Search

Summary Background The benefit or harm of trabectedin discontinuation in patients with non-progressive soft-tissue sarcoma remains unclear. We report the final analysis of a phase 2 trial investigating the clinical benefit of continuation of trabectedin treatment until progression versus interruption of therapy after six treatment cycles in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. Methods For this open-label, non-comparative, multicentre, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas, who had previously received doxorubicin-based chemotherapy and were able to receive trabectedin, were enrolled from 14 centres of the French Sarcoma Group. Trabectedin was administered at a dose of 1·5 mg/m 2 through a central venous line as a 24-h continuous infusion every 3 weeks. After the initial six cycles of trabectedin, patients who were free from progressive disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to continuous treatment or therapy interruption. Randomisation was done centrally by a computer-generated system using permuted blocks of four patients, stratified by tumour grade and performance status. Patients allocated to the interruption group were allowed to restart trabectedin in case of progressive disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01303094 . Results In 178 evaluable patients, 91 (51%) patients had not progressed after six cycles. Of these patients, 53 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 27 to the continuation group and 26 to the interruption group. Overall, patients in the two groups received a similar median number of trabectedin cycles (continuation group: 11 cycles [range 6–31+] vs interruption group: 11 [range 6–23+]). After randomisation, progression-free survival at 6 months was 51·9% (95% CI 31·9–68·6) in the continuation group versus 23·1% (9·4–40·3) in the interruption group (p=0·0200). The occurrence of treatment-related grade 3 adverse events (four [16%] of 25 patients in the continuation group vs three [14%] of 21 in the interruption group) and grade 4 adverse events (one [4%] vs none) was similar in both groups. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase increases (one [4%] in the interruption group vs three [14%] in the continuation group), neutropenia (two [8%] vs two [10%]), and intestinal occlusion (one [4%] vs one [5%]). Interpretation We do not recommend trabectedin discontinuation in patients with advanced, doxorubicin-refractory soft-tissue sarcoma who have not progressed after six cycles of treatment. Funding The French National Cancer Institute (INCa) and PharmaMar SA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Imatinib followed by sunitinib and regorafenib is the standard sequence of treatment for advanced disease. Pazopanib is effective in soft tissue sarcomas but has never been assessed in advanced GIST in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with previously treated advanced GIST.Methods: In this randomised, open-label phase 2 study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib from 12 comprehensive cancer centres or university hospitals in France and randomly assigned them 1:1 using an interactive web-based centralised platform to 800 mg oral pazopanib once daily in 4-week cycles plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous treatment regimens (2 vs ≥3); no-one was masked to treatment group allocation. Upon disease progression, patients in the best supportive care group were allowed to switch to pazopanib as compassionate treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. All randomised participants who received at least one dose of pazopanib were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01323400.Findings: Between April 12, 2011, and Dec 9, 2013, 81 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to pazopanib plus best supportive care (n=40) or best supportive care alone (n=41). The median follow-up was 26·4 months (IQR 22·0-37·8) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 28·9 months (22·0-35·2) in the best supportive care group. 4-month investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 45·2% (95% CI 29·1-60·0) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group versus 17·6% (7·8-30·8) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·37-0·96; p=0·029). Median progression-free survival was 3·4 months (95% CI 2·4-5·6) with pazopanib plus best supportive care and 2·3 months (2·1-3·3) with best supportive care alone (HR 0·59 [0·37-0·96], p=0·03). 36 (88%) of the patients originally assigned to the best supportive care group switched to pazopanib following investigator-assessed disease progression; these patients had a median progression-free survival from pazopanib initiation of 3·5 months (95% CI 2·2-5·2). 55 (72%) of the 76 pazopanib-treated patients had pazopanib-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, the most common of which was hypertension (15 [38%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 13 [36%] in the best supportive care group). 20 (26%) patients had pazopanib-related serious adverse events (14 [35%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and six [17%] in the best supportive care group), including pulmonary embolism in eight (9%) patients (five [13%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and three [7%] in the best supportive care group). Three pazopanib-related deaths occurred (two pulmonary embolisms [one in each group] and one hepatic cytolysis [in the best supportive care group]). Three adverse event-related but not pazopanib-related deaths occurred in the best supportive care group after switch to pazopanib; these deaths were from hyperammonaemic encephalopathy, pneumopathy, and respiratory failure.Interpretation: Pazopanib plus best supportive care improves progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone in patients with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib, with a toxicity profile similar to that reported for other sarcomas. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting for these patients.Funding: GlaxoSmithKline, French National Cancer Institute, EuroSARC (FP7-278742), Centre Léon Bérard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The long-term impact of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) discontinuation on resistance and survival in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is unclear. We report the exploratory long-term outcomes of patients with advanced GIST stopping imatinib in the BFR14 trial., Methods: BFR14, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 17 comprehensive cancer centres or hospitals across France. Patients with advanced GIST aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3, no previous treatment with imatinib, and no previous malignancy were eligible. Patients were treated with oral imatinib 400 mg daily. Patients with a complete or partial response, or stable disease, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (1.0) at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years from the start of treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment discontinuation until progression (interruption group) or treatment continuation until progression (continuation group). Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks of two and six patients stratified by participating centre and presence or absence of residual disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included time to imatinib resistance and overall survival. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned patients who were not lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00367861., Findings: Between May 12, 2003, and March 16, 2004, after 1 year of imatinib, 32 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 26 to the continuation group. Between June 13, 2005, and May 30, 2007, after 3 years of imatinib, 25 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 25 to the continuation group. Between Nov 9, 2007, and July 12, 2010, after 5 years of imatinib, 14 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 13 to the continuation group. Median follow-up was 235·2 months (IQR 128·8-236·6) after the 1-year randomisation, 200·9 months (190·2-208·4) after the 3-year randomisation, and 164·5 months (134·4-176·4) after the 5-year randomisation. Median progression-free survival in the interruption group versus the continuation group after 1 year of imatinib was 6·1 months (95% CI 2·5-10·1) versus 27·8 months (19·5-37·9; hazard ratio [HR] 0·36 [95% CI 0·20-0·64], log-rank p=0·0003), after 3 years of imatinib was 7·0 months (3·5-11·7) versus 67·0 months (48·8-85·6; 0·15 [0·07-0·32], log-rank p<0·0001), and after 5 years of imatinib was 12·0 months (9·0-16·6) versus not reached (NR; NR-NR; 0·13 [0·03-0·58], log-rank p=0·0016). The median time to imatinib resistance after 1 year of imatinib was 28·7 months (95% CI 18·1-39·1) versus 90·6 months (25·3-156·1; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·51-1·71], log-rank p=0·82), after 3 years was 66·2 months (43·0-89·6) versus 127·3 months (15·0-239·7; 0·35 [0·17-0·72, log-rank p=0·0028), and after 5 years was 58·6 months (0·0-167·4) versus NR (NR-NR; 0·24 [0·05-1·12], log-rank p=0·049). Median overall survival after 1 year of imatinib was 56·0 months (95% CI 30·3-82·9) versus 105·0 months (20·6-189·6; HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·46-1·54], log-rank p=0·57), after 3 years was 104·0 months (90·7-118·7) versus 134·0 months (89·7-178·3; 0·40 [0·20-0·82], log-rank p=0·0096), and after 5 years was NR (NR-NR) versus 110·4 months (82·7-154·1; 1·28 [0·41-3·99]; log-rank p=0·67), INTERPRETATION: Imatinib interruption in patients with GIST without progressive disease is not recommended. Imatinib interruption in non-progressing patients with GIST was associated with rapid progression, faster resistance to imatinib, and shorter overall survival in the long-term follow-up when compared with imatinib continuation in patients after 3 years and 5 years of imatinib., Funding: Centre Léon Bérard, INCa, CONTICANET, Ligue Contre le Cancer, and Novartis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests J-YB reports grants from NETSARC+, INTERSARC+, and LYRICAN+ from INCA (to the institution), DEpGyn RHU and LYRICAN+ from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (to the institution), and ERN EURACAN from the EU commission (to the institution); research support from Novartis, Deciphera, and Bayer (to the institution); membership of steering committees for the Intrigue and Motion studies for Deciphera; and membership of the supervisory boards of Transgène and Innate Pharma. IR-C reports research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); consulting fees from and participation on data safety boards of Adaptimmune, Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, EQRX, GSK, MacroGenics, Merck Serono, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Onxeo, Roche, and Sutro Biopharma. NP reports research grants from Bayer. DP reports travel grants from Roche and Novartis. ALC reports honoraria from Deciphera and Pharmamar. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

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.)