Comparison of Cabozantinib and Axitinib as Second-line Therapy After Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Real-world Data.

BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0-16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0-13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

Beyond the Label: Real-World Side Effects Experienced With FDA-Approved Drugs for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers.

With immunotherapy historically focused on cutaneous melanoma, there has been a new wave of systemic medications available for treating non-melanoma skin cancers including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). The immune checkpoint inhibitors approved by the FDA target programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway. These medications have expanded treatment options; however, side effects are an important consideration. We used the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) to characterize the most prevalent, real-world side effects experienced by patients on these agents. Muscle spasms (23.45%), alopecia (16.06%), ageusia (12.02%), taste disorder (11.91%), and fatigue (11.67%) were the five most common side effects reported with medications used for BCC treatment. Logistic regression analysis showed males on vismodegib for BCC having greater odds of experiencing muscle spasms (aOR 1.33, P<0.001) and ageusia (aOR 1.34,  P<0.001) versus females, who were more likely to exhibit alopecia (aOR 1.82, P<0.001) and nausea (aOR 1.96, P<0.001). With SCC treatment, the 5 most reported adverse events were fatigue (5.58%), rash (3.59%), asthenia (3.59%), pruritus (3.19%), and pyrexia (2.79%). Patients taking cemiplimab-rwlc for BCC compared to SCC were more likely to experience disease progression (aOR 10.98, P=0.02). With medication labels providing an excessively daunting list of side effects, we characterize practical side effects seen in patients receiving systemic treatments for non-melanoma skin cancers.  J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(5):301-305. doi:10.36849/JDD.7968.

Phase II, Single-Arm Trial of Induction and Concurrent Vismodegib With Curative-Intent Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced, Unresectable Basal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Locally advanced, unresectable basal cell carcinoma (LA BCC) can be treated with radiation therapy (RT), but locoregional control (LRC) rates are unsatisfactory. Vismodegib is a hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HPI) active in BCC that may radiosensitize BCC. We evaluated the combination of vismodegib and RT for patients with LA BCC. METHODS: In this multicenter, single-arm, phase II study, patients with unresectable LA BCC received 12 weeks of induction vismodegib, followed by 7 weeks of concurrent vismodegib and RT. The primary end point was LRC rate at 1 year after the end of treatment. Secondary end points included objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients received vismodegib; five were unable to complete 12 weeks of induction therapy. LRC was achieved in 91% (95% CI, 68 to 98) of patients at 1 year. The response rate was 63% (95% CI, 38 to 84) after induction vismodegib and 83% (95% CI, 59 to 96) after concurrent vismodegib and RT. With a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 1-year PFS and OS rates were 100% and 96%, and at 5 years PFS and OS rates were 78% and 83%, respectively. Distant metastasis or BCC-related death has not been observed. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were dysgeusia, fatigue, and myalgias occurring in 83%, 75%, and 75% of patients. No grade 4 to 5 treatment-related AEs occurred. PRQOL demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in all subscales, with emotions and functioning improvements persisting for a year after the end of treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients with unresectable LA BCC, the combination of vismodegib and RT yielded high rates of LRC and PFS and durable improvements in PRQOL.

Cabozantinib in patients with unresectable and progressive metastatic phaeochromocytoma or paraganglioma (the Natalie Trial): a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas (MPPGs) are orphan diseases. Up to 50% of MPPGs are associated with germline pathogenic variants of the SDHB gene. These tumours and many non-familial MPPGs exhibit a phenotype that is characterised by abnormal angiogenesis. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of cabozantinib, an antiangiogenic multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with MPPGs. METHODS: The Natalie Trial is a single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial being conducted at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, progressive, and unresectable MPPGs, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were treated with oral cabozantinib 60 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed overall response rate per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 criteria. All outcomes were assessed in all evaluable participants who received any amount of study treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02302833) and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: From March 10, 2015, to May 11, 2021, 17 patients (13 male participants and four female participants) were enrolled. The median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 18-49). The overall response rate was 25·0% (95% CI 7·3-52·4; four of 16 patients). Seven grade 3 adverse events were reported in six patients, including single cases of hand-and-foot syndrome, hypertension, rectal fistula, QT prolongation, and asymptomatic hypomagnesaemia, and two cases of asymptomatic elevations of amylase and lipase. There were no grade 4 adverse events and no patient died on-study. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib shows promising activity in patients with MPPGs. FUNDING: Team NAT Foundation, Margaret Cazalot, and Clarence P Cazalot.

Cabozantinib monotherapy for advanced adrenocortical carcinoma: a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare malignancy with poor response to systemic chemotherapy. Mitotane is the only approved therapy for adrenocortical carcinoma. Cabozantinib is a multikinase inhibitor approved in multiple malignancies. This is the first prospective trial to explore the anti-tumour activity, safety, and pharmacokinetic profile of cabozantinib in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, single-arm, phase 2 trial in adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma was done at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Eligible patients had histologically confirmed adrenocortical carcinoma, were not candidates for surgery with curative intent, had measurable disease, had an estimated life expectancy of at least 3 months, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 with adequate organ function. Patients who had used mitotane within 6 months of study participation were required to have a serum mitotane level of less than 2 mg/L. Patients were given oral cabozantinib 60 mg daily with the option of dose reduction to manage adverse events. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 4 months, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03370718, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2018, and May 31, 2021, we enrolled 18 patients (ten males and eight females), all of whom received at least one dose of study treatment. Of the 18 patients, eight (44%) had an ECOG performance status of 0, nine (50%) patients had a performance status of 1, and one (6%) patient had a performance status of 2. Median follow-up was 36·8 months (IQR 30·2-50·3). At 4 months, 13 (72·2%; 95% CI 46·5-90·3) of 18 patients had progression-free survival and median progression-free survival was 6 months (95% CI 4·3 to not reached). One patient remains on treatment. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 11 (61%) of 18 patients. The most common grade 3 adverse events were lipase elevation (three [17%] of 18 patients), elevated γ-glutamyl transferase concentrations (two [11%] patients), elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations (two [11%] patients), hypophosphatemia (two [11%] patients), and hypertension (two [11%] patients). One (6%) of 18 patients had grade 4 hypertension. No treatment related deaths occurred on study. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma showed promising efficacy with a manageable and anticipated safety profile. Further prospective studies with cabozantinib alone and in combination with immune checkpoint therapy are ongoing. FUNDING: Exelixis.

Adverse events of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab plus cabozantinib: a real-world pharmacovigilance study.

BACKGROUND: No head-to-head clinical trials have compared the differences in adverse events (AEs) between nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). AIM: We analysed the two largest real-world databases, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's VigiBase, to elucidate the differences in AEs between NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO. METHOD: In total, 40,376 and 38,022 records were extracted from FAERS and VigiBase, and 193 AEs were analysed. The reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using a disproportionality analysis (NIVO-CABO/NIVO-IPI). RESULTS: The reported numbers of immune-related AEs, including myocarditis, colitis, and hepatitis, were significantly higher with NIVO-IPI (ROR = 0.18 for FAERS and 0.13 for VigiBase). Contrarily, the reported numbers of other AEs, including gastrointestinal disorders (ROR = 2.68 and 2.92) and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (ROR = 2.94 and 3.55), considered to be potentiated by the combination of NIVO and CABO, were higher with NIVO-CABO. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to the selection and clinical management of NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO, which minimizes the risk of AEs for individual patients with mRCC by considering distinctive differences in the AE profiles.

CONTACT-01: A Randomized Phase III Trial of Atezolizumab + Cabozantinib Versus Docetaxel for Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After a Checkpoint Inhibitor and Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Although checkpoint inhibitors have improved first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a therapeutic need remains for patients whose disease does not respond or who experience disease progression after anti-PD-L1/PD-1 immunotherapy. CONTACT-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04471428) evaluated atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus docetaxel in patients with metastatic NSCLC who developed disease progression after concurrent or sequential treatment with anti-PD-L1/PD-1 and platinum-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase III trial randomly assigned patients 1:1 to atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks (q3w) plus cabozantinib 40 mg orally once daily or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six patients were assigned atezolizumab plus cabozantinib, and 180 docetaxel. Minimum OS follow-up was 10.9 months. Median OS was 10.7 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 12.3) with atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and 10.5 months (95% CI, 8.6 to 13.0) with docetaxel (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16]; P = .3668). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.6) and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 4.4), respectively (stratified HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 71 (38.4%) patients receiving atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and 58 (34.7%) receiving docetaxel. Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 73 (39.5%) patients receiving atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and 58 (34.7%) receiving docetaxel. Grade 5 AEs occurred in 14 (7.6%) and 10 (6.0%) patients in the atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and docetaxel arms, respectively (treatment-related in four [2.2%] and one [0.6%], respectively). CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib after disease progression following anti-PD-L1/PD-1 immunotherapy and platinum-containing chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC did not improve OS compared with docetaxel. Safety was consistent with known profiles of these agents.

Association of Cabozantinib Dose Reductions for Toxicity With Clinical Effectiveness in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC): Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib, an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has demonstrated efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The association between toxicity and therapeutic effectiveness has been established with other TKIs. We investigated whether cabozantinib dose reductions, a surrogate for toxicity and adequate drug exposure, were associated with improved clinical outcomes in mRCC. METHODS: Employing the CKCis database, we analyzed patients treated with cabozantinib in the second line or later between 2011 to 2021. The cohort was stratified into those needing dose reductions (DR) during treatment and those not (no-DR). Outcomes, including objective response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS), were compared based on dose reduction status. The influence of the initial dose on outcomes was also explored. RESULTS: Among 319 cabozantinib-treated patients, 48.3% underwent dose reductions. Response rates exhibited no significant difference between the DR and no-DR groups (15.1% vs. 18.2%, P = .55). Patients with DR had superior median OS (26.15 vs. 15.47 months, P = .019) and TTF (12.74 vs. 6.44 months, P = .022) compared to no-DR patients. These differences retained significance following adjustment for IMDC risk group (OS HR = 0.67, P = .032; TTF HR = 0.65, P = .008). There was no association between the initial dose and ORR, OS, or TTF. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the link between cabozantinib dose reductions due to toxicity and improved survival and time to treatment failure in mRCC patients. These findings underscore the potential of using on-treatment toxicity as an indicator of adequate drug exposure to individualize dosing and optimize treatment effectiveness. Larger studies are warranted to validate these results and develop individualized strategies for cabozantinib when given alone or in combination with immunotherapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety of cabozantinib for malignant tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the efficacy and safety profile of cabozantinib versus placebo in malignant tumors, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This involved analyzing a collection of published randomized controlled trials to assess the outcomes. METHODS: We used RevMan5.3 software to evaluate the outcomes of the collected studies. The primary outcome we focused on was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS: Our findings revealed that compared to placebo, cabozantinib significantly extended the PFS of patients [hazard ratios (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.32, 0.43, p < 0.00001]. Additionally, cabozantinib improved the OS of patients [HR 0.78, 95%CI: 0.68, 0.91, p = 0.002]. While it is important to note that cabozantinib was associated with a higher likelihood of causing digestive, cutaneous, and cardiovascular related adverse events [relative risk (RR) 4.40, 95% CI: 3.10, 6.25, p < 0.00001]. CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis, cabozantinib significantly prolonged the PFS and OS of patients with malignant tumors (p < 0.01). We recommend the use of cabozantinib in treating advanced malignant tumors. However, it is important to continuously monitor and manage the drug-related adverse events. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (No. CRD42023449261).

Relationship Between Adverse Events and Progression-free Survival in Patients Receiving Cabozantinib for Previously Treated Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Although the adverse events (AEs) of drugs, such as sunitinib and axitinib, have been shown to predict treatment responses, evidence to support cabozantinib-induced AEs as predictors of responses to treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is limited. Therefore, we herein investigated the relationship between AE profiles and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving cabozantinib for previously treated mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The present study retrospectively analyzed 40 patients receiving cabozantinib for previously treated mRCC between July 2020 and August 2022. PFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the impact of several parameters, including cabozantinib-induced AEs, on PFS was investigated by a Cox proportional regression analysis. RESULTS: The median observation period was 15 (2-29) months, during which time 31 patients (77.5%) progressed, with median PFS of 11 months. Thirty-nine patients (97.5%) developed at least one AE. Liver toxicity occurred in 16 patients (40.0%) and hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and diarrhea in 14 each (17.5%). Only hypertension correlated with longer PFS. A multivariate analysis identified hypertension as an independent prognostic factor for PFS (p=0.049). CONCLUSION: These results suggest the potential of treatment-induced hypertension as a significant predictor of prolonged PFS in patients receiving cabozantinib for mRCC.

Determination of enzalutamide long-term safety and efficacy for castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy: a multicenter prospective DELC study.

BACKGROUND: Alternative anti-androgen therapy has been widely used as a first-line treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer, and it may affect treatment outcome of subsequent agents targeting the androgen receptor axis. We conducted the prospective observational DELC (Determination of Enzalutamide Long-term safety and efficacy for Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy) study to evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent prior combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide and then alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide. METHODS: The DELC study enrolled 163 Japanese patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide following failure of initial combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide in multiple institutions between January 2016 and March 2019. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Administration of enzalutamide was started at 160 mg orally once daily in all patients. RESULTS: The rate of decline of prostate-specific antigen by 50% or more was 72.2%, and median overall survival was 42.05 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher pretreatment serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (≥11.3 ng/mL; P = 0.004), neuron-specific enolase (P = 0.014) and interleukin-6 (≥2.15 pg/mL; P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for overall survival. Fatigue (30.0%), constipation (19.6%) and appetite loss (17.8%) were the most common clinically relevant adverse events. The enzalutamide dose was not reduced in any patient under the age of 70, but adherence was decreased in those over 70. CONCLUSIONS: In the DELC study, the safety of enzalutamide was comparable to that in previous reports. Serum levels of neuron-specific enolase and interleukin-6 were suggested as prognostic factors for castration-resistant prostate cancer with potential clinical utility.

Exposure-response relationship of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in routine care.

BACKGROUND: Interindividual pharmacokinetic variability may influence the clinical benefit or toxicity of cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to investigate the exposure-toxicity and exposure-response relationship of cabozantinib in unselected mRCC patients treated in routine care. METHODS: This ambispective multicenter study enrolled consecutive patients receiving cabozantinib in monotherapy. Steady-state trough concentration (Cmin,ss) within the first 3 months after treatment initiation was used for the PK/PD analysis with dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and survival outcomes. Logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models were used to identify the risk factors of DLT and inefficacy in patients, respectively. RESULTS: Seventy-eight mRCC patients were eligible for the statistical analysis. Fifty-two patients (67%) experienced DLT with a median onset of 2.1 months (95%CI 0.7-8.2). In multivariate analysis, Cmin,ss was identified as an independent risk factor of DLT (OR 1.46, 95%CI [1.04-2.04]; p = 0.029). PFS and OS were not statistically associated with the starting dose (p = 0.81 and p = 0.98, respectively). In the multivariate analysis of PFS, Cmin, ss > 336 ng/mL resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.28 (95%CI, 0.10-0.77, p = 0.014). By contrast, Cmin, ss > 336 ng/mL was not statistically associated with longer OS. CONCLUSION: Early plasma drug monitoring may be useful to optimise cabozantinib treatment in mRCC patients treated in monotherapy, especially in frail patients starting at a lower than standard dose.

Cabozantinib-induced heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: Cabozantinib is a multikinase inhibitor agent used in the treatment of hepatocellular, renal, and thyroid cancers. The development of heart failure after cabozantinib initiation is an extremely rare side effect, with only four case reports published in the literature. We describe a case of cabozantinib-induced cardiac failure in a patient with thyroid cancer refractory to standard treatment. CASE REPORT: Fifty-seven-year-old woman had no history of cardiovascular disease. Echocardiography prior to chemotherapy revealed normal cardiac function. However, she developed pretibial edema and shortness of breath after 2 months of cabozantinib treatment. Ejection fraction was found to be 30% in the echocardiography of the patient, and global hypokinesia was detected in cardiac functions. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Cabozantinib treatment of the patient was discontinued. After discontinuation of treatment, the patient's cardiac functions did not return to normal. Heart failure due to cabozantinib treatment was thought to be permanent. DISCUSSION: There are only four cases on this subject in the literature. Although the use of cabozantinib rarely causes heart failure, this side effect can have extremely serious consequences. Even if it is a rare condition, cardiological evaluations should be performed before and after cabozantinib therapy because it can be reversible after discontinuation of the treatment.

Real-World Results of Cabozantinib Given as Alternative Schedule in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The multikinase-inhibitor Cabozantinib is a widely used treatment strategy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), either in combination with the programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab or as monotherapy. Cabozantinib is given continuously at a dose of 60 mg once daily when used as a single agent and at 40 mg when combined with nivolumab. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE's) were shown to occur frequently. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in patients with mRCC. Patients were treated in various lines. Furthermore, we analyzed the impact of an alternative treatment schedule in patients not able to maintain continuous dosing. PATIENTS: This is a single center retrospective study from the Medical University of Vienna. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall response rates (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated for the entire cohort, by treatment line and by treatment schedule. RESULTS: Between January 2014 until April 2021, 71 patients received cabozantinib. Sixty-seven patients were eligible for full evaluation. By IMDC criteria, 32.4%, 59.2%, and 8.5% were classified as favorable, intermediate and poor risk respectively. Cabozantinib was offered as a 2nd-line or 3rd-line treatment in 38.0% and 32.4% of patients, respectively. An alternative treatment schedule was offered in 39.1% of patients. Objective responses were found in 43.3% (CR 6%) of patients and the median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 5.5-16.2). When compared to continuous dosing, an alternative treatment schedule was associated with longer PFS (12.2 months (95% CI: 0-25.5) vs. 6.1 months (95% CI: 0.37-11.8) (P = .014, HR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.24-0.86), respectively) and a lower frequency and severity of TRAE's. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in real world is comparable to what has been observed in the pivotal trials, irrespective of the treatment line. An alternative schedule may further improve efficacy and safety.

GnRH antagonist monotherapy versus a GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; KYUCOG-1401.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist monotherapy to combined androgen blockade (CAB) with a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide in patients with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). METHODS: The study was conducted as KYUCOG-1401 trial (UMIN000014243) and enrolled 200 patients who were randomly assigned to either group A (GnRH antagonist monotherapy followed by the addition of bicalutamide) or group B (CAB by a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide). The primary endpoint was PSA progression-free survival. The secondary endpoints were the time to CAB treatment failure, radiographic progression-free survival, overall survival, changes in serum parameters, including PSA, hormones, and bone and lipid metabolic markers, and adverse events. RESULTS: PSA progression-free survival was significantly longer in group B (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.40, 1.01-1.95, p = 0.041). The time to CAB treatment failure was slightly longer in group A (HR, 95% CI; 0.80, 0.59-1.08, p = 0.146). No significant differences were observed in radiographic progression-free survival or overall survival. The percentage of patients with serum testosterone that did not reach the castration level was higher at 60 weeks (p = 0.046) in group A. No significant differences were noted in the serum levels of bone metabolic or lipid markers between the two groups. An injection site reaction was more frequent in group A. CONCLUSIONS: The present results support the potential of CAB using a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide as a more effective treatment for advanced HSPC than GnRH antagonist monotherapy.

Cabozantinib in the Routine Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Evidence.

Real-world cabozantinib use has increased since its approval to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in 2016. We reviewed cabozantinib use in real-world clinical practice and compared outcomes with pivotal cabozantinib randomized control trials (RCTs). This PRISMA-standard systematic literature review evaluated real-world effectiveness and tolerability of cabozantinib in patients with RCC (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021245854). Systematic MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database searches were conducted on November 2, 2022. Eligible publications included ≥ 20 patients with RCC receiving cabozantinib. After double-screening for eligibility, standardized data were abstracted, qualitatively summarized, and assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of 353 screened publications, 41 were included, representing approximately 11,000 real-world patients. Most publications reported cabozantinib monotherapy cohort studies (40/41) of retrospective (39/41) and multicenter (32/41) design; most included patients from North America and/or Europe (30/41). Baseline characteristics were demographically similar between real-world and pivotal RCT populations, but real-world populations showed greater variation in prevalence of prior nephrectomy, multiple-site/brain metastasis, and nonclear-cell RCC histology. Cabozantinib activity was reported across real-world treatment lines and tumor types. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate values from pivotal RCTs were within the ranges reported for equivalent outcomes across real-world studies. Common real-world grade ≥ 3 adverse events were consistent with those in pivotal RCTs (fatigue, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, diarrhea, hypertension), but less frequent. No new tolerability concerns were identified. Real-world RCC survival outcomes for cabozantinib monotherapy were broadly consistent with pivotal RCTs, despite greater heterogeneity in real-world populations.

Hedgehog Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Complete Response in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Should I Stop or Should I Go?

INTRODUCTION: In advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the issue of whether Hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) should be stopped or not after clinical complete response (cCR) achievement remains an unmet clinical need. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study across 7 Italian dermato-oncology units including patients with BCC who continued vismodegib after cCR between 2012 and 2019. We assessed the relationship between the duration of vismodegib intake (days to cCR [DTCR], days to stop after cCR [DTS], total treatment days [TTD]), and disease-free survival (DFS). Reasons to stop vismodegib were (R1) toxicity and (R2) disease recurrence. The relationship between DTCR, DTS, TTD, and DFS in the whole population and in R1 subgroup was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient (P < .05) and Bayesian statistics (BF10). RESULTS: Sixty-eight BCC patients with a median (m) age of 75.5 years (39-100) were included. Most patients were male (N = 43, 63%), without Gorlin syndrome (N = 56, 82%) and with head and neck area as primary site (N = 51, 75%). After cCR, out of 68 patients, 90% (N = 61/68) discontinued vismodegib: 82% (N = 50/61) due to toxicity (R1), and 18% (N = 11/61) due to recurrence (R2). Conversely, 10% (N = 7/68) continued vismodegib until last follow-up. In the whole population (N = 68), cCR was achieved with a mDTCR of 180.50 days. DFS showed a significant correlation with DTS (P < .01, BF10 = 39.2) and TTD (P < .01, BF10 = 35566), while it was not correlated to DTCR (BF10 < 0.1). The analysis of R1 subgroup (N = 50) confirmed these results. DFS correlated with DTS in all recurrent patients (N = 38, r = 0.44, P < .01) and in the recurrent patients who stopped vismodegib for toxicity (N = 26, r = 0.665, P < .01). DFS was longer when vismodegib was maintained for >2 months after cCR (mDFS > 2 months, N = 54 vs. ≤ 2 months, N = 14: 470 vs. 175 d, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective results suggest that HHIs should be continued after cCR to improve DFS in BCC.

Assessing patient burden and benefit: A decade of cabozantinib clinical trials.

Drug development is complex and costly. Clinical trial participants take on risks, making it essential to maximize trial efficiency and maintain participant safety. Identifying periods of excessive burden during drug development can inform trial design, ensure patient benefit and prevent harm. This study aims to examine all published clinical trials for cabozantinib to assess patient benefit and burden over time. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of interventional clinical trials of cabozantinib for solid cancer treatment. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted adverse event rates, median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival and objective response rate (ORR) for each included trial. We calculated frequencies of trial characteristics, cumulative grade 3-5 adverse event rates and cumulative ORRs. Out of 1735 studies, 54 publications were included that involved 6372 participants and 21 cancers. Of the 54 studies in our sample, 31 (57.41%) were single-arm trials and 23 (42.60%) had negative results. Trials among and within various indications had conflicting results over time. Cumulative risk to participants increased over time, and clinical benefit decreased. The findings suggest that the risk profile of cabozantinib increased from 2011 to 2016 and has remained elevated but stable while benefit has decreased over time. The use of non-randomized and single-arm trials is concerning, and more methodologically rigorous trials are needed. The results of trials for different indications are inconsistent, and empirical administration may reduce the drug's efficacy.