Comparison of weekly and daily recall of pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Scant evidence reveals whether the use of weekly versus daily pain ratings leads to meaningful differences when measuring pain as a clinical trial outcome. We compared the ability of weekly ratings and descriptors of daily ratings to evaluate pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial. METHODS: Participants (n = 119) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized to treatment arms and rated their pain on the average and at its worst during a baseline week and at weeks 3, 6, and 12 of study treatment. For each reporting period, participants rated their pain daily for 7 days. On day 7, participants rated their pain over the prior 7 days. We estimated mean differences and intraclass correlation coefficients of the weekly ratings and the mean and the maximum daily ratings. We compared the ability of the weekly ratings and the daily rating descriptors to detect change in pain and evaluated the agreement of the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst to detect treatment response. RESULTS: For both pain constructs, the weekly rating was consistently higher than the mean daily rating and lower than the maximum daily rating yet was moderately to highly correlated with both daily rating descriptors (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.55-0.94). The weekly rating and the daily rating descriptors consistently detected change in pain for the study sample and participant subgroups. Substantial agreement existed between the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst when used with trial protocol opioid criteria to detect treatment response (Cohen's κ = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Use of daily over weekly ratings delivered no added benefit in evaluating pain in this clinical trial. This study is the first to compare weekly and daily recall to measure pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial, and the pattern of differences in ratings that we observed is consistent with other recent evaluations of weekly and daily symptom reporting.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Volumetric response quantified using T1 subtraction predicts long-term survival benefit from cabozantinib monotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma.

Background: To overcome challenges with traditional response assessment in anti-angiogenic agents, the current study uses T1 subtraction maps to quantify volumetric radiographic response in monotherapy with cabozantinib, an orally bioavailable tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2), hepatocyte growth factor receptor (MET), and AXL, in an open-label, phase II trial in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) (NCT00704288). Methods: A total of 108 patients with adequate imaging data and confirmed recurrent GBM were included in this retrospective study from a phase II multicenter trial of cabozantinib monotherapy (XL184-201) at either 100 mg (N = 87) or 140 mg (N = 21) per day. Contrast enhanced T1-weighted digital subtraction maps were used to define volume of contrast-enhancing tumor at baseline and subsequent follow-up time points. Volumetric radiographic response (>65% reduction in contrast-enhancing tumor volume from pretreatment baseline tumor volume sustained for more than 4 wk) was tested as an independent predictor of overall survival (OS). Results: Volumetric response rate for all therapeutic doses was 38.9% (41.4% and 28.6% for 100 mg and 140 mg doses, respectively). A log-linear association between baseline tumor volume and OS (P = 0.0006) and a linear correlation between initial change in tumor volume and OS (P = 0.0256) were observed. A significant difference in OS was observed between responders (median OS = 20.6 mo) and nonresponders (median OS = 8.0 mo) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.3050, P < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed that continuous measures of baseline tumor volume (HR = 1.0233, P < 0.0001) and volumetric response (HR = 0.2240, P < 0.0001) were independent predictors of OS. Conclusions: T1 subtraction maps provide value in determining response in recurrent GBM treated with cabozantinib and correlated with survival benefit.

Diffusion MRI Phenotypes Predict Overall Survival Benefit from Anti-VEGF Monotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma: Converging Evidence from Phase II Trials.

Purpose: Anti-VEGF therapies remain controversial in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). In the current study, we demonstrate that recurrent GBM patients with a specific diffusion MR imaging signature have an overall survival (OS) advantage when treated with cediranib, bevacizumab, cabozantinib, or aflibercept monotherapy at first or second recurrence. These findings were validated using a separate trial comparing bevacizumab with lomustine.Experimental Design: Patients with recurrent GBM and diffusion MRI from the monotherapy arms of 5 separate phase II clinical trials were included: (i) cediranib (NCT00035656); (ii) bevacizumab (BRAIN Trial, AVF3708g; NCT00345163); (iii) cabozantinib (XL184-201; NCT00704288); (iv) aflibercept (VEGF Trap; NCT00369590); and (v) bevacizumab or lomustine (BELOB; NTR1929). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis was performed prior to therapy to estimate "ADCL," the mean of the lower ADC distribution. Pretreatment ADCL, enhancing volume, and clinical variables were tested as independent prognostic factors for OS.Results: The coefficient of variance (COV) in double baseline ADCL measurements was 2.5% and did not significantly differ (P = 0.4537). An ADCL threshold of 1.24 µm2/ms produced the largest OS differences between patients (HR ∼ 0.5), and patients with an ADCL > 1.24 µm2/ms had close to double the OS in all anti-VEGF therapeutic scenarios tested. Training and validation data confirmed that baseline ADCL was an independent predictive biomarker for OS in anti-VEGF therapies, but not in lomustine, after accounting for age and baseline enhancing tumor volume.Conclusions: Pretreatment diffusion MRI is a predictive imaging biomarker for OS in patients with recurrent GBM treated with anti-VEGF monotherapy at first or second relapse. Clin Cancer Res; 23(19); 5745-56. ©2017 AACR.

Baseline pretreatment contrast enhancing tumor volume including central necrosis is a prognostic factor in recurrent glioblastoma: evidence from single and multicenter trials.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of baseline contrast enhancing tumor prior to second- or third-line therapy in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) for overall survival (OS) remains controversial, particularly in the context of repeated surgical resection and/or use of anti-angiogenic therapy. In the current study, we examined recurrent GBM patients from both single and multicenter clinical trials to test whether baseline enhancing tumor volume, including central necrosis, is a significant prognostic factor for OS in recurrent GBM. METHODS: Included were 497 patients with recurrent GBM from 4 data sources: 2 single-center sites (University of Toronto, University of California Los Angeles) and 2 phase II multicenter trials (AVF3708G, Bevacizumab ± Irinotecan, NCT00345163; XL184-201, Cabozantinib, NCT00704288). T1 subtraction maps were used to define volume of contrast enhancing tumor, including central necrosis. Cox multivariable and univariate analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between tumor volume prior to second- or third-line therapy and OS. RESULTS: Both continuous measures of baseline tumor volume and tumors dichotomized into large (≥15cc) and small (<15cc) tumors were significant predictors of OS (P<.0001), independently of age and treatment. Univariate analysis demonstrated significant OS differences (P<.05) between large (≥15cc) and small (<15cc) tumors in patients under all therapeutic scenarios. Only patients treated with cabozantinib who previously failed anti-angiogenic therapy did not show an OS dependence on baseline tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline tumor volume is a significant prognostic factor in recurrent GBM. Clinical trial treatment arms must have a balanced distribution of tumor size, and tumor size should be considered when interpreting therapeutic efficacy.

Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points were overall survival and objective response rate. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. (Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.).

Preclinical and clinical evaluations of ABX-EGF, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody.

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a transmembrane glycoprotein, with an extracellular ligand-binding domain and intracellular tyrosine kinase domain. Ligand binding induces EGFR dimerization and autophosphorylation on several tyrosine residues in the intracellular domain, leading to mitogenic signal transduction. EGFR overexpression correlates with a poor prognosis and is often associated with malignant transformation in a variety of epithelial cancers. ABX-EGF is a high-affinity (dissociation constant K(D) = 5 x 10(-11) M) fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody against human EGFR. ABX-EGF binds EGFR and blocks receptor binding of EGF and transforming growth factor-alpha, inhibiting EGFR tyrosine phosphorylation and tumor cell activation. ABX-EGF prevents tumor formation and eradicates large, established A431 tumors in xenograft models. Tumor growth inhibition occurs at relatively low doses, without concomitant chemotherapy or radiotherapy. When combined with chemotherapeutic agents, ABX-EGF has resulted in additive antitumor activity. A Phase I clinical trial has demonstrated activity in several tumor types, and the results from a Phase II trial for renal cell cancer also showed modest activity. Therapy was generally well tolerated without statistically significant adverse events. Monoclonal antibody blockade of EGFR represents a new and exciting direction in cancer therapy.