I grabbed the following from the 7/6/11 EXEL Cabo update. This is the same news release that announced the 3 month delay of MTC P3 results...
"The phase 1 trial enrolled a total of 37 patients with 35 patients being response evaluable. It showed a 29% rate of confirmed partial responses. These responses were generally durable with a response duration of up to 48+ months per the most recent update. Four patients are in continued response at the current time. Additionally, 15 patients (41%) had stable disease lasting longer than 6 months with some patients continuing on study 3+ years after study initiation. Activity was independent of both RET mutation status and prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including vandetanib."
I find the last sentence both compelling and intriguiging. Does the specific inclusion of comparison to Vandetinib suggest that Cabo is a better therapeutic agent, or simply that it has shown to favorably react where Vandetinib has not?
...later treated w/ CABO. Activity noted. Interesting, no? My conjecture is that either the AE was too stressful...or the vandetanib less than effective... Is it a sound inference to suggest that-for some patients-CABO may prove to be a best,if only more effective choice. Conversely, I have been looking for a former CABO recipient...currently treated w/ vandetanib. I can find no evidence of this... Anyone...?