Jeffrey A How1, Shrina Patel2, Bryan Fellman3, Karen H Lu4, Patrick Hwu5, Lois M Ramondetta6, Shannon N Westin7, Nicole D Fleming8, Pamela T Soliman9, Amir A Jazaeri10. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: jahow@mdanderson.org. 2. Division of Pharmacy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: sdpatel3@mdanderson.org. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: bmfellman@mdanderson.org. 4. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: khlu@mdanderson.org. 5. Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA. Electronic address: patrick.hwu@moffitt.org. 6. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: lramonde@mdanderson.org. 7. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: swestin@mdanderson.org. 8. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: nfleming@mdanderson.org. 9. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: psoliman@mdanderson.org. 10. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: aajazaeri@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We reviewed our institutional data to evaluate toxicity and efficacy outcomes of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib in recurrent endometrial cancer in a "real-world" clinical setting and to compare the impact of reduced lenvatinib starting dose on outcomes. METHODS: Retrospectively, we reviewed toxicity, treatment responses, and survival outcomes of patients with recurrent endometrial cancer who received ≥1 cycle of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib. We compared subgroups based on lenvatinib starting dose (recommended [20 mg] vs reduced [<20 mg]) and histologic type. RESULTS: We analyzed 70 patients (recommended dose cohort, n = 16; reduced dose cohort, n = 54). The most common starting dose was 14 mg daily. Compared to the reduced dose cohort, the recommended dose cohort had a significantly higher mean number of lenvatinib dose reductions due to side effects (1.1 vs. 0.4; p = 0.003) and significantly shorter median time to treatment toxicity (1.3 vs. 3.7 days; p = 0.0001). Response rates did not differ significantly between the recommended and reduced dose cohorts (28.6% vs. 38.3%, respectively; p = 0.752). Two patients, both in the reduced dose cohort, had complete responses. Patients with carcinosarcoma histology had response and clinical benefit rates of 25% (3 of 12) and 58.3% (7 of 12), respectively. There were no differences between the 2 dose cohorts with respect to progression-free (p = 0.245) or overall survival (p = 0.858). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, a lower starting dose of lenvatinib (14 mg daily) in combination with pembrolizumab was safe and efficacious in recurrent endometrial cancer. The combination produced responses in endometrial carcinosarcomas. Larger studies are required to validate these findings.
OBJECTIVE: We reviewed our institutional data to evaluate toxicity and efficacy outcomes of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib in recurrent endometrial cancer in a "real-world" clinical setting and to compare the impact of reduced lenvatinib starting dose on outcomes. METHODS: Retrospectively, we reviewed toxicity, treatment responses, and survival outcomes of patients with recurrent endometrial cancer who received ≥1 cycle of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib. We compared subgroups based on lenvatinib starting dose (recommended [20 mg] vs reduced [<20 mg]) and histologic type. RESULTS: We analyzed 70 patients (recommended dose cohort, n = 16; reduced dose cohort, n = 54). The most common starting dose was 14 mg daily. Compared to the reduced dose cohort, the recommended dose cohort had a significantly higher mean number of lenvatinib dose reductions due to side effects (1.1 vs. 0.4; p = 0.003) and significantly shorter median time to treatment toxicity (1.3 vs. 3.7 days; p = 0.0001). Response rates did not differ significantly between the recommended and reduced dose cohorts (28.6% vs. 38.3%, respectively; p = 0.752). Two patients, both in the reduced dose cohort, had complete responses. Patients with carcinosarcoma histology had response and clinical benefit rates of 25% (3 of 12) and 58.3% (7 of 12), respectively. There were no differences between the 2 dose cohorts with respect to progression-free (p = 0.245) or overall survival (p = 0.858). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, a lower starting dose of lenvatinib (14 mg daily) in combination with pembrolizumab was safe and efficacious in recurrent endometrial cancer. The combination produced responses in endometrial carcinosarcomas. Larger studies are required to validate these findings.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Vicky Makker; Drew Rasco; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Marcia S Brose; Allen L Cohn; James Mier; Christopher Di Simone; David M Hyman; Daniel E Stepan; Corina E Dutcus; Emmett V Schmidt; Matthew Guo; Pallavi Sachdev; Robert Shumaker; Carol Aghajanian; Matthew Taylor Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Patrick A Ott; Yung-Jue Bang; Dominique Berton-Rigaud; Elena Elez; Michael J Pishvaian; Hope S Rugo; Igor Puzanov; Janice M Mehnert; Kyaw L Aung; Juanita Lopez; Marion Carrigan; Sanatan Saraf; Mei Chen; Jean-Charles Soria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dung T Le; Jennifer N Durham; Kellie N Smith; Hao Wang; Bjarne R Bartlett; Laveet K Aulakh; Steve Lu; Holly Kemberling; Cara Wilt; Brandon S Luber; Fay Wong; Nilofer S Azad; Agnieszka A Rucki; Dan Laheru; Ross Donehower; Atif Zaheer; George A Fisher; Todd S Crocenzi; James J Lee; Tim F Greten; Austin G Duffy; Kristen K Ciombor; Aleksandra D Eyring; Bao H Lam; Andrew Joe; S Peter Kang; Matthias Holdhoff; Ludmila Danilova; Leslie Cope; Christian Meyer; Shibin Zhou; Richard M Goldberg; Deborah K Armstrong; Katherine M Bever; Amanda N Fader; Janis Taube; Franck Housseau; David Spetzler; Nianqing Xiao; Drew M Pardoll; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; James R Eshleman; Bert Vogelstein; Robert A Anders; Luis A Diaz Journal: Science Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Aurelien Marabelle; Dung T Le; Paolo A Ascierto; Anna Maria Di Giacomo; Ana De Jesus-Acosta; Jean-Pierre Delord; Ravit Geva; Maya Gottfried; Nicolas Penel; Aaron R Hansen; Sarina A Piha-Paul; Toshihiko Doi; Bo Gao; Hyun Cheol Chung; Jose Lopez-Martin; Yung-Jue Bang; Ronnie Shapira Frommer; Manisha Shah; Razi Ghori; Andrew K Joe; Scott K Pruitt; Luis A Diaz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Don S Dizon; John A Blessing; D Scott McMeekin; Sudarshan K Sharma; Paul Disilvestro; Ronald D Alvarez Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vicky Makker; Matthew H Taylor; Ana Oaknin; Antonio Casado Herraez; Robert Orlowski; Lea Dutta; Min Ren; Melissa Zale; David M O'Malley Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-07-30