Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma

By T. Choueiri, B. Escudier, T. Powles, P. Mainwaring, B. Rini, F. Donskov, H. Hammers, Thomas E. Hutson, Jae-Lyun Lee, K. Peltola and 14 more. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015

1,101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Background Cabozantinib is an oral small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL; each has been implicated in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) pathobiology or development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized open-label phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib compared to everolimus in RCC patients who progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. Methods The trial randomized 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily, or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy endpoints were overall survival and objective response rate. Results Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The risk of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib compared to everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P < 0.001). Objective response rates were 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P < 0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was improved with cabozantinib (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary. Adverse events (grade 3 or 4, regardless of causality) were reported in 74% of cabozantinib patients and 65% of everolimus patients. Discontinuation of study treatment for adverse events occurred in 9.1% of cabozantinib patients and 10% of everolimus patients. Conclusions Cabozantinib improved progression-free survival compared to everolimus in RCC patients who progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/69d4b6dac3c4f659661728f72cf577100d10646c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. J. Hsieh
  2. C. Porta
  3. M. Schmidinger
  4. Charles Swanton
  5. M. Purdue
  6. N. Rioux-Leclercq
  7. M. Morris
  8. S. Halabi

Citations in the corpus