Safety and efficacy of nintedanib as second-line therapy for patients with differentiated or medullary thyroid cancer progressing after first-line therapy. A randomized phase II study of the EORTC Endocrine Task Force (protocol 1209-EnTF)

Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024 Jun 27:15:1403687. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1403687. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Background: Nintedanib is a triple-angiokinase inhibitor with potential activity in patients with advanced thyroid cancers, as radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC).

Design: EORTC-1209 (NCT01788982) was a double-blind randomized (2:1 ratio) placebo-controlled phase II, multi-cohort study exploring the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with progressive, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RAIR DTC and MTC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the per-protocol (PP) population for both cohorts. Secondary endpoints included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Results: RAIR DTC cohort: Seventy out of the 75 planned patients with RAIR DTC (median age, 66 years; 39 women) who had progressed after one (76%) or two lines (24%) of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 45) or placebo (N = 25). Of these, 69 patients started treatment and 56 met all inclusion criteria (PP). At data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 26.3 months in the nintedanib arm and 19.8 months in the placebo arm. In the PP population, the median PFS was 3.7 months [80% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-6.5] in the nintedanib arm and 2.9 months (80% CI, 2.0-5.6) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.65; 80% CI, 0.42-0.99; one-sided log-rank test P = 0.0947). No objective response was observed. The median OS was 29.6 months [80% CI, 15.2-not reached (NR)] in the nintedanib arm and not reached in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution occurred in 50% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 36% of patients receiving placebo. MTC cohort: Thirty-one out of the 67 planned patients with MTC (median age, 57 years; eight women) who had progressed after one (68%) or two (32%) lines of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 22) or placebo (N = 9). Of these, 20 patients (15 in the nintedanib arm and five in the placebo arm) started treatment and met all inclusion criteria (PP). The median PFS was 7.0 months (80% CI, 1.9-8.7) in the nintedanib arm and 3.9 months (80% CI, 3.0-5.5) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.16-1.53). No objective response was reported. The median OS was 16.4 months (80% CI, 12.1-24.9) in the nintedanib arm and 12.3 months (80% CI, 7.1-NR) in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution during the blinded period occurred in 59.1% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 33.3% of patients receiving placebo.

Conclusion: This study did not suggest a clinically significant improvement of PFS with nintedanib over placebo in patients with pretreated RAIR DTC and MTC.

Keywords: MTC; RAIR DTC; nintedanib; phase II trial; triple-angiokinase inhibitor.

Publication types

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Clinical Trial, Phase II
  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Antineoplastic Agents / adverse effects
  • Antineoplastic Agents / therapeutic use
  • Carcinoma, Neuroendocrine* / drug therapy
  • Carcinoma, Neuroendocrine* / pathology
  • Disease Progression
  • Double-Blind Method
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Indoles* / administration & dosage
  • Indoles* / adverse effects
  • Indoles* / therapeutic use
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Thyroid Neoplasms* / drug therapy
  • Thyroid Neoplasms* / pathology
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • nintedanib
  • Indoles
  • Antineoplastic Agents

Supplementary concepts

  • Thyroid cancer, medullary

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim France through an educational grant. Boehringer Ingelheim had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the results in this study. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as it relates to Boehringer Ingelheim substances, as well as intellectual property considerations.