Search

The French Sarcoma Group assessed the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) of trabectedin versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS).This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study included adults with STS who progressed after 1-3 prior treatment lines. Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to receive trabectedin 1.5 mg/mBetween 26 January 2015 and 5 November 2015, 103 heavily pre-treated patients (60.2% with L-STS) from 16 French centers were allocated to receive trabectedin (n = 52) or BSC (n = 51). Median PFS was 3.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-5.9 months] in the trabectedin arm versus 1.5 months (0.9-2.6 months) in the BSC arm (hazard ratio = 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64, P0.001) with benefits observed across almost all analyzed subgroups, but particularly in patients with L-STS (5.1 versus 1.4 months, P = 0.0001). Seven patients (13.7%) in the trabectedin arm (all with L-STS) achieved a partial response, while no objective responses were observed in the BSC arm (P = 0.004). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (44.2% of patients), leukopenia (34.6%), and transaminase increase (32.7%). Health-related 30-item core European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire evidenced no statistical differences between the arms for any domain and at any time point. After progression, 91.8% of patients crossed over from BSC to trabectedin.Trabectedin demonstrates superior disease control to BSC without impairing QoL in patients with recurrent STS of multiple histologies, with greater impact in patients with L-STS.

Background BRAF mutations occurring in 1%–5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSe vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort. Patients and methods Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAFV600 mutation and 17 with BRAFnonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAFnonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAFV600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%–54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8–6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8–15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications. Conclusion Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAFV600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAFV600-mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAFnonV600 mutations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809.

Background Emactuzumab is a monoclonal antibody against the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor and targets tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). This study assessed the safety, clinical activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of emactuzumab, as monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and methods This open-label, phase Ia/b study comprised two parts (dose escalation and dose expansion), each containing two arms (emactuzumab, every 2 or 3weeks, as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel 80mg/m2 weekly). The dose-escalation part explored the maximum tolerated dose and optimal biological dose (OBD). The dose-expansion part extended the safety assessment and investigated the objective response rate. A PK/PD analysis of serial blood, skin and tumor biopsies was used to explore proof of mechanism and confirm the OBD. Results No maximum tolerated dose was reached in either study arm, and the safety profile of emactuzumab alone and in combination does not appear to preclude its use. No patients receiving emactuzumab monotherapy showed an objective response; the objective response rate for emactuzumab in combination with paclitaxel was 7% across all doses. Skin macrophages rather than peripheral blood monocytes or circulating colony-stimulating factor-1 were identified as an optimal surrogate PD marker to select the OBD. Emactuzumab treatment alone and in combination with paclitaxel resulted in a plateau of immunosuppressive TAM reduction at the OBD of 1000mg administered every 2weeks. Conclusions Emactuzumab showed specific reduction of immunosuppressive TAMs at the OBD in both treatment arms but did not result in clinically relevant antitumor activity alone or in combination with paclitaxel. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01494688)

Background In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery in localized, high/intermediate-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients. Interim analysis results were published in 2015 upon recommendation from an independent data review committee. We report the final outcome of the study. Patients and methods This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial carried out at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Patients were randomized to 2 years of imatinib, 400 mg daily, or no further therapy after surgery. The primary endpoint was imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS), while relapse-free survival (RFS), relapse-free interval (RFI), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Adjusting for the interim analyses, results on IFFS were assessed on a 4.3% significance level; for the other endpoints, 5% was used. Results Nine hundred and eight patients were randomized between January 2005 and October 2008: 454 to imatinib and 454 to observation; 835 patients were eligible. With a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 5 (10)-year IFFS was 87% (75%) in the imatinib arm versus 83% (74%) in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95.7% confidence interval (CI) (0.65; 1.15), P = 0.31]; RFS was 70% versus 63% at 5 years and 63% versus 61% at 10 years, [HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.57; 0.89), P = 0.002]; OS was 93% versus 92% at 5 years and 80% versus 78% at 10 years [HR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.65; 1.21), P = 0.43]. Among 526 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathology, 10-year IFFS and RFS were 69% versus 61%, and 48% versus 43%, respectively. Conclusions With 9.1 years of follow-up, a trend toward better long-term IFFS in imatinib-treated patients was observed in the high-risk subgroup. Although the difference was not statistically significant and the surrogacy value of such an endpoint is not validated, this may be seen as supporting the results reported by the Scandinavian/German trial, showing a sustained small but significant long-term OS benefit in high-risk GIST patients treated with 3 years of adjuvant imatinib.

© 2020 The Author(s)., Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with mesenchymal lineage differentiation. The discovery of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions as tissue-agnostic oncogenic drivers has led to new personalized therapies for a subset of patients with sarcoma in the form of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors. NTRK gene rearrangements and fusion transcripts can be detected with different molecular pathology techniques, while TRK protein expression can be demonstrated with immunohistochemistry. The rarity and diagnostic complexity of NTRK gene fusions raise a number of questions and challenges for clinicians. To address these challenges, the World Sarcoma Network convened two meetings of expert adult oncologists and pathologists and subsequently developed this article to provide practical guidance on the management of patients with sarcoma harboring NTRK gene fusions. We propose a diagnostic strategy that considers disease stage and histologic and molecular subtypes to facilitate routine testing for TRK expression and subsequent testing for NTRK gene fusions., GDD was supported in part by the Ludwig Center at Harvard; the Dr Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation; and the Pan Mass Challenge (no grant numbers). IMS is supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (grant number K08 CA241085). JYB was supported by NetSARC (INCA & DGOS) and RREPS (INCA & DGOS), RESOS (INCA & DGOS), EURACAN (EC 739521), LYRICAN (INCA-DGOS-INSERM 12563), LabEx DEvweCAN (ANR-10-LABX-0061), Institut Convergence PLASCAN (17-CONV-0002), RHU4 DEPGYN (ANR-18-RHUS-0009).

International audience; Both authors contributed equally as senior authors. Background: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs) are a group of rare, heterogeneous, and aggressive tumors, with high metastatic risk and relatively few efficient systemic therapies. We hypothesized that the Genomic Grade Index (GGI), a 108-gene signature previously developed in early-stage breast cancer, might improve the prognostic assessment of patients with early-stage STS. Patients and methods: We collected gene expression and clinicopathological data of 678 operated STS, and searched for correlations between the GGI-based classification and clinicopathological variables, including the metastasis-free survival (MFS). Results: Based on GGI, 275 samples (41%) were classified as 'GGI-low' and 403 (59%) as 'GGI-high'. The 'GGI-high' class was more associated with poor-prognosis features than the 'GGI-low' class: pathological grade 3 (P ¼ 9.50E–11), undifferentiated sarcomas and leiomyosarcomas (P < 1.00E–06), location in extremities (P < 1.00E–06), and complex genetic profile (P ¼ 2.1E–20). The 5-year MFS was 53% (95%CI 47–59) in the 'GGI-high' class versus 78% (95%CI 72–85) in the 'GGI-low' class (P ¼ 3.02E–11), with a corresponding hazard ratio for metastatic relapse equal to 2.92 (95%CI 2.10–4.07; P ¼ 2.23E–10). In multivariate analysis, the GGI-based classification remained significant, whereas the pathological grade did not. In fact, the GGI-based classification stratified the patients with pathological grades 1 and 2 and those with pathological grade 3 in two classes with different 5-year MFS. Comparison of the GGI and CINSARC multigene signatures revealed similar correlations with clinicopathological variables, which were, however, stronger with GGI than with CINSARC, a strong concordance (71%) in terms of low-risk or high-risk classifications, and independent prognostic value for MFS in multivariate analysis, suggesting complementary prognostic information. Conclusion: GGI refines the prediction of MFS in operated STS and might improve the tailoring of adjuvant chemotherapy. Further clinical validation is warranted in larger retrospective, then prospective series, as well as the functional validation of relevant genes that could provide new therapeutic targets.

Background: Around 15% of adult GIST are wild type for KIT/PDGFRA mutations (KPWT), usually have SDH deficiencies, and are resistant to imatinib (IM). The underlying mechanisms include overexpression of HIF1α in SDH deficient-GIST, high IGFR signaling through MAPK, BRAF mutation or STAT3 activation. Regorafenib (RE), targeting these pathways, could be more active as upfront therapy in KPWT GIST. Methods: Patients (pts) >18, with advanced non pretreated KPWT GIST were eligible after central confirmation by next-generation sequencing (NGS). Eligible pts received RE at 160mg/d for 21/28d cycles. Primary end-point was disease control rate (DCR) at 12 weeks (RECIST 1.1 ) by central radiological assessment (CRA). Secondary objectives were PFS, OS, ORR (RECIST,Choi), safety and QoL. An amendment allowed previous IM (adjuvant). Statistical assumptions [H0 73% and H1 90% (α 0.1 and β 0.2)], defined a sample size of 20 pts. Results: From May 2016 to October 2020, 30pts with KPWT GIST (by Sanger) underwent central molecular screening. Among the 15 non-eligible pts, 8 harbored KIT exon 11 mutations, 3 exon 9 and 3 PDGFRA exon 18 by NGS. The remaining 16 (53.3%) molecularly eligible pts were enrolled and started RE except one pt due to COVID-19 pandemic. The trial was prematurely closed due to low recruitment, especially after COVID outbreak. Demographics and treatment details in the table. Based on CRA, 12w-DCR was 86.7%. With a median (m) FU of 26 (5-44) months (mo), 10/15 pts progressed, with a mPFS of 10.8 mo (95% CI 6.9-14.8). 6 mo, 9 mo and 12 mo PFS rates were 65%, 48% and 29% respectively. 2 pts were PD-free at 25 and 43 mo from start of RE. 6/15 pts died, with a mOS of 33.5 mo (95% CI NR). [Formula presented] Conclusions: The study results approach the prespecified activity threshold. The low recruitment rate could have affected this attainment. Other analysis of secondary endpoints are ongoing. The high percentage of overlooked mutant GIST by Sanger raises the need of NGS in presumed KPWT GIST. Clinical trial identification: NCT02638766. Legal entity responsible for the study: Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma (GEIS). Funding: Bayer. Disclosure: J. Martin Broto: Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony, Honoraria: Lilly;Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony, Honoraria: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony, Honoraria: Eisai;Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony, Honoraria: Bayer;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Eisai;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Novartis;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: IMMIX Biopharma;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Lixte;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Karyopharm;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Bayer;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Celgene;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: BMS;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Blueprint;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Deciphera;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Nektar;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: FORMA;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Amgen;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Daiichi Sankyo;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Lilly;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: AROG;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Adaptimmune;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: GSK. N. Hindi: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Nova tis;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Eisai;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Immix Bio;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: Bayer;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: Deciphera;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: Daychii;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: Blueprint;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: Adaptimmune;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: GSK;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: Karyopharm;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: Celgene;Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: AROG. J. Lavernia: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: BMS. C. Serrano: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Bayer;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Bayer. D. Moura: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Novartis;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Eisai;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: PharmaMar;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Immix Bio. J. Blay: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Bayer;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Bayer;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Novartis;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Novartis;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Deciphera;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Deciphera. E.R. Fumagalli: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Bayer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Item does not contain fulltext Background: Solitary fibrous tumors (SFT) are rare unusual ubiquitous soft tissue tumors that are presumed to be of fibroblastic differentiation. At present, the challenge is to establish accurate prognostic factors. Patients and methods: A total of 214 consecutive patients with SFT diagnosed in 24 participating cancer centers were entered into the European database (www.conticabase.org) to perform univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS), local recurrence incidence (LRI) and metastatic recurrence incidence (MRI) by taking competing risks into account. A prognostic model was constructed for LRI and MRI. Internal and external validations of the prognostic models were carried out. An individual risk calculator was carried out to quantify the risk of both local and metastatic recurrence. Results: We restricted our analysis to 162 patients with local disease. Twenty patients (12.3%) were deceased at the time of analysis and the median OS was not reached. The LRI rates at 10 and 20 years were 19.2% and 38.6%, respectively. The MRI rates at 10 and 20 years were 31.4% and 49.8%, respectively. Multivariate analysis retained age and mitotic count tended to significance for predicting OS. The factors influencing LRI were viscera localization, radiotherapy and age. Mitotic count, tumor localization other than limb and age had independent values for MRI. Three prognostic groups for OS were defined based on the number of unfavorable prognostic factors and calculations were carried out to predict the risk of local and metastatic recurrence for individual patients. Conclusion: LRI and MRI rates increased between 10 and 20 years so relapses were delayed, suggesting that long-term monitoring is useful. This study also shows that different prognostic SFT sub-groups could benefit from different therapeutic strategies and that use of a survival calculator could become standard practice in SFTs to individualize treatment based on the clinical situation.