Cabozantinib in Renal Cell Carcinoma With Brain Metastases: Safety and Efficacy in a Real-World Population

BackgroundCabozantinib showed efficacy and manageable toxicity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study we aimed to describe the safety and to collect evidence on the potential efficacy of cabozantinib in mRCC patients with brain metastases (BM) in a real-world experience.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively collected data of patients treated with cabozantinib within the Italian Managed Access Program. Patients were selected for the presence of BM before the start of treatment and for at least 1 previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment regimen for metastatic disease. Safety data were reported, and overall response rate (ORR), brain-specific response, progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS) were analyzed.ResultsOverall, 12 patients treated with cabozantinib were evaluated. Any grade adverse events (AEs) accounted for 92%, Grade 3/4 AEs rated at 36% with no major neurological side effects. The most common AEs included hypertension (33%), fatigue (24%), aminotransferase elevation (25%), hypothyroidism (16%), and gastrointestinal toxicity (16%). The ORR was 50% with a disease control rate of 75%. All 5 patients treated with a combined systemic and brain-directed approach obtained intracranial disease control, without increased toxicity. Median PFS and median OS were 5.8 and 8.8 months, respectively. Comparable safety and tolerability results for other TKI regimens were reported from the literature.ConclusionCabozantinib showed safety, acceptable tolerability, and promising antitumor activity in a population of mRCC patients with BM from a real-world experience. A combined modality approach for renal cell carcinoma with BM, whenever feasible, could be recommended to improve oncological outcomes.     

Real world prospective experience of axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large comprehensive cancer centre

BackgroundAxitinib has shown activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a large phase III clinical trial and was approved in patients who failed first-line therapy. This drug has been available in France since November 2012. The objective is to report efficacy and safety of axitinib in mRCC outside of clinical trials.MethodsA prospective evaluation of mRCC patients treated by axitinib in second or further next-line therapy at Gustave Roussy was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analysed. The correlation between clinical markers and ORR, PFS, TTF and OS were explored.ResultsOne-hundred and sixty patients with mRCC, received axitinib in second (40%) or further next-line therapy (60%). International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification was good, intermediate and poor in 13%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg twice a day (bid) was performed in 38% and to 10 mg bid in 19% of the patients. Hypertension was the most common adverse event, (grade (G)3: 39%; G4: 2%). ORR occurred in 32% (n = 33, only partial response). Median PFS, TTF and OS were 8.3, 5.8 and 16.4 months, respectively. IMDC risk group and DT at 2 weeks are associated to ORR while grade 3 hypertension is marginally associated. IMDC risk group and grade 3 hypertension are significantly associated with better PFS, TTF and OS while DT at 2 weeks is associated to PFS and TTF.ConclusionEfficacy of axitinib in routine practice is similar to that previously reported, not only in second- but also in further next-lines of therapy.     

Activity of Single-Agent Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

PurposeThe activity of systemic agents after progression when using vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibition (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is poorly characterized. The anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody bevacizumab has a broad US Food and Drug Administration label and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline level 2b recommendation in this setting; we thus explored our institutional experience in this population.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who were treated with bevacizumab in the second- and/or third-line settings; the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall response rates (ORR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were analyzed.ResultsTwenty-one patients were treated with bevacizumab: the median age was 63 years old; 80% were white and 14% were black; 80% had clear cell histology. All the patients had prior VEGFR TKI therapy; 43% had prior mTOR inhibitor; the median number of prior therapies was 3. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 2.8-9.6 months), and the median OS was 19.4 months (95% CI, 9.9-NR months). ORR was 9.5%; 52% of subjects had stable disease as best response, and 52% had disease progression. For subjects treated with prior VEGF and mTOR inhibitors, median PFS and OS were 4.4 and 13.2 months, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities included fatigue (29%), dehydration (24%), failure to thrive (10%), constipation (10%), and muscle weakness (10%).ConclusionsSingle-agent bevacizumab has acceptable toxicity and moderate disease-stabilizing activity in selected patients with mRCC who have failed prior VEGFR TKI and mTOR inhibitors. These data support clinical benefit to continued ongoing VEGF inhibition. Further prospective studies of bevacizumab alone or with alternative targeted agents in previously treated populations with mRCC are warranted.     

Sequential Targeted Therapy After Pazopanib Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: Efficacy and Toxicity

Introduction/BackgroundPatients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in whom first-line therapies have failed might derive clinical benefit with sequential targeted agents. Limited data are available on the efficacy and toxicity of subsequent therapies after disease progression during pazopanib therapy.Patients and MethodsPatients with mRCC who received subsequent systemic treatment after pazopanib treatment failure were identified across 7 institutions. Pazopanib was given as first-line therapy in 28 patients and after cytokines therapy in 7 patients. Clinical outcome and toxicity analyses of 2 sequential treatment options (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor [mTORi]) is presented.ResultsSubsequent therapy was anti-VEGF in 22 patients and mTORi in 13. One patient who received bevacizumab and temsirolimus combination was excluded. VEGF-targeted therapies included sorafenib (n = 10), sunitinib (n = 3), bevacizumab (n = 2), cediranib (n = 4) and cabozantinib (n = 3). Patients treated with mTORi received everolimus. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months from the start of subsequent therapy with anti-VEGF and 2.4 months with mTORi (P = .009). Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different (P = .68). Clinical benefit (including partial response and stable disease) on subsequent therapy was observed in 15 patients (64%) and 4 patients (31%) of anti–VEGF- and everolimus-treated patients, respectively (P = .021).ConclusionIn this retrospective study, targeting VEGF was an effective strategy after disease progression during pazopanib treatment, although OS was not different among patients treated with VEGF or mTORi.     

Cabozantinib: an Active Novel Multikinase Inhibitor in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is characterized by inactivation of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumor suppressor gene. VHL loss drives tumor angiogenesis and accounts for the clinical activity of VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), the first-line standard of care for advanced RCC. Within the last year, three new second-line treatments have received FDA approval for use after anti-angiogenic therapy: the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab, the TKI cabozantinib, and the combination of the TKI lenvatinib and the mTOR inhibitor everolimus. Cabozantinib inhibits VEGFRs, MET, and AXL, kinases that promote tumorigenesis, angiogenesis, metastasis, and drug resistance. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib has shown statistically significant improvements in the three key efficacy endpoints of overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate in patients with RCC who were previously treated with a VEGFR TKI. Herein, we summarize the translational research and clinical development that led to approval of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in RCC.     

Controversies in renal cell carcinoma: Treatment choice after progression on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy

The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORI) everolimus and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib are the only two post-first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) licensed at present. Extrapolation of robust phase III studies suggests that median progression-free survival (PFS) is similar between agents. This presents a dilemma for the physician planning treatment for their patients with mRCC: should they be treated with a TKI–mTORI or a TKI–TKI sequence? The lack of direct comparison between axitinib and everolimus leaves the clinician without clear guidance on the optimal choice in second-line therapy. In phase III studies, both post first-line everolimus and axitinib have been shown to delay disease progression; however, cumulative toxicity with sequential use of TKIs may result in more treatment interruptions or dose reductions or increased likelihood of adverse events. While everolimus exerts a tolerability advantage, axitinib is associated with higher response rate and a similar PFS benefit. Proven superiority cannot be used to guide treatment sequence selection in mRCC. Instead, therapeutic planning requires us to take a long-term view of our patient’s treatment that includes quality of life and a balance between symptom control, adverse event management and avoidance of unnecessary drug interruptions or dose reductions. In the absence of curative therapies, sustaining a patient’s quality of life is a major goal throughout the course of treatment and choosing a second-line agent that is able to adequately achieve this by limiting adverse events should be a priority.     

Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial

BackgroundAxitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib in the AXIS trial. We report post hoc analyses evaluating patient subgroups that may benefit more from axitinib in this setting.Patients and MethodsAXIS was an open-label randomized phase 3 trial (NCT00678392) in mRCC patients with disease that failed to respond to one prior systemic therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated potential prognostic factors for improved PFS and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib. PFS and OS of axitinib versus sorafenib were assessed within subgroups identified according to these factors.ResultsOf 723 patients, 389 received first-line sunitinib; 194 and 195 were randomized to second-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Identified prognostic factors were: nonbulky disease (sum of the longest diameter < 98 mm), favorable/intermediate risk disease (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria), and no bone or liver metastases. In patients with all of these prognostic factors (n = 86), significantly longer PFS was observed for axitinib versus sorafenib (hazard ratio = 0.476; 95% confidence interval, 0.263-0.863; 2-sided P = .0126). OS (hazard ratio = 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-1.780; 2-sided P = .7661) was similar between treatments. Across subgroups, PFS was generally longer in patients treated with axitinib versus sorafenib, and OS was generally similar between the two treatments.ConclusionIn patients with mRCC, axitinib remains a suitable second-line treatment option across multiple subgroups. A relevant reduction in the risk of a PFS event was observed for axitinib compared to sorafenib in selected subgroups of patients.     

Early Clinical Experience with Cabozantinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the UK: Real-World Treatment Pathways and Clinical Outcomes

BackgroundCabozantinib monotherapy is approved in the UK for patients with treatment-naïve intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), or patients who received prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Data are limited on the real-world use of cabozantinib for aRCC.Patients and MethodsCERES (NCT03696407) was a retrospective study of patients with aRCC who received cabozantinib through the UK managed access programme (MAP; August 2016–July 2017), at which time cabozantinib had European regulatory approval for second- or later-line use only. The study objectives were to characterize aRCC treatment patterns and evaluate cabozantinib effectiveness. Outcomes were stratified by cabozantinib treatment line, MAP treatment date (months 0-7 vs. 8-12) and (post hoc) Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; ≥ 6 vs. < 6).ResultsOf 100 patients included, 99% had stage IV disease, 63% had a CCI ≥ 6 and 81% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-1. Median (range) duration of follow-up was 10.8 (0.4-33.5) months. Cabozantinib was administered as second-line, third-line and fourth- or later-line in 41%, 31% and 28% of patients, respectively. Most patients (84%) initiated cabozantinib at 60 mg. Average (range) cabozantinib dose was 45.5 (19.6-59.8) mg/day; 66% of patients had ≥ 1 dose reduction. Disease progression was the most common reason for discontinuation (65.1%). Median (95% confidence interval) progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.01 (5.16-7.85) and 10.84 (7.92-16.85) months, respectively. Overall response rate was 34.5%; disease control rate 70.1% and duration of response 6.9 (1.8-26.9) months. No significant differences in survival estimates were observed between treatment line or treatment date subgroups. Total CCI score ≤ 6 (vs. > 6) was associated with prolonged median PFS and OS.ConclusionCabozantinib demonstrated clinical activity in this UK real-world aRCC population. The results provide a benchmark for future real-world studies in aRCC.     

Real-world Experience of Cabozantinib as Second- or Subsequent Line Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Data From the Polish Managed Access Program

BackgroundCabozantinib is an approved treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This report presents an analysis of the safety profile and efficacy of cabozantinib in an unselected population from Poland.Patients and MethodsPatients with mRCC, who had been treated with at least 1 previous agent targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway, were eligible to receive cabozantinib at a once-daily dose of 60 mg orally, according to the Managed Access Program (MAP). Data were collected in 4 Polish centers. Patients who had received ≥ 1 dose of cabozantinib were monitored for adverse events (AEs) using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0.ResultsA total of 115 patients were enrolled between October 2016 and March 2018, including 50% with bone metastases, 10% with brain metastases and 4.3% with non–clear-cell RCC; 76% had received ≥ 2 lines of therapy. The median time of follow-up was 12.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5-14.1 months). The most common grade 3 and 4 AEs were fatigue (23%), hand-foot syndrome (12%), and diarrhea (10%). Only 4% of patients discontinued treatment owing to AEs, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Partial response was observed in 19% of patients, whereas 56% had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 12.5 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.2 months), with a 12-month overall survival rate of 70.4% (95% CI, 60.2%-78.5%).ConclusionsCabozantinib demonstrated acceptable tolerability and activity in a large unselected population of patients with mRCC under clinical conditions.     

Are Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Still Active in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With a Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor and Everolimus? Experience of 36 Patients Treated in France in the RECORD-1 Trial

BackgroundBecause the response to treatment is limited, patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) typically receive multiple treatments. Guidelines recommend everolimus for patients previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib or sorafenib. This study evaluated the efficacy of TKI re-treatment in patients with disease progression after a TKI-everolimus sequence.Patients and MethodsData were reviewed for patients enrolled in RECORD-1 (Renal Cell Cancer Treatment With Oral RAD001 Given Daily) at French sites. Response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were evaluated in patients treated with a TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence.ResultsThirty-six patients received a TKI after everolimus: sunitinib in 17 patients, sorafenib in 15, and dovitinib (TKI258) in 4. The response rate with TKI re-treatment was 8%, and the disease-control rate (response plus stable disease) was 75%. The median PFS with each component of the TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence was 10.7 months (95% CI, 1.8-28.5 months), 8.9 months (95% CI, 1.7-34.6 months), and 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.2-11.9 months), respectively. The median overall survival from the start of everolimus was 29.1 months (95% CI 21.1 to not reached months), which suggests a benefit in using TKI in this setting.ConclusionsAdministration of a TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence may be associated with clinical benefit and should be prospectively investigated.     

Active Surveillance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System

BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is a commonly used strategy in patients with slow-growing disease. We aimed to assess the outcomes and safety of AS in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and MethodsWe used the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The AS strategy was defined as (1) the start of systemic therapy ≥ 6 months after diagnosis of mRCC, or (2) never receiving systemic therapy for mRCC with an overall survival (OS) of ≥1 year. Patients starting systemic treatment <6 months after diagnosis of mRCC were defined as receiving immediate systemic treatment. OS and time until first-line treatment failure (TTF) were compared between the two cohorts.ResultsA total of 853 patients met the criteria for AS (cohort A). Of these, 364 started treatment >6 months after their initial diagnosis (cohort A1) and 489 never started systemic therapy (cohort A2); 827 patients received immediate systemic treatment (cohort B). The 5-year OS probability was significantly greater for cohort A than for cohort B (70% vs. 33.6%; P < .0001). After adjusting for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria and age, both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.70; P < .0001) and TTF (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P = .0002) were greater in cohort A1 compared with B. For cohort A1, the median time on AS was 14.2 months (range, 6-71).ConclusionsBased on the largest analysis of AS in mRCC to date, our data suggest that a subset of patients may be safely observed without immediate initiation of systemic therapy.     

Update on the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) management has undergone a paradigm shift in recent decades. The first revolution came with the emergence of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors; there was a second wave with the unprecedented success of checkpoint inhibitors, and then the latest approach, which is becoming the new care standard in mRCC, of combining these two strategies in different ways. Updated results of Checkmate-214 after 42 mo of follow-up were consistent with previously published results showing the superiority of nivolumab/ipilimumab over sunitinib in progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, several studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 suggested that the best place, and so far, the only one for nivolumab/ipilimumab is the frontline setting. The update on Keynote-426 after 23 mo of follow-up showed no superiority of pembroli-zumab/axitinib over sunitinib in favorable-risk mRCC, suggesting that it should no longer be the first line of choice in low-risk patients. Finally, the phase III Checkmate 9ER trial results revealed the superiority of nivolumab/cabozantinib vs sunitinib in PFS, OS, and ORR, providing a new first-line option among all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk patients. Some phase II clinical trials also presented this year showed promising results with new combination therapies such as nivolumab/sitravatinib, cabozantinib/atezolizumab, and lenvatinib/pembrolizumab, providing promising grounds upon which to start phase III studies. In addition, other works are using novel therapeutic agents with different mechanisms of action, including telaglenastat (a glutaminase inhibitor), entinostat [an inhibitor of histone deacetylases (HDACs)], and olaparib and talazoparib, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors widely used in other tumors. However, some questions regarding mRCC management still need to be addressed, such as head-to-head comparisons between the current options, treatment sequencing, non-clear cell mRCC, and the role of biomarkers to ascertain the best treatment choice.     

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcomes of Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized,phase III,open-label KEYNOTE-426 study

Background

In the phase III open-label KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study, first-line pembrolizumab and axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). KEYNOTE-426 evaluated patients enrolled from 25 sites in Japan.

Methods

Patients enrolled in Japan were included in this post hoc subgroup analysis. Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary endpoints.

Results

The Japanese subgroup comprised 94 patients (pembrolizumab–axitinib, n = 44; sunitinib, n = 50; 11% of the intent-to-treat population). Median time from randomization to data cutoff (January 6, 2020) was 29.5 months (range 24.6–37.3). Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the OS, PFS, and ORR suggested improvement with pembrolizumab–axitinib versus sunitinib in the Japanese subgroup. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 70% of patients receiving pembrolizumab–axitinib versus 78% receiving sunitinib; 11 (25%) patients receiving pembrolizumab–axitinib and 13 (27%) patients receiving sunitinib discontinued the study medication due to AEs. TRAEs led to the discontinuation of pembrolizumab, axitinib, pembrolizumab–axitinib, or sunitinib in 32%, 34%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. No deaths from TRAEs occurred.

Conclusions

Efficacy outcomes for the Japanese subgroup were consistent with those of the global population. Safety in Japanese patients was consistent with the results from the global population.

     

Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors

BackgroundRenin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to improve outcomes in studies of multiple malignancies by effects on the tumor microenvironment to enhance the immune repertoire and improve drug delivery. Repurposing RASi to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) may improve survival coupled with tolerability and cost efficacy. We evaluated the impact of RASi on outcomes in mRCC patients receiving ICI.MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study included mRCC patients treated with ICI with or without RASi. The patients from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) were used as a discovery cohort, and the patients from University of California San Diego (UCSD) were used for validation. Receipt of an ICI (PD1/L1 and/or CTLA-4 inhibitors) was required. RASi use was defined as receipt of a RASi at baseline and for a minimum of 30 days after ICI initiation. For both the discovery and validation cohorts, the primary outcome assessed was overall survival (OS) and the secondary endpoints were time-to-treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR).ResultsOverall, 229 patients who received an ICI were included: 100 patients from DFCI and 129 patients from UCSD. Concomitant RASi were administered in 30 patients (30%) in the DFCI cohort and 59 (45%) in the UCSD cohort. Median age at ICI initiation was 62.5 years in both cohorts. Median follow-up was 3.8 [IQR 3-5.3] years in the DFCI cohort, and 2.3 [IQR 1.4-3.6] years in the UCSD cohort. In the DFCI cohort, RASi was significantly associated with longer OS (adjusted-HR 0.35 [95% CI, 0.17-0.70], P = .003) and TTF (adjusted-HR 0.57 [0.36-0.92], P = .02). In the validation cohort, RASi was associated with TTF (adjusted HR, 0.60 [0.39-0.92], P = .02) and not statistically associated with OS (adjusted-HR 0.60 [0.34-1.06], P = .07). The propensity analysis, matching 83 patients from both cohorts receiving RASi while on ICI with 83 who did not, showed that RASi significantly improved OS (HR 0.59 [0.37-0.95], P = .03) and TTF (HR 0.60 [0.43-0.85], P = .0034).ConclusionsRASi was associated with improved OS and TTF in mRCC patients receiving ICI. This provides a rationale for prospective randomized studies combining ICI and RASi in mRCC patients.     

Folic Acid Reduces Mucositis in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Retrospective Study

BackgroundMucositis is often experienced in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with targeted therapies. This might impair daily quality of life and lead to dose reduction, discontinuation, or treatment shift. We assessed the effect of folic acid to reduce mucositis.Patients and MethodsPatients treated with systemic therapy for mRCC who developed Grade ≥2 mucositis according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE) received oral folic acid to reduce mucositis. The medical charts were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsA total of 77 patients had Grade ≥2 mucositis during therapy with sunitinib (n = 29), pazopanib (n = 24), everolimus (n = 10), axitinib (n = 4), temsirolimus (n = 3), interleukin-2/interferon-α (n = 3), cabozantinib (n = 2), bevacizumab (n = 1), and nivolumab (n = 1). Given in doses of 1 to 5 mg daily, folic acid significantly reduced mucositis, mean CTCAE grade 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.03) versus 2.38 (95% CI, 2.26-2.54; P < .0001). Stratified according to treatment, folic acid significantly reduced mucositis grade for sunitinib (0.97 [95% CI, 0.75-1.18] vs. 2.45 [95% CI, 2.23-2.67], P < .0001), pazopanib (0.96 [95% CI, 0.67-1.25] vs. 2.20 [2.03-2.38], P < .0001), everolimus (0.60 [95% CI, 0.10-1.10] vs. 2.60 [95% CI, 2.23-2.97], P < .0001), and other treatments (0.79 [95% CI, 0.38-1.19] vs. 2.36 [95% CI, 2.07-2.64], P < .0001). Of the 77 patients, 8 (10%) patients received dose reduction. Overall progression-free survival was 14 months and overall survival was 31 months.ConclusionFolic acid reduced mucositis in mRCC patients receiving systemic therapy. This finding needs prospective validation. A double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective evaluation of folic acid is ongoing (NCT03581773).     

Results of a Phase II Placebo-controlled Randomized Discontinuation Trial of Cabozantinib in Patients with Non–small-cell Lung Carcinoma

IntroductionCabozantinib, an orally bioavailable tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against MET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, AXL, ROS1, and RET was assessed in patients with non–small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) as part of a phase II randomized discontinuation trial with cohorts from 9 tumor types.Patients and MethodsPatients received cabozantinib 100 mg/day during a 12-week open-label lead-in stage. Those with stable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0 at week 12 were randomized to cabozantinib or placebo. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) at week 12 and progression-free survival (PFS) after randomization.ResultsSixty patients with NSCLC who had received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy were enrolled. ORR at week 12 was 10%; 6 patients had a confirmed partial response, and no patients had a complete response. Overall disease-control rate (ORR + stable disease) at week 12 was 38%. Tumor regression was observed in 30 (64%) of 47 patients with post-baseline radiographic tumor assessments, including 3 or 4 patients with KRAS or epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, respectively. Median PFS after randomization was 2.4 months for both the cabozantinib and placebo arms. Median PFS from first dose for the entire cohort was 4.2 months. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were fatigue (13%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (10%), diarrhea (7%), hypertension (7%), and asthenia (5%); 1 treatment-related grade 5 adverse event (hemorrhage) was reported during the lead-in stage.ConclusionCabozantinib exhibited clinical activity based on ORR and regression of tumor lesions in pretreated patients with NSCLC, including in patients with KRAS mutations.     

Analysis of Toxicity and Clinical Outcomes in Full Versus Reduced Starting Dose Cabozantinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients

BackgroundFull dose cabozantinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is 60 mg, but adverse events (AEs) may require dose reductions. Limited data exist comparing efficacy among cabozantinib doses. We compared AEs and clinical outcomes in mRCC patients treated with full vs. reduced starting cabozantinib dose.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 87 mRCC patients treated with cabozantinib at Winship Cancer Institute from 2016 to 2019. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response (OR) rate measured clinical outcomes. AEs were collected from clinic notes and the most common were hypertension, mucositis/hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), or gastrointestinal toxicity. Univariate analysis (UVA) between starting doses and AEs with clinical outcomes was performed using logistic regression model. Multivariable analysis was also performed using Cox proportional hazard model.ResultsMost patients were men (71%) with clear-cell RCC (72%). The majority were IMDC intermediate (58%) or poor (35%) risk. One third received first-line cabozantinib and 64% had ≥3 baseline metastatic sites. Most patients (68%) required dose reduction from 60 mg or started at reduced dose without escalation. Reduced dose patients were more likely to have ≥3 distant metastatic sites (70% vs. 58%) and ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy (50% vs. 40%) compared to full dose patients. UVA revealed a trend towards shorter OS (HR: 1.78, P = .095), PFS (HR: 1.50, P = .107), and lower chance of OR (HR:0.42, P = .149) among reduced dose patients. This trend did not hold in Multivariable analysis (OS HR: 1.20, P = .636; PFS HR: 1.23, P = .4662). Mucositis/HFSR and hypertension were significantly associated with improved outcomes in UVA.ConclusionsAlthough we found a trend favoring full dose cabozantinib, this is likely due to worse baseline disease characteristics among patients starting on a reduced dose. Hypertension and mucositis/HFSR may be associated with improved outcomes. Larger studies are warranted to validate these findings.     

The Efficacy of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Exhibiting Primary Resistance to Front-Line Targeted Therapy or Immunotherapy

BackgroundPatients with primary refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have a dismal prognosis and poor response to subsequent treatments. While there are several approved second-line therapies, it remains critical to choose the most effective treatment regimen.Patients and MethodsWe identified 7 patients with clear cell mRCC who had primary resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapy. The patients were treated with lenvatinib (a multitargeted TKI) plus everolimus (a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor). Among these 7 patients, 2 had prior TKI therapy, 3 had prior ICI therapy, and 2 had prior TKI and ICI therapy. We collected the patients' clinical characteristics, molecular profiles, treatment durations, and toxicity outcomes.ResultsThe median time to progression on prior therapies was 1.5 months. Lenvatinib plus everolimus was used either as a second-line (n = 4) or third-line (n = 3) therapy. As best responses, 3 patients had partial responses and 3 achieved stable disease. Patients were followed for ≥17 months; progression-free survival ranged from 3 to 15 months, and overall survival ranged from 4 to 17 months.ConclusionThese 7 cases provide real-world data for the use of lenvatinib plus everolimus in patients with mRCC with primary resistance to first-line VEGF-targeted TKIs or ICI combination therapy.