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.

Multicentre phase II trial of cabozantinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Prospective data on treatment after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. We conducted a phase II multicentre study on cabozantinib after ICI treatment in HCC. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, single-arm, clinical trial involving academic centres in Hong Kong and Korea. Key eligibility criteria included diagnosis of HCC, refractoriness to prior ICI-based treatment, and Child-Pugh A liver function. A maximum of two prior lines of therapy were allowed. All patients were commenced on cabozantinib at 60 mg/day. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were recruited from Oct 2020 to May 2022; 27 and 20 patients had received one and two prior therapies, respectively. Median follow-up was 11.2 months. The median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 3.3-5.3). The median overall survival (OS) was 9.9 months (95% CI 7.3-14.4), and the 1-year OS rate was 45.3%. Partial response and stable disease occurred in 3 (6.4%) and 36 (76.6%) patients, respectively. When used as a second-line treatment (n = 27), cabozantinib was associated with a median PFS and OS of 4.3 (95% CI 3.3-6.7) and 14.3 (95% CI 8.9-NR) months, respectively. The corresponding median PFS and OS were 4.3 (95% CI 3.3-11.0) and 14.3 (95% CI 9.0-NR) months, respectively, for those receiving ICI-based regimens with proven benefits (n = 17). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia (6.4%). The median dose of cabozantinib was 40 mg/day. The number of prior therapies was an independent prognosticator (one vs. two; hazard ratio = 0.37; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib demonstrated efficacy in patients who had received prior ICI regimens; survival data for second-line cabozantinib following first-line ICI regimens provide a reference for future clinical trial design. The number of prior lines of treatment may be considered a stratification factor in randomised studies. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Prospective data on systemic treatment following prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. This phase II clinical trial provides efficacy and safety data on cabozantinib in patients who had received prior ICI-based treatment. Exploratory analyses showed that the performance of cabozantinib differed significantly when used as a second- or third-line treatment. The above data could be used as a reference for clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials on subsequent treatment lines following ICIs. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04588051.

First-line immunotherapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an updated network meta-analysis including triplet therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the differential efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combined therapies among patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as recently, the efficacy of triplet therapy comprising nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib has been published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three databases were searched in December 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with first-line ICI-based combined therapies. We performed network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs), in patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC; we also assessed treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, seven RCTs were included in the meta-analyses and NMAs. Treatment ranking analysis revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib (99%) had the highest likelihood of improved PFS, followed by nivolumab + cabozantinib (79%), and nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib (77%). Notably, compared to nivolumab + cabozantinib, adding ipilimumab to nivolumab + cabozantinib did not improve PFS (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.43). Regarding ORRs, treatment ranking analysis also revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of providing better ORRs (99.7%). The likelihoods of improved PFS and ORRs of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were true in both International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses confirmed the robust efficacy of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib as first-line treatment for patients with intermediate or poor IMDC risk mRCC. Triplet therapy did not result in superior efficacy. Considering both toxicity and the lack of mature overall survival data, triplet therapy should only be considered in selected patients.

Pathological concordance rate and outcomes by subtype in advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical significance of subtyping (type 1 vs 2) of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) in patients treated with targeted therapy, as well as the concordance, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of local review pathology review. METHODS: Patients with advanced refractory PRCC were randomised to receive sunitinib or cabozantinib, crizotinib or savolitinib, stratified by PRCC subtype (type 1, type 2, or not otherwise specified [NOS]/mixed) by local review. Central review was retrospectively conducted by three expert genitourinary pathologists who independently reviewed cases. The sensitivity and PPV of local review were estimated and outcomes [objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS)] were summarised for treatment groups stratified by subtypes by central review. RESULTS: Amongst the 147 patients reviewed, the prevalence of individual subtypes varied by local or central review (type 1: 17.7% vs 29.3%; type 2: 53.1% vs 45.6%; NOS/mixed: 29.3% vs 25.2%), respectively. Individual cases were frequently reclassified and local pathology review demonstrated low sensitivity (type 1: 48%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 33, 65; type 2: 67%, 95% CI 55, 78; NOS/mixed: 43%, 95% CI 27, 61). The PPVs of local review were 80%, 57.7% and 37% for type 1, 2 and NOS/mixed, respectively. Compared to sunitinib, cabozantinib demonstrated improved PFS for both type 1 and type 2 PRCC subgroups (7.4 vs 9.0 and 2.9 vs 5.6 months, respectfully) as well as higher ORR. CONCLUSIONS: The PRCC subtype assignment did not identify a subset of patients with greater clinical benefit from cabozantinib, with significant discordance between local and central review. Our findings confirm the limited clinical value of pathological subtyping of metastatic PRCC, in line with the recent World Health Organisation 2022 guidelines. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, categorising papillary renal cell carcinoma into type 1 or 2 subtypes showed limited concordance between central and local pathological review and did not enrich for patients more likely to benefit from cabozantinib in the S1500 PAPMET trial.

Combination immune checkpoint and targeted protein kinase inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinomas.

Kidney cancers comprise about 3% of all new malignancies in the United States. Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are the most common type of renal malignancy making up about 85% of kidney cancer cases. Signs and symptoms of renal cell carcinomas can result from local tumor growth, paraneoplastic syndromes, or distant metastases. The classic triad of presentation with flank pain, hematuria, and a palpable abdominal mass occurs in fewer than 10% of patients. Most diagnoses result from incidental imaging findings (ultrasonography or abdominal CT imaging) performed for another reason. Localized disease is treated by partial nephrectomy, total nephrectomy, or ablation (tumor destruction with heat or cold). When the tumors have metastasized, systemic therapy with protein-tyrosine kinase antagonists including sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and tivozanib that target vascular endothelial, platelet-derived, fibroblast, hepatocyte, and stem cell factor growth factor receptors (VEGFR, PDGFR, FGFR, MET, and Kit) were prescribed after 2005. The monoclonal antibody immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (targeting programed cell death protein 1, PD1) was approved for the treatment of RCCs in 2015. It is usually used now in combination with ipilimumab (targeting CTLA-4) or cabozantinib (a multikinase blocker). Other combination therapies include pembrolizumab (targeting PD1) and axitinib (a VEGFR and PDGFR blocker) or lenvatinib (a multikinase inhibitor). Since the KEYNOTE-426 clinical trial, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitors is now the standard of care for most patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomas and monotherapies are used only in those individuals who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The VEGFs/VEGFRs system in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases: Pathophysiological roles and therapeutic implications.

The vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) and their cognate receptors (VEGFRs), besides their well-known involvement in physiological angiogenesis/lymphangiogenesis and in diseases associated to pathological vessel formation, play multifaceted functions in the central nervous system (CNS). In addition to shaping brain development, by controlling cerebral vasculogenesis and regulating neurogenesis as well as astrocyte differentiation, the VEGFs/VEGFRs axis exerts essential functions in the adult brain both in physiological and pathological contexts. In this article, after describing the physiological VEGFs/VEGFRs functions in the CNS, we focus on the VEGFs/VEGFRs involvement in neurodegenerative diseases by reviewing the current literature on the rather complex VEGFs/VEGFRs contribution to the pathogenic mechanisms of Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's (PD) diseases. Thereafter, based on the outcome of VEGFs/VEGFRs targeting in animal models of AD and PD, we discuss the factual relevance of pharmacological VEGFs/VEGFRs modulation as a novel and potential disease-modifying approach for these neurodegenerative pathologies. Specific VEGFRs targeting, aimed at selective VEGFR-1 inhibition, while preserving VEGFR-2 signal transduction, appears as a promising strategy to hit the molecular mechanisms underlying AD pathology. Moreover, therapeutic VEGFs-based approaches can be proposed for PD treatment, with the aim of fine-tuning their brain levels to amplify neurotrophic/neuroprotective effects while limiting an excessive impact on vascular permeability.

Identification of genomic drivers for the therapeutic response of Cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Cabozantinib (CAB) as monotherapy or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors is used for systemic treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, little is known about predictors of treatment response to CAB. For this reason, known genomic drivers were examined to identify potential predictors of treatment response with CAB. METHODS: Twenty mRCC patients receiving monotherapy (≥ first-line) with CAB were prospectively included. DNA was extracted from archived primary tumors or metastatic tissue. Targeted DNA sequencing was performed using a gene panel including 328 genes (QIAseq Targeted DNA V3 Panel, Qiagen). The variant evaluation was performed using Varsome. The endpoints were treatment-failure-free-survival (TFFS) to CAB. RESULTS: 26% of patients received systemic RCC treatment as the primary option. Six patients were treated with CAB in first-line (1L) and 12 patients in ≥ 2L. The median follow-up after initiation of systemic treatment was 26.7 months (mo). The PBRM1 (7 alleles), SETD2 (7 alleles), VHL (11 alleles), and CHEK2 (14 alleles) genes were most frequently altered. The median time to TFFS was 10.5 mo (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2-14.7 mo). There was a longer treatment response to CAB in patients with alterations of the SETD2 gene (SETD2 alteration median TFFS not reached vs. no SETD2 alterations 8.4 mo (95% CI 5.2-11.6 mo); p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Pathogenic variant genes may indicate treatment response to systemic therapy in mRCC. Patients with alterations of the SETD2 gene show longer responses to CAB treatment.

Impact of post-progression survival in second-line treatment with molecular target agents for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: Sequential therapies are essential to extend overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several second-line treatments with molecular target agents have shown survival benefits. However, the significance of post-progression survival (PPS) in extending OS in patients with HCC given such treatments remains uncertain. METHODS: Through a systematic review of the literature in the PubMed database, this study investigated the correlation between PPS and OS and that between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with HCC given second-line treatments. RESULTS: In total, 3935 patients who had received second-line treatment with regorafenib, ramucirumab, or cabozantinib, which are approved molecular target agents, were identified. In the patients treated with regorafenib, PPS showed a strong correlation with OS (R2 = 0.729, R = 0.854, p < 0.001) whereas PFS showed a weak correlation (R2 = 0.218, R = 0.467, p = 0.021). In the patients treated with ramucirumab, PPS showed a strong correlation with OS (R2 = 0.800, R = 0.894, p = 0.016) whereas PFS showed a negligible correlation (R2 = 0.020, R = 0.140, p = 0.791). In the patients treated with cabozantinib, PPS showed a strong correlation with OS (R2 = 0.856, R = 0.925, p = 0.003) as did PFS (R2 = 0.946, R = 0.973, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PPS plays a more significant role than PFS in extending OS in patients given second-line treatment for unresectable HCC. Sequential therapies after disease progression in second-line treatment are essential to acquire good OS. Maintenance of hepatic reserve function and the patient's general condition is essential during systemic treatments for unresectable HCC.

Successful second-line treatment with cabozantinib for hepatocellular carcinoma harboring cytoplasmic mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor amplification.

A 72-year-old man with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma previously received first-line systemic therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. His disease was judged to be progressing 5 months after treatment initiation. Comprehensive genomic profiling revealed cytoplasmic mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor amplification. On the basis of an expert panel's recommendation, he received cabozantinib as second-line therapy. The tumors shrank markedly and continued to shrink 6 months after treatment. Comprehensive genomic profiling could provide useful information for selecting effective second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after first-line immunotherapy.

CaboCombo: a prospective, phase IV study of first-line cabozantinib + nivolumab for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Cabozantinib plus nivolumab was approved as a first-line (1L) treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) following the CheckMate 9ER trial. CaboCombo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05361434) is a non-interventional study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cabozantinib plus nivolumab in a real-world setting. Overall, 311 patients with clear-cell aRCC receiving 1L cabozantinib plus nivolumab will be recruited from at least 70 centers in seven countries worldwide. The primary end point is overall survival at 18 months. Secondary end points include progression-free survival, objective response rate, safety, patterns of treatment, subsequent anticancer therapies and quality of life. CaboCombo will provide real-world evidence on the characteristics, treatment sequences, and outcomes of patients with aRCC receiving 1L cabozantinib plus nivolumab.

Renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are cancers that grow in the kidneys. Clear-cell RCC is the most common type reported in almost three quarters of patients. RCC tumors become advanced if they grow and spread to other parts of the body. In a clinical trial called CheckMate 9ER, a combination of two drugs called cabozantinib and nivolumab improved survival compared with a drug called sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell RCC who had not received any previous treatments. In CheckMate 9ER, cabozantinib plus nivolumab also reduced the size and slowed the spread of tumors compared with sunitinib. However, clinical trials only allow certain patients to participate under strict treatment conditions and so do not provide information on how a treatment will work in all patients. Researchers therefore carry out additional studies to gather extra information from real-world clinical practice. CaboCombo is a study that will look at how well cabozantinib plus nivolumab stops tumors from growing and spreading, the side effects of the drugs, and also how the drugs are used by doctors. It is an observational study, which means that researchers will observe all patients and doctors using the treatment but they will not intervene. The aim of the study is to gather information that will help doctors make treatment decisions for their patients. This article describes how the CaboCombo study will be carried out and the information it will give the researchers. The results will help physicians make decisions on the best treatment option for patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05361434 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Letter to the editor regarding the paper by A. Boileve et al.: Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with advanced solid tumors receiving anti­VEGF agents: a retrospective study.

Concomitant direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (anti-VEGF TKI) have been associated with a higher risk of bleeding. Nevertheless, concomitant administration seems frequent in clinical practice in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis and appears to be safe according to the retrospective study by Boileve A. et al. But the risk of an additional pharmacokinetic interaction between anti-VEGF TKI and DOACs must be considered, in case of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibition by the TKI. We describe a case report with a major bleeding event in a renal metastatic cancer patient treated with cabozantinib and rivaroxaban. This case highlights the difficult therapeutic decision in a complex patient with cancer-associated thrombosis, who refused the anticoagulant subcutaneous route. Accumulation of bleeding risk factors (genito-urinary tumor localization) was additive to several pharmacodynamic interactions (acetylsalicylic acid, venlafaxine) and a potential pharmacokinetic interaction between cabozantinib and rivaroxaban. Indeed, cabozantinib-related P-glycoprotein inhibition could have led to a supratherapeutic level of rivaroxaban, contributing partly to the bleeding event. Before combining an anti-VEGF TKI and DOACs, a multidisciplinary pretherapeutic assessment seems crucial to evaluate the patient's bleeding risk factors, pharmacodynamic interactions, and the risk of pharmacokinetic interactions mediated by P-gp.

Changes in outcome of patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma from the tyrosine kinase inhibitor era to the immuno-oncology era.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic benefit of immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) remains unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed clinical data from 93 patients with advanced nccRCC who received first-line systemic therapy including IO combination therapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy at our affiliated institutions. Patients were divided based on the period when the treatment was implemented as the standard of care into the IO and TKI eras. Survival and tumor response outcomes were compared between the IO and TKI eras. RESULTS: Of the 93 patients, 50 (54%) and 43 (46%) were categorized as IO era and TKI era groups, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in the IO era than in the TKI era (median PFS: 8.97 vs. 4.96 months, p = 0.0152; median OS: 38.4 vs. 13.5 months, p = 0.0001). After the adjustment using other covariates, the treatment era was an independent factor for PFS (hazard ratio: 0.59, p = 0.0235) and OS (hazard ratio: 0.27, p < 0.0001). Objective response and disease control rates was not significantly different between the treatment eras (26% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.268; 62% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.594). CONCLUSION: The implementation of IO therapy was significantly associated with longer survival in the nccRCC population. Further studies are needed to establish a more effective treatment strategy in this population using multiple regimens of IO combination therapy.

First-line dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies versus combination therapies comprising immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a comparative analysis of the effectiveness using real-world data.

BACKGROUND: There are few comparative studies on dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (i.e., IO-IO) and combination therapies comprising ICIs plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (i.e., IO-TKI) for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), especially in real-world settings. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of 175 patients with IMDC intermediate-risk or poor-risk RCC; as first-line therapy, 103 received IO-IO, and 72 received IO-TKI. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was conducted to balance patients' backgrounds in the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups. RESULTS: Based on the IPTW analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (median: 15.6 vs. 8.3 months; p = 0.0386). In contrast, overall survival was not different between groups (median: 46.7 vs. 49.0 months; p = 0.465). Although the IPTW-adjusted objective response rate was not significantly different (51.2% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.359), the progressive disease rate as the best overall response was lower in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (3.3% vs. 27.4%; p < 0.0001). Regarding the safety profile, the treatment interruption rate was higher in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (70.3% vs. 49.2%; p = 0.005). In contrast, the IO-IO group had a higher corticosteroid administration rate (43.3% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: IO-TKI therapy exhibited superior effectiveness over IO-IO therapy in terms of PFS improvement and immediate disease progression prevention and was associated with a higher risk of treatment interruption and a lower risk of needing corticosteroids.

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.

Analysis of Factors Contributing to Adverse Events and Evaluation of Their Impact on Prognosis in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients-Real-World Experience in a Single-Center Retrospective Study and Narrative Review.

Background and Objectives: More than 430,000 new cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were reported in 2020. Clear cell RCC, which occurs in 80% of cases, is often associated with mutations in the VHL gene, leading to dysregulation of hypoxia-induced transcription factors pathways and carcinogenesis. The purpose of this study is to examine the adverse events (AEs) of cabozantinib treatment and the relationship between individual patient factors and the frequency of their occurrence in detail. Materials and Methods: Seventy-one patients with metastatic RCC were treated with second or further lines of cabozantinib at the Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology. Comprehensive data, including demographics, clinicopathological factors, and AEs, were collected from January 2017 to June 2021. This study evaluated the impact of various patient-related factors on the rate of adverse events and treatment tolerance using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Cabozantinib-induced AEs were significantly associated with body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA), IMDC prognostic score, and treatment line. Notably, patients receiving cabozantinib post-tyrosine kinase inhibitors reported fewer AEs. Dose reduction was unrelated to adverse event frequency, but patients requiring dose reduction were characterized with lower body mass and BSA but not BMI. Conclusions: The factors described make it possible to predict the incidence of AEs, which allows for faster detection and easier management, especially in the high-risk group. AEs should be reported in detail in real-world studies, as their occurrence has a significant impact on prognosis.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With Sarcomatoid and/or Rhabdoid Dedifferentiation After Progression on Immune Checkpoint Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid (S/R) dedifferentiation is an aggressive disease associated with improved response to immune checkpoint therapy (ICT). The outcomes of patients treated with VEGFR-targeted therapies (TT) following ICT progression have not been investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 57 patients with sarcomatoid (S), rhabdoid (R), or sarcomatoid plus rhabdoid (S + R) dedifferentiation who received any TT after progression on ICT at an academic cancer center. Clinical endpoints of interest included time on TT, overall survival (OS) from initiation of TT, and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1. Multivariable models adjusted for epithelial histology, IMDC risk, prior VEGFR TT, and inclusion of cabozantinib in the post-ICT TT regimen. RESULTS: 29/57 patients had S dedifferentiation and 19 had R dedifferentiation. The most frequently used TT was cabozantinib (43.9%) followed by selective VEGFR TT (22.8%). The median time on TT was 6.4 months for all, 6.1 months for those with S dedifferentiation, 15.6 months for R dedifferentiation, and 6.1 months for S + R dedifferentiation. Median OS from initiation of TT was 24.9 months for the entire cohort, and the ORR was 20.0%. Patients with R dedifferentiation had significantly longer time on TT than those with S dedifferentiation (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.21-0.94). IMDC risk was associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients with S/R dedifferentiation derive clinical benefit from TT after they have progressive disease on ICT. Patients with R dedifferentiation appeared to derive more benefit from TT than those with S dedifferentiation.

Phase I Trial of Combination Therapy With Avelumab and Cabozantinib in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Combination immunotherapy is now considered the standard first-line therapy for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) after multiple clinical trials demonstrated improved overall survival compared with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cabozantinib modulates critical components of the immune system, such as decreasing regulatory T cells and increasing T-effector cell populations, and is approved for the treatment of mRCC. Avelumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to programmed death-ligand 1 protein and inhibits the interaction with PD-1. This phase I trial assessed the safety and clinical activity of avelumab and cabozantinib combination therapy in mccRCC. METHODS: This study was a phase I, 3+3 dose escalation clinical trial. The primary endpoint was the safety and identification of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). There were 3 dose cohorts: cabozantinib 20, 40, and 60 mg/day, each combined with avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks). An additional 3 patients were included in the final dose cohort as a confirmation of the RP2D. No dose modifications were allowed for avelumab, but dose delays were permitted. Both dose reductions and holds were allowed for cabozantinib. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was used to determine ORR, and treatment beyond progression was allowed. RESULTS: Twelve patients with newly diagnosed mccRCC were enrolled from July 2018 until March 2020. Three patients were enrolled in the 20 and 40 mg cohorts each, and 6 were enrolled in the 60 mg cohort. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk categories for these patients were: 4 patients (favorable risk), 6 patients (intermediate risk), and 2 patients (poor risk). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in any cohort. Six patients developed serious adverse events related to study treatment after the DLT window period. Immune-related adverse events (iRAEs) were reported in 11 patients; fatigue and diarrhea were the most common (each with n = 4, 33.3%), followed by maculopapular rash and hand-foot syndrome (each with n = 3, 25%). Dose reductions were required in 5 of 6 patients in the cabozantinib 60 mg cohort after the DLT period. One patient discontinued avelumab due to irAE (nephritis), while none discontinued cabozantinib due to toxicity. The ORR was 50%, with one complete response (CR) and 5 partial responses (PR). The disease control rate (CR + PR + stable disease) was noted in 92% of the patients. Radiological PFS survival rate at 6 and 12 months was reported in 67.7% and 33.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with avelumab and cabozantinib is safe and showed preliminary clinical activity in mccRCC. Even though the DLT was not met in any of the 3 cohorts, the recommended RP2D dose for the combination is cabozantinib 40 mg/day due to a high incidence of grade 2 toxicity for cabozantinib 60 mg/day after the DLT period. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03200587).

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Less is More? First Impressions From COSMIC-313.

The COSMIC-313 phase 3 randomized controlled trial tested the triplet combination of cabozantinib with nivolumab and ipilimumab in comparison with nivolumab plus ipilimumab control as fist-line systemic therapy in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The first results presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress are a milestone for the renal cell carcinoma field because they signal the advent of triplet combinations as potential treatment options for our patients. The present commentary highlights some considerations and potential next steps based on these first impressions.

Optimal sequencing of the first- and second-line target therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: based on nationally representative data analysis from the Korean National Health Insurance System.

BACKGROUND: The authors intend to compare the effects of each targeted therapy (TT) in the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using big data based on the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS) and determine the optimal treatment sequence. METHODS: Data on the medical use of patients with kidney cancer were obtained from the NHIS database from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2020. Patient variables included age, sex, income level, place of residence, prescribing department, and duration from diagnosis to the prescription date. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) for each drug and sequencing. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) according to age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index based on the primary TTs. RESULTS: After 1:1 PSM, the sunitinib (SUN) (n = 1,214) and pazopanib (PAZ) (n = 1,214) groups showed a well-matched distribution across the entire cohort. In the primary treatment group, PAZ had lower OS than SUN (HR, 1.167; p = 0.0015). In the secondary treatment group, axitinib (AXI) had more favorable OS than cabozantinib (CAB) (HR, 0.735; p = 0.0118), and everolimus had more adverse outcomes than CAB (HR, 1.544; p < 0.0001). In the first to second TT sequencing, SUN-AXI had the highest OS; however, there was no statistically significant difference when compared with PAZ-AXI, which was the second highest (HR, 0.876; p = 0.3312). The 5-year survival rate was calculated in the following order: SUN-AXI (51.44%), PAZ-AXI (47.12%), SUN-CAB (43.59%), and PAZ-CAB (34.28%). When the four sequencing methods were compared, only SUN-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.003) and PAZ-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.017) were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based RWD analysis of Korean patients with mRCC, SUN-AXI sequencing was shown to be the most effective among the first to second TT sequencing methods in treatment, with a relative survival advantage over other sequencing combinations. To further support the results of this study, risk-stratified analysis is needed.