Search

E-TRAB was a non-interventional, prospective trial investigating the feasibility and predictive value of geriatric assessments (GA) in older STS patients treated with trabectedin as first-line therapy. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), quality of life and individual clinical benefit assessed by the patient-reported outcome measures QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE. Further, several GA tools were applied and correlated with clinical outcomes and treatment-related toxicities. The final analyses included 69 patients from 12 German-speaking sites. The median age of patients was 78 years (range: 55 to 88). Baseline data on PROs and GA identified a diverse population of older patients with respect to their global health status, although a large proportion of them suffered from limitations, required geriatric help and had a high risk of morbidity. The Cancer and Age Research Group (CARG) score classified 38%, 29% and 23% of the patients with low, intermediate and high risks for therapy-related side effects, respectively. Median OS was 11.2 months [95%CI: 5.6; 19.4]. The study confirmed that trabectedin as first-line treatment in older patients with STS has an acceptable and manageable safety profile. Potential prognostic factors for clinical outcome and therapy-related toxicity were identified among the GA tools. Long Timed Up and Go (TUG) showed a significant correlation to OS and early death, whereas a high CARG score (>9) was associated with an increase in unplanned hospitalizations and the incidence of toxicities grade ≥ 3.

Background/aim: Soft tissue sarcomas are rare and heterogenous malignancies with high recurrence rates following resection and a poor prognosis in advanced stages. Eribulin is used in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma patients, who have failed first line chemotherapy and has been approved for patients with pretreated advanced liposarcoma (LPS) in the United States and Europe following the publication of data of a phase III trial. In addition, no data are available for eribulin as postoperative treatment after potentially curative surgery. We, thus, retrospectively evaluated efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant eribulin in patients with LPS not suitable for intensive chemotherapy in the routine clinical setting., Patients and Methods: In this retrospective single center analysis, efficacy and safety of eribulin were retrospectively evaluated in five high risk LPS patients., Results: Eribulin as treatment was administered to five patients with LPS following surgical resection. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 12.3 months and 44.3 months, respectively. Toxicity was generally manageable, and grade 3+4 events were rare., Conclusion: Postoperative eribulin may be feasible in selected high risk LPS patients, who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy regimens. Further prospective trials, however, are needed., (Copyright © 2024, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether (preoperative) plasma levels of fibrinogen, an essential clotting and acute phase protein, are associated with the prognosis of patients with a liposarcoma, a subtype of sarcoma derived from adipose tissue. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 158 patients with liposarcoma treated at the Department of Orthopaedics of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria from May 1994 to October 2021. Kaplan-Meier curves as well as uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were performed to evaluate the association between fibrinogen levels and overall survival. Elevated fibrinogen was associated with adverse overall survival in cause specific hazards analysis of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] per 10 mg/dL increase: 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001). This association prevailed in multivariable analysis after adjustment for AJCC tumor stage (HR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05; p = 0.013). Increasing levels of fibrinogen, a routinely available and inexpensive parameter, predicts the risk of mortality in patients with liposarcoma., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aims: Synovial sarcomas are a rare subgroup of soft-tissue sarcoma arising in adolescents and young adults (AYA) and in adult patients. The objective of our analysis was to investigate the outcomes and potential differences of AYA versus adult patients with initially localised disease., Materials and Methods: In total, 51 patients (25 AYA and 26 adult) were identified and evaluated in this retrospective single centre analysis. Baseline characteristics, treatment and outcome were assessed., Results: The predominant subtype in both groups was monophasic synovial sarcoma (17 AYA and 21 adult) and the most common site was the extremities (14 and 19 patients) with deep tumour location in both groups (33 and 24 patients). More AYA patients had tumours >5 cm (13/25 patients) when compared with adults (10/26 patients, P = n.s.). Primary wide resection was carried out in 15 AYAs and in 18 adults. Postoperative radiation therapy was the only statistical difference between AYA (n = 19) and adult patients (n = 12; P = 0.029). Nineteen and 17 patients, respectively, received adjuvant chemotherapy with no evidence of disease after six cycles. Nine and 11 patients relapsed after initial therapy and the most common metastatic site was the lung (eight versus nine patients). Five-year overall survival rates were 85% and 75%. Female gender, tumour size ≤5 cm and absence of progressive disease showed a significant association with overall survival in AYA patients (P = 0.013, P = 0.04 and P < 0.001), whereas non-extremity tumours and progression after initial therapy were significant for worse overall survival in adult patients (P = 0.012 and P < 0.001). No difference in overall survival between AYA and adult patients was observed (P = 0.899)., Conclusions: AYA and adult patients showed no significant difference in terms of overall survival. Male gender, tumour size >5 cm and progressive disease were prognostic markers for worse outcome, whereas tumour location (non-extremity) and progression after initial therapy were markers for worse outcome in adult patients., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Owing to the rarity and heterogeneity in biology and presentation, there are multiple areas in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of soft tissue sarcoma (STS), with no, low-level or conflicting evidence., Methods: During the first Consensus Conference on the State of Science in Sarcoma (CSSS), we used a modified Delphi process to identify areas of controversy in the field of sarcoma, to name topics with limited evidence-based data in which a scientific and knowledge gap may remain and a consensus statement will help to guide patient management. We determined scientific questions which need to be addressed in the future in order to generate evidence and to inform physicians and caregivers in daily clinical practice in order to improve the outcomes of patients with sarcoma. We conducted a vote on STS key questions and controversies prior to the CSSS meeting, which took place in May 2022., Results: Sixty-two European sarcoma experts participated in the survey. Sixteen strong consensus (≥95%) items were identified by the experts, as well as 30 items with a ≥75% consensus on diagnostic and therapeutic questions. Ultimately, many controversy topics remained without consensus., Conclusions: In this manuscript, we summarise the voting results and the discussion during the CSSS meeting. Future scientific questions, priorities for clinical trials, registries, quality assurance, and action by stakeholders are proposed. Platforms and partnerships can support innovative approaches to improve management and clinical research in STS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare following conflicts of interest: CR: Consulting or Advisory Role (Payment to Institution): Bayer (Schweiz) AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role (Payment to me): Merck (Schweiz) AG; Travel Expenses (Payment to me): PharmaMar; Research Funding (Payment to Institution): Astellas Pharma AG. DA: has received institutional research support from Implantcast GmbH and invited speaker fees from PharmaMar.WGK: served as advisor to Bristol Myers Squibb, unrelated. JYB: grants or research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Glaxo SmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Roche; has an advisory or board member role in Innate Pharma; and receives honorarium from Bayer, Deciphera, Novartis, and Roche. ID: no COI. PD: Honoraria for consultancy or advisory role: Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Deciphera. RH: no COI. JJ: has received travel expenses or honoraria for participation in advisory boards or invited speaker fees from PharmaMar, Pfizer and Belpharma. LHL: Honoraria and compensation for advisory boards: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Lilly, Eisai, EL Medconsult, Roche; Travel and research grants: Dr. Sennewald Medizintechnik; Travel grants: PharmaMar; Stockownerships: Thermosome (co-founder) CM: no COI. ABM: Trustee Sarcoma UK, no other conflict of interest. TB: reports personal fees from PharmaMar and Deciphera (lecture fee, advisory board) ABM: Trustee Sarcoma UK, no other conflict of interest. RLJ: Receipt of grants/research support: MSD, GSK. Receipt of consultation fees: Adaptimmune, Astex, Athenex, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Immunicum, Karma Oncology, Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Pharmamar, Springworks. SynOx, Tracon, Up to Date. IJ: No conflicts of interest. PR: has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Deciphera, Mundibiopharma, PharmaMar, Blueprint Medicines, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim and invited speaker fees from Clinigen, Deciphera, PharmaMar, Boehringer Ingelheim. JS: Participation in advisory boards or invited speaker fees: PharmaMar, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, Amgen; Travel expenses: PharmaMar, Roche, Lilly, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb; Research funding: PharmaMar, Roche, Eisai. WvdG: research grant funding from Eli Lilly, advisory board participation Springworks, Bayer, PTC Therapeutics – all to the institute. WJvH: received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory board for Belpharma, invited speaker fees from Amgen andreports expert testimony for Sanofi and MSD and personal travel grant from Novartis and institutional research grant from BMS. EW: has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards or invited speaker fees from Bayer, Roche, Deciphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, PharmaMar. SH: no COI., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Soft tissue sarcomas are rare and heterogenous malignancies with a poor prognosis in advanced disease stages. Eribulin is used in metastatic liposarcoma (LPS) patients, who have failed first-line chemotherapy and has been approved for use in patients with LPS in the USA and Europe due to its efficacy in this histological subtype in a phase 3 trial. We have evaluated efficacy and tolerability of eribulin in LPS and leiomyosarcoma (LMS) patients in the routine clinical setting at our department., Methods: In this retrospective single-center analysis, efficacy and safety of eribulin were retrospectively evaluated in advanced LPS and LMS patients at the Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna., Results: A total of 32 adult patients treated with eribulin were identified and included in this analysis. Overall response rate was 9.4% for all patients, with one patient with LPS and two patients with LMS showing a partial response. Disease control rate (partial response plus stable disease) for all patients was 50% (LPS: 47.1%; LMS 53.3%). No statistically significant difference in median progression-free survival and overall survival was detected between patients with LPS and LMS (p = 0.807 and p = 0.519, respectively). Patients with LMS (n = 2) had received fewer previous therapy lines than patients with LPS (n = 14) (≤ previous treatment lines, p < 0.001). Toxicity was generally manageable, and grade 3 + 4 events were rare., Conclusion: The activity and tolerability of eribulin in LPS as in well in LMS patients in the routine clinical setting is comparable to outcomes reported in published phase 3 trials., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure PGC has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer, institutional research funding from Amgen Dompé, Advenchen, Bayer, Blueprint, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Daiichi, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, AROG Pharmaceuticals and Eisai and carried out nonremunerated activities for the Italian Sarcoma Group, European School of Oncology, Federation of Italian Cooperative Groups and Rare Cancers Europe; JYB received research support from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, GSK, Novartis, Bayer, PharmaMar outside the present work; NA reports nonremunerated leadership and advisory roles for Sociedade Portuguesa de Cirurgia; JB reports no personal financial disclosure, received research grants (institutional) from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Paxman Coolers Ltd., Sun Pharma and reports nonremunerated advisory role for Novartis, nonremunerated leadership activities for Immuno-Oncology Society of India, Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology, Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Foundation and Indian Cooperative Oncology Network; SB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Plexxikon, Roche, GSK and reports invited speaker fees from Pfizer and PharmaMar, institutional research grant from Novartis, performed institutional research as principal investigator (PI) for Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, Deciphera, Lilly, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Incyte and carried out nonrenumerated activities for Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArm) and is the founding member of German Sarcoma Foundation; RB reports nonrenumerated activities as PI for IRCSS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute and IRE-ISG Regina Elena Institute and participation at the Clinical Experience Exchange Meeting, III IDBN National Congress 2019, Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), IRE-ISG Regina Elena Institute and Lazio Association of Orthopaedic Hospital Traumatologists (A.L.O.T.O.); SBi has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clinigen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, Eli Lilly and Sensorion and reports nonremunerated activities for Bayer and membership of the German Paediatric Oncology Society and European Musculoskeletal Oncology Society; SBon has received honoraria for advisory board from Nanobiotix and as an invited speaker for PharmaMar, trial research grant from the Institut National du Cancer (INCa); IB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen and as an invited speaker for Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Leo Pharma, AstraZeneca and Genesis and is a member of Board of Directors for Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology, Hellenic Society of Sarcomas and Rare Tumors, Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG) and reports PI trial research support from Novartis, BMS, Regeneron, MSD, Lilly and Roche; JVMGB receives royalties from UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer, and direct research funding from TRACON pharmaceuticals; KB has received honoraria for expert testimony and advisory boards for Bayer, invited speaker fees and research grant from Eli Lilly, PI for Deciphera and Novartis; TB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer and Eli Lilly, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Novartis; EDÁ has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer, invited speaker for Lilly, PharmaMar and Roche and institutional research support from Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca; APDT has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer and Roche, invited speaker for PharmaMar and Novartis; XGDM has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Ipsen, EUSAPharma, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and PharmaMar and is an invited speaker for Lilly, Astellas Pharma, Eisai and Pfizer and received institutional research grant from Astra Zeneca; ME has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Clinigen and Bayer, consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines, institutional research funding from Novartis; AF has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Novartis and invited speaker fees for MSD and Amgen; VF has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards and speaker fees for BMS, Novartis and MSD and speaker fees from Pierre Fabre; SG has reported institutional research for Blueprint Medicines and is a member of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and AIOM; HG has reported PI research for Daiichi, Deciphera and Novartis and co-ordinating PI for Boehringer Ingelheim and AmMax Bio; FG has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Amgen and expert testimony for Deciphera, stock ownership for Atlanthera, licencing fees from Zimmer, nonrenumerated activities for 3D-Side and INCa DGOS funding and is a member of the board of NetSarc, the French clinical reference network for soft tissue and visceral sarcomas; GG has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Lilly, Eisai, Merck, Bayer and GSK, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Novartis and institutional grants from PharmaMar, Bayer and Novartis; RH has received honoraria from GSK; ABH is a member of Board of Directors for EIT Health UK and Ireland and received or currently receives direct research funding as a PI from Roche, performs work in clinical trials or contracted research for the institution and as the Clinical Director of the Oncology and Haematology Directorate, Oxford Cancer Centre; NH has received honoraria as expert testimony and invited speaker from PharmaMar and performs work in clinical trials or contracted research for which the author’s institution received financial support from PharmaMar, Lilly, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Nektar Therapeutics, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi-Sankyo and reports nonremunerated leadership roles for Grupo Español de Investigación en Sarcomas (GEIS) and SELNET and has nonremunerated membership or affiliation with ESMO, Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM), ASCO, Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC); PH has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche and GSK, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Lilly, clinical expert fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and institutional research funding for clinical trials from Siemens, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines and meeting sponsorship from PEKKIP Oncology and reports carrying out nonremunerated activities for the German Sarcoma Foundation (DSS), German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG) and Interdisciplinary Working Party on Sarcomas (IAWS) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and advisory role for the German Cancer Aid (DKH) Committee on Health Technology Assessment and Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN); HJ has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Orion Pharma, Neutron Therapeutics and Maud Kuistila Memorial Foundation and had full time or part time employment at Orion Pharma (until 31 August 2020), stocks in Orion Pharma and Sartar Therapeutics; RLJ has received honoraria for expert testimony consultancy for Adaptimmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daiichi, Deciphera, Immune Design, Lilly, SpringWorks, Tracon, UpToDate, PharmaMar and is on the advisory board for Athenex and received institutional research grant from MSD; CJ has received travel grants from Ipsen and PharmaMar; BK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, SpringWorks, GSK and PharmaMar, institutional research support from PharmaMar and SpringWorks and is a member of EORTC and Chair of the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (STBSG); AK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Daiichi-Sankyo and Otsuka and invited speaker fees from Novartis, Taiho and Eisai; KK has received honoraria for participation in the advisory board for Bayer and expert testimony for Eli Lilly and Roche; ALC has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera and Lilly and invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Bayer; EL received honoraria from SpringWorks Therapeutics for scientific advisory board participation and is a member of the European Reference Network GENTURIS; AL has received institutional research grants from Johnson & Johnson, Alphamed, Medacta and ImplanTec and reports nonremunerated activities for European Musculoskeletal Society (EMSOS), Austrian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons (OGO) and membership of CTOS; AL-P has received honoraria as invited speaker for PharmaMar, institutional research funding from the Spanish Health Ministry, reported nonrenumerated activities as PI for PharmaMar, Cebiotex, Deciphera, Lilly, GSK, Daiichi, Epizyme, Advenchen Laboratories, Novartis, Karyopharm, Blueprint medicines, GEIS and other activity for EORTC; JM-B has received honoraria for expert testimony for Lilly, PharmaMar, Eisai, Bayer, invited speaker fee from PharmaMar and carried out institutional research for PharmaMar, Eisai, Novartis, Immix Biopharma, Lixte, Karyopharm, Bayer, Celgene, Pfizer, BMS, Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Nektar Therapeutics, Forma, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Adaptimmune and GSK; OM has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for MSD, Megapharm, AstraZeneca, Takeda and ProGenetics and invited speaker fees from MSD and Roche; CM has performed nonremunerated activities for International Cancer Imaging Society and EORTC STBSG; OMi has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, MSD, Pfizer, invited speaker fees from BMS, Eli-Lilly, Ipsen, Roche and Servier and institutional research for Blueprint Medicines, Bayer, Epizyme and Eli-Lilly; EP has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for SynOx, Daiichi-Sankyo and Deciphera Pharmaceuticals and invited speaker fees from Peer View Educational; MAP has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Roche, invited speaker fees from Eli-Lilly, Pfizer and Novartis and expert testimony from Blueprints Medicine and institutional research grant from Novartis; SP-N has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Immunocore; PR has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Clinigen, Roche, MSD, Deciphera, Mundibiopharma, PharmaMar, Blueprint Medicines, invited speaker fees from Lilly, PharmaMar and institutional research for PharmaMar, Karyopharm, SpringWorks, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint, Deciphera, Amgen, Astellas, Epizyme, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis and Philogen and has membership of the German Sarcoma Foundation; PRu has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Blueprint Medicines, invited speaker fees from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Novartis and institutional research funding from Pfizer, BMS and reports carrying out nonremunerated activities for the Polish Society of Surgical Oncology and ASCO; MS has received honoraria for travel grant from PharmaMar and writing engagement for Lilly; SS has reported a research grant from Johnson & Johnson and research funding from Roche Austria; PS has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, Transgene, Exelixis, Medscape, Guided Clarity, Ysios, Modus Outcomes, Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie, Curio Science and institutional honoraria for advisory boards for Blueprint Medicines, Ellipses Pharma, IntelliSphere, expert testimony for Advanced Medical/Teladoc Health and institutional research funding from CoBioRes NV, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis and PharmaMar; SSl is the Chair of Centre for Personalised Cancer Treatment and Route Personalised Medicine, Dutch Science Agenda, a member of supervisory board for SkylineDx and Scientific advisory committee Pan-Cancer T BV; SJS has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for GSK; KSH reports nonrenumerated activity for CTOS as President 2020 and membership of the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group; MAJvdS has performed work in clinical trials or contracted research for which the institution received financial support from Daiichi Sankyo, implantcast and CarboFix; WTAvdG has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards of Bayer and GSK, institutional research grants from Novartis and Lilly and performed consultancy work for SpringWorks; WJvH has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory board for Belpharma, invited speaker fees from Amgen and reports expert testimony for Sanofi and MSD and personal travel grant from Novartis and institutional research grant from BMS; TF reports institutional research funding from the Foundation ARC and Ligue Régionale contre le Cancer and leadership role for ERN GENTURIS; AG has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Lilly, PharmaMar, SpringWorks and Nanobiotix and is an invited speaker for Lilly, PharmaMar and reports research grant from PharmaMar; SSta has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Daiichi, MaxiVAX, Novartis, invited speaker fees from GSK and PharmaMar, expert testimony fee from Bavarian Nordic and Epizyme and institutional research funding from Amgen Dompé, Advenchen, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Daiichi, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks and Hutchinson MediPharma International Inc. and carried out nonremunerated activities for CTOS, Chordoma Foundation, Epithelioid Haemangioendothelioma Foundation, Desmoid Foundation, EORTC STBSG and Italian Sarcoma Group Onlus. AB, AD, AFer, AMF, PJ, DAK, FLG, ABM, MM, CMo, RP, AAS, CS, DS, AT and MU have declared no conflicts of interests.

Competing Interests: Disclosure SJS has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); NA non-remunerated leadership and advisory roles for Sociedade Portuguesa de Cirurgia; JB has no personal financial disclosure, received research grants (institutional) from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Paxman Coolers Ltd, Sun Pharma and non-remunerated advisory role for Novartis, non-remunerated leadership activities for Immuno-oncology society of India, Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology, Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Foundation and Indian cooperative oncology network; SB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Plexxikon, Roche, GSK, invited speaker fees from Pfizer and PharmaMar, institutional research grant from Novartis, institutional research as principal investigator (PI) for Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, Deciphera, Lilly, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Incyte, non-remunerated activities for Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArm) and founding member of German Sarcoma Foundation; RB reports non-remunerated activities as PI for IRCSS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute and IRE-ISG Regina Elena Institute, participation at the Clinical Experience Exchange Meeting, III IDBN National Congress 2019, Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), IRE-ISG Regina Elena Institute and Lazio Association of Orthopaedic Hospital Traumatologists (ALOTO); SBi has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, ClinGen, Hofmann La Roche, Ipsen, Eli Lilly and Sensorion, non-remunerated activities for Bayer and membership of the German Pediatric Oncology Society and European Musculoskeletal Oncology Society; JYB received research support from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, GSK, Novartis, Bayer, PharmaMar outside the present work; SBon has received honoraria for advisory board from Nanobiotix and as invited speaker for PharmaMar, trial research grant from the Institut National du Cancer (INCa); IB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, and as invited speaker for Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Leo Pharma, AstraZeneca and Genesis, member of Board of Directors for Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology, Hellenic Society of Sarcomas and Rare Tumors, Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG), PI trial research support from Novartis, BMS, Regeneron, MSD, Lilly and Roche; JVMGB receives royalties from UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer, and direct research funding from TRACON pharmaceuticals; KB has received honoraria for expert testimony and advisory boards for Bayer, invited speaker fees and research grant from Eli Lilly, PI for Deciphera and Novartis; TB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer and Eli Lilly, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Novartis; EDÁ has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer, invited speaker for Lilly, PharmaMar and Roche, institutional research support from Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca; APDT has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer and Roche, invited speaker for PharmaMar and Novartis; XGDM has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and PharmaMar, invited speaker for Lilly, Astellas Pharma, Eisai and Pfizer and institutional research grant from AstraZeneca; ME has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Clinigen and Bayer, consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines, institutional research funding from Novartis; AF has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Novartis and invited speaker fees for MSD and Amgen; VF has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards and speaker fees for BMS, Novartis and MSD and speaker fees from Pierre Fabre; NG has received honoraria as invited speaker for Eisai and reports membership of the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE), ACCELERATE, Societe Francaise de lutte contre les cancers et leucemies de l'enfant et de l'adolescent (SFCE) and Groupe Onco- hématologie Adolescents et Jeunes Adultes (GO-AJA); SG has reported institutional research for Blueprint Medicines and member of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and AIOM; HG has reported PI research for Daiichi, Deciphera and Novartis, co-ordinating PI for Boehringer Ingelheim and AmMax Bio; FG has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Amgen and expert testimony for Deciphera, stock ownership for Atlanthera, licensing fees from Zimmer, non-remunerated activities for 3D-Side and INCa DGOS funding and member of the board of NetSarc the French clinical reference network for soft tissue and visceral sarcomas; GG has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Lilly, Eisai, Merck, Bayer and GSK, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Novartis, institutional grants from PharmaMar, Bayer and Novartis; AG has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Lilly, PharmaMar, SpringWorks and Nanobiotix, invited speaker for Lilly, PharmaMar and research grant from PharmaMar; RH has received honoraria from GSK; ABH is a member of Board of Directors for EIT health UK and Ireland, received or currently receives direct research funding as a PI from Roche, performs work in clinical trials or contracted research for the Institution and Clinical Director of the Oncology and Haematology Directorate, Oxford Cancer Centre; SHN reports institutional research role as deputy PI for Eisai, non-remunerated activity for Harmonization International Bones Sarcoma Consortium (HIBISCus), membership of SIOPE, German, Swiss, Austrian Society of Paediatric Oncology and Hematology (GPOH) and German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ); NH has received honoraria as expert testimony and invited speaker from PharmaMar, performs work in clinical trials or contracted research for which his/her institution received financial support from PharmaMar, Lilly, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Nektar Therapeutics, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi-Sankyo, non-remunerated leadership roles for Grupo Español de Investigación en Sarcomas (GEIS) and SELNET, and has non-remunerated membership or affiliation with ESMO, Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM), ASCO, Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC); PH has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche and GSK, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Lilly, clinical expert fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, institutional research funding for clinical trials from Siemens, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines and meeting sponsorship from PEKKIP Oncology, non-remunerated activities for the German Sarcoma Foundation (DSS), German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG) and Interdisciplinary Working Party on Sarcomas (IAWS) of the German Cancer Society (DKG), advisory role for the German Cancer Aid (DKH) Committee on Health Technology Assessment and Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN); HJ has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Orion Pharma, Neutron Therapeutics and Maud Kuistila Memorial Foundation, had full time or part time employment at Orion Pharma, until 31 August 2020, stocks in Orion Pharma and Sartar Therapeutics; RLJ has received honoraria for expert testimony consultancy for Adaptimmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daiichi, Deciphera, Immune Design, Lilly, SpringWorks, Tracon, UpToDate, PharmaMar, advisory board for Athenex, institutional research grant from MSD; CJ has received travel grants from Ipsen and PharmaMar; LK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Novartis and Agios; BK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, SpringWorks, GSK and PharmaMar, institutional research support from PharmaMar and SpringWorks, member of EORTC and Chair of the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (STBSG); AK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Daiichi-Sankyo and Otsuka and invited speaker fees from Novartis, Taiho and Eisai; KK has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer and expert testimony for Eli Lilly and Roche; ALC has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera and Lilly, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Bayer; EL received honoraria from SpringWorks Therapeutics for scientific advisory board participation and member of the European Reference Network GENTURIS; AL has received institutional research grants from Johnson & Johnson, Alphamed, Medacta and ImplanTec, non-remunerated activities for European Musculoskeletal Society (EMSOS), Austrian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons (OGO) and membership of CTOS; ALP has received honoraria as invited speaker for PharmaMar, institutional research funding from the Spanish Health Ministry, reported non-remunerated activities as PI for PharmaMar, Cebiotex, Deciphera, Lilly, GSK, Daiichi, Epizyme, Advenchen Laboratories, Novartis, Karyopharm, Blueprint medicines, GEIS and other activity for EORTC; JMB has received honoraria for expert testimony for Lilly, PharmaMar, Eisai, Bayer, invited speaker fee from PharmaMar, institutional research for PharmaMar, Eisai, Novartis, Immix Biopharma, Lixte, Karyopharm, Bayer, Celgene, Pfizer, BMS, Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Nektar Therapeutics, Forma, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, AROG Pharmaceutcials, Adaptimmune and GSK; OM has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for MSD, Megapharm, AstraZeneca, Takeda and Progenetics, invited speaker fees from MSD and Roche; CM has performed non-remunerated activities for International Cancer Imaging Society and EORTC STBSG; OMi has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, MSD, Pfizer, invited speaker fees from BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Roche and Servier, institutional research for Blueprint Medicines, Bayer, Epizyme and Eli-Lilly; BM has received honoraria from Clinigen as invited speaker; EP has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for SynOx, Daiichi-Sankyo and Deciphera Pharmaceuticals and invited speaker fees from Peer View Educational; MAP has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Roche, invited speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis, expert testimony from Blueprints Medicine and institutional research grant from Novartis; SPN has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Immunocore; PR has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Clinigen, Roche, MSD, Deciphera, Mundibiopharma, PharmaMar, Blueprint Medicines, invited speaker fees from Lilly, PharmaMar, institutional research for PharmaMar, Karyopharm, SpringWorks, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint, Deciphera, Amgen, Astellas, Epizyme, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis and Philogen, membership of German Sarcoma Foundation; PRu has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Blueprint Medicines, invited speaker fees from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Novartis, institutional research funding from Pfizer, BMS and non-remunerated activities for the Polish Society of Surgical Oncology and ASCO; MS has received honoraria for travel grant from PharmaMar and writing engagement for Lilly; SS has reported a research grant from Johnson & Johnson and research funding from Roche Austria; PS has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, Transgene, Exelixis, Medscape, Guided Clarity, Ysios, Modus Outcomes, Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie, Curio Science, institutional honoraria for advisory boards for Blueprint Medicines, Ellipses Pharma, Intellisphere, expert testimony for Advanced Medical/Teladoc Health, institutional research funding from CoBioRes NV, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis and PharmaMar; SSl Chair of Centre for Personalised Cancer Treatment and Route Personalised Medicine, Dutch Science Agenda, member of supervisory board for SkylineDX and Scientific advisory committee Pan-Cancer T BV; KSH reports non-remunerated activity for CTOS as President 2020 and membership of the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group; MAJvdS has performed work in clinical trials or contracted research for which the institution received financial support from Daiichi-Sankyo, Implantcast and Carbofix; WTAvdG has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer and GSK, institutional research grants from Novartis and Lilly and consultancy work for SpringWorks; WJvH has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory board for Belpharma, invited speaker fees from Amgen, expert testimony for Sanofi and MSD, personal travel grant from Novartis and institutional research grant from BMS; TF reported institutional research funding from the Foundation ARC and Ligue Régionale contre le Cancer, leadership role for ERN GENTURIS; PGC has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer, institutional research funding from Amgen Dompé, Advenchen, Bayer, Blueprint, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Daiichi, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, AROG Pharmaceuticals and Eisai, non-remunerated activities for the Italian Sarcoma Group, European School of Oncology, Federation of Italian Cooperative Groups and Rare Cancers Europe; SSta has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Daiichi, Maxivax, Novartis, invited speaker fees from GSK and PharmaMar, expert testimony fee from Bavarian Nordic and Epizyme, institutional research funding from Amgen Dompé, Advenchen, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Daiichi, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks and Hutchinson MediPharma International Inc., non-remunerated activities for CTOS, Chordoma Foundation, Epithelioid Haemangioendothelioma Foundation, Desmoid Foundation, EORTC STBSG and Italian Sarcoma Group Onlus. AMF, AB, SBo, BB, AD, FF, AFer, PJ, DAK, FLG, ABM, MM, CMo, RP, AAS, CS, DS, AT, MU and RL have declared no conflicts of interests.

Competing Interests: Disclosure AG has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Lilly, PharmaMar, SpringWorks and Nanobiotix, invited speaker for Lilly, PharmaMar and research grant from PharmaMar; APDT has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer and Roche, invited speaker for PharmaMar and Novartis; NA Non-remunerated leadership and advisory roles for Sociedade Portuguesa de Cirurgia; JB has no personal financial disclosure, received research grants (institutional) from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Paxman Coolers Ltd, Sun Pharma and non-remunerated advisory role for Novartis, non-remunerated leadership activities for Immuno-oncology society of India, Indian society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology, Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Foundation and Indian cooperative oncology network; SB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Plexxikon, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), invited speaker fees from Pfizer and PharmaMar, institutional research grant from Novartis, institutional research as principal investigator (PI) for Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, Deciphera, Lilly, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Incyte, non-remunerated activities for Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArm) and founding member of German Sarcoma Foundation; RB reports non-remunerated activities as PI for IRCSS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute and IRE-ISG Regina Elena Institute, participation at the Clinical Experience Exchange Meeting, III IDBN National Congress 2019, Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), IRE-ISG Regina Elena Institute and Lazio Association of Orthopaedic Hospital Traumatologists (ALOTO); SBI has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clinigen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, Eli Lilly and Sensorion, non-remunerated activities for Bayer and membership of the German Paediatric Oncology Society and European Musculoskeletal Oncology Society; JYB received research support from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, GSK, Novartis, Bayer, PharmaMar outside the present work; SBon has received honoraria for advisory board from Nanobiotix and as invited speaker for PharmaMar, trial research grant from the Institut National du Cancer (INCa); IB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, and as invited speaker for Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Leo Pharma, AstraZeneca and Genesis, member of Board of Directors for Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology, Hellenic Society of Sarcomas and Rare Tumors, Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG), PI trial research support from Novartis, BMS, Regeneron, MSD, Lilly and Roche; JVMGB receives royalties from UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer, and direct research funding from TRACON pharmaceuticals; KB has received honoraria for expert testimony and advisory boards for Bayer, invited speaker fees and research grant from Eli Lilly, PI for Deciphera and Novartis; TB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer and Eli Lilly, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Novartis; EDÁ has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer, invited speaker for Lilly, PharmaMar and Roche, institutional research support from Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca; XGDM has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Ipsen, EusaPharma, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and PharmaMar, invited speaker for Lilly, Astellas Pharma, Eisai and Pfizer and institutional research grant from AstraZeneca; ME has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Clinigen and Bayer, consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines, institutional research funding from Novartis as PI; AF has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Novartis and invited speaker fees for MSD and Amgen; VF has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards and speaker fees for BMS, Novartis and MSD and speaker fees from Pierre Fabre; SG has reported institutional research for Blueprint Medicines and member of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and AIOM; HG has reported PI research for Daiichi, Deciphera and Novartis, Co-ordinating PI for Boehringer Ingelheim and AmMax Bio; FG has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Amgen and expert testimony for Deciphera, stock ownership for Atlanthera, licensing fees from Zimmer, non-remunerated activities for 3D-Side and INCa DGOS funding and member of the board of NetSarc the French clinical reference network for soft tissue and visceral sarcomas; GG has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Lilly, Eisai, Merck, Bayer and GSK, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Novartis, institutional grants from PharmaMar, Bayer and Novartis; RH has received Honoraria from GSK; ABH is a member of Board of Directors for EIT Health UK and Ireland, received or currently receives direct research funding as a PI from Roche, performs work in clinical trials or contracted research for the Institution and Clinical Director of the Oncology and Haematology Directorate, Oxford Cancer Centre; SHN received invited speaker fee from University Hospital Basel, Switzerland for Swiss sarcoma symposium, reports institutional research role as deputy PI for Eisai, non-remunerated activity for Harmonization International Bones Sarcoma Consortium (HIBISCus), membership of European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP), German, Swiss, Austrian Society of Paediatric Oncology and Hematology (GPOH) and German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ); NH has received honoraria as expert testimony and invited speaker from PharmaMar, performs work in clinical trials or contracted research for which his/her institution received financial support from PharmaMar, Lilly, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, AROG Pharmaceutcials, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Nektar Therapeutics, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi-Sankyo, non-remunerated leadership roles for Grupo Español de Investigación en Sarcomas (GEIS) and SELNET, and has non-remunerated membership or affiliation with ESMO, Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM), ASCO, Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC); PH has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche and GSK, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Lilly, clinical expert fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, institutional research funding for clinical trials from Siemens, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines and meeting sponsorship from PEKKIP Oncology, non-remunerated activities for the German Sarcoma Foundation (DSS), German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG) and Interdisciplinary Working Party on Sarcomas (IAWS) of the German Cancer Society (DKG), advisory role for the German Cancer Aid (DKH) Committee on Health Technology Assessment and Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN); HJ has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Orion Pharma, Neutron Therapeutics and Maud Kuistila Memorial Foundation, had full-time or part-time employment at Orion Pharma, until 31 August 2020, stocks in Orion Pharma and Sartar Therapeutics; RLJ has received honoraria for expert testimony consultancy for Adaptimmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daiichi, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Lilly, SpringWorks, TRACON, UpToDate, PharmaMar, advisory board for Athenex, institutional research grant from MSD; CJ has received travel grants from Ipsen and PharmaMar; LK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Novartis and Agios; BK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, SpringWorks, GSK and PharmaMar, institutional research support from PharmaMar and SpringWorks, member of EORTC and Chair of the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (STBSG); AK has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Daiichi-Sankyo and Otsuka and invited speaker fees from Novartis, Taiho and Eisai; KK has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer and expert testimony for Eli Lilly and Roche; ALC has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera and Lilly, invited speaker fees from PharmaMar and Bayer; EL received honoraria from SpringWorks Therapeutics for scientific advisory board participation and member of the European Reference Network GENTURIS; AL has received institutional research grants from Johnson & Johnson, Alphamed, Medacta and Implantec, non-remunerated activities for European Musculoskeletal Society (EMSOS), Austrian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons (OGO) and membership of CTOS; AL-P has received honoraria as invited speaker for PharmaMar, institutional research funding from the Spanish Health Ministry, reported non-remunerated activities as PI for PharmaMar, Cebiotex, Deciphera, Lilly, GSK, Daiichi, Epizyme, Advenchen Laboratories, Novartis, Karyopharm, Blueprint Medicines, GEIS and other activity for EORTC; JMB has received honoraria for expert testimony for Lilly, PharmaMar, Eisai, Bayer, invited speaker fee from PharmaMar, institutional research for PharmaMar, Eisai, Novartis, Immix Biopharma, Lixte, Karyopharm, Bayer, Celgene, Pfizer, BMS, Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Nektar Therapeutics, Forma, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Adaptimmune and GSK; OM has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for MSD, Megapharm, AstraZeneca, Takeda and Progenetics, invited speaker fees from MSD and Roche; CM has performed non-remunerated activities for International Cancer Imaging Society and EORTC STBSG; OMi has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, MSD, Pfizer, invited speaker fees from BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Roche and Servier, institutional research for Blueprint Medicines, Bayer, Epizyme and Eli Lilly; BM has received honoraria from Clinigen as invited speaker; EP has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for SynOx, Daiichi-Sankyo and Deciphera Pharmaceuticals and invited speaker fees from Peer View Educational; MAP has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Roche, invited speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Novartis, expert testimony from Blueprints Medicine and institutional research grant from Novartis; SPN has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Immunocore; PR has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Clinigen, Roche, MSD, Deciphera, Mundibiopharma, PharmaMar, Blueprint Medicines, invited speaker fees from Lilly, PharmaMar, institutional research for PharmaMar, Karyopharm, SpringWorks, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint, Deciphera, Amgen, Astellas, Epizyme, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis and Philogen, membership of German Sarcoma Foundation; PRu has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Blueprint Medicines, invited speaker fees from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Novartis, institutional research funding from Pfizer, BMS and non-remunerated activities for the Polish Society of Surgical Oncology and ASCO; MS has received honoraria for travel grant from PharmaMar and writing engagement for Lilly; SS has reported a research grant from Johnson & Johnson and research funding from Roche Austria; PS has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, Transgene, Exelixis, Medscape, Guided Clarity, Ysios, Modus Outcomes, Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie, Curio Science, institutional honoraria for advisory boards for Blueprint Medicines, Ellipses Pharma, Intellisphere, expert testimony for Advanced Medical/Teladoc Health, institutional research funding from CoBioRes NV, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis and PharmaMar; SSl Chair of Centre for Personalised Cancer Treatment and Route Personalised Medicine, Dutch Science Agenda, Member of supervisory board for SkylineDX and Scientific advisory committee Pan-Cancer T BV; SSt has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for GSK; KSH reports non-remunerated activity for CTOS as President 2020 and membership of the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group; MAJvdS has performed work in clinical trials or contracted research for which the institution received financial support from Daiichi-Sankyo, Implantcast and Carbofix; WTAvdG has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards of Bayer and GSK, institutional research grants from Novartis and Lilly, and consultancy work for SpringWorks; WJvH has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory board for Belpharma, invited speaker fees from Amgen, expert testimony for Sanofi and MSD, personal travel grant from Novartis and institutional research grant from BMS; TF reported institutional research funding from the Foundation ARC and Ligue Régionale contre le Cancer, leadership role for ERN GENTURIS; PGC has received honoraria for participation in advisory board for Bayer, institutional research funding from Amgen Dompé, Advenchen, Bayer, Blueprint, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Daiichi, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, AROG Pharmaceuticals and Eisai, non-remunerated activities for the Italian Sarcoma Group, European School of Oncology, Federation of Italian Cooperative Groups and Rare Cancers Europe; SSta has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Bayer, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Daiichi, Maxivax, Novartis, invited speaker fees from GSK and PharmaMar, expert testimony fee from Bavarian Nordic and Epizyme, institutional research funding from Amgen Dompé, Advenchen, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Daiichi, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks and Hutchinson MediPharma International Inc., non-remunerated activities for CTOS, Chordoma Foundation, Epithelioid Haemangioendothelioma Foundation, Desmoid Foundation, EORTC STBSG and Italian Sarcoma Group Onlus; AAS, AB, ABM, AD, AFer, AMF, AT, BB, CMo, CS, DAK, DS, FF, FLG, MM, MU PJ, RP and SBo have declared no conflicts of interests.

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade sarcoma and it is marked by a high propensity for systemic involvement. No active systemic agents are currently approved specifically for EHE, which is typically refractory to the antitumor drugs used in sarcomas. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy for EHE patients and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of the disease make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for many EHE patients. To address the shortcoming, a global consensus meeting was organized in December 2020 under the umbrella of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) involving >80 experts from several disciplines from Europe, North America and Asia, together with a patient representative from the EHE Group, a global, disease-specific patient advocacy group, and Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN). The meeting was aimed at defining, by consensus, evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to primary and metastatic EHE. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication., Competing Interests: Disclosure SS: Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role: Adaptimmune, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, Immune Design, Karyopharm, MaxiVAX, Novartis, PharmaMar; Institutional financial interests: Advenchen, Amgen Dompè, Bayer, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks. AMF: Institutional financial interests: Advenchen, Amgen Dompè, Bayer, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks. AC: Advisory board: Angelini Holding S.p.A, Shionogi B.V., L. Molteni & C., Kyowa Kirin S.r.l.; invited speaker King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center. JB: Uncompensated advisory board: Novartis; research funding (institutional) from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd, Paxman Coolers Ltd, Sun Pharma. SB: Personal fees from Bayer, Deciphera, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Plexxikon, Exelixis, PharmaMar, Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); grants from Incyte, grants and personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, Novartis; research funding (institutional) Pfizer. SB: Research support from Novartis, Incyte, Blueprint Medicines; honoraria or consultation fees from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Bayer. JYB: Research support and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, Bayer, Novartis, GSK, Deciphera, OSE Pharma, AstraZeneca. Member of the supervisory board: Innate Pharma. SB: Honoraria from PharmaMar. JVMGB: Research funding from TRACON Pharmaceuticals; Royalties from UptoDate and Wolters Kluwer. KB: Advisory: Bayer; expert testimony: Bayer; invited speaker: Lilly; institutional research funding: Lilly. TB: Advisory board from Bayer; honoraria: Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly. ME: Consultant for Blueprint Medicines; advisory boards for Clinigen and Bayer. AF; Honoraria: Amgen, Lilly, Roche, MSD; research funding; MSD, Roche, Clovis, AstraZeneca. BMS; Abbvie. VF: Consulting or advisory role: BMS, MSD, Novartis; speakers' bureau: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. XGdM: Advisory boards for Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, PharmaMar; honoraria from Lilly, Astellas Pharma, Eisai, Pfizer. HG: Reports institutional funding from Novartis, Deciphera. FG: Honoraria from Deciphera, Amgen; stock ownership from Atlanthera; royalties from Zimmer. GG: Grants/research supports: PharmaMar, Novartis, Bayer; honoraria or consultation fees: PharmaMar, Bayer, Merck, Eisai, Novartis, Glaxo. NH: Research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis; honoraria and travel grants from PharmaMar; and research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. PH: Honoraria for consultations and speaker's fees from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Lilly, Nanobiotix, Novartis, EISAI, Nektar, Sirtex and Pekkip Oncology; research funding and educational grants from Novartis, Siemens, Boehringer, Merck, BLUMedicine and Springer; trial support to my institution by Novartis and Siemens. PH: Advisory roles for Sarcoma UK and National Leiomyosarcoma Foundation; research grants from Sarcoma UK, Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation, Children's Cancer and Leukemia Group and Cancer Research UK, funding from EHE Rare Cancer Charity (UK). HJ: Chair of the Orion Pharma Scientific Advisory Board, chair of Neutron Therapeutics Advisory Board; he has been employed by Orion Pharma, and owns stocks of Orion Pharma and Sartar Therapeutics. RJ: Advisory board Adaptimmune, Athenex, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immune Design, Lilly, Merck, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, TRACON, UptoDate; honoraria: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi. CJ: Travel grants from PharmaMar, Ipsen. BK: Reports advisory board Bayer, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, PharmaMar, SpringWorks; research funding (institutional) PharmaMar, SpringWorks. AK: Advisory board Otsuka; invited speaker for Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Taiho. ALC: Advisory boards with Lilly, PharmaMar, Deciphera, Blueprint. AL: Reports institutional financial interest, and educational grant from Alphamed, ImplanTec, Johnson & Johnson, Medacta. JMB: Research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis; honoraria from PharmaMar, Lilly, Bayer, Eisai, Daichii. Travel grants from PharmaMar; advisory board: Roche, Lilly, PharmaMar; research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen, Celgene, Pfizer, BMS, and Daiichi Sankyo. OMe: Consultation fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Megapharm, Medison, Progenetics; supported lecture: MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS. OMi: Consultancy for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Lundbeck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Vifor Pharma; Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Roche, Servier; Stock ownership: Amplitude Surgical, Ipsen, Transgene. EP: Advisory boards for Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Deciphera, EUSA Pharma, and SynOx Therapeutics; research support from BMS, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte; travel support from Lilly, PharmaMar and Takeda. MAP: Advisory board Lilly, Pfizer, Roche. SP: Consultant: Deciphera, Daichi Sankyo, Dova, Epizyme, MaxiVAX; Research/Grant Support: Blueprint Medicines, Hutchison MediPharma. SPN: Advisory board for Immunocore. AR: Consulting role with Lilly, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim; research funding from CASI Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Deciphera, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Boston Biomedical, BMS, MedImmune, Amgen, GSK, Blueprint Medicines, Merck, AbbVie, Adaptimmune. PRe: Advisory roles for Bayer, Clinigen, Roche, MSD, Deciphera, PharmaMar, Mundibiopharma, and speaker's honoraria from Lilly, PharmaMar. BPR: Reports advisory board from Deciphera. PRu: Advisory board MSD, BMS, Merck, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Blueprint Medicines; honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi. MS: Travel grant from PharmaMar. SJS: Advisory boards for Lilly and GSK. WDT: Reports fees from Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Eisai, Mundipharma, C4 Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint, GSK, Agios Pharmaceuticals, NanoCarrier, Deciphera; patent Companion Diagnostic for CDK4 inhibitors - 14/854 329 pending to MSKCC/SKI, and patent Enigma and CDH18 as companion Diagnostics for CDK4 inhibition – SKI2016-021-03 pending to MSKCC/SKI and Scientific Advisory Board - Certis Oncology Solutions, Stock Ownership Üo-Founder - Atropos Therapeutics; Stock Ownership/scientific advisory board Innova Therapeutics. WTAWDG: Reports consultancy from SpringWorks to her institute; research grant support from Novartis and Lilly to her institute; advisory for Bayer to her institute. AJW: Consulting: Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Epizyme, Mundipharma; research support to my Institution: Aadi Bioscience, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm, Plexxikon. PGC: Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role: Bayer, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer. Institutional financial interest: Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Glaxo, Hutchinson MediPharma, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar. APDT: Honoraria: Roche, Bayer, Pharmamar, MSD. AG: Compensations for Advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Lilly, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, Nanobiotix; honoraria from Lilly and PharmaMar; institutional research grants from PharmaMar. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel combined with pazopanib in advanced angiosarcoma (AS). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at six months (PFSR6). Planned accrual was 44 patients in order to detect a PFSR6 of >55%, with an interim futility analysis of the first 14 patients. The study did not meet its predetermined interim target of 6/14 patients progression-free at 6 months. At the time of this finding, 26 patients had been enrolled between July 2014 and April 2016, resulting in an overrunning of 12 patients. After a median follow-up of 9.5 (IQR 7.7-15.4) months, PFSR6 amounted to 46%. Two patients had a complete and seven patients a partial response. Patients with superficial AS had a significantly higher PFSR6 (61% vs. 13%, p = 0.0247) and PFS (11.3 vs. 2.7 months, p < 0.0001) compared to patients with visceral AS. The median overall survival in the entire cohort was 21.6 months. A total of 10 drug-related serious adverse effects were reported in 5 patients, including a fatal hepatic failure. Although our study did not meet its primary endpoint, the median PFS of 11.6 months in patients with superficial AS appears to be promising. Taking recent reports into consideration, future studies should evaluate the safety and efficacy of VEGFR and immune checkpoint inhibitors with or without paclitaxel in a randomized, multiarm setting.

Background: Some sarcomas respond to immune checkpoint inhibition, but predictive biomarkers are unknown. We analyzed tumor DNA methylation profiles in relation to immunological parameters and response to anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with sarcoma., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified adult patients who had received anti-PD-1 ICI therapy for recurrent sarcoma in two independent centers. We performed (1) blinded radiological response evaluation according to immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) ; (2) tumor DNA methylation profiling of >850,000 probes using Infinium MethylationEPIC microarrays; (3) analysis of tumor-infiltrating immune cell subsets (CD3, CD8, CD45RO, FOXP3) and intratumoral expression of immune checkpoint molecules (PD-L1, PD-1, LAG-3) using immunohistochemistry; and (4) evaluation of blood-based systemic inflammation scores (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, leucocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio). Response to anti-PD-1 ICI therapy was bioinformatically and statistically correlated with DNA methylation profiles and immunological data., Results: 35 patients (median age of 50 (23-81) years; 18 females, 17 males; 27 soft tissue sarcomas; 8 osteosarcomas) were included in this study. The objective response rate to anti-PD-1 ICI therapy was 22.9% with complete responses in 3 out of 35 and partial responses in 5 out of 35 patients. Adjustment of DNA methylation data for tumor-infiltrating immune cells resulted in identification of methylation differences between responders and non-responders to anti-PD-1 ICI. 2453 differentially methylated CpG sites (DMPs; 2043 with decreased and 410 with increased methylation) were identified. Clustering of sarcoma samples based on these DMPs revealed two main clusters: methylation cluster 1 (MC1) consisted of 73% responders and methylation cluster 2 (MC2) contained only non-responders to anti-PD-1 ICI. Median progression-free survival from anti-PD-1 therapy start of MC1 and MC2 patients was 16.5 and 1.9 months, respectively (p=0.001). Median overall survival of these patients was 34.4 and 8.0 months, respectively (p=0.029). The most prominent DNA methylation differences were found in pathways implicated in Rap1 signaling, focal adhesion, adherens junction Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-Akt signaling and extracellular matrix (ECM)-receptor interaction., Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that tumor DNA methylation profiles may serve as a predictive marker for response to anti-PD-1 ICI therapy in sarcoma., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AS has received travel support from PharmaMar. AB has research support from Daiichi Sankyo and Roche; honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from Roche Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo; as well as travel support from Roche, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo and AbbVie. MP has received honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from the following for-profit companies: Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), CMC Contrast, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Roche, BMJ Journals, MedMedia, Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Lilly, Medahead, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dome, Tocagen. The following for-profit companies have supported clinical trials and contracted research conducted by MP with payments made to his institution: Böhringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novocure, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie. TB reports personal fees from Roche (lecture fee), personal fees from Amgen (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Bayer (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Novartis (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from PharmaMar (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Eisai (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Eli Lilly (lecture fee, advisory board), outside the submitted work. RH is supported by Clinician Scientist Program of the University Medicine Essen Clinician Scientist Academy (UMEA) sponsored by faculty of medicine and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). RH has received travel grants from Lilly, Novartis and PharmaMar, as well as fees from Lilly outside of the submitted work. SB reports personal fees from Deciphera, grants from Incyte, grants and personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, personal fees from Lilly, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Daichii-Sankyo, personal fees from Plexxikon, personal fees from Exelixis, personal fees from Bayer, other from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Pharmamar, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no conflicts of interest concerning this specific publication., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Fusions involving NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 are oncogenic drivers occurring in a spectrum of mesenchymal neoplasms ranging from benign to highly malignant tumors. To gain further insights into the staining profile with the pan-TRK assay, we analyzed a large number of soft tissue sarcomas and correlated our findings with molecular testing. Additionally, we expand the spectrum of NTRK-fusion tumors by reporting a mesenchymal lesion in the lung as well as a mesenchymal skin lesion in the spectrum of benign fibrous histiocytoma with NTRK-fusion. We retrospectively reviewed soft tissue sarcomas diagnosed at the Diagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, between 1999 and 2019, and cases from the consultation files of one of the authors (BLA). In total, 494 cases were analyzed immunohistochemically with pan-TRK antibody (clone EPR17341, RTU, Roche/Ventana) and positive cases (defined as any cytoplasmic/nuclear staining in more than 1% of tumor cells) underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS). Immunohistochemical staining was observed in 16 (3.2%) cases. Eleven cases with focal weak and moderate cytoplasmic/membranous or focal moderate to strong nuclear staining did not harbor an NTRK-fusion (three synovial sarcomas, three leiomyosarcomas, two extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcomas, and one each: dedifferentiated liposarcoma, pleomorphic liposarcoma, and myxofibrosarcoma). Four cases showed strong diffuse nuclear and/or cytoplasmatic staining, and one case showed diffuse, but weak cytoplasmic staining. All these cases demonstrated an NTRK-fusion (LMNA-NTRK1, IRF2BP2-NTRK1, TMB3-NTRK1, ETV6-NTRK3, RBPMS-NTRK3). Pan-TRK assay (clone EPR17341, RTU, Roche, Ventana) immunohistochemistry serves as a reliable diagnostic marker that can also be expressed in non-NTRK-rearranged mesenchymal neoplasms. It can be used as a surrogate marker for identification of NTRK fusion, nevertheless, an RNA-based NGS for detection of the specific fusion should be performed to confirm the rearrangement, if patients are undergoing targeted therapy. Additionally, we identified NTRK-fusion-positive, primary mesenchymal tumors of the lung and the skin.

Aim: This study assessed whether cetuximab 500 mg/m 2 administered every 2 weeks (Q2W), when combined with chemotherapy as a first-line (1L) treatment, was noninferior to the approved dose (400 mg/m 2 followed by 250 mg/m 2 once weekly [Q1W]) for overall survival (OS) in adults with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Methods: This pooled analysis included patients receiving 1L treatment with cetuximab Q1W or Q2W in combination with chemotherapy from post-authorisation studies with patient-level data available to the sponsor. Baseline characteristics were adjusted with a propensity score using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Noninferiority in terms of OS was tested with a noninferiority margin for the hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25 using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of lung/liver metastases resection and serious adverse events., Results: OS time was noninferior in the Q2W cohort (n = 554) compared to the Q1W cohort (n = 763), with a HR after IPTW (95% confidence interval) of 0.827 (0.715-0.956) and median OS times of 24.7 (Q1W) and 27.9 (Q2W) months. There were no major differences in PFS (HR: 0.915 [0.804-1.042]). The odds ratios (ORs) after IPTW for ORR (1.292 [1.031-1.617]) and the rates of lung/liver metastases resection (1.419 [1.043-1.932]) favoured the Q2W regimen. No differences were noted in the occurrence rate of any SAE between groups; the OR after IPTW was 1.089 (0.858-1.382)., Conclusions: The cetuximab Q2W regimen was noninferior to the Q1W regimen for OS in the 1L treatment of mCRC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement SK discloses honoraria (self) from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Aventis, Servier, and Lilly; honoraria (institution) from Merck, Amgen, Roche, and Lilly; advisory/consultancy roles with Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Aventis, Servier, and Lilly; research grants/funding (self) from Merck and Lilly; research grants/funding (institution) from Merck and Lilly; travel/accommodation expenses from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Aventis, Servier, and Lilly. FXL and CF are full-time employees of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. RE is a full-time employee of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and holds shares of Merck KGaA. WC is a full-time employee of Merck Serono, Shanghai, China, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. TB discloses personal fees from Roche (lecture fee), personal fees from Amgen (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Bayer (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Novartis (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from PharmaMar (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Eisai (lecture fee, advisory board), and personal fees from Lilly (lecture fee, advisory board), outside the submitted work. CZ discloses consultancy and speaker's honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Imugene, ARIAD, Pfizer, Merrimack, Merck KGaA, FibroGen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier, Shire, Lilly, and Athenex. DM and VR were employees of Prometris GmbH at the time the work was performed, which provided statistical services for Merck KGaA. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Olaratumab is a humanized monoclonal antiplatelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha antibody that has been approved in combination with doxorubicin for the treatment of patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the clinical efficacy in STS patients treated with olaratumab in a real-world setting in Austria., Methods: Retrospectively collected longitudinal data from patients treated between November 2016 and September 2018 at 9 Austrian centers were obtained from the respective medical charts. All patients who received at least one dose of olaratumab were eligible. Parameters of most interest were response rates, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Altogether 55 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 58 years. In total, 65.5% (n = 36), 21.8% (n = 12) and 12.7% (n = 7) received olaratumab as first, second or ≥third line treatment, respectively. Olaratumab was administered either in combination with doxorubicin (81.8%, n = 45) or liposomal doxorubicin (16.4%, n = 9); one patient received olaratumab as upfront monotherapy. The median PFS and OS were 2.6 and 11.4 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 11.4% and the disease control rate was 40.9%., Conclusion: In this real-world analysis the outcome was less pronounced compared to the results of both the phase Ib/II approval trial and the confirmatory phase III trial. The latter failed to show an improvement in OS and PFS for the doxorubicin/olaratumab combination. As such, olaratumab should not be used anymore in patients with STS.

Background/aim: Ewing sarcoma (ES) and osteosarcomas (OSA) are the most common bone tumor types in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Therapy management of these tumors consists of preoperative chemotherapy, operation, and postoperative chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of EURAMOS-A and EURO E.W.I.N.G. protocols., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 31 patients between 18 and 39 years of age with ES and OSA treated at the Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology. Patients with ES were treated according the EURO E.W.I.N.G protocol, whereas patients with OSA according to the EURAMOS-1 protocol., Results: Most frequent tumor sites for ES were thorax and pelvis, each 33%. Eight patients had initially localized disease (67%). A median of 3 cycles of full dose chemotherapy could be administered. Nine patients had a dose reduction (75%). Most common reason for dose reduction was prolonged aplasia (67%). Overall response rate (ORR) was 33%. For OSA patients, the most frequent tumor site was the lower extremity (58%). Sixteen patients (84%) had initially localized disease. A median of only 9 cycles of EURAMOS-1 in full dose could be administered. Most common reason for dose reduction was elevated methotrexate level (53%) and ORR was 90%., Conclusion: The two studied protocols were well-tolerated in the AYA patients included in this study. Dose reductions instead of dose delays should be considered when side effects occur., (Copyright© 2021, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

: Regorafenib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in pretreated patients with advanced non-adipocytic sarcoma (HR = 0.46; p < 0.001) in a placebo-controlled, randomized, phase-II trial (NCT01900743). Thus, here, we assessed the prevalence of 57 biomarkers and their prognostic and predictive values for PFS and overall survival (OS). We analyzed 134/182 patients included in this trial, treated with regorafenib ( n = 71, 53%) or placebo ( n = 63, 47%). Mutational analyses were performed via full coding sequence analysis for 10 genes, and mutation hotspot panel for 50 genes (four genes in common). H19 was studied with RNA in-situ hybridization. The prognostic and predictive biomarkers' values were studied only for biomarkers found positive/mutated in at least 10 patients. Overall, 25 out of 57 studied biomarkers, including five out of seven genes involved in angiogenesis, were found mutated/positive in at least one patient, of which 23 biomarkers had low prevalence (fewer than eight out of 134 patients), contrasting with H19 ( n = 24, 18%), and TP53 ( n = 35, 26%). However, in multivariable models of PFS and OS, including treatment effects and interactions, no significant prognostic or predictive values of the tested biomarkers were observed. Though several promising biomarkers were found to be positive/mutated, none of them were identified as viable predictive and prognostic biomarkers., Competing Interests: N.P., T.B., and J.Y.B. received research funding from Bayer HealthCare SA. T.B. reports personal fees from Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Eisai outside the submitted work. A.L.C. declares personal fees from Novatis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Lilly and Ariad, outside the submitted work. O.M. reports personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, and BMS, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Background: Novel treatment modalities like targeted therapy and immunotherapy are currently changing treatment strategies and protocols in the field of medical oncology., Methods: Numbers of patients and patient contacts admitted to medical oncology day clinics of a large European academic cancer centre in the period from 2006 to 2018 were analysed using our patient administration system., Results: A patient cohort of 9.870 consecutive individual patients with 125.679 patient contacts was descriptively and retrospectively characterised. Mean age was 59.9 years. A substantial increase in both individual patients treated per year (+45.4%; 2006: 1.100; 2018: 1.599) and annual patient contacts (+63.3%; 2006: 8.857; 2018: 14.467) between 2006 and 2018 was detected. Hence and most interestingly, the ratio of visits per patient increased by approximately one visit per patient per year over the last 12 years (+12.4%; 2006: 8.0; 2018: 9.0). Further, a decrease of patient contacts in more prevalent entities like breast cancer was found, while contacts for orphan diseases like myeloma and sarcoma increased substantially. Interestingly, female patients showed more per patient contacts as compared with men (13.5 vs 11.9). Lastly, short-term safety data of outpatient day clinic admissions are reported., Conclusions: We present a representative and large set of patient contacts over time that indicates an increasing load in routine clinical work of outpatient cancer care. Increases observed were highest for orphan diseases, likely attributed to centralisation effects and increased treatment complexity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MM has received honoraria for lectures and consultation from Roche, Novartis, Eli-Lilly and Medmedia and travel support from Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo and Eisai. RB was an advisor for Astra-Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Puma, Roche and Samsung and received lecture honoraria from Accord, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sandoz as well as research support from Daiichi, Novartis and Roche. MP has received honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from the following for-profit companies: Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), CMC Contrast, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Roche, BMJ Journals, MedMedia, Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Lilly, Medahead, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dome, Tocagen. The following for-profit companies have supported clinical trials and contracted research conducted by MP with payments made to his institution: Böhringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novocure, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie. ASB has research support from Daiichi Sankyo (≤ €10 000), Roche (> €10 000) and honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from Roche Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo (all <€5000) as well as travel support from Roche, Amgen and AbbVie. TB reports personal fees from Bayer (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from PharmaMar (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Eli-Lilly (lecture fee, advisory board) outside the submitted work. SZ-M received honoraria for advisory boards and/or lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Takeda and Pfizer. Research support to her was granted by Merck Sharp & Dohme. TF hast received honoraria from MSD, Merck Darmstadt, Roche, BMS, Accord, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and was and advisor or consultant for MSD; Merck Darmstadt, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim. He has further received travel expenses, including accommodations, from Roche, MS and BMS as well as research grants or funding from MSD, Merck Darmstadt. AI-M announces following COIs: Participation at advisory boards of MSD, Servier and BMS, lecture honoraria from Eli Lilly and Servier and travel support from Roche and BMS. She has also served as local PI for clinical trials sponsored by BMS and Astellas. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Round cell sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of mesenchymal neoplasms with overlapping morphology and immunohistochemical profile. Ewing sarcoma is the most well-known tumour in this group characterised by EWSR1/FUS rearrangements with members of the ETS family of transcription factors. Undifferentiated round cell sarcomas lacking these rearrangements, known as 'Ewing-like' sarcomas, usually show atypical clinical presentation and focal CD99 positivity. This group of tumours can be subdivided into: capicua transcriptional repressor (CIC)-rearranged sarcomas, Bcl6 corepressor (BCOR)-rearranged sarcomas, sarcomas with EWSR1 fusion to non-ETS family members and unclassified round cell sarcomas. We describe seven new cases of CIC-DUX4 rearranged sarcomas with their clinicopathological features, two of which presented in unusual locations (skin and lymph node). Patient age ranged between 23 and 54 years, three of whom were female. In five cases, aggressive behaviour was observed with rapid disease progression and lethal outcome within 15 months. One patient achieved a complete response after chemotherapy. The last patient whose tumour was located purely in the dermis demonstrated no residual tumour in the re-resection specimen, was not given any further treatment and showed no sign of disease after 24 months. Immunohistochemically, tumour cells in all cases showed focal membranous CD99 positivity, while WT1 N-/C-terminus were positive in all 5/5 cases (nuclear and/or cytoplasmic). NGS analysis revealed a CIC-DUX4 fusion in all cases. This study expands the spectrum of anatomical locations of CIC-DUX4 rearranged sarcomas, highlighting the inclusion of this rare entity in the differential diagnosis of undifferentiated tumours in various anatomical locations outside of soft tissues., (Copyright © 2019 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) management remains an unmet medical need. We assessed the activity and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic STS who were previously treated with both chemotherapy and pazopanib., Patients and Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter comparative randomized phase II trial included patients with histologically proven advanced and inoperable STS. Patients receiving placebo were offered optional cross-over for centrally confirmed disease progression. Primary end-point was centrally reviewed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-based progression-free survival (PFS), analysed on the intent-to-treat data set. In total, 24 events were required for 90% power, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.33 (median PFS, 3.6 versus 1.2 months), and 1-sided α = 0.1 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01900743)., Results: From December 2015 to October 2017, 37 patients were randomized; 18 to regorafenib and 19 to placebo. Thirteen patients assigned to placebo switched to regorafenib after progression. Median follow-up was 27.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.4-not reached). We observed a significant PFS benefit of regorafenib compared with placebo (adjusted HR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15-0.74; p = 0.0007 median PFS = 2.1 versus 1.1 months, respectively), and a large and nearly significant overall survival (OS) benefit despite the cross-over (adjusted HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.23-1.06; p = 0.007; median OS = 17.8 versus 8.2 months). Before cross-over, the most common grade III or higher adverse events were lymphopenia (5 versus 1, respectively), diarrhoea (4 versus 0), dyspnoea (3 versus 1), skin toxicity (3 versus 0), arterial hypertension (2 versus 0), and increased transaminases (2 versus 0)., Conclusion: The present study demonstrated a meaningful clinical anti-tumour activity with regorafenib in heavily pre-treated patients with non-adipocytic STS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement N.P. and J.Y.B. received research funding from Bayer HealthCare SA. A.L.C. declares personal fees from Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Lilly and Ariad, outside the submitted work. O.M. reports personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca and BMS, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Osteosarcoma of the jaw (OSAJ) is fundamentally different in clinical practice from its peripheral counterparts. Studies are difficult to conduct due to low incidence rates. The primary aim of this study was to provide for the first time a comprehensive retrospective analysis of the treatment concepts and outcome data of OSAJ patients treated at the University Hospital Vienna and to compare these with two recently published studies on OSAJ. The clinical study was accompanied by a biomarker study investigating the prognostic relevance of melanoma-associated antigen-A (MAGE-A) in OSAJ specimens., Method: Eighteen patients were included, and their outcomes were compared to published data. Immunohistochemistry was performed with mouse monoclonal antibodies against MAGE-A. Survival rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meyer method. The log-rank test was used to analyze potential prognostic parameters. Fisher's exact test was performed to define the significant differences between the survival rates of the current study and the DOESAK registry., Results: Disease-specific survival was 93.8% after five and 56.3% after ten years. The development of metastases (p=0.033) or relapse (p=0.037) was associated with worsened outcomes in our group as well as in the comparative group. Despite the different treatment concepts of the study groups, survival rates were comparable. MAGE-A failed to show prognostic relevance for OSAJ patients., Conclusions: Uncertainties about the optimal treatment strategies of OSAJ patients will currently remain. Thus, prospective studies of OSAJ are needed but are only feasible in a multicenter study setting, conducted over a prolonged time period.

Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma is a rare primary bone malignancy with a very poor prognosis. The aim of the study was to identify pretreatment serum markers as prognostic factors for the overall survival (OS) of patients with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. We retrospectively reviewed 33 patients with histologically confirmed dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma treated at our department from 1977 to 2015. Kaplan-Meier estimation, uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazard model were performed to evaluate the association between serum markers such as the C-reactive protein and OS. In univariable analysis, CRP was strongly associated with OS (HR 1.35; 95%CI 1.13-1.61; p = 0.001). This association prevailed after adjustment for AJCC tumor stage (HR 1.31; 95%CI 1.02-1.57; p = 0.031) in multivariable analysis. In conclusion, our data gave evidence that baseline CRP is an independent predictor for OS in patients with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. CRP could be exploited for the clinical prediction of this disease in the future. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res 36:2797-2801, 2018., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society.)

Introduction: The placebo-controlled phase-2 REGOSARC trial demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib in patients with leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma and other non-adipocytic sarcoma but not in liposarcoma. Patients initially allocated to placebo were allowed to receive regorafenib after progression. We report here an updated analysis of the trial including evaluation of regorafenib activity after cross-over., Methods: From June 2013 to December 2014, 139 patients were enrolled in the non-adipocytic sarcoma cohorts. Median follow-up is now 32.4 months. Benefit of regorafenib versus placebo in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from randomisation was estimated by hazard ratio (HR) in Cox models. In the placebo arm, intra-patient benefit of regorafenib after cross-over was evaluated by the growth modulation index (GMI) (GMI was here, for each patient, PFS after cross-over regorafenib divided by PFS with placebo). Furthermore, the activity of delayed (after cross-over) versus early (at study entry) regorafenib was evaluated by comparing PFS after cross-over to regorafenib to PFS after randomisation in the regorafenib arm., Results: PFS benefit of regorafenib as compared to placebo was confirmed with longer follow-up (HR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35-0.71; p < .0001). OS was not statistically significant different (HR = 0.78; 0.54-1.12; p = .18). This finding may partially be explained by the fact that 55/68 patients who progressed on placebo (81%) received cross-over Regorafenib after progression: 59% of them had a GMI ≥ 1.3 (95% CI, 45-71%). Delayed start of regorafenib was associated with a statistically non-significant shorter PFS as compared to early treatment (HR = 1.21; 0.84-1.73; p = .30) without impact on OS., Conclusions: Observed PFS confirms that regorafenib warrants further clinical investigation in refractory non-adipocytic sarcomas., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Different methods have been proposed to analyze adverse events (AEs) associated with targeted therapies. While these AEs lead to dose adjustments for many patients, conventional reporting methods do not take drug administration into consideration. This paper underlines the importance of jointly reporting AEs and drug administration using prevalence, and proposes a complementary approach to reporting., Patients and Methods: The prevalence method estimates the probability of progression-free patients being in a particular health state (state 1: AEs with full dose; state 2: AEs with reduced dose; state 3: no AEs with reduced dose) at different time points. To take into account the impact of dose adjustments on efficacy, the weighted prevalence method can be used by assigning utility weights to the different health states. The benefit of these methods was illustrated using data from a phase II trial of regorafenib., Results: Only 4.6% of progression-free patients developed mucositis/stomatitis (grade ≥2) at 3 months. The prevalence of patients not experiencing this AE but whose dose was reduced or treatment interrupted was 58.1%. The weighted prevalence of the regorafenib toxicity profile and dose reduction was higher in the control arm., Conclusion: This case study confirms the importance of jointly analyzing AEs and drug administration. The weighted prevalence approach is an average score that incorporates the dimension of drug administration into AE assessment. This can be helpful for regulatory agencies as well as for clinicians to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of therapies in their treatment choice., Clinical Trial: NCT01900743.

Aims: Epithelioid sarcoma is a soft tissue sarcoma associated with a high rate of local recurrence after wide resection and high incidence of distant metastasis. Little is known about the clinical course and response to systemic treatments in epithelioid sarcoma patients. We carried out a retrospective analysis of clinical data from epithelioid sarcoma patients to provide a reference for the design of future epithelioid sarcoma-specific studies., Patients and Methods: Data from patients with epithelioid sarcoma entered in prospective multi-sarcoma phase II/III trials were pooled: EORTC trial 62012 (doxorubicin versus doxorubicin/ifosfamide), 62043 (pazopanib), 62072 (pazopanib versus placebo) and 62091 (doxorubicin versus trabectedin). Patients had either a local or a centrally confirmed diagnosis of epithelioid sarcoma, had inoperable/metastatic disease at study entry and were eligible for the according trial. Response was assessed according to RECIST 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were calculated from date of entry., Results: Among 976 patients with advanced sarcomas, 27 epithelioid sarcoma patients (2.8%) were eligible for the analysis (17 men, median age at diagnosis 50 years, range 19-72). Eighteen (66.7%) received chemotherapy as first-line treatment (five doxorubicin, eight doxorubicin/ifosfamide, two pazopanib, three trabectedin) and nine (33.3%) received pazopanib as second line or later. The primary tumour was located in the lower extremity (n = 8; 29.6%), upper extremity (n = 5; 18.5%), retro/intra-abdominal (n = 4; 14.8%) and in other locations (n = 10; 37.0%). At entry, metastases were mainly found in lung (n = 17; 63%), lymph nodes (n = 9; 33.3%), bone (n = 8; 29.6%) and soft tissue (n = 7; 25.9%). The best response for first-line patients was four partial responses (22.2%), 10 stable disease (55.6%) and four progressive disease (22.2%). In subsequent lines, pazopanib achieved one partial response (11.1%), four stable disease (44.4%) and four progressive disease (44.4%). All patients but one progressed on treatment. The median PFS and overall survival were 3.8 (95% confidence interval 2.2-4.8) and 10.8 months (95% confidence interval 8.1-21.3), respectively. Five patients were still alive at the time of the according trial analysis., Conclusion: With all limitations of such a rare disease and small data set, objective response and survival outcomes are similar in epithelioid sarcoma to non-selected sarcoma populations. The clinical testing of novel systemic treatments for epithelioid sarcoma remains an unmet medical need and a high priority., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Recent evidence suggests that common prognostic factors predicting disease progression and survival in soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are not applicable to all STS entities, indicating the need for histotype specific evaluation of new prognosticators. This study aimed at evaluating preoperative serum creatinine, albumin, and the albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) as markers for survival in patients with malignant fibroblastic and myofibroblastic sarcomas. One hundred and thirty-two patients who underwent sarcoma resection have been included. Statistical analysis comprised uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, competing risk analysis and Kaplan-Meier estimates. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was estimated at 64.1% (95%CI: 53.7-72.8) and the 5-year sarcoma-specific mortality was 19.9% (95%CI: 12.8-28.1). Elevated serum creatinine levels were significantly associated with an impaired sarcoma-specific survival (SSS) adjusted for tumor stage (subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) per 1 mg/dl increase: 3.27; 95%CI: 1.87-5.73; p < 0.0001). Low serum albumin levels were associated with a shorter recurrence-free survival (RFS) experience (HR per 10 g/L increase: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.41-0.94; p = 0.024). The ACR emerged as an AJCC-stage-independent prognosticator of SSS (SHR per 1 unit increase: 0.94; 95%CI: 0.90-0.98; p = 0.003). In conclusion, serum albumin and creatinine have been confirmed as predictive biomarkers for disease-specific outcomes in myofibroblastic and fibroblastic sarcomas. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:2815-2824, 2017., (© 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced solid tumors, and many individuals experience debilitating skeletal-related events (SREs; e.g. pathologic fracture, hypercalcemia, radiotherapy or surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression). These events substantially affect disease outcomes, including survival and quality of life, and healthcare systems. Plain radiography is the most widely used imaging modality for the detection of bone metastases; skeletal scintigraphy, computed tomography, positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging offer greater sensitivity but their use in routine practice is restricted by high costs and limited availability. Biomarkers of bone turnover may also have a role in the early detection of bone metastases and can provide valuable prognostic information on disease progression. SREs can be delayed or prevented using agents such as the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL) inhibitor, denosumab, and bisphosphonates. Painful bone metastases can be treated with radiofrequency ablation, radiotherapy, or radionuclides such as radium-223 dichloride, which has been shown to delay the onset of SREs in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Close monitoring of bone health in patients with advanced cancer may lead to early identification of individuals with bone metastases who could benefit from early intervention to prevent SREs. This review examines current guideline recommendations for assessing and monitoring bone health in patients with advanced cancer, use of biomarkers and treatment of patients with bone metastases. The emerging evidence for the potential survival benefit conferred by early intervention with denosumab and bisphosphonates is also discussed, together with best practice recommendations., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Fibrinogen has an important pathophysiological role in tumor cell progression and development of metastases in different types of cancer. The present study aimed to evaluate the role of pre-treatment fibrinogen plasma concentrations as a biomarker for tumor biology and prognosis in patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma (ULMS). Clinical data of patients with ULMS were assessed in this multi-center study Pre-therapeutic fibrinogen plasma concentrations were evaluated. We investigated the association between fibrinogen plasma levels and clinico-pathological parameters and performed univariate and multivariable survival analyses. In total, 70 women with ULMS were included into the analysis. Mean (SD) pre-treatment fibrinogen plasma levels were 480.2 (172.3) mg/dL. Patients with advanced tumor stage, increased tumor size and higher histological grading had higher fibrinogen levels (p = 0.02, p = 0.013, and p = 0.029, respectively). In ULMS patients with increased fibrinogen levels 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 25.0% compared to 52.9% in ULMS patients with normal fibrinogen, respectively. Univariate survival analyses revealed that elevated fibrinogen plasma levels (p = 0.030), advanced tumor stage (p < 0.001) and undifferentiated histology (p = 0.003) showed association with unfavorable OS. In multivariable analysis, histological grade (p = 0.03) and tumor stage (0.02) were independently associated with survival. Elevated fibrinogen plasma levels were associated with aggressive tumor biology and poor prognosis in women with ULMS. Fibrinogen might be useful as a novel biomarker in ULMS.

This prospective, noninterventional study is the first phase IV trial designed to evaluate trabectedin in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma in real-life clinical practice across Europe. To be included in the study, patients must have received more than or equal to one cycle of trabectedin and be currently on treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as defined by investigators. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate, disease control rate, time to progression and the growth modulation index (GMI), overall survival, and an assessment of the cancer-related symptoms and safety. A total of 218 patients from 41 European centers were evaluated. Patients received a median of six cycles per patient, mostly on an outpatient basis (n=132; 60.6%). The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months, with 70 and 49% of patients free from progression at 3 and 6 months after treatment, respectively. Three (1.4%) patients achieved a complete response and 55 (25.2%) patients achieved a partial response for an objective response rate of 26.6%. A total of 85 (39.0%) patients had disease stabilization for a disease control rate of 65.6%. The median GMI was 0.8, with 5.1 and 38.8% of patients with a GMI of greater than 1.1 to less than 1.33 and greater than or equal to 1.33, respectively. The median overall survival was 21.3 months. Febrile neutropenia (2.3% of patients), neutropenia, nausea, and pneumonia (1.4% each) were the most common trabectedin-related grade 3/4 serious adverse drug reactions. Trabectedin confers clinically meaningful long-term benefits to patients with multiple soft tissue sarcoma histotypes, being either comparable or better than those observed previously in clinical trials, and with a manageable safety profile.

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a new tool to quantify the clinical benefit that may be anticipated from a novel anticancer treatment. We present here an analysis on the feasibility of the ESMO-MCBS in less frequent tumour entities., Methods: This study evaluates the practicability of the ESMO-MCBS for metastatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs), soft tissue sarcomas, glioblastoma, thyroid cancer, pancreatic cancer, head/neck cancer, urothelial cancer and ovarian cancer at the Medical University Vienna. A three-step approach including data acquisition, assessment of ESMO-MCBS scores and evaluation of results with a focus on clinical feasibility was applied., Results: In NET and thyroid cancer, all analysed trials were very comparable in design and efficacy, and the ESMO-MCBS scores appeared to be consistent with the clinical benefit seen in practice. For pancreatic cancer, it was more difficult to compare first-line trials due to diverging populations included in the respective studies. Concerning soft tissue sarcomas, the ESMO-MCBS was applicable for gastrointestinal stromal tumours(GIST) and 'non-GIST' soft tissue sarcoma with respect to data deriving from randomised studies. However, due to the heterogeneity of the disease itself and a limited number of controlled trials, limitations are noted. In ovarian cancer, the ESMO-MCBS supported the use of bevacizumab in high-risk patients. To date, there are only limited data for glioblastoma, head/neck cancer and urothelial cancer but whenever randomised trials were available, the ESMO-MCBS rating supported clinical decisions. Interestingly, nivolumab for salvage treatment of head/neck cancer rated extremely high., Conclusion: The ESMO-MCBS scores supported our common treatment strategies and highlight the potential of new immunomodulatory drugs. Our results encourage further development of the ESMO-MCBS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GWP has received honoraria for lectures by Merck Serono, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, Lilly, Celgene, Roche and Sanofi Aventis; TF has received honoraria or research grants from MSD, Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Sandoz and Astra Zeneca; MP has received research support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dome and Roche and honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), CMC Contrast, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Roche and Astra Zeneca; GJL has received research support from Pierre Fabre and honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche; TB has received personal fees from Amgen (lecture fee and advisory board), personal fees from Bayer (lecture fee and advisory board), personal fees from Eisai (lecture fee and advisory board), personal fees from Eli Lilly (lecture fee and advisory board), personal fees from Novartis (lecture fee and advisory board), personal fees from PharmaMar (lecture fee) and personal fees from Roche (lecture fee) outside the submitted work. CCZ has received honoraria by Bristol Myers-Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Ariad and Imugene. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Background: In a placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01900743), regorafenib improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with doxorubicin-pretreated advanced nonadipocytic sarcoma. A quality-adjusted time without symptoms of progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST) post hoc exploratory analysis was applied to provide an integrated measure of its clinical benefit., Methods: In the base-case analysis, each patient's overall survival (OS) was partitioned into 3 mutually exclusive health states: the time with a grade 3 or 4 adverse event (TOX), the time without symptoms of disease or grade 3 or 4 toxicity from treatment, and the time after tumor progression or relapse. The time spent in each state was weighted with a health-state utility associated with that state and was summed to calculate the Q-TWiST. The stability of the base-case analysis was explored with several sensitivity analyses., Results: In nonadipocytic sarcoma, the PFS was (4.0 months [2.6-5.5 months] with regorafenib vs 1.0 month [0.9-1.8 months] with a placebo; hazard ratio, 0.36 [0.25-0.53]; P < .0001); the OS was 13.4 months (8.6-17.3 months) with regorafenib and 9.0 months (6.8-12.5 months) with a placebo (hazard ratio, 0.67 [0.44-1.02]). With the classic definition of TOX (including all grade 3 and 4 clinical adverse events), the Q-TWiSTs were 8.0 months (7.0-9.0 months) with regorafenib and 5.7 months (4.9-6.4 months) with a placebo (P < .001)., Conclusions: For patients with doxorubicin-pretreated soft-tissue sarcoma, regorafenib significantly improved quality-adjusted survival in comparison with a placebo. Cancer 2017;123:2294-2302. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor with proven activity in refractory gastrointestinal stromal tumours and chemotherapy-refractory advanced colorectal cancers. We assessed this agent's efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas previously treated with anthracycline., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial undertaken in France and Austria, we enrolled patients aged 18 years and older with advanced soft tissue sarcomas who had received previous doxorubicin or other anthracycline treatment. These patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into one of the following four cohorts: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and other sarcomas. Participants were treated with oral regorafenib (160 mg per day 3 weeks on and 1 week off) or matched placebo. Patients receiving placebo were offered optional crossover in case of centrally confirmed disease progression. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated with permuted blocks of four patients, with two stratification factors: country (France or Austria) and previous exposure to pazopanib (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included patients with histologically proven advanced and inoperable soft tissue sarcomas with intolerance or failure to doxorubicin or other anthracycline-based chemotherapy and at least one unidimensionally or bidimensionally measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1). The primary endpoint was RECIST-based progression-free survival after central radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. Patients, physicians, and radiologists of the panel were masked to treatment allocation. This study is still open for recruitment for an additional stratum (patients previously treated with pazopanib) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01900743., Findings: From Aug 5, 2013, to Nov 26, 2014, 182 patients were randomly assigned to one of four cohorts and included in the final analysis. At the cutoff date (Jan 7, 2016), the number of required events was reached for the four cohorts. In the liposarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 1·1 months (95% CI 0·9-2·3) with regorafenib versus 1·7 months (0·9-1·8) with placebo (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·48-1·64] p=0·70). In the leiomyosarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 3·7 months (95% CI 2·5-5·0) with regorafenib versus 1·8 (1·0-2·8) months with placebo (HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·46-0·80] p=0·0045). In the synovial sarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 1·4-11·6) with regorafenib versus 1·0 (0·8-1·4) with placebo (HR 0·10 [95% CI 0·03-0·35] p<0·0001). In the other sarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 1·0-7·8) with regorafenib versus 1·0 (0·9-1·9) with placebo (HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·25-0·81] p=0·0061). Before crossover, the most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher adverse events were arterial hypertension (17 [19%] events in the 89 patients in the regorafenib group vs two [2%] events in the 92 patients in the placebo group), hand and foot skin reaction (14 [15%] vs no events) and asthenia (12 [13%] vs six [6%]). One treatment-related death occurred in the regorafenib group due to liver failure., Interpretation: Regorafenib has an important clinical antitumour effect in non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcomas, improving progression-free survival. Regorafenib should be further evaluated in this setting, and its therapeutic role has to be defined in the context of the growing therapeutic armamentarium, already including one approved multikinase inhibitor, pazopanib., Funding: Bayer HealthCare., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) is an established marker for proliferative/apoptotic balance and has been associated with cancer risk and prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of pre-treatment GGT serum levels as prognostic biomarker in patients with primary uterine leiomyosarcoma (ULMS). Data of women with ULMS were extracted from a multi-center database. Pre-treatment GGT serum levels were measured and patients assigned to predefined GGT risk groups. GGT values were correlated with clinico-pathological parameters and univariate and multivariable survival analyses were performed. A total of 44 patients with ULMS were analyzed. Mean (SD) pre-therapeutic GGT serum level was 33.8 (39.8) U/L. In Figo Stage I versus II-IV mean (SD) GGT values were 28.8 (34.0) U/l and 43.5 (49.2) U/l, respectively (p = 0.25). Five-year overall survival (OS) rates in ULMS patients with normal low versus higher GGT levels were 70% and 37%, respectively (p = 0.043). Univariate and multivariable analyses revealed that higher GGT serum levels (p = 0.043, p = 0.005) and high histological grade (p = 0.029, p = 0.012) were independently associated with impaired OS, respectively. Higher pre-treatment GGT serum levels were independently associated with unfavorable prognosis in women with ULMS. Thus, GGT seems to be a useful novel biomarker in ULMS.

Background: The randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial compared two approved bevacizumab-containing regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and quality of life. The interim analysis did not confirm non-inferior overall survival (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 1·04; 97·5% repeated CI [RCI] -∞ to 1·69). Here we report final results of our study aiming to show non-inferior overall survival with first-line bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer., Methods: In this multinational, open-label, randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and measurable or non-measurable HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of size six to either bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) or bevacizumab plus capecitabine (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Stratification factors were oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, country, and menopausal status. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in the per-protocol population by rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (HR ≥1·33) using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340., Findings: Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, 564 patients were randomised, representing the intent-to-treat population. The per-protocol population comprised 531 patients (266 in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group and 265 in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group). At the final overall survival analysis after 183 deaths (69%) in 266 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 201 (76%) in 265 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine in the per-protocol population, median overall survival was 30·2 months (95% CI 25·6-32·6 months) versus 26·1 months (22·3-29·0), respectively. The stratified HR was 1·02 (97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·26; repeated p=0·0070), indicating non-inferiority. The unstratified Cox model (HR 1·13 [97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·39]; repeated p=0·061) did not support the primary analysis. Intent-to-treat analyses were consistent with the per-protocol results. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (54 [19%] of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group vs 5 [2%] of 277 patients in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group), hand-foot syndrome (1 [<1%] vs 43 [16%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%] vs 1 [<1%]), leucopenia (20 [7%] vs 1 [<1%]), and hypertension (12 [4%] vs 16 [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (23%) of 284 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 68 (25%) of 277 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Deaths in two (1%) of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group were deemed by the investigator to be treatment-related. No treatment-related deaths occurred in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group., Interpretation: Bevacizumab plus capecitabine represents a valid first-line treatment option for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, offering good tolerability without compromising overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Although progression-free survival with the bevacizumab plus capecitabine combination is inferior to that noted with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel, we suggest that physicians should consider possible predictive risk factors for overall survival, individual's treatment priorities, and the differing safety profiles., Funding: Roche., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Low serum albumin levels and impaired kidney function have been associated with decreased survival in patients with a variety of cancer types. In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 84 patients with liposarcoma treated at from May 1994 to October 2011. Uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models and competing risk analyses were performed to evaluate the association between putative biomarkers with disease-specific and overall survival. The median age of the study population was 51.7 (range 19.6-83.8) years. In multivariable analysis adjusted for AJCC tumor stage, serum creatinine was highly associated with disease-specific survival (Subdistribution Hazard ratio (SHR) per 1 mg/dl increase = 2.94; 95%CI 1.39-6.23; p = 0.005). High albumin was associated with improved overall and disease-specific survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) per 10 units increase = 0.50; 95%CI 0.26-0.95; p = 0.033 and SHR = 0.64; 95%CI 0.42-1.00; p = 0.049). The serum albumin-creatinine-ratio emerged to be associated with both overall and disease-specific survival after adjusting for AJCC tumor stage (HR = 0.95; 95%CI 0.92-0.99; p = 0.011 and SHR = 0.96; 95%CI 0.93-0.99; p = 0.08). Our study provides evidence for a tumor-stage-independent association between higher creatinine and lower albumin with worse disease-specific survival. Low albumin and a high albumin-creatinine-ratio independently predict poor overall survival. Our work identified novel prognostic biomarkers for prognosis of patients with liposarcoma., (© 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Vinorelbine constitutes effective chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and acts synergistically with trastuzumab in HER-2/neu positive disease. The present study was set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vinorelbine when combined with lapatinib, an anti-HER2 tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, as late-line regimen administered beyond previous disease progression on prior lapatinib in patients with HER-2/neu- positive MBC., Methods: The CECOG LaVie study was designed as open-labeled, single-arm, multicenter phase II trial. Patients had to be pretreated with lapatinib plus chemotherapy, and received lapatinib at a daily dose of 1250 mg in combination with vinorelbine 20 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 of a three-week cycle until disease progression, intolerable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as primary study endpoint; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rate according to RECIST 1.1, and safety. The study was terminated early due to poor accrual., Results: A total number of nine patients were included; lapatinib administered beyond disease progression combined with vinorelbine resulted in a median PFS of 7.7 months (95% CI 0.56-14.91) and a median OS of 23.4 months (95% CI 16.61-30.13), respectively. Partial remission was seen in one of nine patients, three patients had stable disease of > six months, whereas the remaining five patients had primary disease progression. In two patients, modification of vinorelbine dose due to toxicity became necessary; no dose modification was needed for lapatinib. The majority of reported adverse events (AE) were grade 1 and 2 in severity with diarrhea being the most commonly observed AE CONCLUSION: In this heavily pretreated patient population, combination of vinorelbine plus lapatinib showed encouraging activity and was characterized by an acceptable safety profile. Despite the low patient number, lapatinib plus vinorelbine may constitute a potential treatment option in heavily pretreated patients with HER-2/neu-positive MBC previously exposed to lapatinib., Trial Registration: EudraCT number 2009-016826-15, (15. 10.2009).

Background: Correlations between development of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and efficacy in patients receiving capecitabine (CAP)-containing therapy are reported in the literature. We explored the relationship between HFS and efficacy in patients receiving CAP plus bevacizumab (BEV) in the TURANDOT randomised phase III trial., Methods: Patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC) who had received no prior chemotherapy for LR/mBC were randomised to BEV plus paclitaxel or BEV-CAP until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. This analysis included patients randomised to BEV-CAP who received ⩾1 CAP dose. Potential associations between HFS and both overall survival (OS; primary end point) and progression-free survival (PFS; secondary end point) were explored using Cox proportional hazards analyses with HFS as a time-dependent covariate (to avoid overestimating the effect of HFS on efficacy). Landmark analyses were also performed., Results: Among 277 patients treated with BEV-CAP, 154 (56%) developed HFS. In multivariate analyses, risk of progression or death was reduced by 44% after the occurrence of HFS; risk of death was reduced by 56%. The magnitude of effect on OS increased with increasing HFS grade. In patients developing HFS within the first 3 months, median PFS from the 3-month landmark was 10.0 months vs 6.2 months in patients without HFS. Two-year OS rates were 63% and 44%, respectively., Conclusions: This exploratory analysis indicates that HFS occurrence is a strong predictor of prolonged PFS and OS in patients receiving BEV-CAP for LR/mBC. Early appearance of HFS may help motivate patients to continue therapy., Competing Interests: CZ has received honoraria from and acted as a consultant for Roche; SB has received honoraria from and acted as a consultant for Roche, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Novartis; ZK has acted as a consultant for Roche; DV has received honoraria from Roche and Novartis and has acted as a consultant for Roche and Sanofi Aventis; DM is an employee of a contract research organisation that provides services to F. Hoffmann-La Roche; and TB has received honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, GSK, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, PharmaMar, PrimeOncology, and Roche, and has acted as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, and PharmaMar. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Objective: C-reactive protein (CRP) has previously been shown to serve as a prognostic parameter in women with gynecologic malignancies. Due to the lack of valid prognostic markers for uterine leiomyosarcoma (ULMS) this study set out to investigate the value of pre-treatment CRP serum levels as prognostic parameter., Methods: Data of women with ULMS were extracted from databases of three Austrian centres for gynaecologic oncology. Pre-treatment CRP serum levels were measured and correlated with clinico-pathological parameters. Univariate and multivariable survival analyses were performed., Results: In total, 53 patients with ULMS were included into the analysis. Mean (SD) CRP serum level was 3.46 mg/dL (3.96). Solely, an association between pre-treatment CRP serum levels and tumor size (p = 0.04) but no other clinic-pathologic parameter such as tumor stage (p = 0.16), or histological grade (p = 0.07), was observed. Univariate and multivariable survival analyses revealed that CRP serum levels (HR 2.7 [1.1-7.2], p = 0.037) and tumor stage (HR 6.1 [1.9-19.5], p = 0.002) were the only independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with ULMS. Patients with high pre-treatment CRP serum levels showed impaired OS compared to women with low levels (5-year-OS rates: 22.6% and 52.3%, p = 0.007)., Conclusion: High pre-treatment CRP serum levels were independently associated with impaired prognosis in women with ULMS and might serve as a prognostic parameter in these patients.

Background: This updated analysis of the CECOG/CORE 1.2.002 study investigated the association between clinical outcome and RAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab., Patients and Methods: Available DNA samples from CECOG/CORE 1.2.002 study patients with KRAS exon 2 wild type (wt) (at codons 12 and 13) tumors were screened for mutations at other loci in the KRAS and NRAS (RAS) coding regions by Sanger sequencing, and for BRAF codon 600 mutations by Sanger sequencing and pyrosequencing. Clinical outcome was compared among different mutation subgroups., Results: Of 152 KRAS wt mCRC patients, 148 were evaluable for RAS and BRAF mutation status. Eleven RAS mutations were detected in 10 patients' tumors (7%). BRAF mutations were detected in 14 patients' tumors (9%). RAS and BRAF tumor mutations were mutually exclusive. Compared with patients with RAS wt/BRAF wt tumors (n = 124; median overall survival, 28.5 months), those with RAS mutations (n = 10; median, 16.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.89; P = .020) or BRAF mutations (n = 14; median, 11.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.41; P < .0001) had worse overall survival, which remained significant (P < .04) when adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics among the mutation subgroups., Conclusion: These findings support those from recent studies that RAS and BRAF mutations are associated with poor outcome in patients receiving an epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted monoclonal antibody in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, mutation testing should not only include RAS codons 12 and 13 but should also be extended to the entire coding regions., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Data on prognostic biomarkers in soft tissue sarcomas are scarce. The aim of the study was to define prognostic markers in patients with a liposarcoma, a subtype of sarcoma derived from adipose tissue. We restrospectively reviewed 85 patients with liposarcoma treated at our department from May 1994 to October 2011. Kaplan-Meier curves, uni-, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models and competing risk analysis were performed to evaluate the association between putative biomarkers with disease-specific and overall survival. We observed a significant association between both alkalic phosphatase (ALP; subhazard ratio [SHR] per 1 unit increase: 1.35; 95%CI 1.10-1.65; p = 0.005) and C-reactive protein (CRP; SHR per 1 mg/dl increase: 2,57; 95%CI 1.36-4,86; p = 0.004) with disease-specific survival. Hemoglobin (Hb) (HR per 1 g/dl increase: 065; 95%CI 0.48-0.87; p = 0.003) was associated with overall survival. These associations prevailed after multivariable adjustment for AJCC tumor stage. This study identifies CRP and ALP as novel independent predictors of disease-specific survival in patients with liposarcoma., (© 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Angiogenesis, among other signaling pathways, plays a key-role in sarcoma biology. Regorafenib (RE) has recently been shown to be effective in imatinib and sunitinib-refractory GIST in a phase III trial., Methods/design: We are conducting an international trial (France, Austria and Germany) consisting in 4 parallel double-blind placebo-controlled randomized (1/1) phase II trials to assess the activity and safety of RE in doxorubicin-refractory STS (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01900743). Each phase II trial is dedicated to one of the 4 following histological subgroups: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma and other sarcoma. Within each randomized trial the following stratification factors will be applied: countries and prior exposure to pazopanib. Key-eligibility criteria are: measurable disease, age ≥18, not > 3 previous systemic treatment lines for metastatic disease, metastatic disease not amenable to surgical resection. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) according to central radiological review. Secondary endpoints are: Toxicity (NCI-CTC AE V4.0); time to progression; Growth modulation index in pts receiving RE after randomization; 3 and 6 months PFS-Rates, best response rate and overall survival. Each phase II trial will be separately analyzed. In 3 trials, statistical assumptions are: PFS0 = 1.6 & PFS1 = 4.6 months; 1-sided α = 0.1; β = 0.05 with a total sample size of 192 pts. To take into account the rarity of synovial sarcoma, the statistical assumptions are: PFS0 = 1.6 & PFS1 = 4.6 months; 1-sided α = 0.1; β = 0.2 Tumor assessment is done monthly during the 4 first months, and every 3 months thereafter. After central radiological confirmation of tumor progression, an optional open-label option is offered to eligible patients., Discussion: The design of this trial allows an assessment of regorafenib activity over placebo in four sarcoma strata and might provide evidence for launching a phase III trial. This study includes both integrative and exploratory translational research program. The study is enrolling since June 2013 (TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT N°: 2012-005743-24, on the 15(th) February 2012).

Giant cell tumor of bone is typically composed of neoplastic stromal cells and non-neoplastic osteoclastic giant cells. RANK-expressing osteoclastic giant cells are recruited by RANK ligand excreted by the stromal cells, and used by these neoplastic cells to create expansion space. Denosumab specifically binds to and inhibits RANK ligand, thereby eradicating osteoclastic giant cells from the tumor and thus reducing osteolytic activity. Clinical studies reported disease stabilization and clinical benefit in terms of reduced pain and analgesics use, avoided surgeries or surgeries with less morbid procedures. Adverse events observed in patients with giant cell tumor of bone were consistent with the known safety profile of denosumab with a very low incidence of hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis. Overall, denosumab was shown to suppress osteolytic activity and slow disease progression and is thus a treatment option for patients with giant cell tumor of bone.