Cabozantinib After a Previous Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Multi-Institutional Analysis

Background Angiogenesis has been recognized as the most important factor for tumor invasion, proliferation, and progression in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, few clinical data are available regarding the efficacy of cabozantinib following immunotherapy. Objective To describe the ou...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Targeted oncology 2020-08, Vol.15 (4), p.495-501
Hauptverfasser: Iacovelli, Roberto, Ciccarese, Chiara, Facchini, Gaetano, Milella, Michele, Urbano, Federica, Basso, Umberto, De Giorgi, Ugo, Sabbatini, Roberto, Santini, Daniele, Berardi, Rossana, Santoni, Matteo, Bracarda, Sergio, Massari, Francesco, Masini, Cristina, De Tursi, Michele, Ricotta, Riccardo, Buti, Sebastiano, Zustovich, Fable, Sepe, Pierangela, Rossetti, Sabrina, Maruzzo, Marco, Cortesi, Enrico, Tortora, Giampaolo, Procopio, Giuseppe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Angiogenesis has been recognized as the most important factor for tumor invasion, proliferation, and progression in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, few clinical data are available regarding the efficacy of cabozantinib following immunotherapy. Objective To describe the outcome of cabozantinib in patients previously treated with immunotherapy. Patients and methods Patients with mRCC who received cabozantinib immediately after nivolumab were included. The primary endpoint was to assess the outcome in terms of efficacy and activity. Results Eighty-four mRCC patients met the criteria to be included in the final analysis. After a median follow-up of 9.4 months, median overall survival was 17.3 months. According to the IMDC criteria, the rates of patients alive at 12 months in the good, intermediate, and poor prognostic groups were 100%, 74%, and 33%, respectively ( p  
ISSN:1776-2596
1776-260X
DOI:10.1007/s11523-020-00732-y