Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free and overall survival and the likelihood of response. A total of 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued one or both of the trial drugs prematurely.

MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC. We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057. Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6–12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3–7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37–0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group. Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC. National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865747. Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1–21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0–21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7–not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7–18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·53–0·83]; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41–0·62]; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% [13–22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2–6] with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 [15%] in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatigue (36 [11%] vs 24 [7%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 [8%] vs 3 [1%]), anaemia (19 [6%] vs 53 [17%]), hyperglycaemia (3 [1%] vs 16 [5%]), and hypomagnesaemia (16 [5%] vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. Exelixis Inc.

Despite theoretical benefits of intermittent as compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with metastatic prostate cancer, intermittent therapy did not result in longer survival or long-term improvement in quality of life. Prostate cancer is an androgen-dependent disease, and continuous androgen deprivation has been the standard therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. Despite a high response rate, resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy occurs in most patients, resulting in a median survival of 2.5 to 3 years. 1 , 2 There is evidence suggesting that progression to castration resistance is adaptive in part, and pathways involving the androgen receptor, as well as cell-survival pathways independent of the androgen receptor, have been implicated. 3 , 4 Data from an androgen-dependent tumor model have suggested that androgen withdrawal alters the ratio of putative stem cells in the tumor-cell population. 5 Initially, differentiated . . .

Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population. Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Supplementation with CBM588, a bifidogenic live bacterial product, has been associated with improved clinical outcomes in persons with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab. However, its effect on those receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based combinations is unknown. In this open-label, randomized, investigator-initiated, phase 1 study, 30 participants with locally advanced or mRCC with histological confirmation of clear cell, papillary or sarcomatoid component were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive cabozantinib (an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, MET and AXL) and nivolumab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1) with or without CBM588 as first-line treatment. Metagenomic sequencing was performed on stool samples to characterize their gut microbiome at baseline and 13 weeks into treatment. The primary endpoint was a change in the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp.; secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity profile. The primary endpoint of the study was not met and the addition of CBM588 to cabozantinib and nivolumab did not result in a difference in the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. or alpha diversity (as measured by the Shannon index). However, ORR was significantly higher in participants treated with CBM588 compared to those in the control arm (14 of 19, 74% versus 2 of 10, 20%; P  = 0.01). PFS at 6 months was 84% (16 of 19) and 60% (6 of 10) in the experimental and control arms, respectively. No significant difference in toxicity profile was seen between the study arms. Our results provide a preliminary signal of improved clinical activity with CBM588 in treatment-naive participants with mRCC receiving cabozantinib and nivolumab. Further investigation is needed to confirm these findings and better characterize the underlying mechanism driving this effect. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05122546 In a randomized phase 1 trial, the addition of a live Clostridium species-containing product to a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and anti-programmed cell death protein 1 treatment combination did not increase bacterial abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. but enhanced clinical responses in participants with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment. Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0–26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20–3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17–0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84–1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28–0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58–5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14–0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01–0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08–0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56–0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50–0·80], nominal p=0·0001). PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Bristol Myers Squibb.

Erlotinib is approved for the treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but is most active in the treatment of EGFR mutant NSCLC. Cabozantinib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targets MET, VEGFR, RET, ROS1, and AXL, which are implicated in lung cancer tumorigenesis. We compared the efficacy of cabozantinib alone or in combination with erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC. This three group, randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial was done in 37 academic and community oncology practices in the USA. Patients were eligible if they had received one or two previous treatments for advanced non-squamous, EGFR wild-type, NSCLC. Patients were stratified by performance status and line of therapy, and randomly assigned using permuted blocks within strata to receive open-label oral daily dosing of erlotinib (150 mg), cabozantinib (60 mg), or erlotinib (150 mg) and cabozantinib (40 mg). Imaging was done every 8 weeks. At the time of radiographic progression, there was optional crossover for patients in either single-drug group to receive combination treatment. The primary endpoint was to compare progression-free survival in patients given erlotinib alone versus cabozantinib alone, and in patients given erlotinib alone versus the combination of erlotinib plus cabozantinib. We assessed the primary endpoint in the per-protocol population, which was defined as all patients who were eligible, randomly assigned, and received at least one dose of treatment. The safety analysis population included all patients who received study treatment irrespective of eligibility. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01708954. Between Feb 7, 2013, and July 1, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 42 patients to erlotinib treatment, 40 patients to cabozantinib treatment, and 43 patients to erlotinib plus cabozantinib treatment, of whom 111 (89%) in total were included in the primary analysis (erlotinib [n=38], cabozantinib [n=38], erlotinib plus cabozantinib [n=35]). Compared with erlotinib alone (median 1·8 months [95% CI 1·7–2·2]), progression-free survival was significantly improved in the cabozantinib group (4·3 months [3·6–7·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 80% CI 0·27–0·55; one-sided p=0·0003) and in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group (4·7 months [2·4–7·4]; HR 0·37, 0·25–0·53; one-sided p=0·0003). Among participants included in the safety analysis of the erlotinib (n=40), cabozantinib (n=40), and erlotinib plus cabozantinib (n=39) groups, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (three [8%] cases in the erlotinib group vs three [8%] in the cabozantinib group vs 11 [28%] in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group), hypertension (none vs ten [25%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (five [13%] vs six [15%] vs six [15%]), oral mucositis (none vs four [10%] vs one [3%]), and thromboembolic event (none vs three [8%] vs two [5%]). One death due to respiratory failure occurred in the cabozantinib group, deemed possibly related to either drug, and one death due to pneumonitis occurred in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group, deemed related to either drug or the combination. Despite its small sample size, this trial showed that, in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC, cabozantinib alone or combined with erlotinib has clinically meaningful, superior efficacy to that of erlotinib alone, with additional toxicity that was generally manageable. Cabozantinib-based regimens are promising for further investigation in this patient population. ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

The optimum duration of androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy in prostate cancer remains undefined. We aimed to determine whether long-term androgen deprivation was superior to short-term androgen deprivation when combined with high-dose radiotherapy. In this open-label, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from ten university hospitals throughout Spain. Eligible patients had clinical stage T1c–T3b N0M0 prostate adenocarcinoma with intermediate-risk and high-risk factors according to 2005 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive either 4 months of androgen deprivation combined with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy at a minimum dose of 76 Gy (range 76–82 Gy; short-term androgen deprivation group) or the same treatment followed by 24 months of adjuvant androgen deprivation (long-term androgen deprivation group), stratified by prostate cancer risk group (intermediate risk vs high risk) and participating centre. Patients assigned to the short-term androgen deprivation group received 4 months of neoadjuvant and concomitant androgen deprivation with subcutaneous goserelin (2 months before and 2 months combined with high-dose radiotherapy). Anti-androgen therapy (flutamide 750 mg per day or bicalutamide 50 mg per day) was added during the first 2 months of treatment. Patients assigned to long-term suppression continued with the same luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogue every 3 months for another 24 months. The primary endpoint was biochemical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175212. Between Nov 7, 2005, and Dec 20, 2010, 178 patients were randomly assigned to receive short-term androgen deprivation and 177 to receive long-term androgen deprivation. After a median follow-up of 63 months (IQR 50–82), 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was significantly better among patients receiving long-term androgen deprivation than among those receiving short-term treatment (90% [95% CI 87–92] vs 81% [78–85]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·88 [95% CI 1·12–3·15]; p=0·01). 5-year overall survival (95% [95% CI 93–97] vs 86% [83–89]; HR 2·48 [95% CI 1·31–4·68]; p=0·009) and 5-year metastasis-free survival (94% [95% CI 92–96] vs 83% [80–86]; HR 2·31 [95% CI 1·23–3·85]; p=0·01) were also significantly better in the long-term androgen deprivation group than in the short-term androgen deprivation group. The effect of long-term androgen deprivation on biochemical disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival was more evident in patients with high-risk disease than in those with low-risk disease. Grade 3 late rectal toxicity was noted in three (2%) of 177 patients in the long-term androgen deprivation group and two (1%) of 178 in the short-term androgen deprivation group; grade 3–4 late urinary toxicity was noted in five (3%) patients in each group. No deaths related to treatment were reported. Compared with short-term androgen deprivation, 2 years of adjuvant androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy improved biochemical control and overall survival in patients with prostate cancer, particularly those with high-risk disease, with no increase in late radiation toxicity. Longer follow-up is needed to determine whether men with intermediate-risk disease benefit from more than 4 months of androgen deprivation. Spanish National Health Investigation Fund, AstraZeneca.