Phase II Randomized Trial of Radium-223 Dichloride and Cabozantinib in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma With Bone Metastases: RADICAL (Alliance A031801)
Source: View publication →
In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and bone metastases, the addition of radium-223 to cabozantinib failed to improve symptomatic skeletal event-free survival and resulted in early trial closure due to futility.
Key Findings
Study Design
Study Limitations
Clinical Significance
The RADICAL trial demonstrated that adding the bone-seeking radioisotope radium-223 to cabozantinib does not provide a clinical benefit for patients with metastatic RCC and bone metastases. Cabozantinib monotherapy (or its standard combinations with immunotherapy) remains the appropriate standard of care, while unselected pairing of radium-223 with TKIs is not recommended in this setting.
Historical Context
Bone metastases affect approximately 30% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and are a major driver of morbidity, causing pain, pathologic fractures, and spinal cord compression. Radium-223, an alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical, established a landmark overall survival benefit in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ALSYMPCA, 2013). Because cabozantinib possesses established efficacy in RCC—particularly regarding favorable modulation of the bone microenvironment via MET and VEGFR inhibition—early pilot studies explored combining these therapies. However, similarly to other negative combination trials in prostate cancer (e.g., ERA-223), the phase II RADICAL trial failed to validate the synergistic hypothesis, halting early for futility and dampening enthusiasm for radium-223 expansion into RCC.
Guided Discussion
High-yield insights from every perspective
Radium-223 is an alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical approved for metastatic prostate cancer but failed in this trial for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Based on the typical pathophysiology of bone metastases in these two cancers, why is Radium-223 less effective in RCC?
Key Response
Prostate cancer typically causes osteoblastic (bone-forming) metastases, which readily take up calcium mimetics like Radium-223. In contrast, RCC bone metastases are predominantly osteolytic (bone-destroying). Without significant osteoblastic activity, Radium-223 cannot effectively localize to the metastatic sites to deliver its localized alpha radiation.
Since Radium-223 is not effective for preventing symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) in patients with metastatic RCC, what two classes of pharmacological agents are considered the standard of care for preventing SSEs in this patient population, and what is their mechanism?
Key Response
Osteoclast inhibitors are the standard of care for preventing SSEs in RCC. This includes bisphosphonates (e.g., zoledronic acid), which induce osteoclast apoptosis, and RANKL inhibitors (e.g., denosumab), which prevent RANKL from binding to its receptor on osteoclasts, thereby inhibiting their differentiation and activation.
The RADICAL trial hypothesized that cabozantinib might act synergistically with Radium-223. What specific mechanism of cabozantinib on the bone microenvironment provided the preclinical rationale for attempting this combination in a predominantly osteolytic disease like RCC?
Key Response
Cabozantinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor (VEGFR, MET, AXL). MET signaling plays a role in osteoblast/osteoclast coupling. Preclinical data suggested cabozantinib could promote osteoblast differentiation and activity while inhibiting osteoclasts, potentially converting osteolytic lesions to a more mixed/osteoblastic phenotype. The investigators hypothesized this would increase the uptake and efficacy of the bone-seeking Radium-223.
The early closure of the RADICAL trial due to futility is a classic example of why biological plausibility does not always translate to clinical efficacy. How should this negative result influence our mentorship of trainees regarding off-label prescribing and the interpretation of phase II data?
Key Response
This trial highlights the danger of assuming therapies that work in one tumor type (prostate) will work in another (RCC) based solely on the presence of bone metastases. It serves as a vital teaching point: off-label use of expensive and potentially toxic therapies without robust, disease-specific phase II/III data is unwarranted, and we must rely on rigorous clinical trials to validate mechanistic hypotheses rather than relying solely on cross-tumor extrapolations.
Scholarly Review
Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development
The trial was closed early due to crossing a predefined futility boundary. From a statistical design perspective, how do futility analyses in phase II oncology trials balance the ethical need to minimize patient exposure to ineffective regimens against the risk of type II errors?
Key Response
Futility boundaries are designed to stop a trial if interim data shows it is highly unlikely the experimental arm will demonstrate a statistically significant benefit. While this ethically protects patients and conserves resources, overly aggressive futility stopping rules risk a Type II error (false negative). Statisticians must carefully calibrate alpha and beta spending functions to ensure the trial is not stopped prematurely if a treatment has a delayed effect or benefits an unrecognized subpopulation.
As a peer reviewer, a major critique of this trial's design involves patient selection. Given the mechanism of Radium-223, what specific baseline imaging biomarker could the investigators have mandated to enrich the trial population and potentially avert a null result?
Key Response
A rigorous reviewer would note that enrolling unselected RCC patients is flawed because RCC bone mets are usually osteolytic. The trial could have been improved by requiring baseline functional imaging, such as Technetium-99m bone scintigraphy or Sodium Fluoride (NaF) PET, to select only the subset of RCC patients with confirmed osteoblastic activity (tracer uptake) at their metastatic sites, thus enriching the cohort for those biologically capable of taking up Radium-223.
Based on the negative findings of the RADICAL trial (Alliance A031801), how should NCCN and EAU guidelines address the use of radiopharmaceuticals for the management of bone metastases in metastatic renal cell carcinoma?
Key Response
Current NCCN and EAU guidelines recommend bone-targeted therapies like denosumab or zoledronic acid for RCC patients with bone metastases, but do not broadly recommend radiopharmaceuticals. The futility of Radium-223 in this trial provides Level II evidence to explicitly advise against the off-label use of Radium-223 in RCC, reinforcing that treatment algorithms should remain focused on proven osteoclast inhibitors combined with standard systemic targeted therapies or immunotherapies.
Clinical Landscape
Noteworthy Related Trials
ALSYMPCA Trial
Tested
Radium-223 dichloride
Population
Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with symptomatic bone metastases
Comparator
Placebo
Endpoint
Overall survival (OS)
METEOR Trial
Tested
Cabozantinib 60 mg daily
Population
Advanced RCC patients previously treated with antiangiogenic therapy
Comparator
Everolimus 10 mg daily
Endpoint
Progression-free survival (PFS)
CABOSUN Trial
Tested
Cabozantinib 60 mg daily
Population
Treatment-naive advanced RCC patients with intermediate- or poor-risk disease
Comparator
Sunitinib 50 mg daily
Endpoint
Progression-free survival (PFS)
Tailored to your role
Want this tailored to you?
Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.
Personalize this analysis