throbber
The authors’ full names, academic de-
`grees, and affiliations are listed in the Ap-
`pendix. Address reprint requests to Dr.
`Choueiri at the Dana–Farber Cancer In-
`stitute, 450 Brookline Ave. (DANA 1230),
`Boston, MA 02215, or at toni_choueiri@
` dfci . harvard . edu.
`
`* A complete list of investigators in the
`Metastatic RCC Phase 3 Study Evaluat-
`ing Cabozantinib versus Everolimus
`(METEOR) is provided in the Supplemen-
`tary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
`
`This article was published on September
`25, 2015, at NEJM.org
`
`N Engl J Med 2015;373:1814-23.
`DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510016
`Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society.
`
`Original Article
`
`Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced
`Renal-Cell Carcinoma
`T.K. Choueiri, B. Escudier, T. Powles, P.N. Mainwaring, B.I. Rini, F. Donskov,
`H. Hammers, T.E. Hutson, J.-L. Lee, K. Peltola, B.J. Roth, G.A. Bjarnason,
`L. Géczi, B. Keam, P. Maroto, D.Y.C. Heng, M. Schmidinger, P.W. Kantoff,
`A. Borgman-Hagey, C. Hessel, C. Scheffold, G.M. Schwab, N.M. Tannir,
`and R.J. Motzer, for the METEOR Investigators*
`
`ABS TR ACT
`
`BACKGROUND
`Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vas-
`cular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each
`of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carci-
`noma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This random-
`ized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared
`with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after
`VEGFR-targeted therapy.
`
`METHODS
`We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg
`daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progres-
`sion-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points 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 rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib
`than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75;
`P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with
`everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was
`longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95%
`CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the
`interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were
`reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those
`who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events
`occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who
`received everolimus.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among
`patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy.
`(Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.)
`
`1814
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 26, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1109-0001
`
`

`
`Cabozantinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma
`
`Renal-cell carcinoma is the most
`
`common form of kidney cancer, with
`more than 330,000 cases diagnosed and
`more than 140,000 deaths attributed to it world-
`wide every year.1 Approximately one third of
`patients present with metastatic disease at diag-
`nosis,2 and in about one third of treated patients
`with localized disease, the disease will relapse.3-5
`Inactivation of the von Hippel–Lindau (VHL)
`tumor-suppressor protein characterizes clear-cell
`tumors, the predominant histologic subtype in
`patients with renal-cell carcinoma, and results
`in the up-regulation of vascular endothelial
`growth factor (VEGF) production.6,7 Antiangio-
`genic drugs that target VEGF (bevacizumab) and
`its receptors (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib,
`and axitinib) are standard treatments, owing to
`improved progression-free survival in random-
`ized, phase 3 trials as compared with interferon
`alfa, placebo, or other targeted drugs.8-12 Sunitinib,
`pazopanib, and bevacizumab (with interferon
`alfa) were investigated in the first-line setting,
`and sorafenib and axitinib were investigated af-
`ter progression with a first-line treatment.
`Resistance develops in nearly all patients
`treated with one or more of these drugs, as evi-
`denced by disease progression. The median
`progression-free survival ranges from 8 to 11
`months with first-line sunitinib or pazopanib8-10
`and from 3 to 5 months with sorafenib or ax-
`itinib after progression with first-line sunitinib
`treatment.12,13 In the second-line setting or later,
`the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)
`inhibitor everolimus was associated with longer
`progression-free survival than placebo (median,
`4.9 vs. 1.9 months) in a phase 3 trial involving
`patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had pro-
`gressed during or after treatment with sunitinib,
`sorafenib, or both.14 However, no significant im-
`provement in overall survival was observed.
`Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule in-
`hibitor of tyrosine kinases, including MET,
`VEGF receptors (VEGFRs), and AXL, and is cur-
`rently approved for the treatment of patients
`with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid
`cancer.15,16 MET and AXL are up-regulated in
`renal-cell carcinoma as a consequence of VHL
`inactivation, and high expression of each is as-
`sociated with poor prognosis.17,18 In addition,
`increased expression of MET and AXL has been
`implicated in the development of resistance to
`VEGFR inhibitors in preclinical models of sev-
`
`eral cancers, including renal-cell carcinoma.19-22
`A single-group trial showed objective responses
`and prolonged disease control with cabozantinib
`in patients with renal-cell carcinoma with tumors
`resistant to VEGFR and mTOR inhibitors.23
`On the basis of these results, we conducted a
`randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial that com-
`pared cabozantinib with everolimus in patients
`with advanced renal-cell carcinoma that had
`progressed after VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibi-
`tor therapy. The trial design allowed for appro-
`priate statistical power for both a primary end
`point of progression-free survival and a second-
`ary end point of overall survival while avoiding
`overrepresentation of patients with rapidly pro-
`gressing disease for the primary end point.
`
`Methods
`
`Patients
`Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older
`with advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma
`with a clear-cell component and measurable
`disease. Patients must have received prior treat-
`ment with at least one VEGFR-targeting tyrosine
`kinase inhibitor and must have had radiographic
`progression during treatment or within 6 months
`after the most recent dose of the VEGFR inhibi-
`tor. Patients with known brain metastases that
`were adequately treated and stable were eligible.
`There was no limit to the number of previous
`anticancer therapies, which could include cyto-
`kines, chemotherapy, and monoclonal antibod-
`ies, including those targeting VEGF, the pro-
`grammed death 1 (PD-1) receptor, or its ligand
`PD-L1. Eligible patients also had a Karnofsky
`performance-status score of at least 70% (on a
`scale from 0 to 100%, with higher scores indi-
`cating better performance status) and adequate
`organ and marrow function. Key exclusion crite-
`ria were previous therapy with an mTOR inhibi-
`tor or cabozantinib or a history of uncontrolled,
`clinically significant illness.
`
`Study Design and Treatment
`Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to
`receive either cabozantinib or everolimus. Ran-
`domization was stratified according to the num-
`ber of previous VEGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase
`inhibitors (1 or ≥2) and prognostic risk category
`(favorable, intermediate, or poor) according to the
`Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC)
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`1815
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 26, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1109-0002
`
`

`
`T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine
`
`criteria24 (for details on the MSKCC criteria, see
`Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available
`with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).
`Cabozantinib and everolimus were provided
`by the sponsor (Exelixis). Cabozantinib was ad-
`ministered orally at a dose of 60 mg once daily,
`and everolimus was administered orally at a
`dose of 10 mg once daily. Dose reductions for
`cabozantinib (40 mg, then 20 mg) and everoli-
`mus (5 mg, then 2.5 mg) and interruptions of
`study treatment were specified for management
`of adverse events. Treatment was continued as
`long as clinical benefit was observed by the in-
`vestigator or until the development of unaccept-
`able toxic effects. Crossover between treatment
`groups was not allowed.
`
`End Points and Assessments
`The primary end point was duration of progres-
`sion-free survival, defined as the interval be-
`tween the dates of randomization and first
`documentation of disease progression (assessed
`by an independent radiology review committee)
`or death from any cause. Secondary efficacy end
`points were duration of overall survival and ob-
`jective response rate. Tumor response and pro-
`gression were assessed according to Response
`Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1,25
`in all patients at screening, every 8 weeks after
`randomization during the first 12 months, and
`every 12 weeks thereafter. Routine safety evalua-
`tions were performed and adverse-event severity
`was assessed by the investigator with the use of
`the National Cancer Institute Common Termi-
`nology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.26
`
`Study Oversight
`The protocol was approved by the institutional
`review board or ethics committee at each center,
`and the study was conducted in accordance with
`Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Decla-
`ration of Helsinki. Safety was monitored by an
`independent data monitoring committee. Data
`were collected by the sponsor and were analyzed
`in collaboration with the authors. The authors
`vouch for the accuracy and completeness of the
`data and for the fidelity of the study to the pro-
`tocol. The first draft of the manuscript was writ-
`ten by the first and last authors, with all the
`authors contributing to subsequent drafts. Med-
`ical-writing support, funded by the sponsor, was
`provided by Bellbird Medical Communications.
`
`All the authors made the decision to submit the
`manuscript for publication. The study protocol
`and statistical analysis plan are available at
`NEJM.org.
`
`Statistical Analysis
`The trial was designed to provide adequate
`power for assessment of both the primary end
`point of progression-free survival and the sec-
`ondary end point of overall survival. For the
`primary end point, we estimated that 259 events
`(disease progression or death) would be required
`to provide 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of
`0.667 (7.5 months with cabozantinib vs. 5 months
`with everolimus), using the log-rank test and a
`two-sided significance level of 0.05. For the
`overall-survival end point, assuming a single
`interim analysis at the time of the primary end-
`point analysis and a subsequent final analysis,
`we estimated that 408 deaths would be required
`to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of
`0.75 (20 months with cabozantinib vs. 15 months
`with everolimus), using the log-rank test and a
`two-sided significance level of 0.04.
`Efficacy was evaluated in two populations ac-
`cording to the intention-to-treat principle. To
`evaluate the secondary end point of overall sur-
`vival, 650 patients were planned (the overall-sur-
`vival population). However, only 375 patients were
`required to achieve appropriate statistical power
`for the primary end point of progression-free
`survival. Thus, the study was designed to evalu-
`ate the primary end point in the first 375 patients
`who underwent randomization (the progression-
`free–survival population) to allow longer follow-
`up of progression-free survival (Fig. 1).
`Hypothesis testing for progression-free and
`overall survival was performed with the use of
`the stratified log-rank test according to the
`stratification factors used at randomization.
`Median duration of progression-free survival
`and overall survival and associated 95% confi-
`dence intervals for each treatment group were
`estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Haz-
`ard ratios were estimated with a Cox regression
`model. A prespecified interim analysis for over-
`all survival was conducted at the time of the
`primary end-point analysis. The type I error for
`the interim analysis was controlled by a Lan–
`DeMets alpha spending function, with O’Brien–
`Fleming boundaries, to account for the fraction
`of planned events at the time of the analysis.
`
`1816
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 26, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1109-0003
`
`

`
`Cabozantinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma
`
`R esults
`
`Patients
`From August 2013 through November 2014, a total
`of 658 patients from 173 centers in 26 countries
`were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib
`(330 patients) or everolimus (328 patients); these
`patients together compose the overall-survival
`population (Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appen-
`dix). The first 375 patients who underwent ran-
`domization (187 assigned to cabozantinib and
`188 assigned to everolimus) compose the pro-
`gression-free–survival population for the primary
`end-point analysis (Fig. S2 in the Supplementary
`Appendix). The safety population comprises all
`patients who received study treatment (331 re-
`ceived cabozantinib and 322 received everolimus)
`(Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix).
`As of the data-cutoff date of May 22, 2015, a
`total of 133 patients assigned to cabozantinib
`and 67 patients assigned to everolimus were
`continuing to receive study treatment. Minimum
`follow-up time was 11 months in the progres-
`sion-free–survival population and 6 months in
`the overall-survival population. The most com-
`mon reason for discontinuing treatment was
`progression of disease on radiography.
`The treatment groups were balanced with re-
`spect to baseline demographic and disease char-
`acteristics (Table 1). The most common previous
`therapy was sunitinib, and the majority of patients
`had received only one prior VEGFR inhibitor.
`
`Efficacy
`The duration of progression-free survival was
`determined by an independent radiology review
`committee in the first 375 patients who under-
`went randomization. The estimated median pro-
`gression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% con-
`fidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.1) with cabozantinib
`and 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with evero-
`limus. The rate of disease progression or death
`was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with
`everolimus (hazard ratio for progression or death,
`0.58; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001) (Fig. 2). The
`results were similar in a supportive analysis in-
`volving investigator assessment of progression-
`free survival (median, 7.4 months [95% CI, 6.3 to
`7.6] with cabozantinib vs. 5.3 months [95% CI,
`3.8 to 5.6] with everolimus; hazard ratio for
`progression or death, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76;
`P<0.001) (Fig. S3 in the Supplementary Appendix).
`
`Advanced renal-cell carcinoma
`Clear-cell histology
`Measurable disease
`Progression after prior VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor
`
` 1:1 Randomization
`
`Cabozantinib,
`60 mg once daily
`
`Everolimus,
`10 mg once daily
`
`Progression-free–survival
`population
`(first 375 patients who
`underwent randomization)
`
`Overall-survival
`population
`(650 patients)
`
`Figure 1. Study Design.
`VEGFR denotes vascular endothelial growth factor receptor.
`
`A progression-free survival benefit associated
`with cabozantinib was consistently observed in
`prespecified subgroups defined according to the
`number of prior VEGFR inhibitors and MSKCC
`prognostic risk category (Fig. S4 in the Supple-
`mentary Appendix). In a post hoc analysis of the
`subgroup of 153 patients who received sunitinib
`as their only prior VEGFR inhibitor, the estimated
`median progression-free survival was 9.1 months
`(95% CI, 5.6 to 11.2) with cabozantinib and 3.7
`months (95% CI, 1.9 to 4.2) with everolimus
`(hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.41).
`Among the first 375 patients who underwent
`randomization, the objective response rate, as
`assessed by an independent radiology review com-
`mittee, was significantly higher with cabozan-
`tinib than with everolimus (partial responses in
`40 of the 187 patients [21%] assigned to cabo-
`zantinib vs. 9 of the 188 patients [5%] assigned
`to everolimus; P<0.001) (Table S2 in the Supple-
`mentary Appendix). A best response of stable
`disease occurred in 116 patients (62%) in each
`group, and progressive disease occurred in 26
`patients (14%) assigned to cabozantinib versus
`51 patients (27%) assigned to everolimus. In the
`subgroup of 153 patients who received sunitinib
`as their only prior VEGFR inhibitor, objective re-
`sponses occurred in 17 of the 76 patients assigned
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`1817
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 26, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1109-0004
`
`

`
`T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine
`
`Table 1. Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics.*
`
`Characteristic
`
`Progression-free–Survival Population
`
`Overall-Survival Population
`
`Cabozantinib
`(N = 187)
`
`Everolimus
`(N = 188)
`
`Cabozantinib
`(N = 330)
`
`Everolimus
`(N = 328)
`
`Age — yr
`Median
`Range
`Sex — no. (%)
`Male
`Female
`Not reported
`Geographic region — no. (%)
`Europe
`North America
`Asia–Pacific
`Latin America
`Race — no. (%)†
`White
`Asian
`Black
`Other
`Not reported
`Missing data
`ECOG performance-status score — no. (%)‡
`0
`1
`MSKCC prognostic risk category — no. (%)§
`Favorable
`Intermediate
`Poor
`Prior VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors — no. (%)
`1
`≥2
`Previous systemic therapy — no. (%)
`Sunitinib
`Pazopanib
`Axitinib
`Sorafenib
`Bevacizumab
`Interleukin-2
`Interferon alfa
`Nivolumab
`Radiotherapy — no. (%)
`Nephrectomy — no. (%)
`
`62
`36–83
`
`142 (76)
`45 (24)
`0
`
`83 (44)
`76 (41)
`25 (13)
`3 (2)
`
`157 (84)
`12 (6)
`4 (2)
`10 (5)
`4 (2)
`0
`
`129 (69)
`58 (31)
`
`80 (43)
`80 (43)
`27 (14)
`
`137 (73)
`50 (27)
`
`114 (61)
`87 (47)
`28 (15)
`11 (6)
`1 (<1)
`11 (6)
`6 (3)
`9 (5)
`56 (30)
`156 (83)
`
`61
`31–84
`
`130 (69)
`57 (30)
`1 (<1)
`
`84 (45)
`64 (34)
`36 (19)
`4 (2)
`
`147 (78)
`20 (11)
`2 (1)
`6 (3)
`12 (6)
`1 (<1)
`
`116 (62)
`72 (38)
`
`83 (44)
`75 (40)
`30 (16)
`
`136 (72)
`52 (28)
`
`113 (60)
`78 (41)
`28 (15)
`19 (10)
`7 (4)
`13 (7)
`13 (7)
`11 (6)
`61 (32)
`153 (81)
`
`63
`32–86
`
`253 (77)
`77 (23)
`0
`
`167 (51)
`118 (36)
`39 (12)
`6 (2)
`
`269 (82)
`21 (6)
`6 (2)
`19 (6)
`15 (5)
`0
`
`226 (68)
`104 (32)
`
`150 (45)
`139 (42)
`41 (12)
`
`235 (71)
`95 (29)
`
`210 (64)
`144 (44)
`52 (16)
`21 (6)
`5 (2)
`20 (6)
`19 (6)
`17 (5)
`110 (33)
`282 (85)
`
`62
`31–84
`
`241 (73)
`86 (26)
`1 (<1)
`
`153 (47)
`122 (37)
`47 (14)
`6 (2)
`
`263 (80)
`26 (8)
`3 (<1)
`13 (4)
`22 (7)
`1 (<1)
`
`217 (66)
`111 (34)
`
`150 (46)
`135 (41)
`43 (13)
`
`229 (70)
`99 (30)
`
`205 (62)
`136 (41)
`55 (17)
`31 (9)
`11 (3)
`29 (9)
`24 (7)
`14 (4)
`108 (33)
`279 (85)
`
`* Statistical testing of differences in baseline characteristics between groups was not included in the statistical analysis plan. VEGFR denotes
`vascular endothelial growth factor receptor.
`† Race was self-reported.
`‡ Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status scores range from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating no symptoms, 1 indicating
`mild symptoms, and higher numbers indicating increasing degrees of disability.
`§ The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic risk category24 was determined by the number of three factors (anemia,
`hypercalcemia, and poor performance) that were present. Patients with zero factors had a favorable prognosis, patients with one factor had
`an intermediate prognosis, and patients with two or three factors had a poor prognosis.
`
`1818
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 26, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1109-0005
`
`

`
`Cabozantinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma
`
`to cabozantinib (22%; 95% CI, 14 to 33) and in
`2 of the 77 patients assigned to everolimus (3%;
`95% CI, 0 to 9).
`At the prespecified interim analysis of overall
`survival, 202 deaths had occurred in the overall-
`survival population. A trend toward longer over-
`all survival with cabozantinib than with everoli-
`mus was observed (hazard ratio for death, 0.67;
`unadjusted 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005) (Fig. 3).
`The P value of ≤0.0019 required to achieve sta-
`tistical significance at the time of the interim
`analysis was not reached, and survival follow-up
`is continuing to the planned final analysis after
`408 deaths occur. The trend toward longer sur-
`vival with cabozantinib occurred despite more
`frequent use of subsequent anticancer therapies
`in the everolimus group (155 of 328 patients
`[47%]) than in the cabozantinib group (126 of
`330 patients [38%]) (Table S3 in the Supplemen-
`tary Appendix). The most common subsequent
`anticancer therapies were axitinib in the everoli-
`mus group (74 patients [23%]) and everolimus in
`the cabozantinib group (75 patients [23%]).
`
`Safety
`The median duration of treatment was 7.6 months
`among patients who received cabozantinib and
`4.4 months among patients who received evero-
`limus. Dose reductions occurred among 197 of
`the 331 patients (60%) treated with cabozantinib
`and 79 of the 322 patients (25%) treated with
`everolimus (Table S4 in the Supplementary Appen-
`dix). The median average daily dose was 44 mg
`of cabozantinib and 9 mg of everolimus. The
`rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse
`events not related to renal-cell carcinoma was
`9% (31 patients) in the cabozantinib group and
`10% (31 patients) in the everolimus group.
`The incidence of adverse events (any grade),
`regardless of whether the event was considered
`by the investigator to be related to the study
`treatment, was 100% with cabozantinib and more
`than 99% with everolimus, and the incidence of
`adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was 68% with
`cabozantinib and 58% with everolimus (Table 2).
`The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events
`with cabozantinib were hypertension (15%), diar-
`rhea (11%), and fatigue (9%) and with everoli-
`mus were anemia (16%), fatigue (7%), and hyper-
`glycemia (5%). The most common adverse events
`(any grade) leading to dose reductions with
`cabozantinib were diarrhea (16%), the palmar–
`
`Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Progression-free Survival.
`Disease progression was assessed by an independent radiology review
`committee.
`
`Cabozantinib
`
`Everolimus
`
`Hazard ratio for death, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51–0.89)
`P=0.005
`
`0
`
`3
`
`6
`
`9
`
`12
`Months
`
`15
`
`18
`
`21
`
`24
`
`100
`90
`80
`70
`60
`50
`40
`30
`20
`10
`0
`
`OverallSurvival(%)
`
`00
`
`11
`
`65
`
`330
`328
`
`317
`306
`
`294
`260
`
`189
`156
`
`101
`88
`
`32
`24
`
`No.atRisk
`Cabozantinib
`Everolimus
`
`Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Overall Survival.
`
`plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (11%), and
`fatigue (10%), and the most common with evero-
`limus were pneumonitis (4%), fatigue (3%), and
`stomatitis (3%). Grade 5 adverse events occurred
`in 22 patients (7%) in the cabozantinib group
`and in 25 patients (8%) in the everolimus group
`and were primarily related to disease progres-
`sion. Grade 5 events that were considered to be
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`1819
`
`No.of
`Patients
`
`Median
`Progression-free
`Survival
`mo (95% CI)
`
`No.of
`Events
`
`Cabozantinib
`Everolimus
`
`187
`188
`
`7.4 (5.6–9.1)
`3.8 (3.7–5.4)
`
`121
`126
`
`Hazard ratio for progression or death,
`0.58 (95% CI, 0.45–0.75)
`P<0.001
`
`100
`90
`80
`70
`60
`50
`40
`30
`20
`10
`0
`
`Progression-freeSurvival(%)
`
`Cabozantinib
`
`Everolimus
`
`15
`
`18
`
`20
`
`62
`
`6
`
`92
`46
`
`9
`Months
`
`68
`29
`
`12
`
`20
`10
`
`0
`
`3
`
`No.atRisk
`Cabozantinib
`Everolimus
`
`187
`188
`
`152
`99
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 26, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1109-0006
`
`

`
`Table 2. Adverse Events.*
`
`Event
`
`Any adverse event
`Diarrhea
`Fatigue
`Nausea
`Decreased appetite
`Palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome
`Hypertension
`Vomiting
`Weight decreased
`Constipation
`Dysgeusia
`Stomatitis
`Hypothyroidism
`Dysphonia
`Mucosal inflammation
`Asthenia
`Dyspnea
`Cough
`Back pain
`Abdominal pain
`Rash
`Pain in arms or legs
`Muscle spasms
`Dyspepsia
`Dry skin
`Headache
`Arthralgia
`Dizziness
`Peripheral edema
`Pyrexia
`Pruritus
`Epistaxis
`Pneumonitis
`Laboratory abnormality
`Aspartate aminotransferase increased
`Anemia
`Alanine aminotransferase increased
`Hypomagnesemia
`Proteinuria
`Hypokalemia
`Hypophosphatemia
`Hypertriglyceridemia
`Serum creatinine increased
`Hyperglycemia
`
`T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine
`
`Cabozantinib (N = 331)
`
`Everolimus (N = 322)
`
`Any Grade
`
`Grade 3 or 4
`
`Any Grade
`
`Grade 3 or 4
`
`331 (100)
`245 (74)
`186 (56)
`165 (50)
`152 (46)
`139 (42)
`122 (37)
`106 (32)
`102 (31)
`83 (25)
`78 (24)
`73 (22)
`67 (20)
`65 (20)
`63 (19)
`62 (19)
`62 (19)
`61 (18)
`56 (17)
`53 (16)
`50 (15)
`47 (14)
`41 (12)
`40 (12)
`37 (11)
`37 (11)
`36 (11)
`36 (11)
`31 (9)
`28 (8)
`25 (8)
`12 (4)
`0
`
`58 (18)
`56 (17)
`53 (16)
`52 (16)
`41 (12)
`38 (11)
`33 (10)
`20 (6)
`15 (5)
`15 (5)
`
`number of patients with an event (percent)
`226 (68)
`321 (>99)
`38 (11)
`88 (27)
`30 (9)
`148 (46)
`13 (4)
`90 (28)
`8 (2)
`108 (34)
`28 (8)
`19 (6)
`49 (15)
`23 (7)
`7 (2)
`45 (14)
`6 (2)
`40 (12)
`1 (<1)
`60 (19)
`0
`30 (9)
`8 (2)
`77 (24)
`0
`1 (<1)
`2 (<1)
`12 (4)
`3 (<1)
`73 (23)
`14 (4)
`50 (16)
`10 (3)
`90 (28)
`1 (<1)
`107 (33)
`7 (2)
`47 (15)
`12 (4)
`31 (10)
`2 (<1)
`89 (28)
`3 (<1)
`26 (8)
`0
`16 (5)
`1 (<1)
`15 (5)
`0
`32 (10)
`1 (<1)
`38 (12)
`1 (<1)
`45 (14)
`0
`21 (7)
`0
`72 (22)
`2 (<1)
`51 (16)
`0
`47 (15)
`0
`46 (14)
`0
`33 (10)
`
`6 (2)
`18 (5)
`8 (2)
`16 (5)
`8 (2)
`15 (5)
`12 (4)
`5 (2)
`1 (<1)
`2 (<1)
`
`18 (6)
`122 (38)
`19 (6)
`5 (2)
`30 (9)
`21 (7)
`18 (6)
`40 (12)
`35 (11)
`62 (19)
`
`187 (58)
`7 (2)
`22 (7)
`1 (<1)
`3 (<1)
`3 (<1)
`10 (3)
`3 (<1)
`0
`1 (<1)
`0
`7 (2)
`0
`0
`11 (3)
`7 (2)
`13 (4)
`3 (<1)
`7 (2)
`4 (1)
`2 (<1)
`1 (<1)
`0
`0
`0
`1 (<1)
`4 (1)
`0
`5 (2)
`1 (<1)
`1 (<1)
`0
`6 (2)
`
`1 (<1)
`50 (16)
`1 (<1)
`0
`1 (<1)
`6 (2)
`7 (2)
`9 (3)
`0
`16 (5)
`
`* Shown are adverse events that were reported in at least 10% of the patients in either study group, regardless of whether the event was con-
`sidered by the investigator to be related to the study treatment. The severity of adverse events was graded according to the National Cancer
`Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.26
`
`1820
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 26, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1109-0007
`
`

`
`Cabozantinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma
`
`treatment-related occurred in 1 patient in the
`cabozantinib group (death not otherwise speci-
`fied) and in 2 patients in the everolimus group
`(aspergillus infection and aspiration pneumonia).
`
`Discussion
`
`Progression-free survival was longer with cabo-
`zantinib than with everolimus in this random-
`ized, phase 3 trial involving patients with renal-
`cell carcinoma that had previously progressed
`during at least one VEGFR-targeted therapy. The
`efficacy with cabozantinib was robust, with an
`estimated median progression-free survival of
`7.4 months, as compared with 3.8 months with
`everolimus, and a hazard ratio of 0.58, corre-
`sponding to a 42% reduction in the rate of dis-
`ease progression or death. Objective tumor re-
`sponses were observed in 21% of the patients
`assigned to cabozantinib, as compared with 5%
`of the patients assigned to everolimus.
`Data pertaining to overall survival, a second-
`ary end point in this trial, were immature at the
`prespecified interim analysis. Nonetheless, the
`rate of death was 33% lower with cabozantinib
`than with everolimus, a finding that indicates a
`strong trend toward longer survival. The interim
`boundary for significance was not reached, and
`follow-up for survival is continuing to the
`planned final analysis.
`The safety profile of cabozantinib in this
`trial was similar to previous experience in this
`patient population.23 Common adverse events
`with cabozantinib included diarrhea, fatigue,
`nausea, decreased appetite, the palmar–plantar
`erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and hypertension,
`which are also observed with other VEGFR tyro-
`sine kinase inhibitors in patients with renal-cell
`carcinoma.8,12 Adverse events that occurred at
`higher rates and with greater severity with
`everolimus than with cabozantinib included
`pneumonitis, peripheral edema, anemia, and
`hyperglycemia. Dose reductions for management
`of adverse events occurred more frequently with
`cabozantinib than with everolimus, underlining
`the need for careful adverse-event monitoring, as
`is the case with other VEGFR inhibitors. Discon-
`tinuation of study treatment owing to adverse
`events not related to renal-cell carcinoma oc-
`curred in 9% of the patients who received cabo-
`zantinib and in 10% of the patients who received
`everolimus.
`This study used a “trial within a trial” design
`
`because the sample size required to properly
`evaluate the primary end point of progression-
`free survival is too small to adequately assess
`the important secondary end point of overall
`survival. An event-driven analysis of progres-
`sion-free survival in the larger sample required
`for overall survival could have been overweight-
`ed with patients who have early progression, and
`patients with longer times to progression might
`not have been sufficiently represented. There-
`fore, to provide longer follow-up for an event-
`driven analysis of progression-free survival, the
`primary analysis of this end point was prespeci-
`fied to occur in the first 375 patients who under-
`went randomization.
`Everolimus was used as the comparator be-
`cause it is a standard treatment for patients who
`previously had disease progression with a VEGFR-
`targeted therapy. A growing body of evidence
`suggests greater efficacy with VEGFR inhibitors
`than with mTOR inhibitors in patients with renal-
`cell carcinoma.13,27,28 However, owing to the ab-
`sence of comparative data from phase 3 trials,
`an area of controversy has been the relative ben-
`efit of a VEGFR inhibitor as compared with
`everolimus as a second-line treatment.29 More
`than 70% of our study population were previously
`treated with only one VEGFR inhibitor, primar-
`ily sunitinib. A benefit with respect to progres-
`sion-free survival was observed with cabozan-
`tinib in the subgroup of patients who received
`one prior VEGFR-targeted therapy, a finding that
`is consistent with the overall results.
`Axitinib is also an option as a second-line
`treatment for patients with renal-cell carcinoma,
`given the results of the phase 3 AXIS trial, which
`showed a benefit in progression-free survival as
`compared with sorafenib as a second-line ther-
`apy.12 The eligibility criteria of the AXIS trial
`allowed varied first-line therapies, and the two
`largest populations were patients who were previ-
`ously treated with sunitinib (54%) or cytokines
`(35%). The estimated median progression-free
`survival in the overall population was 6.7 months
`with axitinib, as compared with 4.7 months with
`sorafenib, and the benefit was strongest among
`patients previously treated with cytokines. The
`subgroup of patients who received sunitinib as
`their first-line therapy had an estimated median
`progression-free survival of 4.8 months and an
`objective response rate of 11% with axitinib.12,30
`Thus, the estimated median progression-free sur-
`vival of 9.1 months and the objective response
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`1821
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNI

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket