Dylan J Martini1, Sean T Evans2, Yuan Liu3, Julie M Shabto2, Ogul E Uner2, T Anders Olsen2, Jacqueline T Brown2, Greta Anne Russler4, Lauren Yantorni4, Sarah Caulfield5, Jamie M Goldman2, Bassel Nazha2, Wayne B Harris2, Viraj A Master6, Omer Kucuk2, Bradley C Carthon2, Mehmet Asim Bilen7. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Medicine, Boston, MA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 2. Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 3. Departments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 4. Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 5. Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 6. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 7. Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: mehmet.a.bilen@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Full 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Most 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. CONCLUSIONS: Although 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.
BACKGROUND: Full 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Most 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. CONCLUSIONS: Although 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.
Authors: Toni K Choueiri; Susan Halabi; Ben L Sanford; Olwen Hahn; M Dror Michaelson; Meghara K Walsh; Darren R Feldman; Thomas Olencki; Joel Picus; Eric J Small; Shaker Dakhil; Daniel J George; Michael J Morris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laurence Albiges; A Ari Hakimi; Wanling Xie; Rana R McKay; Ronit Simantov; Xun Lin; Jae-Lyun Lee; Brian I Rini; Sandy Srinivas; Georg A Bjarnason; Scott Ernst; Lori A Wood; Ulka N Vaishamayan; Sun-Young Rha; Neeraj Agarwal; Takeshi Yuasa; Sumanta K Pal; Aristotelis Bamias; Emily C Zabor; Anders J Skanderup; Helena Furberg; Andre P Fay; Guillermo de Velasco; Mark A Preston; Kathryn M Wilson; Eunyoung Cho; David F McDermott; Sabina Signoretti; Daniel Y C Heng; Toni K Choueiri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sumanta K Pal; Bradley McGregor; Cristina Suárez; Che-Kai Tsao; William Kelly; Ulka Vaishampayan; Lance Pagliaro; Benjamin L Maughan; Yohann Loriot; Daniel Castellano; Sandy Srinivas; Rana R McKay; Robert Dreicer; Thomas Hutson; Sarita Dubey; Scott Werneke; Ashok Panneerselvam; Dominic Curran; Christian Scheffold; Toni K Choueiri; Neeraj Agarwal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Frede Donskov; M Dror Michaelson; Igor Puzanov; Mellar P Davis; Georg A Bjarnason; Robert J Motzer; David Goldstein; Xun Lin; Darrel P Cohen; Robin Wiltshire; Brian I Rini Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Pablo Maroto; Camillo Porta; Jaume Capdevila; Andrea B Apolo; Santiago Viteri; Cristina Rodriguez-Antona; Lidia Martin; Daniel Castellano Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 5.485