10 research outputs found
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
Correlative analyses of RET and RAS mutations in a phase 3 trial of cabozantinib in patients with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid cancer
BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus a placebo in patients with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC; P <.001). An exploratory analysis of phase 3 trial data evaluated the influence of rearranged during transfection (RET) and RAS (HRAS, KRAS, and NRAS) mutations on cabozantinib clinical activity. METHODS: Patients (n = 330) were randomized to cabozantinib (140 mg/day) or a placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS. Additional outcome measures included PFS, objective response rates (ORRs), and adverse events in RET and RAS mutation subgroups. RESULTS: Among all study patients, 51.2% were RET mutation–positive (38.2% with RET M918T), 34.8% were RET mutation–unknown, and 13.9% were RET mutation–negative. Sixteen patients were RAS mutation–positive. Cabozantinib appeared to prolong PFS versus the placebo in the RET mutation–positive subgroup (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.38; P <.0001), the RET mutation–unknown subgroup (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; P =.0001), and the RAS mutation–positive subgroup (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-1.10; P =.0317). The RET M918T subgroup achieved the greatest observed PFS benefit from cabozantinib versus the placebo (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08-0.28; P <.0001). The ORRs for RET mutation–positive, RET mutation–negative, and RAS mutation–positive patients were 32%, 22%, and 31%, respectively. No PFS benefit was observed in patients lacking both RET and RAS mutations, although the ORR was 21%. The safety profile for all subgroups was similar to that for the overall cabozantinib arm. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that cabozantinib provides the greatest clinical benefit to patients with MTC who have RET M918T or RAS mutations. However, a prospective trial is needed to confirm the relation between genetic variation and the response to cabozantinib. Cancer 2016;122:3856–3864. © 2016 American Cancer Society
Cabozantinib Versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial with a Primary Pain Endpoint
Background: Bone metastases in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with debilitating pain and functional compromise. Objective: To compare pain palliation as the primary endpoint for cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in men with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases using patient-reported outcome measures. Design, setting, and participants: A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial (COMET-2; NCT01522443) in men with mCRPC and narcotic-dependent pain from bone metastases who had progressed after treatment with docetaxel and either abiraterone or enzalutamide. Intervention: Cabozantinib 60 mg once daily orally versus mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 every 3 wk plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily orally. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was pain response at week 6 confirmed at week 12 (≥30% decrease from baseline in patient-reported average daily worst pain score via the Brief Pain Inventory without increased narcotic use). The planned sample size was 246 to achieve ≥90% power. Results and limitations: Enrollment was terminated early because cabozantinib did not demonstrate any survival benefit in the companion COMET-1 trial. At study closure, 119 participants were randomized (cabozantinib: N =61; mitoxantrone-prednisone: N = 58). Complete pain and narcotic use data were available at baseline, week 6, and week 12 for 73/106 (69%) patients. There was no significant difference in the pain response with cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone: the proportions of responders were 15%versus 17%,a −2%difference(95%confidenceinterval:−16%to11%, p = 0.8). Barriers to accrual included pretreatment requirements for a washout period of prior anticancer therapy and a narcotic optimization period to maximize analgesic dosing. Conclusions: Cabozantinib treatment did not demonstrate better pain palliation than mitoxantrone-prednisone in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases. Future pain-palliation trials should incorporate briefer timelines from enrollment to treatment initiation. Patient summary: Cabozantinib was not better than mitoxantrone-prednisone for pain relief in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and debilitating pain from bone metastases
Efficacy of cabozantinib (Cabo) in medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) patients with RAS or RET mutations: Results from a phase III study
status: publishe
Correlative analyses of RET and RAS mutations in a phase 3 trial of cabozantinib in patients with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid cancer
Cabozantinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus a placebo in patients with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC; P < .001). An exploratory analysis of phase 3 trial data evaluated the influence of rearranged during transfection (RET) and RAS (HRAS, KRAS, and NRAS) mutations on cabozantinib clinical activity.status: publishe
Cabozantinib versus sunitinib for untreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma of intermediate or poor risk: Subgroup analysis of the Alliance A031203 CABOSUN trial
Cabozantinib treatment prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria in the phase II CABOSUN trial (NCT01835158). In the trial, 157 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or sunitinib, stratified by IMDC risk group and presence of bone metastases. Here, PFS and ORR, both determined by independent radiology committee (IRC), were analyzed by subgroups of baseline characteristics. Cabozantinib treatment was generally associated with improved PFS and ORR versus sunitinib across subgroups, including in groups defined by IMDC risk group, bone metastases, age, and tumor burden
Recommended from our members
Phase 2 study of novel HER2-targeting, TLR7/8 immune-stimulating antibody conjugate (ISAC) BDC-1001 (trastuzumab imbotolimod) +/- pertuzumab (P) in patients (pts) with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd)
TPS1121 Background: Therapies to manage pts with HER2+ MBC have significantly improved, but better agents are still needed. BDC-1001 (trastuzumab imbotolimod) is being studied for MBC and other HER2+ cancers. The ISAC BDC-1001 consists of a trastuzumab biosimilar conjugated to a cell membrane impermeable TLR7/8 agonist via a non-cleavable linker and is given IV every 2 wks. Designed to trigger the innate immune system, BDC-1001 causes a durable tumor-targeted adaptive immune response. Early studies show that HER2-targeted ISACs elicit potent and durable immune-mediated antitumor efficacy, and tumor regression, in a TLR- and Fc receptor-dependent manner (1). Preclinical studies with a murine surrogate of BDC-1001 (trastuzumab-T785 ISAC) show better efficacy with trastuzumab-T785 compared to trastuzumab + P. In the BDC-1001 dose-escalation trial (BBI-20201001), 6 PRs and 12 SDs ≥ 24 weeks in 8 tumor types were observed, particularly in 20mg/kg q2w dose cohorts. The most frequent drug-related AE was low grade (grade 1/2) infusion-related reactions (29%) (2). We showed the combination of a surrogate ISAC (trastuzumab-T785) + P significantly enhances efficacy in multiple HER2-expressing tumors, including those with lower HER2 expression (1). The addition of P lowered the quantity of ISAC required for anti-tumor activity in the JIMT-1 HER2 IHC2+ model. The combination of P with the ISAC significantly increased the tumor cytokine and chemokine concentration compared to monotherapy or antibody-alone, indicating enhanced tumor myeloid activation suggesting this combination may enhance the clinical activity of trastuzumab-based ISACs. Methods: The Phase 2 multicenter, open-label, randomized study (BBI-20231001) is enrolling up to 66 patients with HER2-positive (ASCO/CAP 2018) MBC previously treated with 2 or more anti-HER2 therapies including T-DXd. Patients must be > 18 years, have measurable disease, and have ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive BDC-1001 20mg/kg every 2 weeks with or without P (840mg initial dose, followed by 420mg IV q 3w). Each arm has a Simon 2 stage design. The primary objective is anti-tumor activity of BDC-1001 alone and in combination with P. Secondary objectives will evaluate safety, PK, and immunogenicity of BDC-1001 alone and in combination with P. Exploratory objectives will include PD biomarkers in tumor tissue and in peripheral blood to elucidate the MOA and biomarkers associated with BDC-1001 activity with or without P. This study began accrual in Nov 2023. 1. Ackerman S, et al. Nature Cancer. 2021. 2. Li B, et al. ASCO 2023, Abstract 2538. Clinical trial information: NCT05954143
Cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer : a randomized phase 3 trial with a primary pain endpoint
Background: Bone metastases in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with debilitating pain and functional compromise.
Objective: To compare pain palliation as the primary endpoint for cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in men with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases using patient-reported outcome measures.
Design, setting, and participants: A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial (COMET-2; NCT01522443) in men with mCRPC and narcotic-dependent pain from bone metastases who had progressed after treatment with docetaxel and either abiraterone or enzalutamide.
Intervention: Cabozantinib 60 mg once daily orally versus mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 every 3 wk plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily orally.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was pain response at week 6 confirmed at week 12 (≥30% decrease from baseline in patient-reported average daily worst pain score via the Brief Pain Inventory without increased narcotic use). The planned sample size was 246 to achieve ≥90% power.
Results and limitations: Enrollment was terminated early because cabozantinib did not demonstrate a survival benefit in the companion COMET-1 trial. At study closure, 119 participants were randomized (cabozantinib: N = 61; mitoxantrone-prednisone: N = 58). Complete pain and narcotic use data were available at baseline, week 6, and week 12 for 73/106 (69%) patients. There was no significant difference in the pain response with cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone: the proportions of responders were 15% versus 17%, a −2% difference (95% confidence interval: −16% to 11%, p = 0.8). Barriers to accrual included pretreatment requirements for a washout period of prior anticancer therapy and a narcotic optimization period to maximize analgesic dosing.
Conclusions: Cabozantinib treatment did not demonstrate better pain palliation than mitoxantrone-prednisone in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases. Future pain-palliation trials should incorporate briefer timelines from enrollment to treatment initiation.
Patient summary: Cabozantinib was not better than mitoxantrone-prednisone for pain relief in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and debilitating pain from bone metastases. Control of debilitating pain is an unmet need for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This phase 3 trial failed to show an improved pain response for cabozantinib compared with mitoxantrone-prednisone in patients with previously treated, symptomatic mCRPC