Cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab versus sorafenib in treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: COSMIC-312 Phase III study design.

Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, MET and the TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER) family of kinase receptors. In addition to their role in tumor growth and angiogenesis, cabozantinib targets promote an immune-suppressive microenvironment. Cabozantinib is approved as single-agent therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received prior sorafenib. Owing to its antitumor and immunomodulatory properties, cabozantinib is being developed in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Early studies of these combinations have shown promising antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with solid tumors. Here, we describe the rationale and design of COSMIC-312, a Phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) versus sorafenib for treatment-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. ClinicalTrial.gov Registration: NCT0375579

Exposure-response modeling of cabozantinib in patients with renal cell carcinoma : Implications for patient care

Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at a dose of 60 mg/day. As with other TKIs, cabozantinib is associated with high interpatient variability in drug clearance and exposure that can significantly impact safety and tolerability across a patient population. To optimize cabozantinib exposure (maintaining efficacy and tolerability) for the individual, patients may require treatment interruption with dose reduction (40 mg/day and then 20 mg/day). In the pivotal Phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival and the objective response rate compared with everolimus in patients with advanced RCC who had received previous treatment with a VEGFR TKI. Dose reductions were common for patients receiving cabozantinib (60%) but effective as only 9% discontinued treatment due to adverse events (AEs). In this review, we discuss pharmacometric analyses that evaluated the impact of cabozantinib dose on efficacy and safety outcomes during the METEOR study. Exposure-response models demonstrate that the risk of experiencing adverse events and dose reduction is increased in patients with low cabozantinib clearance versus typical clearance and decreased in patients with high clearance. Dose reduction of cabozantinib to manage AEs is predicted to have minimal impact on efficacy as AEs are more likely to occur in patients with low clearance and higher exposure to cabozantinib. These analyses further support a dose modification strategy to optimize cabozantinib exposure for individual patients

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

RESILIENT Part 2: A Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Study of Liposomal Irinotecan Versus Topotecan in Adults With Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE The phase III RESILIENT trial compared second-line liposomal irinotecan with topotecan in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with SCLC and progression on or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous (IV) liposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks in a 6-week cycle) or IV topotecan (1.5 mg/m(2) daily for 5 consecutive days, every 3 weeks in a 6-week cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS Among 461 randomly assigned patients, 229 received liposomal irinotecan and 232 received topotecan. The median follow-up was 18.4 months. The median OS was 7.9 months with liposomal irinotecan versus 8.3 months with topotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.37]; P = .31). The median PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.0 months with liposomal irinotecan and 3.3 months with topotecan (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.20]; nominal P = .71); ORR per BICR was 44.1% (95% CI, 37.6 to 50.8) and 21.6% (16.4 to 27.4), respectively. Overall, 42.0% and 83.4% of patients receiving liposomal irinotecan and topotecan, respectively, experienced grade >= 3 related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The most common grade >= 3 related TEAEs were diarrhea (13.7%), neutropenia (8.0%), and decreased neutrophil count (4.4%) with liposomal irinotecan and neutropenia (51.6%), anemia (30.9%), and leukopenia (29.1%) with topotecan. CONCLUSION Liposomal irinotecan and topotecan demonstrated similar median OS and PFS in patients with relapsed SCLC. Although the primary end point of OS was not met, liposomal irinotecan demonstrated a higher ORR than topotecan. The safety profile of liposomal irinotecan was consistent with its known safety profile; no new safety concerns emerged

NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC).Methods NAPOLI 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 187 community and academic sites in 18 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients with mPDAC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Balanced block randomisation was stratified by geographical region, performance status, and liver metastases, managed through an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated when at least 543 events were observed across the two treatment groups. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04083235.Findings Between Feb 19, 2020 and Aug 17, 2021, 770 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 383; nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, 387; median follow-up 16 center dot 1 months [IQR 13 center dot 4-19 center dot 1]). Median overall survival was 11 center dot 1 months (95% CI 10 center dot 0-12 center dot 1) with NALIRIFOX versus 9 center dot 2 months (8 center dot 3-10 center dot 6) with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine (hazard ratio 0 center dot 83; 95% CI 0 center dot 70-0 center dot 99; p=0 center dot 036). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 322 (87%) of 370 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 326 (86%) of 379 patients receiving nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine; treatment-related deaths occurred in six (2%) patients in the NALIRIFOX group and eight (2%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group.Interpretation Our findings support use of the NALIRIFOX regimen as a possible reference regimen for first-line treatment of mPDAC

Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

International audienceBACKGROUND: Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial.METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01310894.FINDINGS: Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients).INTERPRETATION: Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy.FUNDING: Steba Biotech

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: Cabozantinib has shown clinical activity in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumours. The COSMIC-312 trial assessed cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib as first-line systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: COSMIC-312 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to curative or locoregional therapy and previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy at 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were not eligible. Tumours involving major blood vessels, including the main portal vein, were permitted. Patients were required to have measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, adequate organ and marrow function, and Child-Pugh class A. Previous resection, tumour ablation, radiotherapy, or arterial chemotherapy was allowed if more than 28 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) via a web-based interactive response system to cabozantinib 40 mg orally once daily plus atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily, or single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee in the first 372 patients randomly assigned to the combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (progression-free survival intention-to-treat [ITT] population), and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (ITT population). Final progression-free survival and concurrent interim overall survival analyses are presented. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. Findings: Analyses at data cut-off (March 8, 2021) included the first 837 patients randomly assigned between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, to combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n=432), sorafenib (n=217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n=188). Median follow-up was 15·8 months (IQR 14·5–17·2) in the progression-free survival ITT population and 13·3 months (10·5–16·0) in the ITT population. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (99% CI 5·6–8·3) in the combination treatment group versus 4·2 months (2·8–7·0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 99% CI 0·44–0·91, p=0·0012). Median overall survival (interim analysis) was 15·4 months (96% CI 13·7–17·7) in the combination treatment group versus 15·5 months (12·1–not estimable) in the sorafenib group (HR 0·90, 96% CI 0·69–1·18; p=0·44). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were alanine aminotransferase increase (38 [9%] of 429 patients in the combination treatment group vs six [3%] of 207 in the sorafenib group vs 12 [6%] of 188 in the single-agent cabozantinib group), hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), aspartate aminotransferase increase (37 [9%] vs eight [4%] vs 18 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (35 [8%] vs 17 [8%] vs 16 [9%]); serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (18%) patients in the combination treatment group, 16 (8%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 24 (13%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) patient in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and one (<1%) patient in the single-agent cabozantinib group (gastrointestinal haemorrhage). Interpretation: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab might be a treatment option for select patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but additional studies are needed. Funding: Exelixis and Ipsen.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe