Background Cabozantinib is an oral small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL; each has been implicated in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) pathobiology or development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized open-label phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib compared to everolimus in RCC patients who progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. Methods The trial randomized 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily, or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy endpoints 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 risk of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib compared to everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P < 0.001). Objective response rates were 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P < 0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was improved with cabozantinib (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary. Adverse events (grade 3 or 4, regardless of causality) were reported in 74% of cabozantinib patients and 65% of everolimus patients. Discontinuation of study treatment for adverse events occurred in 9.1% of cabozantinib patients and 10% of everolimus patients. Conclusions Cabozantinib improved progression-free survival compared to everolimus in RCC patients who progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy.

Exelixis Inc.

Through this consensus conference, we believe we have developed practical guidelines for using PSA as a measurement of outcome. Furthermore, the use of common standards is important as we determine which agents should progress to randomized trials which will use survival as an end point.

AMG 479 can be administered safely at 20 mg/kg IV Q2W. The absence of severe toxicities, attainment of serum concentrations associated with high levels of IGF-1R binding on neutrophils, and provocative antitumor activity warrant additional studies of this agent.

The combination regimens EP and CAV can be considered equivalently effective induction therapies in extensive SCLC, and these two regimens are, to some degree, crossresistant. Alternating therapy provides no therapeutic advantage compared with the use of either of these regimens alone and should not be considered as standard treatment in this clinical setting.

As a direct result of the significant increase in FDA-approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic CRPC, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing of these agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient's treatment goals. In all cases, patients' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number of newly diagnosed prostate cancers in the United States increased dramatically, surpassing lung cancer as the most common cancer in men. 1 Experts generally believe that these changes resulted from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening that detected many earlystage prostate cancers. For example, the percentage of patients with low-risk disease has increased (45.3% in 1999-2001 vs. 29.8% in 1989-1992; P < .0001). 2 The incidence of prostate cancer increased 2.0% annually from 1995 to 2001 and has since declined. In 2009, an estimated 192,280 new cases were diagnosed and prostate cancer was expected to account for 25% of new cancer cases in men. 1 Fortunately, the age-adjusted death rates from prostate cancer have also declined

Between September 1983 and December 1988, we observed 16 cases of hematologic neoplasia associated with mediastinal germ-cell tumors. Twenty-eight similar cases have been reported in the literature. A review of the clinical and cytogenetic details in these patients suggests that the hematologic neoplasia is not the result of cisplatin-based chemotherapy of the mediastinal germ-cell cancer. This syndrome was found only in patients with nonseminomatous mediastinal germ-cell tumors, particularly those with serologic or histologic evidence of yolk-sac elements. The two most common hematologic neoplasms seen in this syndrome were acute megakaryoblastic leukemia and malignant histiocytosis. Consistent cytogenetic abnormalities have not yet been identified, but the finding of the marker chromosome isochromosome (12p) in the mediastinal germ-cell tumor and associated leukemic blasts in one patient suggests that these tumors may arise from a common progenitor cell.