Evaluation of Overall Survival in Patients With Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma, 2000-2019 | Endocrine Surgery | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Treatment Algorithm for Patients With Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma (ATC) at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Treatment Algorithm for Patients With Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma (ATC) at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

A, Stage IVA receive surgery+EBRT+CTx. Stage IVB/IVC receive neoadjuvant BRAFi/MEKi+/-immunotherapy. If the tumor becomes resectable, surgery is offered (within 3 months of neoadjuvant BRAFi/MEKi). Stage IVB receive EBRT+CTx postoperatively. BRAFi/MEKi are held during radiation (risk of radiation recall) and resumed after radiation. Stage IVC restart BRAFi/MEKi post-operatively+/-immunotherapy, and are not offered EBRT (drug holds during radiation may lead to progression in distant metastases). B, Stage IVA/IVB with resectable tumors receive surgery+EBRT+CTx. Unresectable stage IVB receive EBRT+CTx. Stage IVC with resectable low-volume distant metastatic disease undergo surgery. Those with low-volume unresectable disease receive palliative radiation followed by systemic therapy. Those with high-volume unresectable disease receive systemic therapy. Stage IVC with mixed responses receive stereotactic radiation to oligo-progressive lesions. Hospice is offered if unlikely to tolerate treatment. BRAFi indicates BRAF inhibitor; cfDNA, cell-free DNA; CTx, cytotoxic chemotherapy; EBRT, external beam radiatiotherapy; IHC, immunohistochemistry; and MEKi, MEK inhibitor.

aPostoperative chemoradiotherapy considered for stage IVA and stage IVB ATC.

bActionable fusions include NTRK, RET, and ALK. These patients may be treated on clinical trial when available. Insufficient data to recommend treatment outside of clinical trial.

cPatients with stage IVC BRAF wild type tumors with low-volume distant metastases can be considered for initial EBRT + CTx but should be monitored for rapid distant progression while undergoing EBRT.

dPalliative local EBRT refers to high-dose radiation per fraction given over a short period of time.

eClinical trials include NCT03181100 for patients with RAS- or NF1-mutated tumors treated with cobimetinib + atezolizumab, and NCT04171622 for BRAF wild type patients treated with lenvatinib + pembrolizumab.

Figure 2.  Two-Year Overall Survival (OS) of Patients With Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma (ATC) According to Year of Presentation
Two-Year Overall Survival (OS) of Patients With Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma (ATC) According to Year of Presentation

For years 2000-2013, the median OS was 0.67 years; for 2014-2016, median OS, 0.88 years; and for 2017-2019, median OS, 1.31 years. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.77 when comparing the 2000-2013 group with the 2014-2016 group, and 0.50 when comparing the 2000-2013 group with the 2017-2019 group.

Figure 3.  Overall Survival (OS) of Patients With BRAF V600E Variant Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma (ATC) Stratified According to Surgery Following BRAF-Directed Therapy (N = 55)
Overall Survival (OS) of Patients With BRAF V600E Variant Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma (ATC) Stratified According to Surgery Following BRAF-Directed Therapy (N = 55)

Median OS for the no surgery group was 0.80 years. Median OS was not reached in the surgery group; 1-year survival was 94% for the surgery group and 52% for the no surgery group. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.29.

Table 1.  Baseline Patient Characteristics
Baseline Patient Characteristics
Table 2.  Multivariate Analysis of Baseline Factors Associated With Overall Survival
Multivariate Analysis of Baseline Factors Associated With Overall Survival
1.
Lin  B, Ma  H, Ma  M,  et al.  The incidence and survival analysis for anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: a SEER database analysis.   Am J Transl Res. 2019;11(9):5888-5896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Are  C, Shaha  AR.  Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: biology, pathogenesis, prognostic factors, and treatment approaches.   Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):453-464. doi:10.1245/ASO.2006.05.042PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Smallridge  RC, Marlow  LA, Copland  JA.  Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: molecular pathogenesis and emerging therapies.   Endocr Relat Cancer. 2009;16(1):17-44. doi:10.1677/ERC-08-0154PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Smallridge  RC, Ain  KB, Asa  SL,  et al; American Thyroid Association Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer Guidelines Taskforce.  American Thyroid Association guidelines for management of patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2012;22(11):1104-1139. doi:10.1089/thy.2012.0302PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Rao  SN, Zafereo  M, Dadu  R,  et al.  Patterns of treatment failure in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2017;27(5):672-681. doi:10.1089/thy.2016.0395PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Cabanillas  ME, Williams  MD, Gunn  GB,  et al.  Facilitating anaplastic thyroid cancer specialized treatment: a model for improving access to multidisciplinary care for patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Head Neck. 2017;39(7):1291-1295. doi:10.1002/hed.24784PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Subbiah  V, Kreitman  RJ, Wainberg  ZA,  et al.  Dabrafenib and trametinib treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(1):7-13. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.73.6785PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Wang  JR, Zafereo  ME, Dadu  R,  et al.  Complete surgical resection following neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2019;29(8):1036-1043. doi:10.1089/thy.2019.0133PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Cabanillas  ME, Ferrarotto  R, Garden  AS,  et al.  Neoadjuvant BRAF- and immune-directed therapy for anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2018;28(7):945-951. doi:10.1089/thy.2018.0060PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Charlson  ME, Pompei  P, Ales  KL, MacKenzie  CR.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.   J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Cabanillas  M, Busaidy  N, Dadu  R,  et al.  OR27-6 combination vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor)/cobimetinib (MEK inhibitor)/atezolizumab (anti-PDL1 inhibitor) in BRAF-V600E mutated anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC): initial safety and feasibility.   J Endocr Soc. 2019;3(suppl 1):OR27-OR6.Google Scholar
12.
Prasongsook  N, Kumar  A, Chintakuntlawar  AV,  et al.  Survival in response to multimodal therapy in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(12):4506-4514. doi:10.1210/jc.2017-01180PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Simões-Pereira  J, Capitão  R, Limbert  E, Leite  V.  Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: clinical picture of the last two decades at a single oncology referral centre and novel therapeutic options.   Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(8):11. doi:10.3390/cancers11081188PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Corrigan  KL, Williamson  H, Elliott Range  D, Niedzwiecki  D, Brizel  DM, Mowery  YM.  Treatment outcomes in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Thyroid Res. 2019;2019:8218949. doi:10.1155/2019/8218949PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Fan  D, Ma  J, Bell  AC,  et al.  Outcomes of multimodal therapy in a large series of patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Cancer. 2020;126(2):444-452. doi:10.1002/cncr.32548PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Murthy  VH, Krumholz  HM, Gross  CP.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.   JAMA. 2004;291(22):2720-2726. doi:10.1001/jama.291.22.2720PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Drilon  A, Laetsch  TW, Kummar  S,  et al.  Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):731-739. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1714448PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Schoffski  P, Aftimos  PG, Massard  C,  et al.  A phase I study of BOS172738 in patients with advanced solid tumors with RET gene alterations including non-small cell lung cancer and medullary thyroid cancer.   J Clin Oncol 2019;37:TPS3162-TPS. doi:10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.TPS3162Google Scholar
19.
Iyer  PC, Dadu  R, Gule-Monroe  M,  et al.  Salvage pembrolizumab added to kinase inhibitor therapy for the treatment of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):68. doi:10.1186/s40425-018-0378-yPubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Cabanillas  ME, Ryder  M, Jimenez  C.  Targeted therapy for advanced thyroid cancer: kinase inhibitors and beyond.   Endocr Rev. 2019;40(6):1573-1604. doi:10.1210/er.2019-00007PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Wirth  LJ, Eigendorff  E, Capdevila  J,  et al.  Phase I/II study of spartalizumab (PDR001), an anti-PD1 mAb, in patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Clin Oncol 2018;36:6024. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.6024Google Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Improvement of overall survival in patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma
    Tomoyuki Kawada, MD | Nippon Medical School
    Maniakas et al. evaluated rates of overall survival (OS) in patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) over the last 2 decades (1). A total of 479 patients, including 246 men, with ATC were classified into 52 (11%) of stage IVA, 172 (36%) of stage IVB, and 255 (53%) of stage IVC. The median OS of the entire cohort was 0.79 years, ranging from 0.01 to 16.63. The OS at 1 and 2 years was 35% and 18% in the 2000-2013 group (n = 227), 47% and 25% in the 2014-2016 group (n = 100), and 59% and 42% in the 2017-2019 group (n = 152), respectively. Significant factors associated with improved OS were targeted therapy, the addition of immunotherapy to targeted therapy, and surgery following neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy, presenting hazard ratios (95% CI) of 0.49 (0.39-0.63, 0.58 (0.36-0.94), and 0.29 (0.10-0.78), respectively. The authors concluded that changes in patient management, molecular-based personalized therapies and integration of multidisciplinary therapies, might be associated with significant increase in survival. I want to add information regarding their study.

    Wächter et al. analyzed the changing trends of treatment concepts and associated OS over the last two decades in 42 patients with histologically confirmed ATC (2). Median OS for all tumor stages was 6 months, and 6.5 months for stage IVA/B and 4 months for stage IVC carcinoma patients. The median OS of patients with stage IVA/B carcinomas was significantly prolonged after multimodal treatment than after surgery alone. But the median OS of stage IVC patients after trimodal therapy was not significantly longer than after debulking procedures. In addition, there was no significant prolonged survival in patients with multimodal treatment by comparing data in the time period 1999-2009 and 2009 to 2019. They handled a limited number of patients, and stable estimate should be made by summing-up the data.

    Sugitani et al. previously reported prognostic factors and treatment outcomes in 677 patients with ATC, which was derived from a multicenter registry, the ATC Research Consortium of Japan (ATCCJ). The patients were treated between 1995 and 2008. ATC was classified into four types, and anaplastic transformation at a distant site showed the worst outcomes. In addition, prevalence of 6-month OS was 60% for stage IVA, 45% for IVB, and 19% for IVC, respectively. Furthermore, age ≥70 years, presence of acute symptoms, leukocytosis presenting white blood cell count ≥10,000/cubic mm, large tumor >5 cm, T4b tumor, and distant metastasis were significant risk factors for lower survival. They observed that UICC stages and prognostic factors were closely related to subsequent OS in patients with ATC. I suspect that recent OS might be improved even in this population, which should be specified by further study.


    References
    1. Maniakas A, Dadu R, Busaidy NL, et al. Evaluation of overall survival in patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, 2000-2019. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Sep 1;6(9):1397-1404.
    2. Wächter S, Vorländer C, Schabram J, et al. Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: changing trends of treatment strategies and associated overall survival. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 May;277(5):1507-1514.
    3. Sugitani I, Miyauchi A, Sugino K, et al. Prognostic factors and treatment outcomes for anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: ATC Research Consortium of Japan cohort study of 677 patients. World J Surg. 2012 Jun;36(6):1247-54.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    August 6, 2020

    Evaluation of Overall Survival in Patients With Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma, 2000-2019

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 2Department of Endocrine Neoplasia and Hormonal Disorders, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 3Department of Thoracic Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 4Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 5Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(9):1397-1404. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3362
    Key Points

    Question  Is emerging use of targeted therapy, immunotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy associated with improved overall survival in patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC)?

    Findings  In this single-institution cohort study of 479 patients with ATC spanning nearly 20 years, 1- and 2-year survival significantly increased from 35% and 18% in the 2000-2013 era (n = 227) to 47% and 25% in the 2014-2016 era (n = 100), and 59% and 42% in the 2017-2019 era (n = 152), respectively.

    Meaning  This study suggests that ATC may be effectively treated with highly specialized molecular-based personalized therapies, and surgery when appropriate, regardless of disease stage.

    Abstract

    Importance  Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) historically has a 4-month median overall survival (OS) from time of diagnosis, with disease-specific mortality approaching 100%. The association between recent major advancements in treatment and OS has yet to be evaluated.

    Objective  To evaluate rates of OS in patients with ATC over the last 2 decades.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective cohort study in a single tertiary care institution. Patients with histopathological confirmation of ATC from January 2000 to October 2019 were included and divided into 3 groups according to date of presentation: 2000-2013, 2014-2016, and 2017-2019.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Overall survival compared among different treatment eras and differing therapies, including targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and surgery.

    Results  Of 479 patients (246 men [51%]; median age, 65.0 [range, 21.1-92.6] years) with ATC evaluated, 52 (11%) were stage IVA, 172 (36%) stage IVB, and 255 (53%) stage IVC at presentation. The median OS of the entire cohort was 0.79 years (9.5 months), ranging from 0.01 to 16.63. The OS at 1 and 2 years was 35% (95% CI, 29%-42%) and 18% (95% CI, 13%-23%) in the 2000-2013 group (n = 227), 47% (95% CI, 36%-56%) and 25% (95% CI, 17%-34%) in the 2014-2016 group (n = 100), and 59% (95% CI, 49%-67%) and 42% (95% CI, 30%-53%) in the 2017-2019 group (n = 152), respectively (P < .001). The hazard ratio was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.67) for the 2017-2019 group compared with the 2000-2013 patients (P < .001). Factors associated with improved OS included targeted therapy (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.63; P < .001), the addition of immunotherapy to targeted therapy (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.94; P = .03), and surgery following neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10-0.78; P = .02). Patients undergoing surgery following neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy (n = 20) had a 94% 1-year survival with a median follow-up of 1.21 years.

    Conclusion and Relevance  In this large single-institution cohort study spanning nearly 20 years, changes in patient management appear to be associated with significant increase in survival. The era of untreatable ATC is progressively being replaced by molecular-based personalized therapies, with integration of multidisciplinary therapies including surgery and radiation therapy.

    Introduction

    Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) remains one of the most aggressive and fatal solid tumors. The most recent Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database analysis (1986-2015) reported median overall survival (OS) of 4 months and 6-month OS of 35%,1 while disease-specific mortality is 98% to 99%.2,3 Unlike differentiated thyroid cancer, which has a good prognosis and is managed primarily with surgery, patients with ATC usually present with a rapidly growing and invasive neck mass, regional cervical lymph node involvement, while approximately half of the patients will also have distant metastatic disease,4,5 at presentation. Consequently, patients with ATC are usually inoperable at presentation and have historically been treated palliatively or referred to hospice. As such, although ATC comprises less than 2% of thyroid cancers, it is estimated to be the cause of more than 50% of annual thyroid cancer-related mortality.4

    In 2014, the Facilitating Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer Specialized Treatment (FAST) team6 was developed at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, which provided patients with rapid access to multidisciplinary care and tumor molecular testing. Subsequently, many patients were enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials, which demonstrated substantial survival improvement with combination dabrafenib and trametinib therapy in patients harboring the BRAFV 600E variation. This clinical trial ultimately led to the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug combination for ATC.7 Figure 1 summarizes the current ATC FAST program treatment algorithm at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

    Because a subset of patients achieved significant response to targeted therapy, they became candidates for additional multimodal adjunct therapies, such as surgery8,9 and intensity-modulated radiation therapy, therapies that historically had little impact on survival. Recent work has demonstrated feasibility of complete resection and locoregional disease control when patients with BRAF V600E-variant tumors undergo surgical resection following neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy.8

    With accelerated access to highly specialized care, improved understanding and testing of tumor genetics, emergence of novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies—particularly in the setting of clinical trials—and the integration of surgical resection in ATC patient management, specifically after neoadjuvant therapy, we hypothesized significant improvement in OS of patients with ATC over the past 2 decades, and especially over the past 5 years.

    Methods
    Patient Data Collection

    We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with pathologically confirmed diagnosis of ATC who presented to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 2000 to October 2019. Data were obtained from an institutional database following institutional review board approval. All patients had histopathologically confirmed diagnosis of as ATC. Patient demographic characteristics, age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index,10 and data on BRAF V600E molecular testing and treatment modalities (cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy) were collected. The OS was measured from date of pathologic confirmation of ATC to date of death, with patients censored at date of last follow-up.

    Patients were divided into 3 subgroups according to date of presentation to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: January 2000 to December 2013, January 2014 to December 2016, and January 2017 to October 2019. The choice of year to separate the groups corresponds to changes in our practice: 2014 marked initiation of the FAST program,6 and 2017 marked the beginning of the integration of surgery and radiation performed after neoadjuvant therapies at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, as well as the first full year of a multimodal targeted therapy plus immunotherapy trial (NCT03181100).11

    Statistical Analyses

    Two-tailed Pearson χ2 test (or Fisher exact test when categorical variable values were ≤5) was used to analyze categorical variables. A 1-way analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS, while log-rank test was used to assess between-group differences in OS. A Cox proportional hazards regression model and the Efron method of tie handling were used to assess relative risk (hazard) of death, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, and disease stage. Cox proportional hazards regression model assumption tests were based on Schoenfeld residuals. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata, version 13.0 (StataCorp LP).

    Results
    Demographic Characteristics

    From January 1, 2000, 479 consecutive new patients (233 women [49%], 246 men [51%]; median age, 65.0 [range, 21.1-92.6] years) with histopathological confirmation of ATC presented to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; 52 (11%) were stage IVA, 172 (36%) stage IVB, and 255 (53%) stage IVC at presentation. The 2000-2013 group comprised 227 patients, the 2014-2016 group 100 patients, and the 2017-2019 group 152 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of age, sex, comorbidity, and disease stage (Table 1).

    The median number of new patients with ATC evaluated per year was 23 (range, 9-55) (eFigure 1 in the Supplement), excluding 2019, wherein 44 patients were seen up to October 2, 2019. The mean number of new patients with ATC seen annually from 2000 to 2019 increased by 212% when comparing the 2000-2013 group vs the 2017-2019 group.

    In terms of molecular testing, 268 (56%) patients were tested for the BRAF V600E variation either through immunohistochemistry or next-generation sequencing on tissue or blood (cell-free DNA). Specifically, 17% (38 of 227) of the 2000-2013 group, 82% (82 of 100) of the 2014-2016 group, and 97% (148 of 152) of the 2017-2019 group patients had BRAF testing, (P < .001). Prevalence of ATC tumors with the BRAF V600E variation among tested patients was not significantly different between the 3 groups, with an overall rate of 38% (32% in the 2000-2013 group, 41% in the 2014-2016 group, and 37% in the 2017-2019 group) (P = .57).

    Overall Survival

    Two patients were excluded from survival analyses, 1 without follow-up, and another who presented with a remote history of ATC dating to 1987; therefore, 477 patients were included in the survival analyses. The median OS was 0.79 years (9.5 months), ranging from 0.01 to 16.63 years. Six-month, 1-year, and 2-year OS for the entire cohort were 67% (95% CI, 63%-71%), 44% (95% CI, 40%-49%), and 25% (95% CI, 21%-29%), respectively.

    The OS at 1 year was 35% (95% CI, 29%-42%) in the 2000-2013 group, 47% (95% CI, 36%-56%) in the 2014-2016 group, and 59% (95% CI, 49%-67%) in the 2017-2019 group. This finding translates into a 1-year survival improvement of 12% (95% CI, 0%-24%) in the 2014-2016 group and 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) in the 2017-2019 group. The OS estimates at 2 years were 18% (95% CI, 13%-23%), 25% (95% CI, 17%-34%), and 42% (95% CI, 30%-53%), respectively (P < .001) (Figure 2), with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-1.01; P = .06) when comparing the 2000-2013 group with the 2014-2016 group and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.67; P < .001) when comparing the 2000-2013 group with the 2017-2019 group (Table 2). This translates into a 2-year survival improvement of 7% (95% CI, −2% to 16%) in the 2014-2016 group and 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) in the 2017-2019 group. The Cox proportional hazards regression assumption was met (P = .46). The median OS according to group was 0.67 years (8.0 months) in the 2000-2013 group, 0.88 years (10.6 months) in the 2014-2016 group, and 1.31 years (15.7 months) in the 2017-2019 group. Median group-specific follow-up time from diagnosis was 0.61 years (range, 0.01-16.63 years) in the 2000-2013 group, 0.74 years (range, 0.02-5.68 years) in the 2014-2016 group, and 0.64 years (range, 0.01-5.16 years) in the 2017-2019 group. The total number of deaths was 197 in the 2000-2013 group, 79 in the 2014-2016 group, and 62 in the 2017-2019 group.

    When separating patients according to clinical stage at presentation, OS rates at 2 years according to the 3 eras (2000-2013, 2014-2016, and 2017-2019) were 36% (95% CI, 19%-54%), 78% (95% CI, 16%-97%), and 63% (95% CI, 29%-85%) for stage IVA; 24% (95% CI, 15%-34%), 27% (95% CI, 13%-42%), and 44% (95% CI, 26%-61%) for stage IVB; and 9% (95% CI, 4%-15%), 18% (95% CI, 9%-30%), and 37% (95% CI, 22%-52%) for stage IVC, respectively (P < .001) (eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

    Treatment

    Targeted therapy included dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, cobimetinib, larotrectinib, everolimus, pazopanib, bevacizumab, lenvatinib, selpercatinib, lenalidomide, and cetuximab. Immunotherapy drugs were usually used in combination with targeted therapy or chemotherapy and included pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab. Significantly more patients received targeted therapy in the 2017-2019 group vs the 2000-2013 and 2014-2016 groups (61%, 9%, and 43%, respectively; P < .001). When including only patients having been tested for the BRAF V600E variation, these values were 65%, 26%, and 46%, respectively (P < .001). Median OS for patients treated with targeted therapy, regardless of their grouping, was 1.31 years (15.7 months) (95% CI, 1.07-1.99 years) compared with 0.63 years (7.6 months) (95% CI, 0.52-0.72 years) in patients not having received any targeted therapy, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.39-0.63; P < .001) (eFigure 3 in the Supplement), which translates into a survival improvement of 0.68 years (8.2 months) (95% CI, 0.33-1.03 years). The use of immunotherapy also increased significantly in the 2017-2019 group (47%) compared with the 2000-2013 (1%) and 2014-2016 (18%) groups (P < .001). For patients seen between 2014 and 2019, those having received targeted therapy with immunotherapy (n = 76) had significantly higher OS vs those having received targeted therapy without immunotherapy (n = 59) (1.99 years [23.9 months], 95% CI 1.23-3.93 years vs 1.20 years [14.4 months], 95% CI 0.70-1.70 years), with a hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.94; P = .03), which translates into a survival improvement of 0.79 years (9.5 months) (95% CI, −0.82 to 2.40). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, locoregional radiation therapy, and radiation therapy to other sites between the 3 groups.

    Neoadjuvant therapy included atezolizumab/cobimetinib (n = 2), docetaxel/doxorubicin (n = 1), and BRAF-directed therapies (combination BRAF plus MEK inhibitor): dabrafenib/trametinib (n = 13) or vemurafenib/cobimetinib (n = 7). Surgical resection following neoadjuvant therapy was completed in 23 patients (15%) in the 2017-2019 group compared with none in the 2000-2013 and 2014-2016 groups (P < .001). In patients who received BRAF-directed therapy, those who underwent surgery following neoadjuvant therapy (n = 20) had statistically significant improvement in median OS (median OS, not reached; 95% CI, 1.43-N/A years) compared with those who did not (n = 35) (median OS, 0.80 years; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86 years). The hazard ratio was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.10-0.78) in patients who underwent neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy followed by surgery (P = .02) (Figure 3), while the estimated 1-year OS was 94% and survival improvement at 1 year was 45% (95% CI, 18%-72%). In 12 patients, surgery included total thyroidectomy and central compartment dissection with bilateral (n = 8) or unilateral (n = 4) lateral neck dissection. In 4 patients, surgery included lobectomy alone (n = 1) or with central compartment dissection (n = 2) and with unilateral lateral neck dissection (n = 1). Four other patients had a history of surgery before receiving BRAF-directed therapy and underwent revision central neck dissection with unilateral (n = 3) or bilateral (n = 1) lateral neck dissection. Lateral neck dissections included levels 2, 3, 4, and 5B, and overall 17 patients (85%) had either unilateral or bilateral neck dissection. Eleven patients (55%) received postoperative external beam radiation therapy to the thyroid bed as well as to the bilateral (n = 6) or unilateral (n = 4) lateral neck or mediastinum (n = 1). Sixteen of the 20 patients (80%) who underwent surgery following neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy were alive at last follow-up, with median follow-up from diagnosis of 1.21 years (range 0.26-2.70 years). Eight of 20 (40%) presented with stage IVC disease.

    Discussion

    This cohort study of 479 patients represents, to our knowledge, the largest single-institution cohort of consecutive patients with ATC in the published literature and demonstrates significant improvement in survival over the last 2 decades. Survival at 2 years increased from 18% in the 2000-2013 group to 25% in the 2014-2016 group and 42% in the 2017-2019 group (hazard ratio, 0.50), and more than half of these patients presented with stage IVC disease. Further, since the beginning of the FAST program,6 there has been a significant increase in new ATC patient referrals. As ATC incidence rates have been reported unchanged over the last 30 years,1 this increase in ATC presentations to a single institution may be owing to referral bias rather than a true increase in incidence.

    A notable shift during this time was the improved understanding of distinct molecular classifications of ATC, with immediate molecular testing at patient presentation becoming standard of care in the 2014-2019 era, and nearly all patients undergoing testing in the 2017-2019 era. Knowledge of oncogenic molecular factors was used to guide systemic therapy, particularly the use of targeted therapy and neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy before surgical resection. The use of targeted therapy increased significantly over time, which was associated with improved median OS (1.31 years in those receiving targeted therapy vs 0.63 years in those who did not, hazard ratio, 0.49). Neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy before surgery (which was performed only in the 2017-2019 era) also was associated with improved survival. Comparing patients who received BRAF-directed therapy with or without subsequent surgery, the median OS was not reached in the former cohort (median follow-up 1.21 years), while median OS was 0.80 years in the latter cohort (hazard ratio, 0.29).

    Recently, several major centers have reported experiences with select ATC treatment regimens over several decades, particularly focusing on patients who were able to undergo surgery and conventional chemoradiation therapy. The Mayo Clinic published outcomes on a selected 48 patients with ATC treated with multimodal therapy, including surgery, taxane-based chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, over a 13-year period (2003-2015), reporting a median OS of 9 months and 1-year OS of 42%.12 The Portuguese Oncology Institute13 reported a mean survival of 2 months among 79 patients with ATC over 18 years (2000 to 2018), in which patients were treated with single or multimodal therapy that included surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Using a similar treatment approach, Duke University14 reported a mean survival of 4 months and 1-year survival of 18% among 28 patients over 25 years (1990 to 2015). Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center15 recently published retrospective data on a selected group of 104 patients with ATC undergoing radiation therapy over 33 years (1984 to 2017) treated either with concurrent chemoradiation therapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel-based) or surgery and concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Median survival for the overall Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center cohort was 7 months, with 1-year survival of 34%, while patients treated selectively with surgery and postoperative concurrent chemoradiation therapy (n = 53) had a 1-year survival of 55%. In our study, we report a 1-year OS of 94% among a highly selected group of 20 patients with BRAF variation undergoing neoadjuvant BRAF-directed targeted therapy followed by surgery (with or without postoperative radiation therapy) from 2017 to 2019. This is, to our knowledge, the highest OS in the reported literature among a selected cohort of newly diagnosed ATC patients, almost half of which presented with stage IVC disease.

    Prioritizing clinical trial enrollment has been a key factor in advancing care for patients with ATC. While numerous national ATC-directed trials have either never reached accrual or been unable to commence enrollment, this study demonstrates clinical trial enrollment rates that have reached 34% for the most recently diagnosed ATC patients6—well above the national mean of less than 3% among all patients with cancer.16 Such clinical trials led to the FDA approval of dabrafenib with trametinib in 2018 for patients with BRAF V600E-variant ATC, representing the first drug therapy approved by the FDA for ATC. In addition to the BRAF V600E variation (38% positivity in this study), other clinical trials have recruited or are currently recruiting ATC patients based on the presence of genetic abnormalities such as RAS or NF1 variation (cobimetinib and atezolizumab combination [NCT03181100]),11 NTRK gene fusion (larotrectinib [NCT02122913]),17 RET variation (pralsetinib [NCT03037385]; selpercatinib [NCT03157128]; BOS172738 [NCT03780517]18), as well as several other targeted and immunotherapy-based19 therapies summarized in a recent review.20 In the current study, we report a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy in recent years, although survival improvements cannot be directly attributed to immunotherapy alone because of multiple confounding factors, particularly the use of concurrent targeted therapy. While single-agent immunotherapy has not shown great promise in the treatment of ATC,21 ongoing and/or completed clinical trials are studying the potential of combining immunotherapy agents such as pembrolizumab19 and atezolizumab11 with targeted therapy, with notable results to date. The rationale for adding immunotherapy is that all patients eventually develop resistance to kinase inhibitor targeted therapy. Immunotherapy potentially delays and/or prevents the emergence of resistance variants and also affords the ability to hold targeted therapy when doing so is required (ie, due to toxicity, during surgery, during radiation), allowing for maintenance of disease control.

    Limitations

    This study has limitations, including its retrospective design and the possibility that referral bias to a tertiary cancer center may potentially lead to higher than expected survival. Nevertheless, this study represents to date the largest single-institution experience with ATC in the literature, with more than 50% of patients presenting with stage IVC disease. Although several subgroup analyses are reported herein, the overall group of 479 patients evaluated over a 20-year period represents all patients with ATC (including >40 patients per year since 2016), while studies reporting selected subgroups of patients (with very few patients per year) must be evaluated in the context of treatment selection bias. In addition, novel targeted therapies and immunotherapy are expensive treatments, and while some of these therapies have been FDA-approved in the US, cost of treatment is a potential limitation of global widespread implementation of novel therapies for ATC.

    Conclusions

    Recent decades have seen a shift in the median OS of patients with ATC, regardless of disease stage, with the present study demonstrating nearly twice the rate of OS compared with recently published single-institution data,12-15 as well as a 300% survival increase compared with the most recent Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data analysis.1 Recent changes in management of patients with ATC may be factors in this improvement in OS. These changes include the initiation of the FAST program,6 routine and rapid molecular testing for actionable oncogenic variants and fusions, increases in the availability of and enrollment in clinical trials, and the use of targeted therapy. Further, during the 2017-1019 era, the shift of implementing neoadjuvant BRAF-directed therapy followed by surgery may have led to greater improvements in OS for patients with the BRAF V600E variation. Given that BRAF-directed therapy is highly effective and that surgically unresectable tumors in patients become resectable after receipt of these drugs (although resistance may develop), the traditional trimodal therapy of surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation may be replaced in the future at other institutions with up-front BRAF/MEK inhibitors followed by surgery with or without adjuvant chemoradiation in patients with stage IVB and IVC BRAF V600E variation.

    Over the past 5 years, treatment of ATC has evolved from primarily palliation and hospice care to effective highly specialized molecular-based personalized therapies and surgery when appropriate, regardless of disease stage.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: June 10, 2020.

    Corresponding Author: Maria E. Cabanillas, MD, Department of Endocrine Neoplasia and Hormonal Disorders, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Rd, Unit 1461, Houston, TX 77030 (mcabani@mdanderson.org).

    Published Online: August 6, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3362

    Author Contributions: Drs Cabanillas and Zafereo had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Maniakas and Dadu are co-first authors and contributed equally. Drs Cabanillas and Zafereo are co-senior authors.

    Concept and design: Maniakas, Dadu, Busaidy, Wang, Ferrarotto, Gunn, Hofmann, Cabanillas, Zafereo.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Maniakas, Dadu, Busaidy, Ferrarotto, Lu, Williams, Gunn, Cote, Sperling, Gross, Sturgis, Goepfert, Lai, Cabanillas, Zafereo.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Maniakas, Cote, Cabanillas, Zafereo.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Maniakas, Wang, Sperling.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Maniakas, Wang, Ferrarotto, Gunn, Gross, Zafereo.

    Supervision: Maniakas, Dadu, Busaidy, Wang, Ferrarotto, Gunn, Hofmann, Cote, Sturgis, Cabanillas, Zafereo.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Dadu reported receiving grants from Merck, Exelixis Eisai, and AstraZeneca, and receiving personal fees from Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr Ferrarotto reported receiving personal fees from Regeneron-Sanofi, Ayala Pharma, and Klus Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr Gross reported receiving personal fees from Shattuck Labs, PDS Biotechnology, Genzyme, and Intuitive Surgical, receiving grants from Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr Lai reported receiving personal fees from Cardinal Health outside the submitted work. Dr Cabanillas reported receiving grants from Genentech, personal fees from LOXO, Ignyta, grants from Eisai and Merck outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Meeting Presentation: This paper was presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Thyroid Association; November 2, 2019; Chicago, Illinois.

    Additional Contributions: We thank Maitrayee Goswami, MSc, Li Xu, PhD, and Dongmin Wei, MD, research assistants at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, for their effort and time in collecting the data. No compensation was received outside of usual salary.

    References
    1.
    Lin  B, Ma  H, Ma  M,  et al.  The incidence and survival analysis for anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: a SEER database analysis.   Am J Transl Res. 2019;11(9):5888-5896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Are  C, Shaha  AR.  Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: biology, pathogenesis, prognostic factors, and treatment approaches.   Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):453-464. doi:10.1245/ASO.2006.05.042PubMedGoogle Scholar
    3.
    Smallridge  RC, Marlow  LA, Copland  JA.  Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: molecular pathogenesis and emerging therapies.   Endocr Relat Cancer. 2009;16(1):17-44. doi:10.1677/ERC-08-0154PubMedGoogle Scholar
    4.
    Smallridge  RC, Ain  KB, Asa  SL,  et al; American Thyroid Association Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer Guidelines Taskforce.  American Thyroid Association guidelines for management of patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2012;22(11):1104-1139. doi:10.1089/thy.2012.0302PubMedGoogle Scholar
    5.
    Rao  SN, Zafereo  M, Dadu  R,  et al.  Patterns of treatment failure in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2017;27(5):672-681. doi:10.1089/thy.2016.0395PubMedGoogle Scholar
    6.
    Cabanillas  ME, Williams  MD, Gunn  GB,  et al.  Facilitating anaplastic thyroid cancer specialized treatment: a model for improving access to multidisciplinary care for patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Head Neck. 2017;39(7):1291-1295. doi:10.1002/hed.24784PubMedGoogle Scholar
    7.
    Subbiah  V, Kreitman  RJ, Wainberg  ZA,  et al.  Dabrafenib and trametinib treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(1):7-13. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.73.6785PubMedGoogle Scholar
    8.
    Wang  JR, Zafereo  ME, Dadu  R,  et al.  Complete surgical resection following neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2019;29(8):1036-1043. doi:10.1089/thy.2019.0133PubMedGoogle Scholar
    9.
    Cabanillas  ME, Ferrarotto  R, Garden  AS,  et al.  Neoadjuvant BRAF- and immune-directed therapy for anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Thyroid. 2018;28(7):945-951. doi:10.1089/thy.2018.0060PubMedGoogle Scholar
    10.
    Charlson  ME, Pompei  P, Ales  KL, MacKenzie  CR.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.   J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
    11.
    Cabanillas  M, Busaidy  N, Dadu  R,  et al.  OR27-6 combination vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor)/cobimetinib (MEK inhibitor)/atezolizumab (anti-PDL1 inhibitor) in BRAF-V600E mutated anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC): initial safety and feasibility.   J Endocr Soc. 2019;3(suppl 1):OR27-OR6.Google Scholar
    12.
    Prasongsook  N, Kumar  A, Chintakuntlawar  AV,  et al.  Survival in response to multimodal therapy in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(12):4506-4514. doi:10.1210/jc.2017-01180PubMedGoogle Scholar
    13.
    Simões-Pereira  J, Capitão  R, Limbert  E, Leite  V.  Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: clinical picture of the last two decades at a single oncology referral centre and novel therapeutic options.   Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(8):11. doi:10.3390/cancers11081188PubMedGoogle Scholar
    14.
    Corrigan  KL, Williamson  H, Elliott Range  D, Niedzwiecki  D, Brizel  DM, Mowery  YM.  Treatment outcomes in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Thyroid Res. 2019;2019:8218949. doi:10.1155/2019/8218949PubMedGoogle Scholar
    15.
    Fan  D, Ma  J, Bell  AC,  et al.  Outcomes of multimodal therapy in a large series of patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   Cancer. 2020;126(2):444-452. doi:10.1002/cncr.32548PubMedGoogle Scholar
    16.
    Murthy  VH, Krumholz  HM, Gross  CP.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.   JAMA. 2004;291(22):2720-2726. doi:10.1001/jama.291.22.2720PubMedGoogle Scholar
    17.
    Drilon  A, Laetsch  TW, Kummar  S,  et al.  Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):731-739. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1714448PubMedGoogle Scholar
    18.
    Schoffski  P, Aftimos  PG, Massard  C,  et al.  A phase I study of BOS172738 in patients with advanced solid tumors with RET gene alterations including non-small cell lung cancer and medullary thyroid cancer.   J Clin Oncol 2019;37:TPS3162-TPS. doi:10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.TPS3162Google Scholar
    19.
    Iyer  PC, Dadu  R, Gule-Monroe  M,  et al.  Salvage pembrolizumab added to kinase inhibitor therapy for the treatment of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):68. doi:10.1186/s40425-018-0378-yPubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Cabanillas  ME, Ryder  M, Jimenez  C.  Targeted therapy for advanced thyroid cancer: kinase inhibitors and beyond.   Endocr Rev. 2019;40(6):1573-1604. doi:10.1210/er.2019-00007PubMedGoogle Scholar
    21.
    Wirth  LJ, Eigendorff  E, Capdevila  J,  et al.  Phase I/II study of spartalizumab (PDR001), an anti-PD1 mAb, in patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.   J Clin Oncol 2018;36:6024. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.6024Google Scholar
    ×