4.6 Article

Lenvatinib for Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00025

关键词

lenvatinib; anaplastic thyroid cancer; tyrosine kinase inhibitor; phase 2; clinical trial

类别

资金

  1. Eisai Inc.
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K11384, 17K11413] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lenvatinib has been approved by regulatory agencies in Japan, the United States, and the European Union for treatment of radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Thyroid cancer, however, is a clinically diverse disease that includes anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC), the subtype associated with the highest lethality. Effective therapy for ATC is an unmet need. Patients and methods: This phase 2, single-arm, open-label study in patients with thyroid cancer, including ATC, RR-DTC, and medullary thyroid cancer was conducted from 3 September 2012 to 9 July 2015. Patients received lenvatinib 24 mg daily until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety, and the secondary endpoint was efficacy, as assessed by progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate. Results: At data cutoff, 17 patients with ATC were enrolled. All experienced >= 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most frequent TEAEs were decreased appetite (82%), hypertension (82%), fatigue (59%), nausea (59%), and proteinuria (59%). Of note, only one patient required lenvatinib withdrawal because of a TEAE, and this TEAE was considered unrelated to lenvatinib. The median PFS was 7.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-12.9], the median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI: 3.8-19.8), and the objective response rate was 24%. Conclusion: In this study, lenvatinib demonstrated manageable toxicities with dose adjustments and clinical activity in patients with ATC. This clinical activity of lenvatinib warrants further investigation in ATC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据