CaboCombo: a prospective, phase IV study of first-line cabozantinib + nivolumab for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Cabozantinib plus nivolumab was approved as a first-line (1L) treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) following the CheckMate 9ER trial. CaboCombo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05361434) is a non-interventional study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cabozantinib plus nivolumab in a real-world setting. Overall, 311 patients with clear-cell aRCC receiving 1L cabozantinib plus nivolumab will be recruited from at least 70 centers in seven countries worldwide. The primary end point is overall survival at 18 months. Secondary end points include progression-free survival, objective response rate, safety, patterns of treatment, subsequent anticancer therapies and quality of life. CaboCombo will provide real-world evidence on the characteristics, treatment sequences, and outcomes of patients with aRCC receiving 1L cabozantinib plus nivolumab.

The role of immunotherapy in microsatellites stable metastatic colorectal cancer: state of the art and future perspectives

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, despite several advances has been achieved in last decades. Few prognostic and predictive biomarkers guide therapeutic choice in metastatic CRC (mCRC), among which DNA mismatch repair deficiency and/or microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI) holds a crucial role. Tumors characterized by dMMR/MSI benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, most of the mCRC patients (around 95%) are microsatellite stable (MSS), thereby intrinsically resistant to immunotherapy. This represents a clear unmet need for more effective treatments in this population of patients. In this review, we aim to analyze immune-resistance mechanisms and therapeutic strategies to overcome them, such as combinations of immunotherapy and chemotherapy, radiotherapy or target therapies specifically in MSS mCRC. We also explored both available and potential biomarkers that may better select MSS mCRC patients for immunotherapy. Lastly, we provide a brief overview on future perspectives in this field, such as the gut microbiome and its potential role as immunomodulator.

Atezolizumab plus tivozanib for immunologically cold tumor types: the IMMCO-1 trial

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy represents a significant advance in cancer care. The interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 induces immune tolerance and the inhibition of this interaction is an effective treatment strategy for numerous malignancies. Despite its demonstrated potential, immunotherapy is not clinically effective in immunogenically 'cold' tumors such as pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer and neuroendocrine tumors. Through the inhibition of VEGF, it may be possible to potentiate the effect of immune checkpoint blockade in tumors that have traditionally shown a lack of clinical response to immunotherapy. This signal-seeking, single-arm, prospective clinical trial aims to determine the objective response of tivozanib and atezolizumab in advanced immunogenically cold solid tumors. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05000294 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cabozantinib combination therapy for the treatment of solid tumors: a systematic review

Background:

Cabozantinib monotherapy is approved for the treatment of several types of solid tumors. Investigation into the use of cabozantinib combined with other therapies is increasing. To understand the evidence in this area, we performed a systematic review of cabozantinib combination therapy for the treatment of solid tumors in adults.

Methods:

This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020144680). On 9 October 2020, we searched for clinical trials and observational studies of cabozantinib as part of a combination therapy for solid tumors using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases, and by screening relevant congress abstracts. Eligible studies reported clinical or safety outcomes, or biomarker data. Randomized and observational studies with a sample size of fewer than 25 and studies of cabozantinib monotherapy were excluded. For each study, quality was assessed using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methodology, and the study characteristics were described qualitatively. This study was funded by Ipsen.

Results:

Of 2421 citations identified, 32 articles were included (6 with results from randomized studies, 24 with results from non-randomized phase I or II studies, and 2 with results from both). The most commonly studied tumor types were metastatic urothelial carcinoma/genitourinary tumors and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Findings from randomized studies suggested that cabozantinib combined with other therapies may lead to better progression-free survival than some current standards of care in renal cell carcinoma, CRPC, and non-small-cell lung cancer. The most common adverse events were hypertension, diarrhea, and fatigue.

Conclusion:

This review demonstrates the promising efficacy outcomes of cabozantinib combined with other therapies, and a safety profile similar to cabozantinib alone. However, the findings are limited by the fact that most of the identified studies were reported as congress abstracts only. More evidence from randomized trials is needed to explore cabozantinib as a combination therapy further.

Comparison of Efficacy of Systemic Therapies in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updated Systematic Review and Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Several systemic agents have been approved for use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, it is unclear which treatment is superior in either the first- or second-line settings due to the paucity of head-to-head comparative trials. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis for the indirect comparison of the systemic agents in the first line and second line settings.

Methods

Randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic agents in first and second line settings in aHCC from inception to April 2020 were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases and the annual ASCO and ESMO conferences from 2017 to 2020. Studies in English reporting clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were included. The primary outcomes of interest were pooled hazard ratios (HR) of OS and pooled odds ratios (OR) of ORR in first line studies and pooled HR of PFS and OR of ORR for second line studies. Additionally, OS for second line agents were reported in the qualitative analysis.

Results

Overall, first line studies comprised 8335 patients (13 studies) and second line studies comprised 4612 patients (11 studies). In the first line setting, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with the highest OS benefit over sorafenib (HR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P-score 0.993). Additionally, lenvatinib was associated with the greatest ORR benefit (OR 3.34, 95% CI, 2.17-5.14; P-score 0.080) in the first line setting. In the second line setting, cabozantinib was associated with the highest PFS benefit over placebo (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29-0.66; P-score 0.854) as well as the highest ORR benefit (OR 9.40, 95% CI, 1.25-70.83, P-score, 0.266).

Conclusion

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab appears to have superior efficacy among first line agents whereas cabozantinib appears to be superior in the second line setting. Further studies are warranted to determine whether the type of prior therapy received affects the efficacy of subsequent second line therapy.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known.

METHODS

In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point.

RESULTS

Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors with VEGF targeted agents in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: a review on the rationale and results of early phase trials

Several targeted therapies have shown efficacy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJC), including anti-angiogenic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ramucirumab, an anti-VEGFR2 antibody, has shown efficacy in GC, but the benefits are limited, in part due to MET-mediated resistance. Other VEGF targeted agents like VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with broad multi-kinase inhibitory spectrum like regorafenib and cabozantinib have also shown modest single agent activity in early phase trials. For immune checkpoint inhibitors, pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) monotherapy confers survival advantage as 3rd line therapy for the PD-L1 expressing GC and GEJC population and has been approved for use in this setting. Extensive tumor microenvironment immune modulatory effects from antiangiogenic agents have been demonstrated from preclinical data which support the clinical study rationale of dual blockade of VEGF and immune checkpoint. In addition, FDA has approved combinations of anti-VEGF/VEGFR with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in hepatocellular carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma. Promising clinical activity has been demonstrated in patients with refractory GC/GEJC when treated with dual blockade combination with antiangiogenic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors like PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in several phase I/II trials. This review highlights the trials investigating these novel combinations as well as their preclinical rationale.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors versus VEGF Targeted Therapy as Second Line Regimen in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): A Retrospective Study

Several targeted agents including multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (mTKIs) and immunotherapy (IO) agents have been approved for use beyond the frontline setting in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Due to lack of prospective head-to-head comparative trials, there is no standardized way for alternating those agents beyond frontline. Therefore, we performed a retrospective review of the Kansas University (KU) cancer registry to determine whether IO may be superior to non-IO therapy. Patients with advanced HCC were divided into two groups based on the second-line systemic regimen received (IO vs. non-IO). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated under the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. No statistically significant differences in PFS and OS were found, although a non-significant delayed separation in the survival curve favoring IO was identified (median PFS 3.9 months vs. 3 months; median OS 10 months vs. 10 months respectively for IO vs. non-IO). This retrospective analysis is one of the earliest and largest studies comparing second-line IO and non-IO therapies thus far reported. Future studies should aim to define specific biomarkers for response prediction and treatment optimization based on individual patient and tumor characteristics. Furthermore, combinatorial therapeutic strategies is an evolving approach showing early promising signal.