Allelein, Stephanie

Background: RET (rearranged during transfection) variants are the most prevalent oncogenic events in medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). In advanced disease, multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (MKIs) cabozantinib and vandetanib are the approved standard treatment irrespective of RET status. The actual outcome of patients with RET-positive MTC treated with MKIs is ill described. Methods: We here retrospectively determined the RET oncogene variant status with a targeted DNA Custom Panel in a prospectively collected cohort of 48 patients with advanced MTC treated with vandetanib and/or cabozantinib at four German referral centers. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: In total, 44/48 (92%) patients had germline or somatic RET variants. The M918T variant was found in 29/44 (66%) cases. In total, 2/32 (6%) patients with a somatic RET variant had further somatic variants, while in 1/32 (3%) patient with a germline RET variant, additional variants were found. Only 1/48 (2%) patient had a pathogenic HRAS variant, and no variants were found in 3 cases. In first-line treatment, the median OS was 53 (95% CI (95% confidence interval), 32–NR (not reached); n = 36), and the median PFS was 21 months (12–39; n = 33) in RET-positive MTC patients. In second-line treatment, the median OS was 18 (13–79; n = 22), and the median PFS was 3.5 months (2–14; n = 22) in RET-positive cases. Conclusions: RET variants were highly prevalent in patients with advanced MTC. The treatment results in RET-positive cases were similar to those reported in unselected cohorts.

Background: The management of patients with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) that is refractory to radioiodine (RAI) remains a therapeutic challenge. The multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sorafenib and lenvatinib have been approved based on phase 3 clinical trials. Patients and Methods: We aimed at describing the efficacy and safety of TKI treatment of RAI-refractory DTC in a real-world setting at six German referral centers. One hundred and one patients with locally advanced or metastatic RAI-refractory DTC treated with sorafenib, lenvatinib, and/or pazopanib were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Ninety-seven of 101 patients had progressive disease before TKI initiation. The median PFS for first-line treatment with sorafenib ( n = 33), lenvatinib ( n = 53), and pazopanib ( n = 15) was 9 (95% confidence interval 5.2–12.8), 12 (4.4–19.6), and 12 months (4.4–19.6), respectively. The median OS for first-line treatment was 37 (10–64) for sorafenib, 47 (15.5–78.5) for lenvatinib, and 34 months (20.2–47.8) for pazopanib. Serious complications (e.g., hemorrhage, acute coronary syndrome, and thrombosis/venous thromboembolism) occurred in 16 out of 75 (21%) patients taking lenvatinib, in 3 out of 42 (7%) patients taking sorafenib, and in 3 out of 24 (13%) patients taking pazopanib. Conclusions: Sorafenib, lenvatinib, and pazopanib are effective treatment options in the majority of patients with RAI-refractory DTC. The PFS and six-month survival rate in patients treated with lenvatinib und pazopanib appear to compare favorably with sorafenib in the first-line treatment setting. However, a more advanced disease stage at treatment initiation in sorafenib- and pazopanib-treated patients in the era before TKI-approval and the retrospective nature of this study precludes a direct comparison of TKIs.

Background: Management of patients with advanced medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) remains a therapeutic challenge. The multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) vandetanib and cabozantinib have been approved for the treatment of progressive MTC based on prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in phase 3 clinical trials. Patients and Methods: To evaluate clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, efficacy, and treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of vandetanib and cabozantinib in MTC patients outside clinical trials at four German tertiary care centers. Forty-eight patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2018 were included. PFS and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by log-rank test. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 46 years (15–80 years); a germ line RET (rearranged during transfection) mutation was known in 6 (13%) patients. Thirty-two (67%) patients showed progressive disease before TKI initiation. Forty-seven (98%) patients were treated with vandetanib and 23 (48%) patients with cabozantinib. Vandetanib was first-line treatment in 41 (85%) patients and cabozantinib in 7 (15%) patients. Partial response was the best response in 12 (26%) patients treated with vandetanib and in 5 (22%) patients treated with cabozantinib. Sixteen (34%) patients treated with vandetanib and 3 (13%) patients treated with cabozantinib had stable disease ≥24 weeks. The median PFS for vandetanib and cabozantinib was 17 months [95% confidence interval, CI, 9.3–24.6 months] and 4 months [CI 3.1–4.9 months], respectively. The 6- and 12-month survival rates were 98% and 86% for vandetanib and 78% and 70% for cabozantinib, respectively. The median OS for vandetanib and cabozantinib was 53 months [CI 43.7–62.3 months] and 24 months [CI 5.9–42.1 months], respectively. In vandetanib-treated patients, the PFS and OS were significantly longer in patients aged ≤60 years at TKI initiation and in patients with ≥5 TEAEs. Additionally, the PFS was longer in the absence of bone metastases. In cabozantinib-treated patients, the PFS was significantly longer in patients experiencing TEAEs and in patients aged ≤60 years, and the OS was significantly longer in patients who had TEAEs and in patients with ≥5 TEAEs. Conclusions: Vandetanib and cabozantinib are effective treatment options in the majority of MTC patients. We hypothesize that the poorer prognosis of cabozantinib-treated patients in our retrospective analysis is most likely due to its use as second-line treatment after treatment failure on vandetanib. However, different degrees of efficacy of the two drugs are possible.