Search

Background: We retrospectively investigated the role of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma. Methods: We selected all patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma, who had received radical surgery between January 2005 and December 2019 at 33 European sarcoma reference centers. The primary objective was to compare the outcome of patients who received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not, in terms of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). To reduce the risk of confounding due to imbalance, a propensity-score matching(PSM) was performed. Finally, subgroups analysis was performed according to tumor site, tumor size (< 50 mm or ≥ 50 mm) and patients predicted 10-years OS according to the nomogram sarculator (two different cutoff-values were applied: ≤ 33% or > 33% and < 60% or ≥ 60%). Results: 362 patients were analyzed: 149 (41.2%; treated group) received (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy and 213 (58.6%; control group) did not. The median follow-up for the OS endpoint was 5.1 years (95% CI: 4.0–5.5). The OS-HR was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.40–0.83; p-value = 0.003) in the univariate analysis and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.38–1.43; p = 0.367) in the PSM analysis. The DFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57–0.98; p-value = 0.036) in the univariate analysis, and 0.91 (95% CI:0.56–1.48; p-value = 0.7) in the PSM analysis. The DMFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.55–1.02; p-value = 0.065) in univariate analysis and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.53–1.61; p-value = 0.769) in the PSM analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed no heterogeneity of results in strata of tumor site. On the contrary, there was a trend for heterogeneity according to tumor size and patient's risk of death. For all the endpoints analyzed, patients with tumors smaller than 50 mm or at lower risk of death seem to have no benefit from chemotherapy, while patients with larger tumors or at higher risk of death at 10 years seem to derive substantial benefit. Conclusion: This large, retrospective study suggests that patients affected by > 50 mm and/or high-risk primary, localized angiosarcoma could benefit from (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy.

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.

To assess the role of first-line Molecular Targeted Therapies (MTTs) in Advanced chordoma (AC) patients.Retrospective study of 80 patients treated between January 2004 and December 2015 at 15 major French Sarcoma or Neurooncology Centres.The sex ratio M/F was 46/34. The median age was 59 (6-86) years. The primary sites were the sacrum (50, 62.5%), mobile spine (12, 15.0%), and skull base (18, 22.5%). Metastases were present in 28 patients (36.0%). The first line of MTTs consisted of imatinib (62, 77.5%), sorafenib (11, 13.7%), erlotinib (5, 6.3%), sunitinib (1, 1.2%) and temsirolimus (1, 1.2%). The reported responses were: partial response (5, 6.3%), stable disease (58, 72.5%), or progressive disease (10, 12.5%). Symptomatic improvement was seen in 28/66 assessable patients (42.4%) and was associated with an objective response occurrence (p = 0.005), imatinib (p = 0.020) or erlotinib use (p = 0.028). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4°months (95% CI, [6.8-16.1]). Two independent factors of poor prognosis for PFS were identified: a skull-based primary location (HR = 2.5, p = 0.019), and the interval between diagnosis and MTT of52months (HR = 2.8, p 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) was 4.4°years (95% CI, [3.8-5.6]). Four independent factors of poor prognosis for OS were identified: the presence of liver metastases (HR = 13.2, p 0.001), pain requiring opioids (HR = 2.9, p = 0.012), skull-based primary location (HR = 19.7, p 0.001), and prior radiotherapy (photon alone) (HR = 2.5, p = 0.024). The PFS and OS did not significantly differ between the MTT.The prognostic factors identified require validation in an independent database but are potently useful to guide treatment decisions and design further clinical trials.

Purpose In tumours with wild-type TP53, the tumour-suppressive function of p53 is frequently inhibited by HDM2. This phase I, dose-escalating study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of SAR405838, an HDM2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumours ( NCT01636479 ). Methods In dose escalation, patients with any locally advanced/metastatic solid tumour with TP53 mutation prevalence below 40%, or documented as TP53 wild-type, were eligible. In the MTD expansion cohort, only patients with de-differentiated liposarcoma were included. Primary end-points were MTD and efficacy in the MTD expansion cohort. Secondary end-points included safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics biomarkers. Results Seventy-four patients were treated with SAR405838 (50–800 mg once daily [QD], 800–1800 mg weekly and 1800 mg twice weekly). Two patients treated with SAR405838 400 mg QD had thrombocytopaenia as a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The MTD for the QD schedule of SAR405838 was 300 mg QD. No DLTs were observed with the weekly schedule; one patient had a DLT of nausea with the 1800 mg twice-weekly dose. Treatment with SAR405838 was associated with increased plasma MIC-1, reflecting p53 pathway activation. In the de-differentiated liposarcoma MTD cohort, 89% of the patients had HDM2 amplification at baseline and no TP53 mutations were observed; best response was stable disease in 56% and progression-free rate at 3 months was 32%. Conclusion SAR405838 had an acceptable safety profile with limited activity in patients with advanced solid tumours. The MTD of SAR405838 was 300 mg QD; MTD was not reached with the weekly schedule.

Rare adult cancer (RAC) is characterised by an incidence of less than six cases per 100,000 people per annum; 4,300,000 patients in the European Union are living with rare cancer (22% of all new human cancers). These cancers are linked with worse survival rates than ‘frequent’ tumours (5-year survival: 47% for RAC against 65% for ‘common’ cancers), mainly because of: (1) delays in obtaining an accurate diagnosis, (2) inadequate treatments given in curative phases and (3) restricted opportunities for patients to participate in clinical trials because of the lack of support for dedicated trials for this disease group from both academic and industrial sponsors. Although quantitative studies to measure the socioeconomic burden of RACs as a whole are still lacking, the increasing fragmentation of all cancers into molecular subgroups implies a substantial increase in the number of RACs and their associated socioeconomic burden. To answer this urgent and growing need, some countries, cooperative groups, and cancer institutes delineated national and/or regional organisations to promote quality management for RACs. Currently, the European Union (EU) is supporting an official EU call to organise a European network dedicated to RACs. The goals will be to pool the vast knowledge and expertise of the 67 EU clinical reference centres and to cover ten rare adult solid cancer domains across more than 18 countries in order to deploy an integrated, EU-wide capacity towards accelerated innovative treatments and care for RACs while empowering patients. This article will summarise these experiences and the potential benefit for patients.

International audience; AIMS: Approximately 20% of soft tissue sarcomas (STS) have subtype-specific chromosomal translocations; these generate chimeric oncoproteins which can act as abnormal transcription factors. Since trabectedin can bind to DNA and displace transcription factors, antitumour activity was explored in translocation-related sarcoma (TRS) subtypes. METHODS: The current retrospective pooled analysis includes data from 81 patients with TRS treated in 8 phase II trials. RESULTS: TRS subtypes were: synovial sarcoma (SS, n=45), myxoid-round cell liposarcoma (MRC-L-sarcoma, n=27), alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS, n=4), endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS, n=3) and clear cell sarcoma (CCS, n=2). All but one patient had received prior chemotherapy (median of 2 lines). Patients received a median of 4 trabectedin cycles (range, 1-48; median dose intensity=0.40 mg/m(2)/week). Partial responses according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) occurred in 8 patients (ORR=10%; 95% CI, 4-19%): four in MRC-L-sarcoma; three in SS and one in ESS. Tumour control rate (ORR plus stable disease) was 59% (95% CI, 48-70%). Median PFS was 4.1 months (6-month PFS rate=40%). Median overall survival was 17.4 months (survival rate at 12 months=60%). Trabectedin had a manageable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Trabectedin demonstrates encouraging disease control in TRS. Since these promising results were generally noted in patients following chemotherapy, a phase III randomised trial in first-line is ongoing to compare trabectedin with doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in patients with TRS.

Background Masitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with greater in vitro activity and selectivity for the wild-type c-Kit receptor and its juxtamembrane mutation than imatinib, without inhibiting kinases of known toxicities. This phase II study evaluated masitinib as a first-line treatment of advanced GIST. Patients and methods Imatinib-naive patients with advanced GIST received oral masitinib at 7.5 mg/kg/d. Efficacy end-points included response rate (RR) at 2 months, best response according to RECIST, metabolic response rate, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rate (OS). Results Thirty patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 34 months. The most frequent grade 3–4 toxicities were rash (10%) and neutropaenia (7%). Two patients withdrew due to treatment-related adverse events. At 2 months, RR was 20% according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) and 86% according to FDG-PET response criteria. Best responses were a complete response in 1/30 patient (3.3%), partial response in 15/30 patients (50%), stable disease in 13/30 patients (43.3%) and progressive disease in 1/30 patient (3.3%); (DCR: 96.7%). Median time-to-response was 5.6 months (0.8–23.8 months). Estimated median PFS was 41.3 months with PFS rate of 59.7% [37.9; 76.0] and 55.4 [33.9; 72.5] at 2 and 3 years, respectively. The OS at 2 and 3 years was stable at 89.9% [71.8; 96.6]. Conclusions Masitinib appears to be effective as a first-line treatment of advanced GIST with comparable results to imatinib in terms of safety and response. PFS and in particular OS data show promise that masitinib may provide sustainable benefits. There is sufficient compelling evidence to warrant a phase III clinical trial.

Background: Adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are generally treated similarly, regardless of great differences between STS subtypes, disease presentation and patients' characteristics. As ifosfamide is frequently applied in first line systemic therapy, we aimed to establish prognostic and predictive factors for outcome to ifosfamide-based therapy. Methods: A retrospective, exploratory analysis was performed on data from 1337 advanced STS patients who received first-line ifosfamide-containing chemotherapy. For predictive factor analysis, 660 patients treated with doxorubicin monotherapy served as comparators. Results: Independent favourable prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were good performance status, female gender, low histological grade, extremity primary tumour site and locally advanced disease; for progression-free survival (PFS), the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide, locally advanced disease, and tumour entity with a lower risk to progress for synovial sarcoma patients compared to leiomyosarcoma. For response, independent favourable prognostic factors were doxorubicin combined with ifosfamide, higher histological grade, and histology with synovial sarcoma patients having the highest chance to respond. Predictive factor analysis showed that compared to doxorubicin monotherapy, patients who benefited less from ifosfamide-based therapies were leiomyosarcoma patients in terms of OS, and patients with liposarcoma for response. No predictive factors were found for PFS. Conclusion: In this study, we established an independent set of prognostic and predictive factors for outcome to ifosfamide-based chemotherapy in advanced STS patients. This study provides important information for the interpretation and design of clinical trials for specific STS entities and may contribute to further treatment individualisation of advanced STS patients.

Alessandro Gronchi, Ian Judson, Toshirou Nishida, Andres Poveda, Javier Martin, Peter Reichardt, Paolo G. Casali, Axel Le Cesne, Peter Hohenberger, Jean-Yves Blay* Sarcoma Unit, Department of Surgery, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via G. Venezian 1, 20133 Milano, Italy The Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Cancer Hospital, 123 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3RP, UK Department of Surgery, E1, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan Medical Oncology Department, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Valencia, Spain Skeletal-Muscle Tumour Committee, Hospital Son Dureta, Palma de Mallorca, Spain HELIOS Klinikum Bad Saarow, Pieskower Strase 33, 15526 Bad Saarow, Germany Adult Sarcoma Medical Treatment Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via G. Venezian 1, 20133 Milano, Italy Department of Medicine, Institut Gustave Roussy, 94805 Villejuif Cedex, France Division of Surgical Oncology and Thoracic Surgery, Mannheim University Medical Centre, University of Heidelberg, Theodor Kutzer Ufer 1-3, D-68167 Mannheim, Germany Department of Medicine, Centre Leon Berard, 28, rue Laennec, 69008 Lyon, France

The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of brostallicin, a new DNA minor groove binder, at a dose of 10 mg/m2, intravenous (i.v.) every three weeks, in patients with advanced or inoperable soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) failing first line therapy. Two groups were recruited: (1) GIST following treatment with imatinib; (2) other STS following treatment with single agent doxorubicin or ifosfamide or a single line of combination therapy. The primary end-point was overall response rate (ORR) as defined by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST). Progression free survival (PFS) was a secondary end-point. In the GIST group, a Simon two step design was planned: first step 18 patients, total 32 patients (p1 = 20% p0 = 5% alpha = beta = 0.1). In the non-GIST group, planned sample size was 40 in a standard Fleming one-step design (p0 = 10%, p1 = 25%, alpha = beta = 0.1). Forty-three patients with non-GIST and 21 patients with GIST were recruited. In general, the drug was well tolerated. Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 3 or grade 4 toxicity was granulocytopenia: 70% of patients, 50% of cycles; fatigue: 25% of patients, 8% of cycles; febrile neutropenia: 14% of patients, 4% of cycles. There was one confirmed toxic death due to neutropenic septicaemia. Three patients had clinically significant allergic reactions in 249 cycles delivered. In the GIST group, no patients had a confirmed response and recruitment was discontinued at the first step. In the non-GIST group, there were two confirmed partial responses. The 3 month PFS was 46% in the non-GIST group and 33% in the GIST group. In the non-GIST group, this PFS is in the range of other agents considered active in STS, and may predict for more substantial first line activity. Further investigation in STS other than GIST appears warranted.

The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors for toxicity to treatment with imatinib. The study was based on 942 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) randomised to receive imatinib at different doses. The correlation between toxicities occurring with a Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 2 or more (non-haematological) or grade 3 or 4 (haematological) and imatinib dose, age, sex, performance status, original disease site, site and size of lesions at trial entry, baseline haematological and biological parameters was investigated. Anaemia was correlated with dose and baseline haemoglobin level, and neutropaenia with baseline neutrophil count and haemoglobin level. The risk of non-haematological toxicities was dose dependent and higher in females (oedema, nausea, diarrhoea), and in patients of advanced age (oedema, rash fatigue), poor performance status (fatigue and nausea), prior chemotherapy (fatigue), tumour of identified gastrointestinal origin (diarrhoea) and small lesions (rash). A multivariate risk calculator that can be used in the clinic for individual patients is proposed.

A recent randomized EORTC phase III trial, comparing two doses of imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs), reported dose dependency for progression-free survival. The current analysis of that study aimed to assess if tumour mutational status correlates with clinical response to imatinib. Pre-treatment samples of GISTs from 377 patients enrolled in phase III study were analyzed for mutations of KIT or PDGFRA by combination of D-HPLC and direct sequencing of tumour genomic DNA. Mutation types were correlated with patients' survival data. The presence of exon 9-activating mutations in KIT was the strongest adverse prognostic factor for response to imatinib, increasing the relative risk of progression by 171% (P

In the EORTC-ISG-AGITG trial 946 patients with advanced gastro-intestinal stromal tumours (GIST) were randomised to receive 400 or 800 mg of imatinib daily. An increase in progression free survival (PFS) was demonstrated for patients randomised to the high-dose arm. Patients randomised to low-dose could cross-over to high-dose upon progression. We evaluated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of this policy. Of the 241 patients available for follow-up, 133 patients (55%) crossed over to high-dose imatinib according to the protocol. Of these patients, 92% had not had a prior dose reduction. The cumulative incidence of subsequent dose reductions after cross-over was 17% after six months with 51% discontinuing therapy without requiring a dose reduction. The extent of anaemia and fatigue increased significantly after cross-over, whilst neutropenia was less severe than during low-dose treatment. Objective responses after cross-over included three patients (2%) with a partial response and 36 (27%) with stable disease. The median PFS after cross-over was 81 days, although 18.1% of patients were still alive and progression free one year after cross-over. We conclude that a cross-over to high-dose imatinib is feasible and safe in GIST patients who progress on low-dose therapy.