Search

Background: Trabectedin is an antineoplastic drug approved for patients (pts) with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Interestingly, the radiological evaluation of response during trabectedin therapy is peculiar.Methods: The aim of this single-center retrospective study is to analyze the concordance of response assessment according to RECIST compared with Choi criteria in patients with STS treated with trabectedin between 2009 and 2020 at Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome.Results: We present the preliminary data collected in the last 2 months (mos) on 37 pts who received the diagnosis between 2015 and 2020, with a median age of 52.5 years (range 32–78). The median number of trabectedin cycles administered was four (range 2–50) for a median follow up of 5.83 months (range 1–60). Histological subtypes of STS were five (13.5%) leiomyosarcoma, 14 (37.8%) liposarcoma, nine (24.3%) undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, three (8.1%) synovial sarcoma, and six (16.2%) other rare histological subtypes. Eight pts (21.6%) received trabectedin in the first line setting, 21 (56.8%) in the second line, and seven (18.9%) received it in subsequent lines. One pt received trabectedin as neoadjuvant therapy in a clinical trial (ISG-STS 1001). Median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (CI95% 2.7–4.6); median overall survival was 34.3 months (CI95% 0–75.4). The radiological responses were evaluated with both RECIST and Choi criteria; responses matched in 33 pts (89.2%) but not in four (10.8%). The best responses obtained according to RECIST criteria were two (5.4%) partial response (PR), 13 (35.1%) stable disease (SD), and 22 (59.5%) progressive disease (PD). Instead, two (5.4%), 13 (35.1%), and 22 (59.5%) pts obtained PR, SD, and PD respectively, according to Choi criteria. Cohen’s kappa coefficient of concordance was 0.792 (p-value

Abstract  Calcium fructoborate samples of composition Ca(C6H10O6BO)2·3.5H2O were characterized by chemical analysis, infrared and Raman spectroscopy, and thermoanalytical (thermogravimetric and differential thermal analysis) data. Theoretical studies, using density functional theory, were made for seven different structural models of the fructoborate moiety, and the most stable structure could be derived from these calculations. The results of the theoretical study also allow improving the assignment of the vibrational spectra of the compound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of the order of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors or BRAF/MEK inhibitors on the development of brain metastases in patients with metastatic unresectable BRAF V600-mutant melanoma is unknown. The SECOMBIT trial examined the impact of the order of receipt of these treatments in such patients., Methods: In this three-arm trial, we reviewed patients without brain metastases who received the BRAF/MEK inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib until they had progressive disease followed by the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab (arm A); or treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by encorafenib and binimetinib (arm B); or treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib for 8 weeks followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by retreatment with encorafenib arm binimetinib (arm C)., Results: Brain metastases were discovered during the trial in 23/69 patients in arm A, 11/69 in arm B, and 9/68 in arm C. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the 60-month brain metastases-free survival rates were 56% for arm A, 80% for arm B (hazard ratio [HR] vs. A: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58), and 85% for arm C (HR vs. A: 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.76)., Conclusions: In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, the treatment sequence of immune checkpoint inhibition followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors was associated with longer periods of new brain metastases-free survival than the reverse sequence. A regimen in which immune checkpoint inhibition was sandwiched between BRAF/MEK inhibition also appeared to be protective against brain metastases. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02631447.).

Background: Trabectedin is an antineoplastic drug approved for patients (pts) with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Interestingly, the radiological evaluation of response during trabectedin therapy is peculiar. Methods: The aim of this single-center retrospective study is to analyze the concordance of response assessment according to RECIST compared with Choi criteria in patients with STS treated with trabectedin between 2009 and 2020 at Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. Results: We present the preliminary data collected in the last 2 months (mos) on 37 pts who received the diagnosis between 2015 and 2020, with a median age of 52.5 years (range 32-78). The median number of trabectedin cycles administered was four (range 2-50) for a median follow up of 5.83 months (range 1-60). Histological subtypes of STS were five (13.5%) leiomyosarcoma, 14 (37.8%) liposarcoma, nine (24.3%) undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, three (8.1%) synovial sarcoma, and six (16.2%) other rare histological subtypes. Eight pts (21.6%) received trabectedin in the first line setting, 21 (56.8%) in the second line, and seven (18.9%) received it in subsequent lines. One pt received trabectedin as neoadjuvant therapy in a clinical trial (ISG-STS 1001). Median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (CI95% 2.7-4.6); median overall survival was 34.3 months (CI95% 0-75.4). The radiological responses were evaluated with both RECIST and Choi criteria; responses matched in 33 pts (89.2%) but not in four (10.8%). The best responses obtained according to RECIST criteria were two (5.4%) partial response (PR), 13 (35.1%) stable disease (SD), and 22 (59.5%) progressive disease (PD). Instead, two (5.4%), 13 (35.1%), and 22 (59.5%) pts obtained PR, SD, and PD respectively, according to Choi criteria. Cohen's kappa coefficient of concordance was 0.792 ( p -value <0.002). A specialized radiologist performed all imaging examinations using a dedicated workstation in the same center. Conclusion: In this first analysis, the concordance between RECIST and Choi assessments demonstrates no statistically significant difference. Responses did not match for four pts. We are expanding the analysis to all pts included in the original cohort to confirm or deny these initial results., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Ceddia, Onesti, Vari, Torchia, Cosimati, Riva, Maccallini, Cerro, Benvenuti, Russillo, Anelli, Sperduti, Biagini and Ferraresi.)

Introduction: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare sarcoma, marked by distinctive molecular and pathological features and with a variable clinical behavior. Its natural history is still partially understood, reliable prognostic and predictive factors are lacking and many questions are still open on the optimal management. In the context of EURACAN, a prospective registry specifically dedicated to EHE was developed and launched with the aim of providing, through high-quality prospective data collection, a better understanding of this disease., Study Design: Registry-based cohort study including only new cases of patients with a pathological and molecularly confirmed diagnosis of EHE., Objectives: To improve the understanding of EHE natural history, validate and identify new prognostic and predictive factors, clarify the activity and efficacy of currently available treatment options, describe treatment pattern., Methods: Settings and participantsIt is an hospital-based registry established in centers with expertise in EHE including adult patients with a new pathological and molecularly confirmed diagnosis of EHE starting from the 1st December 2023. The characteristics of each patient in the facility who meets the above-mentioned inclusion criteria will be collected prospectively and longitudinally with follow-up at cancer progression and / or cancer relapse or patient death. It is a secondary use of data which will be collected from the clinical records. The data collected for the registry will not entail further examinations or admissions to the facility and/or additional appointments to those normally provided for routine patient follow-up. VariablesFull details on patients and disease features, treatment and outcome will be collected, according to common clinical practice guidelines developed and shared with all the contributing centers. In addition, data on potential confounders (e.g. comorbidity; functional status etc.) will also be collected. Statistical methodsThe data analyses will include descriptive statistics and analytical analyses. Multivariable Cox's proportional hazards model and Hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause or cause-specific mortality will be used to determine independent predictors of overall survival, recurrence and progression., Results: The registry has been joined by 21 sarcoma reference centers across EU and UK, covering 10 countries. Patients' recruitment started in December 2023. The estimated completion date is December 2033 upon agreement on the achievement of all the registry objectives. The already established collaboration and participation of EHE patient's associations involved in the project will help in promoting the registry and fostering accrual., Competing Interests: Anna Maria Frezza declares institutional research funding from Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehriger Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, Foghorn Therapeutics Inc., Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma Limited, Inhibrx, Inc., Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, PTC Therapeutics, Rain Oncology, SpringWorks Therapeutics. Alexia Bertuzzi declares support for attending meeting and/or travels from Pharmamar and Istituto Gentili; support for scientific activities from Istituto Gentili. Antonella Brunello declares consulting fees or serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly, Roche, GSK, Eisai, Pharmamar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Deciphera; payment or honoraria for educational events by GSK and Pharmamar; travel grants by Pharmamar, Istituto Gentili. Giacomo G. Baldi declares consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Pharmamar, AboutEvents; honoraria from Pharmamar, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp & Dome, Eisai, IstitutoGentili; support for attending meetings and/or travels from Novartis, Pharmamar, Eli Lilly; participation on the advisory board from Pharmamar, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp & Dome, Eisai. Paolo G. Casali declares institutional research funding from Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehriger Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, Foghorn Therapeutics Inc., Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma Limited, Inhibrx, Inc., Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, PTC Therapeutics, Rain Oncology, SpringWorks Therapeutics. Virginia Ferraresi declares consultancy fees or honoraria from PharmaMar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gentili e Serb Pharmaceuticals. Matilde Ingrosso reports institutional research funding from Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehriger Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, Foghorn Therapeutics Inc., Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma Limited, Inhibrx, Inc., Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, PTC Therapeutics, Rain Oncology, SpringWorks Therapeutics. Laura Monteleone reports institutional research funding from Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehriger Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, Foghorn Therapeutics Inc., Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma Limited, Inhibrx, Inc., Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, PTC Therapeutics, Rain Oncology, SpringWorks Therapeutics. Johanna Szkandera reports participation in advisory boards or invited speaker fees for PharmaMar, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, Amgen; travel expenses coverage from PharmaMar, Roche, Lilly, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb; research funding from PharmaMar, Roche, Eisai. Bruno Vincenzi reports consulting fees from Eisai, Lilly, Bayer, Deciphera, PharmaMar, Blueprint, Pfizer, GSK, Accord, Abbott and research support from PharmaMar, Novartis, Lilly Silvia Stacchiotti declares advisory board roles with Bayer, Boehringer, Daiichi, Ikena, Nec Oncology, Pharma Essentia, Regeneron, Servier; invited speaker roles for Bayer, Boehringer, Gentili, Pharmamar; institutional research funding from Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehriger Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, Foghorn Therapeutics Inc., Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma Limited, Inhibrx, Inc., Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, PTC Therapeutics, Rain Oncology, SpringWorks Therapeutics. Carlo Cicala, Lorenzo D’Ambrosio, Angelo Paolo Dei Tos, Alessandro Gronchi, Nadia Hindi, Robin Jones, Iwona Lugowska, Julia Ketzer, Anna Mariuk-Jarema, Andrea Napolitano, Andri Papakonstantinou, Sandro Pasquali, Marta Sbaraglia, Federico Scolari, Elisa Crotti, Irene Benzonelli, Jean-Yves Blay, Christophe Bouvier, Javier Martin Broto, Hugh Leonard, Ninna Aggerholm-Pedersen, Andri Papakonstantinou, Giuseppe Bianchi, Federica Zuccheri, Paolo Baili, Simone Bonfarnuzzo, Domenico Campanacci, Armelle Dufresne, Sebastian Bauer, Serena Bazzurri, Stefano Gabellini, Claudia Giani, Vincenzo Giannusa, Melissa Gil-Sanjines, Teresa Grassani, Paolo Lasalvia, Stefan Lindskog, Salvatore Vizzaccaro, Nils Dieckmann, Alessandro Mazzocca, Andrei Ivanescu, Giuseppe Badalamenti, Carlo Morosi, Stephanie Elston, Kyetil Boye, Francesca Nardozza, Elisabetta Neri, Maria Nilsson and Annalisa Trama declares no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Frezza et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction: When Soft Tissue Sarcomas are localized in the groin area, they pose specific challenges due to their proximity to important structures. These tumors exhibit elevated complication rates and a higher local recurrence rate compared to their locations in other limbs. The objective of this paper is to analyze a series of patients affected by soft tissue sarcomas in the adductor area of the proximal thigh. The analysis aims to elucidate the epidemiology, diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, complications, and outcomes. Additionally, the study seeks potential prognostic factors and to determine patients at a heightened risk of postoperative complications., Patients and Methods: all patients who underwent surgeries for primary soft tissue sarcomas of the adductor area between October 2006 and March 2022 in a tertiary research hospital were valued. Epidemiology, tumor characteristics and therapeutic approaches were analyzed to identify risk factors for complications and local recurrences; survival was considered a secondary outcome., Results: The series comprised 43 patients, 26 males and 17 females, with an average age of 63.3 years. The most frequent histology was liposarcoma, followed by undifferentiated forms. All patients reported the presence of masses, with associated pain in 27.9% of cases. Limb-sparing surgery was performed in 86.0% of cases. Early and late complications were experienced by 34.9% and 20.0% of patients, respectively, with wound dehiscence being the most frequent problem. The recurrence rate was 9.3%, with no recurrences observed in low-grade patients. At an average follow-up of 51 months, 18 patients (41.9%) were alive, two of which with distant metastases., Conclusion: The present series provides evidence that when Soft Tissue Sarcomas localized in the groin area are managed in specialized centers, the rates of recurrence and complications are not significantly different from those observed in other anatomical sites., Competing Interests: none., (© 2024 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Angiosarcoma (AS) represents a rare and aggressive vascular sarcoma, posing distinct challenges in clinical management compared to other sarcomas. While the current European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) clinical practice guidelines for sarcoma treatment are applicable to AS, its unique aggressiveness and diverse tumor presentations necessitate dedicated and detailed clinical recommendations, which are currently lacking. Notably, considerations regarding surgical extent, radiation therapy (RT), and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy vary significantly in localized disease, depending on each different site of onset. Indeed, AS are one of the sarcoma types most sensitive to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Despite this, uncertainties persist regarding optimal management across different clinical presentations, highlighting the need for further investigation through clinical trials. The Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG) organized a consensus meeting on April 1st, 2023, in Castel San Pietro, Italy, bringing together Italian sarcoma experts from several disciplines and patient representatives from "Sofia nel Cuore Onlus" and the ISG patient advocacy working group. The objective was to develop specific clinical recommendations for managing localized AS within the existing framework of sarcoma clinical practice guidelines, accounting for potential practice variations among ISG institutions. The aim was to try to standardize and harmonize clinical practices, or at least highlight the open questions in the local management of the disease, to define the best evidence-based practice for the optimal approach of localized AS and generate the recommendations presented herein., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: None of the authors has any interests to report directly related to this manuscript. Outside the scope of this manuscript: Elena Palassini, Institutional Research Funding: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Amgen/Dompè, Bayer, GlaxoSmith Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Advenchen Laboratories , Arog, Epizyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SpringWorks Ther,Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rain Therapeutics, Foghorn Ther Inc, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, INBRX, PTC Ther. Giacomo Giulio Baldi, consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Pharmamar, AboutEvents; honoraria from Pharmamar, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp & Dome, Eisai, Istituto Gentili; support for attending meetings and/or travels from Novartis, Pharmamar, Eli Lilly; participation on advisory board from Pharmamar, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp & Dome, Eisai. Sara Sulfaro, Marta Barisella, Giuseppe Bianchi, Domenico Campanacci, Marco Fiore, Marco Gambarotti, Massimiliano Gennaro, Carlo Morosi, no conflict of interests to declare. Federico Navarria, travel grants from Pharmamar, Boehringer Ingelheim. Claudia Sangalli, advisory board from Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca. Rossella Bertulli, travel grants from PharmaMar. Institutional Research Funding: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Amgen/Dompè, Bayer, GlaxoSmith Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Advenchen Laboratories , Arog, Epizyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SpringWorks Ther,Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rain Therapeutics, Foghorn Ther Inc, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, INBRX, PTC Ther. Alexia Bertuzzi, Roberto Biagini, Angela Bonadonna, Antonella Brunello, Dario Callegaro, no conflict of interests to declare. Ferdinando Cananzi, speaking fee from Istituto Gentili. Marco Cianchetti, Paola Collini(,) Danila Comandini, Annalisa Curcio, no conflict of interests to declare. Lorenzo D’Ambrosio, advisory board: PSI CRO Italy, GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai. Meeting participation: GSK, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar. Martino De Pas, participation on advisory board from Glaxo Smith Kline, Boehringer Ingelheim. Trial support from: Pfizer, BluPrint Medicine, Gilead, Amgen, Merck. Angelo Paolo Dei Tos, no conflict of interests to declare. Virginia Ferraresi, Travel grants from PharmaMar, Gentili, Boehringer Ingelheim. Advisory Board: SERB Pharmaceuticals. Andrea Ferrari, Alessandro Franchi, no conflict of interests to declare. Anna Maria Frezza, Institutional Research Funding: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Amgen/Dompè, Bayer, GlaxoSmith Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Advenchen Laboratories , Arog, Epizyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SpringWorks Ther,Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rain Therapeutics, Foghorn Ther Inc, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, INBRX, PTC Ther. Elena Fumagalli, Advisory Board from Deciphera Pharmaceuticals. Institutional Research Funding: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Amgen/Dompè, Bayer, GlaxoSmith Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Advenchen Laboratories , Arog, Epizyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SpringWorks Ther,Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rain Therapeutics, Foghorn Ther Inc, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, INBRX, PTC Ther. Matteo Ghilli, Daniela Greto, no conflict of interests to declare. Giovanni Grignani, advisory board from Pharmamar, Incyte, Merck, Novartis, Deciphera,Bayer. Michele Guida, advisory board from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. Toni ibrahim, advisory board and consultation fees from Amgen, Glaxosmithkline, PharMamar and Istituto Gentili. Travel grants from Istitaka Gentili and Pharmamar. Marco Krengli, Roberto Luksch, Andrea Marrari, Marinella Mastore, Alessandra Merlini, no conflict of interests to declare. Giuseppe Maria Milano, Advisory board from Bayer, GSK, SERBS Pharmaceuticals. Piera Navarria, Maria Abbondanza Pantaleo, Antonina Parafioriti, no conflict of interests to declare. Ilaria Pellegrini, Institutional Research Funding: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Amgen/Dompè, Bayer, GlaxoSmith Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Advenchen Laboratories , Arog, Epizyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SpringWorks Ther,Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rain Therapeutics, Foghorn Ther Inc, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, INBRX, PTC Ther. Elisabetta Pennacchioli, Marco Rastrelli, Elisabetta Setola, Salvatore Tafuto, Salvatore Turano, Sergio Valeri, Bruno Vincenzi, Viviana Vitolo, Andrei Ivanescu, Fiammetta Paloschi, no conflict of interests to declare. Paolo Giovanni Casali, Institutional Research Funding: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Amgen/Dompè, Bayer, GlaxoSmith Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Advenchen Laboratories , Arog, Epizyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SpringWorks Ther,Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rain Therapeutics, Foghorn Ther Inc, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, INBRX, PTC Ther. Alessandro Gronchi, no conflict of interests to declare. Silvia Stacchiotti, personal financial interests (honoraria, consultancy or advisory role): Aadi, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Epizyme, Gentili, GSK, Agenus, Ikena, MaxiVAX, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pharma Essentia, Rain Therapeutics, Servier. Support for attending meetings and/or travel Pharmamar; Institutional financial interests: Advenchen, Bayer, Blueprint, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, GSK, Hutchinson, Inhibrx, Karyopharm, Novartis, PharmaMar, Rain Therapeutics, SpringWorks; unpaid Member of the Scientifc Advisory Board of the Chordoma Foundation, Member of the Scientifc Advisory Board of the Desmoid Foundation, Member of the Scientifc Advisory Board of the Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma Group, Member of the Scientifc Advisory Board of the Leiomyosarcoma Foundation., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: A randomized trial was conducted to compare neoadjuvant standard (S) anthracycline + ifosfamide (AI) regimen with histology-tailored (HT) regimen in selected localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The results of the trial demonstrated the superiority of S in all STS histologies except for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS) where S and HT appeared to be equivalent. To further evaluate the noninferiority of HT compared with S, the HG-MLPS cohort was expanded., Patients and Methods: Patients had localized high-grade (cellular component >5%; size ≥5 cm; deeply seated) MLPS of extremities or trunk wall. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was overall survival (OS). The trial used a noninferiority Bayesian design, wherein HT would be considered not inferior to S if the posterior probability of the true hazard ratio (HR) being >1.25 was <5%., Results: From May 2011 to June 2020, 101 patients with HG-MLPS were randomly assigned, 45 to the HT arm and 56 to the S arm. The median follow-up was 66 months (IQR, 37-89). Median size was 107 mm (IQR, 84-143), 106 mm (IQR, 75-135) in the HT arm and 108 mm (IQR, 86-150) in the S arm. At 60 months, the DFS and OS probabilities were 0.86 and 0.73 (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.46]; log-rank P = .26 for DFS) and 0.88 and 0.90 (HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.37 to 3.93]; log-rank P = .77 for OS) in the HT and S arms, respectively. The posterior probability of HR being >1.25 for DFS met the Bayesian monitoring cutoff of <5% (4.93%). This result confirmed the noninferiority of trabectedin to AI suggested in the original study cohort., Conclusion: Trabectedin may be an alternative to standard AI in HG-MLPS of the extremities or trunk when neoadjuvant treatment is a consideration.

Background: The current therapeutic algorithm for Advanced Stage Melanoma comprises of alternating lines of Targeted and Immuno-therapy, mostly via Immune-Checkpoint blockade. While Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of solid tumours has been approved as a companion diagnostic, still no approved predictive biomarkers are available for Melanoma aside from BRAF mutations and the controversial Tumor Mutational Burden. This study presents the results of a Multi-Centre Observational Clinical Trial of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling on Target and Immuno-therapy treated advanced Melanoma., Methods: 82 samples, collected from 7 Italian Cancer Centres of FFPE-archived Metastatic Melanoma and matched blood were sequenced via a custom-made 184-gene amplicon-based NGS panel. Sequencing and bioinformatics analysis was performed at a central hub. Primary analysis was carried out via the Ion Reporter framework. Secondary analysis and Machine Learning modelling comprising of uni and multivariate, COX/Lasso combination, and Random Forest, was implemented via custom R/Python scripting., Results: The genomics landscape of the ACC-mela cohort is comparable at the somatic level for Single Nucleotide Variants and INDELs aside a few gene targets. All the clinically relevant targets such as BRAF and NRAS have a comparable distribution thus suggesting the value of larger scale sequencing in melanoma. No comparability is reached at the CNV level due to biotechnological biases and cohort numerosity. Tumour Mutational Burden is slightly higher in median for Complete Responders but fails to achieve statistical significance in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis via several thresholding strategies. Mutations on PDGFRB, NOTCH3 and RET were shown to have a positive effect on Immune-checkpoint treatment Overall and Disease-Free Survival, while variants in NOTCH4 were found to be detrimental for both endpoints., Conclusions: The results presented in this study show the value and the challenge of a genomics-driven network trial. The data can be also a valuable resource as a validation cohort for Immunotherapy and Target therapy genomic biomarker research., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels above the upper limit of normal (ULN) are associated with poor prognosis in patients with melanoma. Although treatment with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib have demonstrated long-term clinical benefit in patients with melanoma, data on their efficacy in patients with BM are limited., Methods: DESCRIBE Italy is an observational, retrospective, real-world study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in 499 patients with BRAF V600 -mutant stage III unresectable or stage IV melanoma from various sites across Italy. Here, we analyzed the clinical outcomes for the subgroup of patients receiving first-line treatment and presenting with BM at diagnosis and assessed the impact of predictive factors such as LDH levels and the presence of other metastases on median progression-free survival (mPFS)., Results: Overall, 325 evaluable patients were on first-line therapy and are the focus of this analysis; of these, 76 patients (23.4%) had BM at baseline. mPFS was lower for patients with BM at baseline compared with overall patients (8.7 months vs 9.3 months, respectively). Patients with BM at diagnosis and LDH >ULN had a considerably shorter mPFS compared with patients with LDH ⩽ULN (5.3 months vs 9.9 months, respectively). mPFS was noticeably longer for patients with cerebral metastases only compared with patients with cerebral and other metastases (15.0 months vs 8.7 months, respectively)., Conclusions: Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed effectiveness in a real-world population of patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma and BM at baseline, supporting its use in this population with poor outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MA has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Pharmamar; has received consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Merck and Novartis; and has received travel support from BMS, Merck and Tesaro. VC-S has received honoraria from MDS, Merck Serono and Novartis; has received travel support from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for Pierre Fabre. MGuidoboni has received consulting fees from BMS and Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS. RD has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. AM has received honoraria from Merck, Pierre Fabre and Sun Pharma, and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. FC has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre, and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck and Novartis. PAA has received research funding from BMS, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech and Sanofi; has received consulting fees from 4SC, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Idera, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, iTeos, Lunaphore, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Nouscom, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche-Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seagen and Sun Pharma; and has received travel support from MSD. RM has received consulting fees from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received honoraria from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Ipsen, MSD and Novartis; has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. VF has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from BMS and Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, MSD and Novartis. MT has received institutional research funding from Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from MSD; and has participated in advisory boards for Novartis. GT has received honoraria from Molteni, Novartis and Pharmamar. MGuida has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. MDV has received consulting fees from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. IGM is a Novartis employee. PQ has received consulting fees from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi. MB, PF, RG, GLR, and GR have no conflict of interest to declare.

Although patient narratives have been increasingly introduced in various fields of medicine, a standard method in clinical practice is still lacking. The objectives of this pilot study were to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of a digital narrative diary integrated into the care pathway of patients with bone sarcoma and limb soft tissue sarcoma both from the patients' and the healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives. A digital platform, DNMLAB, was designed to obtain guided narratives from patients during their pathway of care in compliance with confidentiality and data protection laws. The diary was used for patients, often young, facing a rare and impactful disease that is difficult to manage and with few opportunities to share experiences. The multidisciplinary team shared the narratives and integrated them into the patient's treatment pathway. Narrative prompts were adequate for the care pathway. Patients correctly considered the diary as a shared area to think about their condition, and HCPs considered it "a shared area growing at each meeting with the patient". The main advantages reported by patients were increased awareness, the opportunity to express their opinion on cures and important personal needs and the perception of better taking charge (score ≥ 4.6). The main advantages of HCP were improved communication, therapeutic alliance, and deeper knowledge of patients. This study confirmed the authors' previous experiences, showing that a digital narrative process is feasible and useful for oncology clinical practice according to patients and HCPs.

Background: Molecular Tumor Boards (MTB) operating in real-world have generated limited consensus on good practices for accrual, actionable alteration mapping, and outcome metrics. These topics are addressed herein in 124 MTB patients, all real-world accrued at progression, and lacking approved therapy options., Methods: Actionable genomic alterations identified by tumor DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling were mapped by customized OncoKB criteria to reflect diagnostic/therapeutic indications as approved in Europe. Alterations were considered non-SoC when mapped at either OncoKB level 3, regardless of tDNA/ctDNA origin, or at OncoKB levels 1/2, provided they were undetectable in matched tDNA, and had not been exploited in previous therapy lines., Results: Altogether, actionable alterations were detected in 54/124 (43.5%) MTB patients, but only in 39 cases (31%) were these alterations (25 from tDNA, 14 from ctDNA) actionable/unexploited, e.g. they had not resulted in the assignment of pre-MTB treatments. Interestingly, actionable and actionable/unexploited alterations both decreased (37.5% and 22.7% respectively) in a subset of 88 MTB patients profiled by tDNA-only, but increased considerably (77.7% and 66.7%) in 18 distinct patients undergoing combined tDNA/ctDNA testing, approaching the potential treatment opportunities (76.9%) in 147 treatment-naïve patients undergoing routine tDNA profiling for the first time. Non-SoC therapy was MTB-recommended to all 39 patients with actionable/unexploited alterations, but only 22 (56%) accessed the applicable drug, mainly due to clinical deterioration, lengthy drug-gathering procedures, and geographical distance from recruiting clinical trials. Partial response and stable disease were recorded in 8 and 7 of 19 evaluable patients, respectively. The time to progression (TTP) ratio (MTB-recommended treatment vs last pre-MTB treatment) exceeded the conventional Von Hoff 1.3 cut-off in 9/19 cases, high absolute TTP and Von Hoff values coinciding in 3 cases. Retrospectively, 8 patients receiving post-MTB treatment(s) as per physician's choice were noted to have a much longer overall survival from MTB accrual than 11 patients who had received no further treatment (35.09 vs 6.67 months, p = 0.006)., Conclusions: MTB-recommended/non-SoC treatments are effective, including those assigned by ctDNA-only alterations. However, real-world MTBs may inadvertently recruit patients electively susceptible to diverse and/or multiple treatments., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak had a negative psychological impact on cancer patients. In this study, we analyzed emotional distress and quality of life in patients diagnosed with sarcoma during the first year of the pandemic compared to the previous year., Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients with soft tissue, bone sarcoma, and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases diagnosed during the pandemic (COVID group) or the year before (control group) at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. Patients who had undergone a psychological assessment with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Distress Thermometer at diagnosis were included in the final analysis. We analyzed whether there is a difference in the various domains of quality of life between the two groups and whether there are changes over time in each group., Results: We enrolled 114 patients (72 control group; 42 COVID group), affected by soft tissue (64%), bone sarcoma (29%), and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases (7%). We did not observe significant differences in the health-related quality of life domains in the control and COVID groups, except for the financial domain ( p  = 0.039), with 9.7% vs. 23.8% of patients with a score > 0 in the control and COVID groups, respectively. We observed emotional distress at diagnosis in 48.6% of patients in the control group vs. 69.0% in the COVID group ( p = 0.034). In the control group, we observed an improvement in physical function ( p = 0.043) and in QoL ( p = 0.022), while in the COVID group, we observed a deterioration in role function ( p = 0.044) during follow-up. In the COVID group, 22.2% of patients were concerned about COVID-19, 61.1% by tumor, 91.1% stated that the pandemic worsened their subjective perception of cancer, and 19.4% perceived that their quality of care had worsened., Conclusion: We observed a higher level of distress among patients diagnosed during the pandemic compared to the year before, probably due to the increased concern for both infection and cancer, the worsened perception of health status, and the perception of a poorer quality of health care., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Onesti, Vari, Minghelli, Nardozza, Rossi, Sperati, Checcucci, Faltyn, Cercato, Cosimati, Salvatori, Biagini, Ciliberto, Ferraresi and Maggi.)

Introduction: Despite the recent approval of several therapies in the adjuvant setting of melanoma, tumor relapse still occurs in a significant number of completely resected stage III-IV patients. In this context, the use of cancer vaccines is still relevant and may increase the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. We previously demonstrated safety, immunogenicity and preliminary evidence of clinical efficacy in stage III/IV resected melanoma patients subjected to a combination therapy based on peptide vaccination together with intermittent low-dose interferon-α2b, with or without dacarbazine preconditioning (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search, identifier: 2008-008211-26). In this setting, we then focused on pre-treatment patient immune status to highlight possible factors associated with clinical outcome., Methods: Multiparametric flow cytometry was used to identify baseline immune profiles in patients' peripheral blood mononuclear cells and correlation with the patient clinical outcome. Receiver operating characteristic curve, Kaplan-Meier survival and principal component analyses were used to evaluate the predictive power of the identified markers., Results: We identified 12 different circulating T and NK cell subsets with significant (p ≤ 0.05) differential baseline levels in patients who later relapsed with respect to patients who remained free of disease. All 12 parameters showed a good prognostic accuracy (AUC>0.7, p ≤ 0.05) and 11 of them significantly predicted the relapse-free survival. Remarkably, 3 classifiers also predicted the overall survival. Focusing on immune cell subsets that can be analyzed through simple surface staining, three subsets were identified, namely regulatory T cells, CD56 dim CD16 - NK cells and central memory γδ T cells. Each subset showed an AUC>0.8 and principal component analysis significantly grouped relapsing and non-relapsing patients (p=0.034). These three subsets were used to calculate a combination score that was able to perfectly distinguish relapsing and non-relapsing patients (AUC=1; p=0). Noticeably, patients with a combined score ≥2 demonstrated a strong advantage in both relapse-free (p=0.002) and overall (p=0.011) survival as compared to patients with a score <2., Discussion: Predictive markers may be used to guide patient selection for personalized therapies and/or improve follow-up strategies. This study provides preliminary evidence on the identification of peripheral blood immune biomarkers potentially capable of predicting the clinical response to combined vaccine-based adjuvant therapies in melanoma., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Moschella, Buccione, Ruspantini, Castiello, Rozo Gonzalez, Iacobone, Ferraresi, Palermo, Nisticò, Belardelli, Proietti, Macchia and Urbani.)

Background: Despite the lack of evidence-based on prospective randomized studies, surgery has become the cornerstone of the treatment in patients with pulmonary oligometastatic sarcomas. Our study aimed to construct a composite prognostic score for metachronous oligometastatic sarcoma patients., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on data patients who underwent radical surgery for metachronous metastases in six research institutes from January 2010 to December 2018. The log-hazard ratio (HR) obtained from the Cox model was used to derive weighting factors for a continuous prognostic index designed to identify differential outcome risks., Results: A total of 251 patients were enrolled in the study. In the multivariate analysis, a longer disease-free interval (DFI) and a lower neutrophil-to-lymphocytes ratio (NLR) were predictive of a better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). A prognostic score was developed based on DFI and NLR data, identifying 2 risk class groups for DFS (3-years DFS 20.2% for the high-risk group [HRG]and 46.4% for the low-risk group [LRG] [<0.0001]) and 3 risk groups for OS (3 years OS 53.9% for the HRG vs. 76.9% for the intermediate-risk group and 100% of the LRG (p < 0.0001))., Conclusion: The proposed prognostic score effectively predicts outcomes for patients with lung metachronous oligo-metastases from the surgically treated sarcoma., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, with a high incidence estimated to reach 2.3 million by 2030. Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is the greatest invasive class of breast cancer with a poor prognosis, due to the side-effects exerted by the chemotherapy used and the low effectivity of novel treatments. In this sense, copper compounds have shown to be potentially effective as antitumor agents, attracting increasing interest as alternatives to the usually employed platinum-derived drugs. Therefore, the aim of this work is to identify differentially expressed proteins in MDA-MB-231 cells exposed to two copper(II)-hydrazone complexes using label-free quantitative proteomics and functional bioinformatics strategies to identify the molecular mechanisms through which these copper complexes exert their antitumoral effect in TNBC cells. Both copper complexes increased proteins involved in endoplasmic reticulum stress and unfolded protein response, as well as the downregulation of proteins related to DNA replication and repair. One of the most relevant anticancer mechanisms of action found for CuHL1 and CuHL2 was the down-regulation of gain-of-function-mutant p53. Moreover, we found a novel and interesting effect for a copper metallodrug, which was the down-regulation of proteins related to lipid synthesis and metabolism that could lead to a beneficial decrease in lipid levels.

Background: Undifferentiated small round cell sarcomas (URCSs) represent a diagnostic challenge, and their optimal treatment is unknown. We aimed to define the clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcome of URCS patients., Methods: URCS patients treated from 1983 to 2019 at 21 worldwide sarcoma reference centres were retrospectively identified. Based on molecular assessment, cases were classified as follows: (1) CIC-rearranged round cell sarcomas, (2) BCOR::CCNB3-rearranged round cell sarcomas, (3) unclassified URCSs. Treatment, prognostic factors and outcome were reviewed., Results: In total, 148 patients were identified [88/148 (60%) CIC-rearranged sarcoma (median age 32 years, range 7-78), 33/148 (22%) BCOR::CCNB3-rearranged (median age 17 years, range 5-91), and 27/148 (18%) unclassified URCSs (median age 37 years, range 4-70)]. One hundred-one (68.2%) cases presented with localised disease; 47 (31.8%) had metastases at diagnosis. Male prevalence, younger age, bone primary site, and a low rate of synchronous metastases were observed in BCOR::CCNB3-rearranged cases. Local treatment was surgery in 67/148 (45%) patients, and surgery + radiotherapy in 52/148 (35%). Chemotherapy was given to 122/148 (82%) patients. At a 42.7-month median follow-up, the 3-year overall survival (OS) was 92.2% (95% CI 71.5-98.0) in BCOR::CCNB3 patients, 39.6% (95% CI 27.7-51.3) in CIC-rearranged sarcomas, and 78.7% in unclassified URCSs (95% CI 56.1-90.6; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: This study is the largest conducted in URCS and confirms major differences in outcomes between URCS subtypes. A full molecular assessment should be undertaken when a diagnosis of URCS is suspected. Prospective studies are needed to better define the optimal treatment strategy in each URCS subtype., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Care for head and neck cancers is complex in particular for the rare ones. Knowledge is limited and histological heterogeneity adds complexity to the rarity. There is a wide consensus that to support clinical research on rare cancer, clinical registries should be developed within networks specializing in rare cancers. In the EU, a unique opportunity is provided by the European Reference Networks (ERN). The ERN EURACAN is dedicated to rare adults solid cancers, here we present the protocol of the EURACAN registry on rare head and neck cancers (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05483374)., Study Design: Registry-based cohort study including only people with rare head and neck cancers., Objectives: to help describe the natural history of rare head and neck cancers;to evaluate factors that influence prognosis;to assess treatment effectiveness;to measure indicators of quality of care., Methods: Settings and participants It is an hospital based registry established in hospitals with expertise in head and neck cancers. Only adult patients with epithelial tumours of nasopharynx; nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses; salivary gland cancer in large and small salivary glands; and middle ear will be included in the registry. This registry won't select a sample of patients. Each patient in the facility who meets the above mentioned inclusion criteria will be followed prospectively and longitudinally with follow-up at cancer progression and / or cancer relapse or patient death. It is a secondary use of data which will be collected from the clinical records. The data collected for the registry will not entail further examinations or admissions to the facility and/or additional appointments to those normally provided for the patient follow-up. Variables Data will be collected on patient characteristics (eg. patient demographics, lifestyle, medical history, health status); exposure data (eg. disease, procedures, treatments of interest) and outcomes (e.g. survival, progression, progression-free survival, etc.). In addition, data on potential confounders (e.g. comorbidity; functional status etc.) will be also collected. Statistical methods The data analyses will include descriptive statistics showing patterns of patients' and cancers' variables and indicators describing the quality of care. Multivariable Cox's proportional hazards model and Hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause or cause specific mortality will be used to determine independent predictors of overall survival, recurrence etc. Variables to include in the multivariable regression model will be selected based on the results of univariable analysis. The role of confounding or effect modifiers will be evaluated using stratified analysis or sensitivity analysis. To assess treatment effectiveness, multivariable models with propensity score adjustment and progression-free survival will be performed. Adequate statistical (eg. marginal structural model) methods will be used if time-varying treatments/confounders and confounding by indication (selective prescribing) will be present., Results: The registry initiated recruiting in May 2022. The estimated completion date is December 2030 upon agreement on the achievement of all the registry objectives. As of October 2022, the registry is recruiting. There will be a risk of limited representativeness due to the hospital-based nature of the registry and to the fact that hospital contributing to the registry are expert centres for these rare cancers. Clinical Follow-up could also be an issue but active search of the life status of the patients will be guaranteed., Competing Interests: Paolo Bossi was part of the Advisory board or conference honoraria for: Merck, Sanofi-Regeneron, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sun Pharma, Angelini, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nestlè Christoph Benedikt Westphalen received honoraria from Bayer, Celgene, Ipsen, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Servier, and Taiho, served in a consulting/advisory role for BMS, Celgene, Merck, Shire/Baxalta, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, RedHill BioPharma, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, has received travel/accommodation expenses from Bayer, Celgene, RedHill BioPharma, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Servier, and Taiho and has received research funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Lisa Licitra participated to clinical studies that received research funding intended directly to Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene International, Eisai, Exelixis, Debiopharm International SA, Hoffmann – La Roche ltd, IRX Therapeutics, Medpace, Merck-Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Buran. Also, she declares that she recived occasional payment for her participation as a speaker at conferences/congresses or as a scientific consultant for advisory boards from Astrazeneca, Bayer, MSD, Merck-Serono, AccMed, Neutron Therapeutics, Inc All the other authors declare that they have no competing interests. I confirm that this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Trama et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600 -mutant metastatic melanoma., Methods: SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication., Results: A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged., Conclusion: Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma.

Background: Undifferentiated soft-tissue sarcomas (USTS) are one of the most common sarcoma histotypes in adults. The standard of care is surgical excision plus adjuvant radiotherapy, while the use of perioperative chemotherapy is still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of pre-treatment [18F]FDG PET/CT conventional metrics and textural features in predicting disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with USTS of the limbs and trunk., Methods: [18F]FDG PET/CT scans of 51 consecutive patients with locally advanced USTS were retrospectively evaluated. Conventional and textural PET parameters were analysed and tested as predictive factors for DFS and OS., Results: During a median follow up of 50.7 months, 23 (45.1%) and 29 (56.9%) patients had death or disease progression, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed a significant association for perioperative treatment, PET volumetric parameters and the textural feature GLCM&#95;correlation with DFS and OS. In multivariate analysis, perioperative treatment and GLCM&#95;correlation were the only independent factors, allowing stratification of the population into three different prognostic classes., Conclusion: GLCM&#95;correlation can identify USTS at high risk of relapse and death, thus helping to optimize the perioperative treatment of patients.

Background: Among sarcomas, which are rare cancers with an incidence of <6 per 100.000/year cases, ultra-rare sarcomas have an incidence of approximately ≤1/1,000,000/year cases and altogether account for ~20% of all soft tissue sarcomas (STS) and bone sarcomas. The Italian Sarcoma Group has recently performed a non-interventional, retrospective TrObs study with data from 512 anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced multiple STS histologies and treated with trabectedin (Palmerini, Cancers 2021; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02793050)., Methods: A post-hoc analysis of case series to evaluate the efficacy and safety of trabectedin on patients with ultra-rare and other rare translocation-related sarcomas included in TrObs study was performed. Main outcomes comprised investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety., Results: Thirty-six patients (18 women) with ultra-rare and other rare sarcoma and a median age of 53.0 years (range: 22-81) were included. Most patients had solitary fibrous tumor (SFT; n=11) followed by epithelioid sarcoma (n=5), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST; n=4), extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (EMC; n=3), desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT; n=3), and alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), rhabdomyosarcoma and clear cell sarcoma (n=2 each). Thirty-five patients had metastatic disease and 23 patients received trabectedin as a second-line treatment. Among 35 patients evaluable for response, two patients with SFT and ASPS had a partial response and one patient with DSRCT obtained a complete response, reaching an ORR of 8.6% (95% CI: 2.8-23.4%). Among patients with an ORR, 6-months PFS was 100% in patients with ASPS, 45.7% in patients with SFT and 33.3% in those with DSRCT. Two patients with epithelioid sarcoma and myoepithelioma had disease stabilization lasting >24 months. Nine patients had at least one grade 3/4 adverse event, mostly being bone marrow toxicity (n=6)., Conclusions: Trabectedin has some anti-tumor activity in some ultra-rare and other rare sarcomas, particularly translocation-related sarcomas, with the well-known manageable safety profile., Competing Interests: EP has served on an advisory board for Takeda, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Eusa Pharma, Deciphera, and SynOx Therapeutics and has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Daiichi Sankyo. ABr is a consultant for Eli Lilly, Eisai, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Pharmamar and has received travel grants from PharmaMar, Takeda, and Ipsen. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Palmerini, Sanfilippo, Grignani, Buonadonna, Romanini, Badalamenti, Ferraresi, Vincenzi, Comandone, Pizzolorusso, Brunello, Gelsomino, De Pas, Ibrahim, Gurrieri, Grosso, Zanelli, Pantaleo, Milesi, Ciuffreda, Ferrari, Marchesi, Quattrini, Righi, Setola, Carretta, Casali, Picci and Ferrari.)

Objective: The extent of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts survival in Ewing sarcoma. This study focuses on MRI radiomics of skeletal Ewing sarcoma and aims to investigate feature reproducibility and machine learning prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included thirty patients with biopsy-proven skeletal Ewing sarcoma, who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery at two tertiary sarcoma centres. 7 patients were poor responders and 23 were good responders based on pathological assessment of the surgical specimen. On pre-treatment T1-weighted and T2-weighted MRI, 2D and 3D tumour segmentations were manually performed. Features were extracted from original and wavelet-transformed images. Feature reproducibility was assessed through small geometrical transformations of the regions of interest mimicking multiple manual delineations, and intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75 defined feature reproducibility. Feature selection also consisted of collinearity and significance analysis. After class balancing in the training cohort, three machine learning classifiers were trained and tested on unseen data using hold-out cross-validation., Results: 1303 (77%) 3D and 620 (65%) 2D radiomic features were reproducible. 4 3D and 4 2D features passed feature selection. Logistic regression built upon 3D features achieved the best performance with 85% accuracy (AUC=0.9) in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Conclusion: Compared to 2D approach, 3D MRI radiomics of Ewing sarcoma had superior reproducibility and higher accuracy in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, particularly when using logistic regression classifier., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Gitto, Corino, Annovazzi, Milazzo Machado, Bologna, Marzorati, Albano, Messina, Serpi, Anelli, Ferraresi, Zoccali, Aliprandi, Parafioriti, Luzzati, Biagini, Mainardi and Sconfienza.)

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive cutaneous neuroendocrine cancer that usually affects the elderly and immunosuppressed in sun-exposed areas. Due to its rarity, it is frequently unrecognized, and its management is not standardized across medical centers, despite the more recent availability of immunotherapy, with avelumab as first-line treatment improving the prognosis even in advanced stages of disease. We conducted a purpose-designed survey of a selected sample of physicians working in the Lazio region, in Italy, to assess their awareness and knowledge of MCC as well as their perspective on assisted diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. The Lazio region, and in particular Rome, is one of the most important academic and non- academic center in Italy dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer. A total of 368 doctors (including 100 general practitioners, 72 oncologists, 87 dermatologists, 59 surgeons, and 50 anatomopathologists) agreed to be part of this survey. Surgeons, oncologists, and dermatologists thought themselves significantly more updated on MCC than primary care physicians, but more than half of the interviewees are interested in CCM training courses and training with clearer and more standardized care pathways. Significant differences have been reported from survey participants in terms of multidisciplinary team set up for MCC management. The identification of specialized centers and the improvement of communication pathways among different specialties, as well as between patients and physicians, could be very beneficial in improving patients' journey modeling and starting a uniform diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for MCC patients in the new era of immunotherapies.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid reorganization of healthcare activities, leading to reduced access to clinics, interruption of screenings, and treatment schedule modifications in several cancer types. Few data are available on sarcomas. We analyzed COVID-19-related diagnostic delay in a sarcoma referral center in Italy., Methods: We retrospectively enrolled in this study patients with histological diagnosis of soft tissue or bone sarcoma and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases obtained during the first year of the pandemic (Covid group) or the year before (Control group) and followed at the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. The primary endpoint was the time from the first symptom to histological diagnosis., Results: We evaluated 372 patients, 185 of whom were eligible for primary endpoint analysis (92 patients in the Control group and 93 patients in the Covid group). The patients were affected by soft tissue sarcoma in most cases (63.0% and 66.7% in Covid and Control groups, respectively). We observed a diagnostic delay in the Covid group with a median time from the first symptom to the definitive histological diagnosis of 103.00 days (95% CI 92.77-113.23) vs . 90.00 days (95% CI 69.49-110.51) in the Control group ( p = 0.024), but not a delay in treatment beginning (151 days, 95% CI 132.9-169.1 vs . 144 days, 95% CI 120.3-167.7, respectively, p = 0.208). No differences in stage at diagnosis were observed (12% vs . 16.5% of patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis in the Covid and Control groups, respectively, p = 0.380). Progression-free survival ( p = 0.897) and overall survival ( p = 0.725) were comparable in the subgroup of patients affected by soft tissue sarcoma., Conclusions: A delay in sarcoma diagnosis but not in starting treatment has been observed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, no difference in stage at diagnosis or in terms of survival has been observed., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer DM declared a past co-authorship with the author SV and a shared parent affiliation with the author AC to the handling editor at the time of review. The author CEO declared past co-authorships with the Editor RG., (Copyright © 2022 Onesti, Vari, Nardozza, Maggi, Minghelli, Rossi, Sperati, Checcucci, Faltyn, Cercato, Cosimati, Biagini, Ciliberto and Ferraresi.)