RECAP DAVA Hawaii Lung 2026 — top KOL voices, trial buzz & every conference slide, decoded View Full Coverage →
KOL Sentiment Index · The Answer

Physician Sentiment on CABOMETYX®

Physicians are measured on CABOMETYX® — 27% positive across 68 verified physician voices, by clinical trial:

68 physician voices 4 clinical trial(s) 2024-01-22 – 2026-03-03 Exelixis · cabozantinib
Compiled and reviewed by the KOL Pulse research team, led by Brian Shields, Founder, KOL Pulse. Last updated 2026-07-14. KOL Pulse reports the physician conversation and does not endorse any product.

What do oncologists think of the CABINET trial (CABOMETYX®)?

CABINET — Previously treated, advanced pancreatic and extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET/epNET)

FDA APPROVED · Mar 2025FDA-approved March 26, 2025, for adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with previously treated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, well-differentiated pancreatic (pNET) and extra-pancreatic (epNET) neuroendocrine tumors.

Physicians are broadly favorable, with real nuance on CABINET: 0% of 4 verified physician voices positive, 0% nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 100% neutral, 0% critical.

100%
Positive 0% Nuanced 0% Neutral 100% Critical 0%
Denominator: 4 distinct verified physician voices across 7 oncologist posts, 2024-12-29 to 2025-04-10. Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (NCI-funded; A021602)

See full CABINET conference coverage & trial data →

Primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT03375320  ·  NEJM 2025 — CABINET primary publication
Chan JA, Geyer S, Zemla T, et al. Phase 3 Trial of Cabozantinib to Treat Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(7):653-665.

Physician voices — verbatim

Full physician voice list (4)

See full CABINET conference coverage & trial data →

What do oncologists think of the CheckMate-9ER trial (CABOMETYX®)?

CheckMate-9ER — First-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (nivolumab + cabozantinib)

FDA APPROVED · Jan 2021FDA-approved January 22, 2021, for cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Physicians are broadly favorable, with real nuance on CheckMate-9ER: 33% of 24 verified physician voices positive, 4% nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 63% neutral, 0% critical.

33%
63%
Positive 33% Nuanced 4% Neutral 63% Critical 0%
Denominator: 24 distinct verified physician voices across 40 oncologist posts, 2024-01-22 to 2026-03-03. Sponsor: Bristol Myers Squibb (with Exelixis)

See full CheckMate-9ER conference coverage & trial data →

Primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT03141177  ·  NEJM 2021 — CheckMate-9ER primary publication
Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, et al. Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):829-841.

Physician voices — verbatim

Full physician voice list (24)

PhysicianComment (verbatim)SentimentImpressions
Neeraj Agarwal, MD, FASCO
@neerajaiims
Ab#362 @ASCO #GU24 by @BourlonMaite👉https://t.co/erNsHAaztT👉55 mos f/u of CheckMate 9ER ph3 mRCC #kidneycancer 👉continued benefit w/ Nivo+Cabo vs Sunitinib ➡️ mOS 43.9 vs 29.3 mos in int/poor risk pts👇@drchoueiri @OncoAlert @urotoday @Urom… Positive 11,983
Toni Choueiri, MD
@DrChoueiri
Final #CheckMate9ER results (5+ yr FU: N+C > S in 1L #aRCC PFS HR 0.58, OS HR 0.79, ORR 55.7% vs 27.4%. No new safety signals. N+C remains a SOC for untreated aRCC. @ASCO #GU25 @motzermd @tompowles1 @MSKCancerCenter @OncoAlert Neutral 9,781
Maite Bourlon
@BourlonMaite
Happy to present the CheckMate9ER study @ASCO #gu2024 👩🏻‍⚕️🇲🇽🦀 🔹 A P3 trial of cabo+nivolumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated advanced kidney cancer. 🔸@ 55m folow-up efficacy of the combo is maintained in OS, PFS and ORR 🔹Thanks for t… Positive 9,611
Brian Rini, MD
@brian_rini
Updated table of IO combos (ITT population) in front line mRCC after #ASCOGU24. Has anything changed for you based on these data? Neutral 9,312
Yüksel Ürün
@DrYukselUrun
Abstract #362 Update from CheckMate 9ER in #aRCC: With 55.6 months follow-up, N+C still leads over S in PFS, OS, and ORR for untreated aRCC. 🌟 Consistent benefits across IMDC risk groups & sustained safety profile. N+C reaffirms its plac… Neutral 6,426
Sumanta K. Pal, MD, FASCO
@montypal
Always so useful to hear updates on pivotal P3 trials in #kidneycancer. Congrats to @BourlonMaite, Tannir & Grunwald on terrific talks updated #CM9ER, #CM214 & #CLEAR datasets. The #CM214 favorable risk data is particularly intriguing, but … Nuanced 4,064
Dra. María Natalia Gandur Quiroga
@nataliagandur
💫🌟👏🔝 Kudos!! to 👩‍🎓@BourlonMaite for a crystal-clear presentation! at #GU24 @ASCO 🔥 New #CheckMate9ER 55-Month Update! 📊 Nivolumab + Cabozantinib vs Sunitinib in aRCC 📈 Superior PFS, OS, ORR with N+C 🕒 Median PFS: 16.4 vs 8.4 months ⏳ M… Positive 3,878
Dr Amol Akhade
@SuyogCancer
5 year update of checkmate 9ER. Nivo plus Cabo vs Sunitinib for advanced clear cell RCC. Note that Sunitinib arm is not doing bad either. 35.4 % are alive on Sunitinib arm also at the end of 5 years. ( vs 40.9 % on nivo plus Cabo arm ) … Neutral 3,780
Aly-Khan Lalani
@lalaniMD
Noteworthy to see where dust settles for @IMDConline favourable risk disease for doublet options — particularly in jurisdictions where doublet IO restricted to Int/Poor risk currently 👀 @TiansterZhang @ERPlimackMD @PBarataMD @nbasappaCCI @… Neutral 2,906
Tian Zhang, MD, MHS
@TiansterZhang
Checkmate 9ER follow up — important OS benefit for cabo-nivo. Looking forward to @BourlonMaite presenting! #GU24 @ASCO Positive 2,512
Emre Yekedüz
@yekeduz_emre
⏩ @ASCO #GU25: ✅ CheckMate 9ER (5+ year follow-up): Nivolumab + Cabozantinib continues to show durable efficacy in 1L advanced RCC vs. Sunitinib. ✅ No new safety signal! @motzermd @ASCOPost @ASCOTECAG @OncoAlert @ConquerCancerFd @MikeSerzan… Neutral 1,285
Shilpa Gupta
@shilpaonc
#GU24 @BourlonMaite presenting the 55 month of Checkmate 9ER. Consistent safety and efficacy. @DrChoueiri @montypal @neerajaiims @MosheOrnsteinMD @TiansterZhang Neutral 1,195
Zach Klaassen
@zklaassen_md
Nivo + Cabo vs Sun for previously untreated aRCC: Results from 55-mo f/u of the CheckMate 9ER trial #GU24 @urotoday Nivo + Cabo vs Sun: 🟢ITT: PFS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.70), OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95), ORR (55.7% vs 27.7%) 🟢Fav-Risk:… Neutral 1,109
Jordan Ciuro, MD
@jordanciuro
Final updates of #CheckMate 9ER trial? nivolumab + cabozantinib vs sunitinib in 1L advanced RCC @ASCO #GU25 Key Takeaways, nivolumab with cabozantinib: ✅Improved PFS in ITT 16.4m vs 8.3m HR 0.58 ✅Improved OS in ITT 46.5m vs 35.5m HR 0.79 ✅… Positive 992
Bárbara Melão, MD, PhD
@bavilima
#GU25 #RCC ✨CheckMate 9ER Final Results: 5-Year Follow-Up @motzermd @DrChoueiri ▶️Nivo + cabo maintained long-term efficacy benefits over sunitinib in previously untreated aRCC 🔹 PFS: 16.4 vs. 8.3 months (HR 0.58) 🔹 OS: 46.5 vs. 35.5 mont… Neutral 974
David Braun
@BraunMDPhD
with an important update of CheckMate-9ER, showing continued benefits of nivo+cabo over suntinib. IMDC favorable risk remains an area that needs more investigation. Nivo+cabo with very good activity in high risk sites, including bone @ASCO … Positive 830
Rana McKay, MD, FASCO
@DrRanaMcKay
presenting updated analysis from CM9ER demonstrating persistent PFS and OS benefit. @DrChoueiri @OncoAlert #GU25 Neutral 786
Heber Reyes, MD
@heberolimus
Last week my colleague @ZarbaMartin1 presented the following poster regarding RWD on NivoCabo per @IMDConline in ASCO #GU26 https://t.co/Yb31FgtqJR Always advancing our decision-making with patients, twith data that truly represent 'em. Ku… Neutral 409
Pavlos Msaouel
@PavlosMsaouel
Ouch. Restricting to int/poor and excluding favorable is based on implicit assumptions unsupported by data or established RCT methodology literature. Regulators making such decisions should start with digesting this open access overview 👉 Neutral 238
Thomas Flaig
@TomFlaigMD
Congratulations on the presentation, @BourlonMaite ! Positive 178
Urbano Anido
@urbano_anido
Checkmate 9ER Neutral 87
Alessandro Samuelly
@DrSamuelly
Grouped updates for first line RCC for favorable risk diseases - more might not be better in some patients. Neutral 46
Maroun Bou Zerdan, MD
@MarounBouZerdan
📢 Final 5-yr results from CheckMate 9ER: Nivo+Cabo > Sunitinib in aRCC: ✅ PFS: 16.4 vs. 8.3m (HR 0.58) ✅ ORR: 55.7% vs. 27.4% (CR: 13.9% vs. 4.6%) ✅ 60-mo OS: 40.9% (N+C) vs. 35.4% (S) 🔬Benefit seen in lung, bone, & liver mets. Checkmate … Neutral 25
Ippokratis Korantzis, Medical Oncologist, MD, PhD
@newsincancer
CheckMate-9ER and CheckMate-214 Updates Show Continued Benefits With Combination Regimens Over Sunitinib in Advanced RCC Positive 10

See full CheckMate-9ER conference coverage & trial data →

What do oncologists think of the COSMIC-313 trial (CABOMETYX®)?

COSMIC-313 — First-line intermediate/poor-risk advanced RCC (cabozantinib + nivolumab + ipilimumab triplet) — INVESTIGATIONAL

INVESTIGATIONALInvestigational. COSMIC-313 tested a cabozantinib + nivolumab + ipilimumab triplet against nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line intermediate/poor-risk advanced RCC; it improved progression-free survival but the triplet regimen is not FDA-approved.

Physicians are genuinely mixed on COSMIC-313: 10% of 10 verified physician voices positive, 30% nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 60% neutral, 0% critical.

10%
30%
60%
Positive 10% Nuanced 30% Neutral 60% Critical 0%
Denominator: 10 distinct verified physician voices across 17 oncologist posts, 2025-02-08 to 2026-02-19. Sponsor: Exelixis

Full conference coverage and trial data: KOL Pulse trial profile coming soon.

Primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT03937219  ·  NEJM 2023 — COSMIC-313 primary publication
Choueiri TK, Powles T, Albiges L, et al. Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(19):1767-1778.

Physician voices — verbatim

Full physician voice list (10)

PhysicianComment (verbatim)SentimentImpressions
Tom Powles
@tompowles1
Renal cancer highlights #ascoGU25. New HIF2a monotherapy (casdatifan) and combo (belzutifan/pembro) data. More KIM1 data,is this our best RCC biomarker. Final OS data for COSMIC313 (Cabo/ipi/nivo). ctDNA analysis in papillary RCC (met/PDL1)… Neutral 8,518
Toni Choueiri, MD
@DrChoueiri
While #COSMIC313 showed that triplet combo in 1L mRCC may not be the full answer (yet), this practice-informing study sheds light on useful biomarkers of response— @Annals_Oncology @myESMO @motzermd @tompowles1 @AlbigesL https://t.co/0ZkCeR… Neutral 7,279
Emre Yekedüz
@yekeduz_emre
A great talk by @TiansterZhang in terms of current and future approaches in RCC! @ASCO #GU25 @OncoAlert @DrYukselUrun @DrChoueiri @NazliDizman @OncLive @DanaFarber_GU @montypal @bavilima @nataliagandur Positive 6,746
Yüksel Ürün
@DrYukselUrun
COSMIC-313: Final OS Analysis @AlbigesL Cabo+Nivo+Ipi (C+N+I) maintains PFS & ORR benefits vs. Placebo+N+I in 1L IMDC intermediate/poor risk aRCC. No OS difference between arms 🧬 High M2 macrophage abundance linked to improved OS with C+N+… Nuanced 5,851
Michael Serzan, MD
@MikeSerzanMD
🗣️Kidney Cancer Oral Abstracts #GU25 💫Abs438: Dr @AlbigesL presenting Final Results from #COSMIC313 N = 855 75% IMDC Int Risk 25% IMDC Poor Risk Median FU 45mo ♦️Cabo + Nivo + Ipi (CNI) ♦️Placebo+ Nivo + Ipi (NI) ❌ mOS: CNI 41.9mo… Neutral 2,978
Neeraj Agarwal, MD, FASCO
@neerajaiims
COSMIC-313: Addition of Cabozantinib to Ipi+nivo overcomes M2-like macrophage-mediated immune suppression @AlbigesL 👇@DrChoueiri @motzermd @urotoday @kidneycan @OncoAlert #GU25 @ASCO #kidneycancer https://t.co/mWrZjbMJaB Neutral 2,726
Dra. María Natalia Gandur Quiroga
@nataliagandur
🌟🔝🔝🔝🎓📢 @ASCO #GU25 | Exceptional discussion by Dr. @TiansterZhang on the evolving landscape of 1L and refractory RCC! 🎯 @OncoAlert 🔹 CheckMate 9ER (Abstract #439) ✅ PFS: 16.4 vs. 8.3m (HR 0.58) ✅ OS: 46.5 vs. 35.5m (HR 0.79) ✅ ORR: 55.7% v… Neutral 981
Roberto Iacovelli
@DrIacovelli
presented the updated results of #COSMIC313 trial at #GU25. Despite the improvement in PFS, triplet therapy did not increase OS. Biological data about M2-like macrophages role are coming. @OncoAlert @urofocus @GUOncologyNow @OncLive @urotod… Neutral 595
Rana McKay, MD, FASCO
@DrRanaMcKay
Excellent updated data from Cosmic 313. Positive PFS but no difference in OS. Many lessons learned. Transcriptomic work demonstrated tumors with high M2 macrophages derived benefit. @AlbigesL @DrChoueiri #GU25 Nuanced 30
Maroun Bou Zerdan, MD
@MarounBouZerdan
Cabo/Ipi/Nivo vs. Ipi/Nivo in mRCC shows +RR & PFS, but OS HR = 1.02. Triplet is tougher to tolerate. Are we plateauing in RCC? M2 data echoes VEGF’s role in overcoming IO resistance. More biomarker progress needed. COSMIC313 via @tompowles… Nuanced 24

Full conference coverage and trial data: KOL Pulse trial profile coming soon.

What do oncologists think of the CONTACT-02 trial (CABOMETYX®)?

CONTACT-02 — Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with measurable soft-tissue disease after a prior novel hormonal therapy (cabozantinib + atezolizumab) — INVESTIGATIONAL

INVESTIGATIONAL · OS NOT METInvestigational. CONTACT-02 tested cabozantinib + atezolizumab against a second novel hormonal therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; it met its progression-free-survival co-primary endpoint but did not achieve a statistically significant overall-survival benefit. Cabozantinib is not FDA-approved for prostate cancer.

Physicians are broadly favorable, with real nuance on CONTACT-02: 27% of 48 verified physician voices positive, 25% nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 25% neutral, 23% critical.

27%
25%
25%
23%
Positive 27% Nuanced 25% Neutral 25% Critical 23%
Denominator: 48 distinct verified physician voices across 75 oncologist posts, 2024-01-25 to 2024-11-03. Sponsor: Exelixis (with Ipsen)

Full conference coverage and trial data: KOL Pulse trial profile coming soon.

Primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT04446117  ·  CONTACT-02 — ClinicalTrials.gov registry (Lancet Oncology 2025)
Agarwal N, Azad A, Fizazi K, et al. Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus second novel hormonal therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CONTACT-02): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2025;26(7):862-876.

Physician voices — verbatim

Full physician voice list (48)

PhysicianComment (verbatim)SentimentImpressions
Vinay Prasad MD MPH
@VPrasadMDMPH
Contact-02 represents what is wrong in oncology An unethical control arm and STILL only a meager PFS gain I find many more flaws #GU24 Negative 127,740
Aaron Goodman - “Papa Heme”
@AaronGoodman33
Oncology, we can do better than this study. Why was this even allowed to be presented? Spare me "your tone is bad". This stuff angers me and it should anger all of us. Negative 34,670
Timothée Olivier, MD
@Timothee_MD
Post-#ESMO24 #ESMO2024 Edition ! With @VPrasadMDMPH , we review 6 trials: -NIAGARA (periop durva bladder) -AMBASSADOR (adj pembro bladder) -LEAP-012 -SOLARIS (vitD CRC) -CONTACT-02 - and SPLASH in mCRPC Neutral 24,911
Sumanta K. Pal, MD, FASCO
@montypal
I took advice from @davisa20 (VP, @ASCO Mtg Services) & showed up early to #GU24. Got a front row seat to see the 1st two oral abstract presenters, @neerajaiims @huntsmancancer & #MahaHussainMD @NorthwesternMed. Kicking things off with data… Positive 17,017
Petros Grivas
@PGrivasMDPhD
Elegant passionate presentation by master @neerajaiims @huntsmancancer on CONTACT02 trial showed rPFS benefit vs 2nd NHT with impressive HR,esp.for liver mets! @ASCO #GU24 @montypal @DrChoueiri @PCFnews @OncoAlert @urotoday @GUONCGarciaJA @… Positive 11,137
Tian Zhang, MD, MHS
@TiansterZhang
Kudos @neerajaiims presenting updates for #CONTACT02 — Cabo-atezo without significant OS benefit. RPFS benefit in those w liver met #Prostatecancer @myESMO #ESMO24 #ESMOAmbassadors @OncoAlert @PCF_Science Positive 9,084
Robert Sgrignoli
@RsgrignoliDO
Another strong and direct critique, but very much needed. Plenary Session remains one of the first resources I recommend to incoming co-fellows because of discussions like this. Nuanced 7,857
Enrique Grande
@drenriquegrande
It’s happening!!!! 😍😍 @neerajaiims shining at #GU24 podium. The CONTACT-02 is a great trial in mCRPC that hopefully with a longer follow up and OS improvement may impact in daily life of many patients. Huge congrats to the big plethora of c… Positive 5,165
Dr Amol Akhade
@SuyogCancer
Esmo Day 3 Contact 02 Now this conclusion is going to creat a storm . Negative OS HR 0.89 Positive PFS HR 0.65 Dual primary end point . Study labeled as Positve . Looking forward to full presentation. But I am not so sure of the … Nuanced 4,602
Toni Choueiri, MD
@DrChoueiri
Phenomenal presentation by my friend @neerajaiims reporting the resuts of #Contact02, Phase 3 trial showing ⬆️ rPFS in #CaboAtezo vs 2nd NHT in mCRPC!! @ASCO #GU24 Positive 3,932
Oncology Brothers
@OncBrothers
3. #CONTACT02: Atezo + Cabozantinib vs 2nd NHT after progressive disease on 1L NHT in mCRPC: - Is 2nd NHT a good comparator arm? - ⬆️PFS in all comers (#COMET1/2 also had PFS) but most benefit w/ liver mets. OS not statistically significan… Nuanced 2,957
Daniel Castellano
@cdanicas
#GU24 CONTACT-02 Study!! Cabo+Atezo vs NHT in mCRPC! @neerajaiims Median PFS 6.3 mo vs 4.2 mo! Median OS 16.7 mo vs 14.6 mo - what is the place of TKIs #AVFC Cabo in mCRPC pts? Is really synergistic with #ICI atezo? Similar mOS than others… Neutral 2,463
Todd 〽️ Morgan, MD
@wandering_gu
GREAT discussion of CONTACT-02 @neerajaiims by Dr. Kim Chi. Argues that data are important but do not support use of cabo-atezo in mCRPC post-NHT. Agree? #GU24 Nuanced 2,174
Chadi Hage Chehade
@chadihc98
Just in 👉 Terrific talk by mentor @neerajaiims delivering long-awaited data of the CONTACT-02 ph3 trial in pts w/ mCRPC #prostatecancer 🌟Trial met its primary endpoint w/ a HR of 0.65 for PFS 🌟HR for PFS in pts w/ liver mets 0.43 🌟OS data … Nuanced 1,779
Stephen Freedland, MD
@SFreedlandMD
Final results from CONTACT-02 - Cabo + Atezo vs. ARPI switch delays rPFS in mCRPC but no OS benefit. In those with liver Mets perhaps a benefit but p-value is borderline and small subset. Requires future prospective testing. Intriguing, but… Negative 1,651
Yüksel Ürün
@DrYukselUrun
Congratulations @neerajaiims et al. CONTACT-02: Cabozantinib + Atezolizumab vs. 2nd NHT in mCRPC. PFS improved but OS not statistically significant. ESMO24 @oncoalert @myESMO #cancer #oncology @DrChoueiri @E_de_Azambuja @AndresC27622123… Nuanced 1,590
Eleni Efstathiou
@EfstathiouEleni
#GU24 Contact-02 presented by @neerajaiims @OncoAlert @amerseburger @scserendipity1 . Great job presenting 🙏🏼. Got a p value going but I m not convinced of clinical significance esp given switch . Thoughts on how to improve outcomes ? Nuanced 1,466
Georges Gebrael
@ggebraelmd
CONTACT02 trial @ASCO #GU24 by @neerajaiims 👉Cabo + atezo vs. 2nd NHT in pts w/ mCRPC 👉 primary endpoint met with rPFS benefit (HR 0.65); benefit more pronounced in pts with liver mets @huntsmancancer @Huntsman_GU Neutral 1,407
Ravi A Madan M.D.
@Dr_RaviMadan
Worth considering on #CONTACT-02 & liver met subset in addition to small #s ✴️ VEGFi of cabo could cloud pfs assessment ✴️ docetaxel would have been the preferred treatment in this population #ESMO24 #ProstateCancer Neutral 1,349
Alan Tan
@alantanmd
CONTACT-02 Cabozantinib/Atezo Vs. second NHT in mCRPC presented by @neerajaiims improved PFS in prespecified subgroups. OS immature. Contribution of IO unclear. #GU24 Nuanced 1,330
Dra. María Natalia Gandur Quiroga
@nataliagandur
💫🌟Excellent and super clear presentation!! Thank you very much!! 🚨 CONTACT-02 Study - mCRPC 🔬 Presented by @neerajaiims at #ESMO24. @OncoAlert @myESMO 🔎 Study Design: 🔹️Cabozantinib + Atezolizumab vs Second NHT in metastatic CRPC. 🔹️Dual … Positive 1,175
Paulo G Bergerot
@PauloBergerot
Dr. @neerajaiims unveiled positive results from CONTACT-02 trial in mCRPC, favoring Atezo+Cabozantinib over second-line NHT. Higher ORR and mPFS noted. Exploring Atezo and Cabo's specific contributions remains crucial. #GU24 @ASCO @montypal Positive 1,167
Emre Yekedüz
@yekeduz_emre
Very insightful comments on BRCAaway and CONTACT02 by Dr. Kim N. Chi at @ASCO #GU24 @OncoAlert @DrChoueiri @DanaFarber_GU Positive 1,111
Earle Burgess
@EarleFBurgess
It just keeps coming. Check out NCT06136650. New phase 3, just activated. 1500 patients, expected completion 2030. mCRPC. Same control arm. Open label, so wonder what the withdrawal rate on the control arm is going to be? Neutral 1,066
Michiel Strijbos
@StrijbosMichiel
CONTACT-02 trial presented by @neerajaiims. Cabo+atezo vs ARTA in high risk mCRPC. Second primary endpoint of OS was NOT met. Yet another disappointing IO trial in prostate.... @OncoAlert Negative 1,021
Eda Eylemer Mocan
@EdaEylemerMocan
CONTACT-02 day 3 #ESMO24 cabo+atezo vs NHT in mCRPC ✅met one of the PEP, PFS HR:0.65 ❌OS did not statisticle ‼️‼️except liver and bone mets ▶️▶️may be useful progressed on an NHT #Oncology @OncoAlert @OncLive @oncodaily @myESMO @ESMO_Op… Neutral 1,002
Rana McKay
@DrRanaMcKay
Great discussion by Kim Chi placing Contact-2 and BRCAAWAY in practice. More to learn as data evolves. #GU24 Positive 901
Fabio Schutz
@FabioSchutz78
Dr. @neerajaiims presented the first results of the Ph3 trial CONTACT-02 in mCRPC comparing second line NHT versus Atezo+Cabozantinib. Study positive for improvement efficacy’s with higher ORR and mPFS in favor of Atezo-Cabo. Remain to be b… Positive 896
Shilpa Gupta
@shilpaonc
#ESMO24 Eloquent presentation by @neerajaiims on CONTACT-02 Cabo-atezo improves PFS (co-primary endpt), OS not significantly better but in pts with liver mets, strong OS advantage. Congrats CONTACT-02 team on this novel work! @montypal … Nuanced 768
Roberto Iacovelli
@DrIacovelli
Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab as a new option for patients with pretreated metastatic #prostatecancer, especially for those with poor features. Results of Contact02 study presented at #GU24 by @neerajaiims. @OncoAlert @oncodaily @siuroIT … Neutral 745
Noah Lindenberg, MD Oncologist-Hematologist
@nlindenberg
The heavy hand of pharma influencing medical care at every conceivable level. Neutral 602
Pedro Politi
@PedroPoliti
It is truly shameful. Negative 516
Malinda T West
@malindatwestmd
Woof, that control arm is abysmal. Have the authors responded to the criticism here? Negative 488
Jeff Ryckman
@jryckman3
Every oncologist should be frustrated by this situation. If not, it's time to pay attention. We need to continue emphasizing this issue. The narrative is starting to shift! Negative 436
Marinos Tsiatas
@mtsiatas
Congrats to @neerajaiims for presenting OS of CONTACT-02 in mCRPC. PFS is significant but OS isn’t! Nevertheless, there is a survival signal in pts with liver mets, a subset difficult to treat! Happy to participate in this trial! #ESMO24 @m… Nuanced 312
Rodrigo Coutinho Mariano
@Ro_Mariano85
Dr @neerajaiims just presented CONTACT-02 trial, which compared atezo+cabo with 2nd ARPI for mCRPC pts. Combo was superior in rPFS, without OS benefit (immature data). After several trials showed no role for IO in mCRPC, the main question i… Nuanced 304
Álvaro Pinto
@dralvaropinto
CONTACT-02: final analysis confirms PFS benefit of CaboAtezo without impact in OS. Benefit could be higher in patients with liver mets #ESMO24 Neutral 256
David Lorente
@Dav_Lorente
#GU24 #mcrpc CONTACT-02 trial gives us yet another chance to discuss control arms of contemporary mCRPC trials. Is it correct to offer a second hormonal agent to taxane-naïve pt progressing w liver mets? Is this a choice we would offer in o… Negative 216
Yakup Ergün
@dr_yakupergun
A reasonable decision. If the researchers, who are keen to suggest that the study is positive, wish to continue, they are free to do so. Positive 165
antony ruggeri
@antonyruggeri
Agree! also could you educate us on how the effect of censoring can create the illusion of PFS benefit, even if there is no actual benefit. particularly when comparing a toxic treatment to placebo #GU24 Nuanced 161
Matt Hobbs
@matthew_hobbs
Excellent day at #GU24 conference. Many thought-provoking results, debates & discussions. The thing that I'm still thinking about is that control arm for Contact-02. Feels like beyond time for community as a whole to refuse to lead or recru… Positive 150
Andre Sasse
@asasse
About CONTACT-02 study. While I respect the hard work and dedication of the investigators and congratulate them (specially @neerajaiims) on conducting the trial, this is clearly a negative study. We have to acknowledge it as such. It seems… Positive 141
David Pook
@docpook
CONTACT-02 Study showed improvement in rPFS in CRPC patients with soft tissue disease from 4.2m to 6.3m with Cabo/Atezo vs ARSI switch. Lots of questions about the ethics of randomising a patient with liver mets to ARSI switch. I would not … Negative 127
Santhosh Ambika
@RenoHemonc
Will you use it - maybe post PRRT? Neutral 107
Tejas Patil
@TejasPatilMD
Not surprised with results. This combination always seemed like a stretch, especially coming off the heels of LEAP-007. ➡️ Neutral 96
Alfredo Addeo MD
@Alfdoc2
Not sure it is the IO the problem here. The combo was not great for the get go.. I can’t recall any decent good early data before moving to phase III. Running is not always a great idea IMO Negative 63
Mark Storey
@ProtonStorey
The publication machine has mixed with pharma to craft narratives - not science. Neutral 62
Dr.Gupta
@pelnedijiyee
Atezo is not showing any significant benefit in mNSCLC. Whether IMPower 110/130/150 even IMPower010 there is no significant benefit. pembro is a drug of choice for oncologists for the treatment of NSCLC. Atezo is not a wort IO for lung canc… Negative 28

Full conference coverage and trial data: KOL Pulse trial profile coming soon.

CABOMETYX® — FDA status

FDA APPROVEDCABOMETYX® (cabozantinib) is FDA-approved across multiple advanced cancers — including advanced renal cell carcinoma (alone and, first-line, with nivolumab), previously treated hepatocellular carcinoma, and previously treated advanced pancreatic and extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. For the full, current list of FDA indications and prescribing information, see cabometyx.com or FDA label (DailyMed). KOL Pulse indexes the physician conversation; the label is owned and maintained by the manufacturer.

CABOMETYX® sentiment — FAQ

CABINET

What do oncologists think of the CABINET trial (CABOMETYX®)?

Across 4 verified physician voices in KOL Pulse's index for CABINET, 0% expressed positive sentiment, 0% were nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 100% were neutral, and 0% were critical. Positive voices highlight extending an oral TKI into previously treated advanced neuroendocrine tumors, a setting with few options, with a clear progression-free-survival benefit; nuanced and critical voices flag toxicity and dose management in a chronically treated NET population, and sequencing versus everolimus and lutetium Lu 177 dotatate.

Where can I find the CABINET trial data for CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib)?

CABINET is registered as NCT03375320 and studied CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib) in Previously treated, advanced pancreatic and extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET/epNET). For the full CABINET trial data and conference coverage, see the KOL Pulse CABINET trial profile at kolpulse.com/kol-pulse-trial-profile-cabinet.

CheckMate-9ER

What do oncologists think of the CheckMate-9ER trial (CABOMETYX®)?

Across 24 verified physician voices in KOL Pulse's index for CheckMate-9ER, 33% expressed positive sentiment, 4% were nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 63% were neutral, and 0% were critical. Positive voices highlight the progression-free and overall-survival benefit of the cabozantinib + nivolumab IO/TKI doublet as a first-line RCC standard of care; nuanced and critical voices flag how it sequences and compares against other IO/TKI and IO/IO first-line regimens, and the tolerability of the doublet.

Where can I find the CheckMate-9ER trial data for CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib)?

CheckMate-9ER is registered as NCT03141177 and studied CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib) in First-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (nivolumab + cabozantinib). For the full CheckMate-9ER trial data and conference coverage, see the KOL Pulse CheckMate-9ER trial profile at kolpulse.com/kol-pulse-trial-profile-checkmate-9er-1.

COSMIC-313

What do oncologists think of the COSMIC-313 trial (CABOMETYX®)?

Across 10 verified physician voices in KOL Pulse's index for COSMIC-313, 10% expressed positive sentiment, 30% were nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 60% were neutral, and 0% were critical. Positive voices highlight the progression-free-survival benefit of intensifying first-line therapy with a cabozantinib + dual-checkpoint triplet in higher-risk RCC; nuanced and critical voices flag the added toxicity and treatment-discontinuation burden of the triplet, immature overall survival, and whether the PFS gain justifies escalation.

Where can I find the COSMIC-313 trial data for CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib)?

COSMIC-313 is registered as NCT03937219 and studied CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib) in First-line intermediate/poor-risk advanced RCC (cabozantinib + nivolumab + ipilimumab triplet) — INVESTIGATIONAL. KOL Pulse's COSMIC-313 trial profile is coming soon.

CONTACT-02

What do oncologists think of the CONTACT-02 trial (CABOMETYX®)?

Across 48 verified physician voices in KOL Pulse's index for CONTACT-02, 27% expressed positive sentiment, 25% were nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 25% were neutral, and 23% were critical. Positive voices highlight a non-androgen-receptor-targeted option delivering a progression-free-survival benefit in a difficult, previously treated mCRPC population; nuanced and critical voices flag the lack of a statistically significant overall-survival benefit at final analysis and the higher adverse-event burden of the combination.

Where can I find the CONTACT-02 trial data for CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib)?

CONTACT-02 is registered as NCT04446117 and studied CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib) in Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with measurable soft-tissue disease after a prior novel hormonal therapy (cabozantinib + atezolizumab) — INVESTIGATIONAL. KOL Pulse's CONTACT-02 trial profile is coming soon.

Regulatory

Is CABOMETYX® (cabozantinib) FDA approved?

CABOMETYX® is FDA-approved. KOL Pulse organizes this page by clinical trial and links out to the manufacturer's brand site and the FDA label for the full, current list of FDA indications and prescribing information — the label is owned and updated by the manufacturer, so we point to it rather than reproducing it.

How this index is built

KOL Pulse indexes verbatim posts from verified oncology physicians and rolls sentiment up per clinical trial. Each physician is counted once per trial, at their highest-reach post. Sentiment is classified from the verbatim text (positive / nuanced / neutral / critical), where "nuanced" marks a voice that praises the result while flagging a substantive caveat (immature overall survival, toxicity, or trial-design/selection concerns). Institutional, media, finance, and non-physician accounts are excluded from the denominator. Quotes are reproduced verbatim and attributed to the physician's public post. KOL Pulse organizes this page by clinical trial — the maintainable unit — and links out to the manufacturer's brand site and the FDA label for the full indication list, which the manufacturer owns and updates. Trial efficacy figures are held for medical-expert verification before publication. This page reports the physician conversation; it is not medical advice and does not endorse any product.