Clinical Trial: Lenvatinib Efficacy in Metastatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (TALENT)



Lenvatinib has just completed a Phase 2 trial in Gastrointestinal (GI) and Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours.  The trial was sponsored by Grupo Espanol de Tumores Neuroendocrinos (Spanish NET scientific organisation) and the manufacturers.  A European venture with sites in Austria, Italy, Spain, UK.   Headline: The responses are better than Everolimus (Afinitor) and Sunitinib (Sutent).

What is Lenvatinib?

It is a type of targeted therapy known as a multikinase inhibitor. The brand name is ‘LENVIMA‘. These work by inhibiting multiple intracellular and cell surface kinases, some of which are implicated in tumour growth and metastatic progression of cancer, thus decreasing tumour growth and replication. A range of receptor kinases are involved in these processes, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), stem cell factor (c-KIT), Flt3, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), which can be hyperactivated during tumour formation and progression.  Tumour growth may be prevented by inhibiting the action of these hyperactivated receptor kinases, and as tumour progression usually involves the action of multiple kinases rather than just one, it is logical to target multiple kinases.

The Lenvantinib mechanism of action is similar to targeted therapy drugs already in use (or in trial) for Neuroendocrine Tumours:

  • Sunitinib (Sutent) – a targeted therapy receptor protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitor.  It inhibits the actions of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and is an angiogenesis inhibitor (i.e. the development of blood vessels to supply the tumour with nutrients, which they need to grow).  It is a mutlikinase in inhibitor.
  • Everolimus (Afinitor) – a targeted therapy kinase inhibitor that inhibits mammalian target of rapamycin (mTor) kinase, an enzyme required for cell growth and survival. By blocking this enzyme, the medication prevents cell division and, in turn, tumor growth. The medication can also interrupt angiogenesis.
  • Cabozantinib, an oral potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, MET, and AXL, and currently on trial for Neuroendocrine Cancer.  Click here.

Multikinase inhibitors such as Lenvatinib, may be used to treat advanced kidney cancer as well as other specific types of cancer (in my research I also noted that in addition to kidney cancer, the drug is already approved for liver and thyroid cancers).  Worth also noting that the 3 examples of targeted therapy above are not just in use/in trial for Neuroendocrine Cancer, they are also in use/in trial for others including Renal (Kidney) Cancer, Breast Cancer.  Often more than one single kinase inhibitor can be given as a combo treatment, perhaps in sequence, to tackle multi kinases.

Anything special about Lenvatinib for Neuroendocrine Cancer? 

Recent reports from oncology conferences indicate that Lenvatinib showed significant antitumor activity and a favourable toxicity profile in progressive advanced NETs. This is the highest reported ORR with a targeted agent, confirmed by central radiology assessment in pancreatic NETs and Gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with promising progression free survival (PFS) in a pre-treated population; further evaluation is warranted.

Adverse events were mild to moderate in 90% of patients, the most frequent being fatigue, diarrhea and hypertension.

Lenvatinib showed the highest reported overall response rate (ORR) by central radiology assessment with a targeted agent in advanced NETs:

Average 29.2%

pNETs: 40.4% (95% CI 27.3-54.9),

GI NETs: 18.5% (95% CI 9.7-31.9.

Worth noting that Everolimus and Sunitinib were approved with ORRs much less than these figures.

What’s next? 

Given the responses in comparison to other approved targeted agents, a phase 3 trial should be anticipated.  Studies are “currently ongoing” and “further evaluation warranted”.  I will keep this article live to provide updates.

Reference material used in the compilation of this article:

1. Annals of Oncology – Efficacy of Lenvatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic (panNETs) and gastrointestinal (giNETs) grade 1/2 (G1/G2) neuroendocrine tumors: Results of the international phase II TALENT trial (GETNE 1509) 23 Oct 2018 –  click here.

2. ESMO Congress 2018 – Efficacy of Lenvatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic (panNETs) and gastrointestinal (giNETs) grade 1/2 (G1/G2) neuroendocrine tumors – click here

3. Prime Oncology Slide Show – click here (useful)

4. Clinical Trials Document NCT02678780 – click here

5. Manufactures website – click here.

Thanks for reading

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news. I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Read my Cure Magazine contributions

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!



patients included

Please Share this post

Q-Sphera™ – Next Generation Somatostatin Analogue delivery system?

757z468_1-SG02126-(1)

From my article about the somatostatin analogues and their drug delivery systems pipeline, there has been a very interesting development in a product called Q-Sphera (was previously known as Q-Octreotide).  In a press release today, it was announced that an unnamed ‘pharma giant’ has signed a deal with Midatech Pharma Plc that will see it evaluate the latter’s Q-Sphera drug delivery platform.  Only a guess from me, but I suspect it’s either Novartis or Ipsen (but other possibilities are emerging).

Midatech’s Q-Sphera™ is an advanced microencapsulation and polymer-depot sustained release (SR) drug delivery platform produced using a novel and disruptive printing based process, with numerous and distinct advantages over conventional reactor based technologies. From a manufacturing perspective Q-Sphera™ is a precise, scalable, efficient, and environmentally friendly microparticle platform. From a clinical perspective Q-Sphera™ ensures monodispersed microparticles that release active drug compounds into the body in a superior linear tightly controlled and predictable manner over an extended period of time from 1 – 6 months.  An injection lasting 6 months sounds very exciting but I have no more detail on the feasibility or likelihood of such a change in frequency with Octreotide or Lanreotide but the press release does mention the possibility, i.e. “Q-Sphera allows drug compounds to be released into the body in a “highly controlled manner” over a prolonged period of time; potentially from a few days to up to six months.”

What’s the main differences?

The current trials are based on the use of Sandostatin LAR (Octreotide) using the Q-Sphera delivery system (previously known as Q-Octreotide). The key aspects of usability are reconstitution and needle size but there is also an inference that less frequent injections could be possible.   A comparison of the trial output is as follows:

  • Reconstitution: For Sandostatin LAR (SLAR)™ the procedure to prepare the product for injection is a complex 30 step error prone process, taking up to 40 minutes and, once reconstituted, the product has to be given immediately to prevent solidifying and wastage of the injection. For MTD201™ Q-Octreotide the preparation process is a simple 5 – 7 minute procedure, after which the product is stable up to 2 hours. For the nurse preparing and giving the injection, the short and flexible process of MTD201™ has clear advantages over the all consuming SLAR process™.
  • Needle size: For SLAR, a large 19G needle is prescribed for the injection to prevent blockage, and often an even large 18G needle is required for successful injection. For MTD201 Q-Octreotide the precision microencapsulation technology means that a much smaller 21G needle can be used, and there are no blockages. Other Q-Sphera products use even finer needles as small as 27G. The importance of this is evident from the first-in-human phase I data where MTD201 had lower injection pain – 8% for MTD201 versus 25% for SLAR™, and much lower injection site
    tenderness – 8% for MTD201 versus 83% for SLAR.

This is an exciting development and I will keep this article live with further information as I receive it.

Thanks for reading

Ronny

I’m also active on Facebook. Like my page for even more news. I’m also building up this site here: Ronny Allan

Disclaimer

My Diagnosis and Treatment History

Most Popular Posts

Sign up for my twitter newsletter

Read my Cure Magazine contributions

Remember ….. in the war on Neuroendocrine Cancer, let’s not forget to win the battle for better quality of life!

patients included

Please Share this post