: There is an unmet need for biomarkers for identifying patients likely to benefit from anticancer treatments, selecting dose, and understanding mechanisms of resistance. Plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and soluble VEGF receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2) are known to be modulated by VEGF pathway inhibitors. It is unknown whether chemotherapy or VEGFR inhibitor/chemotherapy combinations induce changes in these or other cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) and whether such changes could be markers of benefit., Methods: Thirty-five plasma CAFs were analyzed using multiplexed bead arrays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays from 123 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in a randomized phase II study who received vandetanib, a VEGFR and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, monotherapy carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP), or the combination (VCP). Changes in CAFs at days 8, 22, and 43 from baseline were correlated with progression risk., Results: VEGF increased and sVEGFR-2 decreased by day 43 in the vandetanib arm, whereas a distinct pattern was observed in the CP and VCP arms, with significant decreases in interleukin (IL) -12, IL-1 receptor antagonist, and matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) and increased macrophage chemoattractant protein 1. In each treatment arm, changes in different markers were associated with progression risk. For example, increases in IL-8 with VCP, MMP-9 with CP, and VEGF with vandetanib monotherapy were associated with increased progression risk, and increase in intercellular adhesion molecule 1 with vandetanib was associated with decreased risk., Conclusion: Vandetanib and chemotherapy treatment led to distinct patterns of CAF changes; the combination resembled chemotherapy alone. Changes in specific CAFs correlated with clinical outcome, but markers differed for each treatment arm. CAF profiling may provide insights into the biologic effects of treatment and identify drug-specific markers of activity and clinical benefit.

Purpose: This double-blind randomized phase II trial examined whether vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial and epidermal growth factor receptors, could prolong progression-free survival in responding patients with small-cell lung cancer., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to combination chemotherapy (+/- thoracic or prophylactic cranial radiation) received oral vandetanib 300 mg/d or matched placebo. With 100 patients and 77 events, the study had 80% power to detect an improvement in median progression-free survival from 4 to 6.5 months (one-sided, 10%-level test)., Results: Between May 2003 and March 2006, 107 patients were accrued; 46 had limited disease and 61 extensive disease. There were fewer patients with a performance status of 0 (n = 11 v 20), and fewer had CR to initial therapy (n = 4 v 8) in the vandetanib arm. Vandetanib patients had more toxicity and required more dose modifications for gastrointestinal toxicity and rash. Asymptomatic Corrected QT interval (QTC) prolongation was observed in eight vandetanib patients. Median progression-free survival for vandetanib and placebo was 2.7 and 2.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 80% CI, 0.75 to 1.36; one-sided P = .51). Overall survival for vandetanib was 10.6 versus 11.9 months for placebo (HR, 1.43; 80% CI, 1.00 to 2.05; one-sided P = 0.9). In planned subgroup analyses, a significant interaction was noted (P = .01): limited-stage vandetanib patients had longer overall survival (HR, 0.45; one-sided P = .07) and extensive-stage vandetanib patients shorter survival compared with placebo (HR, 2.27; one-sided P = .996)., Conclusion: Vandetanib failed to demonstrate efficacy as maintenance therapy for small-cell lung cancer.