In the CABINET trial, median progression-free survival more than tripled in the pNET cohort (13.8 vs. 3.3 months) and doubled in the epNET cohort (8.5 vs. 4.2 months). How do you interpret these PFS gains in terms of disease control and clinical impact for these difficult-to-treat populations?

With over 50% of placebo patients crossing over to cabozantinib in both cohorts, how should we approach the interpretation of overall survival data, and what does this say about ethical trial design in oncology today?

Cabozantinib is now approved for patients as young as 12 years old. How significant is this expansion in terms of pediatric oncology treatment options, and what considerations come into play when using a VEGFR/MET/AXL inhibitor in younger populations?

The safety profile remained consistent with the existing label, but tolerability challenges are inherent to cabozantinib. How should oncologists balance the potential for long-term disease stabilization with the management of known side effects?

Objective response rates were modest—18% in pNET and 5% in epNET. How should we weigh ORR in the context of neuroendocrine tumors, where disease stabilization is often a more realistic treatment goal than dramatic tumor shrinkage?

Given that patients enrolled in CABINET were previously treated, where do you envision cabozantinib fitting in the current treatment paradigm for NETs—immediately post-progression, or further down the line after targeted therapies like everolimus or sunitinib?

With PFS evaluated by a blinded independent radiology committee per RECIST 1.1, how important is this methodology for consistency and credibility in the assessment of indolent tumors like NETs?

This approval came under Project Orbis, with international collaboration and rolling review. How do initiatives like this reshape the pace of oncology drug approvals globally, and what does this mean for access in rare cancers like pNET and epNET?