Schott, Matthias

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.

Abstract Objectives Results can vary between different free thyroxine (FT4) assays; global standardization would improve comparability of results between laboratories, allowing development of common clinical decision limits in evidence-based guidelines. Content We summarize the path to standardization of FT4 assays, and challenges associated with FT4 testing in special populations, including the need for collaborative efforts toward establishing population-specific reference intervals. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests has undertaken FT4 immunoassay method comparison and recalibration studies and developed a reference measurement procedure that is currently being validated. Further studies are needed to establish common reference intervals/clinical decision limits. Standardization of FT4 assays will change test results substantially; therefore, a major education program will be required to ensure stakeholders are aware of the benefits of FT4 standardization, planned transition procedure, and potential clinical impact of the changes. Assay recalibration by manufacturers and approval process simplification by regulatory authorities will help minimize the clinical impact of standardization. Summary Significant progress has been made toward standardization of FT4 testing, but technical and logistical challenges remain. Outlook Collaborative efforts by manufacturers, laboratories, and clinicians are required to achieve successful global standardization of the FT4 assays.

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.