Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Untreated Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma of Intermediate or Poor Risk: Subgroup Analysis of the Alliance A031203 CABOSUN trial.

Cabozantinib treatment prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria in the phase II CABOSUN trial (NCT01835158). In the trial, 157 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or sunitinib, stratified by IMDC risk group and presence of bone metastases. Here, PFS and ORR, both determined by independent radiology committee (IRC), were analyzed by subgroups of baseline characteristics. Cabozantinib treatment was generally associated with improved PFS and ORR versus sunitinib across subgroups, including in groups defined by IMDC risk group, bone metastases, age, and tumor burden. Clinical trial identification number NCT01835158.

Correlative analyses of RET and RAS mutations in a phase 3 trial of cabozantinib in patients with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus a placebo in patients with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC; P < .001). An exploratory analysis of phase 3 trial data evaluated the influence of rearranged during transfection (RET) and RAS (HRAS, KRAS, and NRAS) mutations on cabozantinib clinical activity. METHODS: Patients (n = 330) were randomized to cabozantinib (140 mg/day) or a placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS. Additional outcome measures included PFS, objective response rates (ORRs), and adverse events in RET and RAS mutation subgroups. RESULTS: Among all study patients, 51.2% were RET mutation-positive (38.2% with RET M918T), 34.8% were RET mutation-unknown, and 13.9% were RET mutation-negative. Sixteen patients were RAS mutation-positive. Cabozantinib appeared to prolong PFS versus the placebo in the RET mutation-positive subgroup (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.38; P < .0001), the RET mutation-unknown subgroup (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; P = .0001), and the RAS mutation-positive subgroup (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-1.10; P = .0317). The RET M918T subgroup achieved the greatest observed PFS benefit from cabozantinib versus the placebo (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08-0.28; P < .0001). The ORRs for RET mutation-positive, RET mutation-negative, and RAS mutation-positive patients were 32%, 22%, and 31%, respectively. No PFS benefit was observed in patients lacking both RET and RAS mutations, although the ORR was 21%. The safety profile for all subgroups was similar to that for the overall cabozantinib arm. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that cabozantinib provides the greatest clinical benefit to patients with MTC who have RET M918T or RAS mutations. However, a prospective trial is needed to confirm the relation between genetic variation and the response to cabozantinib. Cancer 2016;122:3856-3864. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Quality of life assessment of cabozantinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the CELESTIAL trial.

BACKGROUND: The CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426) demonstrated overall survival benefit for cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) who had received prior sorafenib treatment. This analysis of CELESTIAL compared the impact of cabozantinib versus placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health status was assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire over the 800-day follow-up period. EQ-5D-5L health states were mapped to health utility scores using reference values for the UK population. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each treatment group as the area under the curve for the plot of health utility score over time. The between-treatment group difference in restricted mean QALYs was calculated by generalized linear models and adjusted for baseline differences. A difference of 0.08 in health utility score (or in QALY) was deemed a minimally important difference and to be clinically significant. RESULTS: At week 5, the difference in mean health utility score between cabozantinib and placebo was -0.097 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: -0.126, -0.067; p ≤ 0.001). Between-group differences in health utility scores diminished over time and were generally non-significant. The cabozantinib group accrued more QALYs than the placebo group over follow-up. Differences in mean QALYs (cabozantinib minus placebo) were statistically and clinically significant, ranging from +0.092 (95% CI: 0.016, 0.169) to +0.185 (95% CI: 0.126, 0.243) in favour of cabozantinib, depending on the reference value set used. CONCLUSIONS: These HRQoL findings support a positive benefit-risk profile for cabozantinib in previously treated patients with aHCC.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Noninferiority Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of the Cabozantinib Tablet at 60 mg Per Day Compared with the Cabozantinib Capsule at 140 mg Per Day in Patients with Progressive, Metastatic Medullary Thyroid Cancer.

Background: Cabozantinib inhibits pathways involved in medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Cabozantinib is approved as 140 mg/day in capsules for MTC and 60 mg/day in tablets for other solid tumors. This study compared the two doses in progressive metastatic MTC. Methods: In this Phase 4, randomized, double-blind noninferiority (NI) trial (NCT01896479), patients with progressive metastatic MTC were randomized 1:1 to cabozantinib 60 mg/day tablet or 140 mg/day capsules. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent radiology committee (BIRC) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. NI would be concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval [CI] for the PFS hazard ratio (HR) was less than the NI margin, 1.58. The secondary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by BIRC per RECIST v1.1; additional end points included safety and pharmacokinetics. Results: At data cutoff (July 15, 2020), 247 patients were randomized to the 60 mg/day tablet arm (n = 123) and the 140 mg/day capsules arm (n = 124). NI was not met (median PFS 11.0 months vs. 13.9 months in the 60 and 140 mg/day arms [HR 1.24; CI 0.90-1.70; p = 0.19]). The ORR was 33% in both arms. Generally, adverse event (AE) incidence was lower in the 60 mg/day arm (Grade 3/4, 63% vs. 72%), as were dose reductions (69% vs. 81%) and treatment discontinuations due to AEs (23% vs. 36%). Initially, cabozantinib plasma concentrations were higher in the 140 mg/day arm but became similar between arms at later time points. Conclusions: PFS NI of the cabozantinib 60 mg/day tablet vs. 140 mg/day capsules was not met. The 60 mg/day tablet had the same ORR and lower rates of AEs. Clinical Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01896479.

Cabozantinib Versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial with a Primary Pain Endpoint.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with debilitating pain and functional compromise. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain palliation as the primary endpoint for cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in men with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases using patient-reported outcome measures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial (COMET-2; NCT01522443) in men with mCRPC and narcotic-dependent pain from bone metastases who had progressed after treatment with docetaxel and either abiraterone or enzalutamide. INTERVENTION: Cabozantinib 60mg once daily orally versus mitoxantrone 12mg/m2 every 3wk plus prednisone 5mg twice daily orally. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was pain response at week 6 confirmed at week 12 (≥30% decrease from baseline in patient-reported average daily worst pain score via the Brief Pain Inventory without increased narcotic use). The planned sample size was 246 to achieve ≥90% power. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Enrollment was terminated early because cabozantinib did not demonstrate a survival benefit in the companion COMET-1 trial. At study closure, 119 participants were randomized (cabozantinib: N=61; mitoxantrone-prednisone: N=58). Complete pain and narcotic use data were available at baseline, week 6, and week 12 for 73/106 (69%) patients. There was no significant difference in the pain response with cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone: the proportions of responders were 15% versus 17%, a -2% difference (95% confidence interval: -16% to 11%, p=0.8). Barriers to accrual included pretreatment requirements for a washout period of prior anticancer therapy and a narcotic optimization period to maximize analgesic dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib treatment did not demonstrate better pain palliation than mitoxantrone-prednisone in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases. Future pain-palliation trials should incorporate briefer timelines from enrollment to treatment initiation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cabozantinib was not better than mitoxantrone-prednisone for pain relief in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and debilitating pain from bone metastases.

Cabozantinib versus sunitinib as initial therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma of intermediate or poor risk (Alliance A031203 CABOSUN randomised trial): Progression-free survival by independent review and overall survival update.

BACKGROUND: The randomised phase 2 CABOSUN trial comparing cabozantinib with sunitinib as initial therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk met the primary end-point of improving progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by investigator. We report PFS by independent radiology review committee (IRC) assessment, ORR per IRC and updated overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with advanced RCC of intermediate or poor risk by IMDC criteria were randomised 1:1 to cabozantinib 60 mg daily or sunitinib 50 mg daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Stratification was by risk group and presence of bone metastases. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were randomised 1:1 to cabozantinib (n = 79) or sunitinib (n = 78). Median PFS per IRC was 8.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-14.0) versus 5.3 months (95% CI 3.0-8.2) for cabozantinib versus sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.31-0.74]; two-sided p = 0.0008), and ORR per IRC was 20% (95% CI 12.0-30.8) versus 9% (95% CI 3.7-17.6), respectively. Subgroup analyses of PFS by stratification factors and MET tumour expression were consistent with results for the overall population. With a median follow-up of 34.5 months, median OS was 26.6 months (95% CI 14.6-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 21.2 months (95% CI 16.3-27.4) with sunitinib (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.53-1.21]. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 68% for cabozantinib and 65% for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 trial, cabozantinib treatment significantly prolonged PFS per IRC compared with sunitinib as initial systemic therapy for advanced RCC of poor or intermediate risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01835158.

Quality of Life Outcomes for Cabozantinib Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: METEOR Phase III Randomized Trial.

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.