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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Activity of cabozantinib in further line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Real-world experience in a single-center retrospective study.

Introduction: Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of MET, AXL, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. It has an immunomodulatory effect and may influence the tumor's microenvironment and make mutated cells more sensitive to immune-mediated killing. These properties have made cabozantinib an effective drug for first-line or subsequent-line treatment after progression of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), even after immunotherapy. Material and methods: Seventy-one patients with mRCC were treated with second or further lines of cabozantinib at the Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology. This study retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness of cabozantinib in subsequent lines of treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary endpoints. The best overall response (BOR) to cabozantinib was the secondary endpoint. For this purpose, Cox's proportional hazard model was used. Results: The median PFS was 11 months (5; 23) and the median OS was 16 months (10; 42) and differed significantly in the second and further lines of treatment. Progression in the second and further lines was observed in 28 (93%) and 27 (66%) patients, respectively (p = 0.006). Partial response as the BOR was observed in one patient (3%) in the second line and 13 patients (32%) in the further lines (p = 0.012). Conclusions: Cabozantinib has antitumor effects in the second and further lines of treatment. In this study we observed high efficiency of cabozantinib in further lines of treatment.

Higher risk of hepatotoxicity associated with cabozantinib in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of cabozantinib has attracted interest in various solid tumors. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of hepatotoxicity associated with cabozantinib in the patients with cancer. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to September 9, 2023. The mainly outcomes were all-grade and grade ≥3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All data were pooled using fixed-effect or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity of the included RCTs. RESULTS: Among the 922 records identified, 8 RCTs incorporating 2613 patients with cancer were included. For patients receiving cabozantinib, the relative risks of all-grade AST elevation (RR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.16-3.20, P < 0.001), all-grade ALT elevation (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.31-3.60, P < 0.001), grade ≥3 AST elevation (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.34-3.83, P = 0.002), and grade ≥3 ALT elevation (RR, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.65-7.01, P < 0.001) were higher than those of patients who did not receive cabozantinib group. Further subgroup analysis showed that the relative risk of hepatotoxicity associated with cabozantinib was higher than that in the other TKIs (erlotinib, sunitinib, and sorafenib) and the non-TKI drug groups (everolimus, prednisone, mitoxantrone, and paclitaxel). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other solid tumor drugs, such as everolimus, sorafenib, sunitinib, paclitaxel, mitoxantrone-prednisone et al., cabozantinib has a higher risk of hepatotoxicity.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Elderly Patients with Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) seriously affects the life and health of patients, but effective treatment for this disease is still lacking in clinic. This study investigated the efficacy of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced ccRCC. METHODS: The clinical data of 216 elderly patients with advanced ccRCC in our hospital from January 2020 to January 2022 were retrospectively analysed. On the basis of different treatment regimens, patients were divided into the cabozantinib group (n = 111, receiving nivolumab and cabozantinib) and the sunitinib group (n = 105, receiving nivolumab and sunitinib). The overall survival time, disease control rates, health status, incidence of adverse events and identification of prognostic risk were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The cabozantinib group had higher overall survival time, disease control rate and scores in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index and EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Three Levels Questionnaire than the sunitinib group. The incidence of adverse events in the cabozantinib group was lower than that in the sunitinib group (p < 0.001). However, no difference existed in the identification of prognostic risk between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of nivolumab plus cabozantinib on the treatment of elderly patients with advanced ccRCC is better than that of nivolumab plus sunitinib, with fewer adverse reactions and higher safety. However, the research results require further clinical studies to confirm and promote.

Online searches for hepatocellular carcinoma drugs mirror prescription trends across specialties and changes in guideline recommendations.

Background & aims: The treatment options for systemically progressed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have significantly expanded in recent years. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the potential of Google searches as a reflection of prescription rates for HCC drugs in the United States (US). Methods: We conducted an in-depth analysis of US prescription data obtained from the IQVIA National Prescription Audit (NPA) and corresponding Google Trends data from January 2017 to December 2022. We focused on drugs used in the first line and second or later treatment lines for HCC, collecting data on their prescriptions and search rates. Search volumes were collected as aggregated search queries for both generic drugs and their respective brand names. Results: During the study period from Q1 2017 to Q4 2022, monthly prescriptions for drugs used in HCC treatment showed an 173% increase (from 1253 to 3422). Conversely online searches increased by 3.5% (from 173 to 179 per 10 million searches). Notably, strong correlations were observed between search interest and prescriptions for newer drugs, which indicates increasing usage, while older drugs with declining usage displayed limited correlation. Our findings suggest a growing role of non-physician professions in managing systemically progressed HCC within the US healthcare system, although oncologists remained primarily responsible for drug prescriptions. Conclusions: In conclusion, online search monitoring can offer the potential to reflect prescription trends specifically related to the treatment of HCC. This approach provides a swift and accessible means of evaluating the evolving landscape of HCC treatment.

Prognostic Impact of the Administration of Antibiotics and Proton Pump Inhibitors in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Combination Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Background/Aim: The prognostic impact of the administration of antibiotics and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for advanced cancer has recently been documented. However, how these drugs affect the outcomes of first-line ICI combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains unclear. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the data of 128 patients with RCC who received first-line ICI combination therapy. The patients were grouped according to their history of antibiotics and PPIs use one month before the initiation of ICI combination therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) after ICI combination therapy were compared between patients treated with and without antibiotics or PPIs. Results: Of the 128 patients, 30 (23%) and 44 (34%) received antibiotics and PPIs, respectively. Patients treated with antibiotics exhibited shorter PFS and OS compared to those who did not receive antibiotics (median PFS: 4.9 vs. 16.1 months, p<0.0001; OS: 20.8 vs. 49.0 months, p=0.0034). Multivariate analyses showed that antibiotic administration was an independent predictor of shorter PFS (hazard ratio: 2.54: p=0.0002) and OS (hazard ratio: 2.56: p=0.0067) after adjusting for other covariates. In contrast, there were no significant differences in either PFS or OS between patients who received PPIs and those who did not. (PFS: p=0.828; OS: p=0.105). Conclusion: Antibiotics administration before ICI combination therapy was negatively associated with outcomes of first-line ICI combination therapy for advanced RCC. Therefore, careful monitoring is required for potentially high-risk patients undergoing ICI combination therapy.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN. CONCLUSIONS: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.

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).

Recent advances in tyrosine kinase inhibitors VEGFR 1-3 for the treatment of advanced metastatic melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies suggests the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in melanoma progression, response to therapy, and overall survival. Moreover, the discovery of the potential involvement of the VEGF pathway in resistance to immunotherapy has led to new clinical trials with VEGFR inhibitors. AREAS COVERED: We have reviewed recent literature, mainly published within the last 5 years, on VEGFR-targeted treatments for advanced melanoma, including mucosal, acral, and uveal melanoma. The VEGFR inhibitors were used as a single therapy or combined with either immunotherapy or chemotherapy, and they were employed in treatment for KIT-mutated cutaneous melanoma and for patients with brain metastases. EXPERT OPINION: Trials involving monotherapy have been unsuccessful in demonstrating meaningful efficacy. Despite some activity, the combination of VEGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with ICI-resistant melanoma, the combination did not significantly improve outcomes compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the first-line settings. On the contrary, some patients with mucosal, acral or KIT-mutant melanoma may benefit from TKI-based therapies. Further studies focused on biomarker discovery and randomized trials are necessary to better understand the role of VEGFR1-3 as a therapeutic target in melanoma.

The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Cabozantinib, a new first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), targets essential tyrosine kinases and outperforms the established comparator (sunitinib) in various efficacy outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib compared to other aRCC treatments. Methods: Following PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, our protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search, without date limits, was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and EMBASE until October 8, 2023. Data extraction encompassed study details, baseline information, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were employed for each outcome, and a random-effects model was applied to account for expected heterogeneity. Results: Three studies, encompassing 967 patients, were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, the pooled rate for overall survival significantly favored cabozantinib. However, in subgroup analyses, cabozantinib was only statistically superior to everolimus. For progression-free survival and tumor objective response rate, cabozantinib outperformed both everolimus and sunitinib. In adverse events, compared to sunitinib, cabozantinib exhibited inferiority in nearly all evaluated aspects, except for nausea and stomatitis, which showed no difference between the two groups. Conversely, it demonstrated a comparable risk profile with everolimus across various side effects. Conclusion: Cabozantinib shows significant efficacy in extending overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor objective response rate despite a potentially higher risk of adverse events compared to sunitinib. These findings support cabozantinib as a first-line therapy for aRCC, either as an initial treatment or after prior VEGFR-targeted therapies.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and previously treated gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from two expansion cohorts of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial (COSMIC-021).

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and has been investigated in gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJ). Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is approved for unresectable or metastatic HCC untreated with prior systemic therapy. We evaluated efficacy and safety of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in aHCC previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy or previously treated GC/GEJ. Methods: COSMIC-021 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170960) is an open-label, phase 1b study in solid tumours with a dose-escalation stage followed by tumour-specific expansion cohorts, including aHCC (cohort 14) and GC/GEJ (cohort 15). Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with measurable locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent disease per RECIST version 1.1. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily and intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg once every 3 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1. Findings: Patients were screened between February 14, 2019, and May 7, 2020, and 61 (30 aHCC, 31 GC/GEJ) were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. Median duration of follow-up was 31.2 months (IQR 28.5-32.7) for aHCC and 30.4 months (28.7-31.9) for GC/GEJ. Objective response rate was 13% (4/30, 95% CI 4-31) for aHCC and 0% (95% CI 0-11) for GC/GEJ. Six (20%) aHCC patients and three (10%) GC/GEJ patients had treatment-related adverse events resulting in discontinuation of either study drug. Interpretation: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab had clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in aHCC previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy. Clinical activity of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab was minimal in previously treated GC/GEJ. Funding: Exelixis, Inc., Alameda, CA, USA.