Dataset Information

Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) for Lenvatinib plus Everolimus Versus Everolimus Monotherapy in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The lenvatinib (LEN) plus everolimus (EVE) combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over everolimus alone in a phase 2 trial (Study-205).

Objective

To compare quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST) between LEN + EVE and EVE alone among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following one prior antiangiogenic therapy.

Design setting and participants

This was a post hoc analysis of Study-205.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Survival time was partitioned into three mutually exclusive health states: time with grade 3/4 toxicity (TOX); time before disease progression and without grade 3/4 toxicity (TWiST); and time after disease progression (REL). The mean time in each state was weighted by utility measures and summed to calculate Q-TWiST. Nonparametric bootstrapping generated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the base case, utility for TWiST, TOX, and REL was assigned as 1.0, 0.5, and 0.5, respectively. Sensitivity analyses applied alternative utility values for REL, TOX, and TWiST. A relative gain in Q-TWiST of ≥10% and ≥15% has been established as clinically important and clearly clinically important, respectively.

Results and limitations

Patients receiving LEN + EVE (n = 51) had a significant mean Q-TWiST gain of 3.7 mo (14.7 vs 11.0 mo; 95% CI for difference 1.3-6.3), with a relative gain of 24% compared to EVE alone. In a sensitivity analysis using alternative utility values for TWiST (varied from 0.55 to 0.9) with utility set to 0.5 for both TOX and REL, the relative Q-TWiST gain was maintained (ranging from 11.0% to 21.2%; all significant) across varying utility values. Limitations include the sample size, the absence of utility estimates, and the length of adverse events from the trial.

Conclusions

LEN + EVE showed a significant and clearly clinically important improvement in quality-adjusted survival time versus EVE alone.

Patient summary

Patients with advanced kidney cancer who had received other previous treatments experienced a clearly clinically important improvement in quality survival time when treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus compared to everolimus alone.

SUBMITTER: Lee CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8385286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective:A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design:Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions:Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results:A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n?=?75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n?=?73) or everolimus alone (59%; n?=?61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n?=?37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n?=?30) or capecitabine (29%; n?=?30). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.

Project description:BackgroundCPX-351 (United States: Vyxeos®; Europe: Vyxeos® Liposomal), a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio, is approved by the US FDA and the EMA for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia or acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes. In a pivotal phase 3 study that evaluated 309 patients aged 60 to 75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia, CPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival versus conventional 7 + 3 chemotherapy (cytarabine continuous infusion for 7 days plus daunorubicin for 3 days), with a comparable safety profile. A Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis of the phase 3 study was performed to compare survival quality between patients receiving CPX-351 versus conventional 7 + 3 after 5 years of follow-up.MethodsPatients were randomized 1:1 between December 20, 2012 and November 11, 2014 to receive induction with CPX-351 or 7 + 3. Survival time for each patient was partitioned into 3 health states: TOX (time with any grade 3 or 4 toxicity or prior to remission), TWiST (time in remission without relapse or grade 3 or 4 toxicity), and REL (time after relapse). Within each treatment arm, Q-TWiST was calculated by adding the mean time spent in each health state weighted by its respective quality-of-life, represented by health utility. The relative Q-TWiST gain, calculated as the difference in Q-TWiST between treatment arms divided by the mean survival of the 7 + 3 control arm, was determined in order to evaluate results in the context of other Q-TWiST analyses.ResultsThe relative Q-TWiST gain with CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 was 53.6% in the base case scenario and 39.8% among responding patients. Across various sensitivity analyses, the relative Q-TWiST gains for CPX-351 ranged from 48.0 to 57.6%, remaining well above the standard clinically important difference threshold of 15% for oncology.ConclusionsThis post hoc analysis demonstrates that CPX-351 improved quality-adjusted survival, further supporting the clinical benefit in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Trial registration This trial was registered on September 28, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01696084 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01696084 ) and is complete.

Project description:BackgroundCombining an antiangiogenic agent with an anti-PD-1 agent is a promising strategy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).AimsTo explore the effectiveness and tolerability of lenvatinib plus camrelizumab vs. lenvatinib monotherapy as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC.MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study included patients with unresectable HCC treated with oral lenvatinib 8 mg daily and intravenous camrelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (L+C group) or lenvatinib 12 mg or 8 mg daily (L group) in four Chinese centers between September 2018 and February 2020. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. The outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), 1-year OS rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.ResultsBy March 31, 2021, 92 patients were finally included, with 48 and 44 in the L+C and L groups, respectively. ORR was significantly higher in the L+C group than in the L group (RECIST 1.1: 37.5% vs. 13.6%, P=0.009; mRECIST: 41.7% vs. 20.5%, P=0.029). Median OS and 95% confidence interval (CI) was 13.9 (13.3-18.3) months in the L group and not reached in the L+C group (P=0.015). The 1-year survival rate was 79.2% and 56.8% in the L+C and L groups, respectively. Median PFS was 10.3 (6.6-14.0) months and 7.5 (5.7-9.3) months in the L+C and L groups, respectively (P=0.0098). Combined therapy vs. monotherapy was independently associated with a prolonged OS (hazard ratio=0.380, 95% CI=: 0.196-0.739, P=0.004) and a prolonged PFS (hazard ratio=0.454, 95%CI=0.282-0.731, P=0.001). The safety profile was comparable between the two groups. The most common adverse event in the L+C and L groups was loss of appetite (41.7% vs. 40.9%, P=0.941). Three patients in the L+C group and two in the L group terminated treatment owing to adverse events.ConclusionFirst-line lenvatinib plus camrelizumab showed better effectiveness than lenvatinib alone in patients with unresectable HCC.