Search

BackgroundSarcoma is a highly heterogeneous malignancy with a poor prognosis. Although chemotherapy and targeted therapy have improved the prognosis to some extent, the efficacy remains unsatisfactory in some patients. The efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in sarcoma need further evaluation.MethodsWe conducted a two-center study of sarcoma patients receiving PD-1 immunotherapy at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital and Henan Provincial Cancer Hospital. The treatment regimens included PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy and combination therapy based on PD-1 inhibitors. The observed primary endpoints were median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS). Survival curves were compared using the Kaplan−Meier method.ResultsA total of 43 patients were included from the two centers. The median follow-up time for all patients was 13 months (range, 1-48 months). In the group of 37 patients with advanced or unresectable sarcoma, the mPFS was 6 months (95%CI: 5-12 months), and the mOS was 16 months (95%CI: 10-28 months). The ORR was 10.8% (4/37), and the DCR was 18.9% (7/37). Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in mPFS (p=0.11) and mOS (p=0.88) between patients with PD-L1 negative/positive expression. There were also no significant differences in mPFS (p=0.13) or mOS (p=0.72) between PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy and combination therapy. Additionally, there were no significant differences in mPFS (p=0.52) or mOS (p=0.49) between osteogenic sarcoma and soft tissue sarcoma. Furthermore, the results showed no significant differences in mPFS (p=0.66) or mOS (p=0.96) between PD-1 inhibitors combined with targeted therapy and PD-1 inhibitors combined with AI chemotherapy. Among the 6 patients receiving adjuvant therapy after surgery, the mPFS was 15 months (95%CI: 6-NA months), and the mOS was not reached. In terms of safety, most adverse events were mild (grade 1-2) and manageable. The most severe grade 4 adverse events were bone marrow suppression, which occurred in 4 patients but resolved after treatment. There was also one case of a grade 4 adverse event related to hypertension.ConclusionImmunotherapy is an effective treatment modality for sarcoma with manageable safety. Further inclusion of more patients or prospective clinical trials is needed to validate these findings.

Objective: Sarcomas are a group of rare malignancies with various subtypes. Patients with metastatic sarcoma who have failed traditional treatments can possibly achieve better prognoses from using novel therapies, including anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)-based therapies. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 24 metastatic sarcoma patients from June 15, 2016 to December 30, 2019. These patients mainly received angiogenesis inhibitors combined with anti-PD-1 therapy after they became resistant to traditional treatments. Furthermore, 8 patients underwent panel DNA and whole transcript sequencing. Results: Six patients received 2 cycles of anti-PD-1 therapy and were included in the safety evaluation only group. The median follow-up time was 5.77 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.59 months, the overall response rate was 16.7% and the disease control rate was 55.6%. Based on whole exome and transcript sequencing data, there was no association between TMB, TNB, MSI, HLA-LOH, and PD-L1 expressions and sarcoma types with clinical responses. Immunotherapy efficacy and bioinformatics analyses indicated higher intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) in progressive disease (PD) patients and lower ITH in partial response (PR) and stable disease patients. A higher percentage of immune cell infiltration, especially monocytes, was observed in PR patients. Active stromal gene expression was increased in PD patients but decreased in PR patients. Enrichment analysis revealed that an increased TGF-β signaling pathway was reversely correlated with anti-PD-1 efficacy, while a decreased inflammatory response signaling pathway was positively correlated with anti-PD-1 efficacy. Conclusions: Our study showed PD-1 inhibitors combined with anti-angiogenesis agents were effective and well-tolerated. ITH, monocyte ratio, stroma subtypes, and the status of immune-associated signaling pathways may be related with anti-PD-1 based therapy.

Abstract The mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway plays a significant role in mediating cellular physiological activities, such as proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, and senescence. This signaling pathway is composed of several major proto‐oncogenes of RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK, among which the BRAF proto‐oncogene, as one of the three members of the RAF family, has a higher mutation rate than ARAF and CRAF and has attracted extensive attention. Regarding the BRAF mutation, approximately 95% of BRAF mutations belong to the BRAF V600E mutation, which can enhance the expression of the MAPK signaling pathway and is thus related to the occurrence and development of various malignant tumors and has been successfully identified as a therapeutic target. Moreover, drug resistance to BRAF inhibitor treatment also appears to be an important issue. Considering the successful use of BRAF inhibitors in melanoma, we provide a brief overview of the BRAF mutations, including their basic structures and activation mechanisms, and the new classification method for BRAF mutations. Most importantly, we summarize the results of BRAF inhibitor treatment in different sarcomas. To overcome drug resistance to BRAF inhibitor treatment, we also outline the different mechanisms of drug resistance to BRAF inhibitor treatment and introduce the combination strategy of BRAF inhibitors with other targeted therapies.

PurposeOur previously study showed that recombinant human endostatin (Endostar) combined with chemotherapy had significant activity to increase the mPFS in patients with advanced sarcomas with tolerable side effects. However, the small cohort size and short follow-up time made it difficult to screen sensitive sarcoma subtypes and determine whether there is an overall survival benefit. With the largest sarcoma cohort to our knowledge, we try to confirm the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy combined with Endostar in stage IV sarcomas, with the specific purpose of finding out the sensitive sarcoma types for this combined treatment.MethodsAfter the exclusion of ineligible patients, 156 patients with stage IV bone and soft tissue sarcomas were included in this study according to the inclusion criteria.ResultsBy the end of follow-up, the ORR was 10.7% (9/84) vs 1.4% (1/72) (p=0.041), the DCR was 26.2% (22/84) vs 5.6% (4/72) (p=0.001) in the combined group and chemotherapy group, respectively. The mPFS of combined group was significantly longer than the chemotherapy group (10.42 vs 6.87 months, p=0.003). The mOS were 26.84 months and 23.56 months, without significant difference (p= 0.481). In osteogenic sarcoma, there was no statistically significant difference in the mPFS between the two groups (p=0.59), while in the soft tissue sarcoma, the mPFS in the combined group was significantly higher than that of the chemotherapy group (11.27 vs 8.05 months, p=0.004). Specifically, undifferentiated polymorphic sarcoma (UPS) was the possible sarcoma subtypes that benefited from the combined therapy. For the 38 UPS patients (28 patients in the combined group and 10 patients in the chemotherapy group), the mPFS in the combined group was up to 14.88 months, while it was only 7.1 months in the chemotherapy group, with a significant difference (p=0.006). The most common adverse events in the combined group were myelosuppression, gastrointestinal reactions and abnormal liver function, without significant difference in two groups.ConclusionChemotherapy plus Endostar could prolong mPFS and improve ORR and DCR in patients with stage IV soft tissue sarcoma, suggesting that the combined therapy could improve the patient prognosis in soft tissue sarcomas, especially the UPS patients.