CABOSUN II: Results from a phase 2, open-label, multi-center randomized study of cabozantinib (CABO) vs. sunitinib (SUN) for non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (NCCRCC).

Abstract

4597 Background: NCCRCC are a diverse group of rare diseases with limited data to guide treatment. CABO is highly effective in clear cell RCC, but it is unknown whether it is superior to SUN, the historic standard of care for metastatic NCCRCC. Methods: CABOSUN II (NCT03541902) was a randomized phase II study at 3 centers for patients (pts) with metastatic NCCRCC. Sixty pts were planned to detect CABO as better than SUN with a 1-sided test. Pts were randomized 1:1 to CABO 60mg daily or SUN 50mg daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). SUN dose modification to 2 weeks on, 1 week off was allowed for toxicity. Stratification was by papillary RCC (PRCC) vs. non-PRCC (NPRCC), good/intermediate vs. poor risk disease by IMDC criteria, and prior TKI use. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1 compared between the 2 arms using the log-rank test. Secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse event (AE) rates (2-sided tests). Results: 32 pts were randomized to CABO (N=15) or SUN (N=17) between 9/2018 and 6/2021. The trial stopped early due to a change in standard therapy for PRCC not based on these pts’ outcomes. Age range was 22-88 years with medians 57 and 61 for CABO and SUN. Pts were primarily white (84%) and male (72%), with good/intermediate risk (88%), and these were balanced between arms. More pts on the CABO arm had bone metastases (62% vs. 24%). NPRCC were chromophobe (N=6; 5 randomized to SUN), unclassified (N=5), and MiT family translocation (N=3; all randomized to CABO). With median follow-up of 33.3 months and 20 PFS events, median PFS for CABO vs. SUN was 8.2 vs. 13.8 months (1-sided p=0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR or OS between the arms. AEs were in line with previous studies. Conclusions: CABO was not superior to SUN for metastatic NCCRCC in this study. Both arms had high rates of stable disease or better. Despite stratification by PRCC or NPRCC, there were major differences in NPRCC subtypes between the arms that may have impacted the results. More pts with chromophobe histology, an often indolent subtype, received SUN while all pts with MiT family translocation, a relatively aggressive subtype, received CABO. Permitted SUN dose modifications may have also influenced outcomes. While the PAPMET study showed CABO to be superior to SUN for PRCC, optimal treatments for rare, NPRCC remain a pressing need. Clinical trial information: NCT03541902 . [Table: see text]