Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34922840›Full record

ArticleClinical genitourinary cancer2022

Analysis of Toxicity and Clinical Outcomes in Full Versus Reduced Starting Dose Cabozantinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients.

Dylan J Martini, Sean T Evans, Yuan Liu, Julie M Shabto, Ogul E Uner, T Anders Olsen, Jacqueline T Brown, Greta Anne Russler, Lauren Yantorni, Sarah Caulfield and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical genitourinary cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Cabozantinib for the treatment of solid tumors: a systematic review.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Dylan J MartiniMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Medicine, Boston, MA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Sean T EvansWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Yuan LiuDepartments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Julie M ShabtoWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Ogul E UnerWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
T Anders OlsenWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Jacqueline T BrownWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Greta Anne RusslerWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Lauren YantorniWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Sarah CaulfieldDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Jamie M GoldmanWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Bassel NazhaWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Wayne B HarrisWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Viraj A MasterDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Omer KucukWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Bradley C CarthonWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Mehmet Asim BilenWinship 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.

Funding

Winship Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA138292 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Suresh S Ramalingam · 2009 to 2026
$47.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFull 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsMost 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.

conclusionsAlthough 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.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellHypertensionKidney NeoplasmsMucositisAnilidesFemaleHumansMalePyridinesRetrospective StudiesAnilidescabozantinibPyridinesCabozantinibClinical outcomesDosingMetastatic renal cell carcinomaTreatment-related adverse events

Identifiers

PMID34922840
PMCPMC8816843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.