BackgroundRecently, we performed a meta-analysis based on a literature review for STS trials (published 2003-2018, >= 10 adult patients) to update long-standing reference values for... Show moreBackgroundRecently, we performed a meta-analysis based on a literature review for STS trials (published 2003-2018, >= 10 adult patients) to update long-standing reference values for leiomyosarcomas. This work is extended for liposarcomas (LPS) and synovial sarcomas (SS).Materials and methodsStudy endpoints were progression-free survival rates (PFSRs) at 3 and 6 months. Trial-specific estimates were pooled per treatment line (first-line or pre-treated) with random effects meta-analyses. The choice of the therapeutic benefit to target in future trials was guided by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).ResultsInformation was acquired for 1030 LPS patients (25 trials; 7 first-line, 17 pre-treated, 1 both) and 348 SS patients (13 trials; 3 first-line, 10 pre-treated). For LPS, the overall pooled first-line PFSRs were 69% (95%-CI 60-77%) and 56% (95%-CI 45-67%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. These rates were 49% (95%-CI 40-57%)/28% (95%-CI 22-34%) for >1 lines. For SS, first-line PFSRs were 74% (95%-CI 58-86%)/56% (95%-CI 31-78%) at 3 and 6 months, and pre-treated rates were 45% (95%-CI 34-57%)/25% (95%-CI 16-36%). Following ESMO-MCBS guidelines, the minimum values to target are 79% and 69% for first-line LPS (82% and 69% for SS) at 3 and 6 months. For pre-treated LPS, recommended PFSRs at 3 and 6 months suggesting drug activity are 63% and 44% (60% and 41% for SS).ConclusionsNew benchmarks are proposed for advanced/metastatic LPS or SS to design future histology-specific phase II trials. More data are needed to provide definitive thresholds for the different LPS subtypes. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Kantidakis, G.; Litière, S.; Neven, A.; Vinches, M.; Judson, I.; Blay, J.Y.; ... ; Gelderblom, H. 2022
Background: Recently, we performed a meta-analysis based on a literature review for STS trials (published 2003-2018, >= 10 adult patients) to update long-standing reference values for... Show moreBackground: Recently, we performed a meta-analysis based on a literature review for STS trials (published 2003-2018, >= 10 adult patients) to update long-standing reference values for leiomyosarcomas. This work is extended for liposarcomas (LPS) and synovial sarcomas (SS).Materials and methods: Study endpoints were progression-free survival rates (PFSRs) at 3 and 6 months. Trial-specific estimates were pooled per treatment line (first-line or pre-treated) with random effects meta-analyses. The choice of the therapeutic benefit to target in future trials was guided by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).Results: Information was acquired for 1030 LPS patients (25 trials; 7 first-line, 17 pre-treated, 1 both) and 348 SS patients (13 trials; 3 first-line, 10 pre-treated). For LPS, the overall pooled first-line PFSRs were 69% (95%-CI 60-77%) and 56% (95%-CI 45-67%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. These rates were 49% (95%-CI 40-57%)/28% (95%-CI 22-34%) for >1 lines. For SS, first-line PFSRs were 74% (95%-CI 58-86%)/56% (95%-CI 31-78%) at 3 and 6 months, and pre-treated rates were 45% (95%-CI 34-57%)/25% (95%-CI 16-36%). Following ESMO-MCBS guidelines, the minimum values to target are 79% and 69% for first-line LPS (82% and 69% for SS) at 3 and 6 months. For pre-treated LPS, recommended PFSRs at 3 and 6 months suggesting drug activity are 63% and 44% (60% and 41% for SS).Conclusions: New benchmarks are proposed for advanced/metastatic LPS or SS to design future histology-specific phase II trials. More data are needed to provide definitive thresholds for the different LPS subtypes. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Kantidakis, G.; Litiere, S.; Neven, A.; Vinches, M.; Judson, I.; Schoffski, P.; ... ; Gelderblom, H. 2021
Background: In 2002, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group reported well-established values for conducting phase II trials for soft... Show moreBackground: In 2002, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group reported well-established values for conducting phase II trials for soft-tissue sarcomas. An update is provided for leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Materials and methods: Clinical trials with advanced or metastatic LMS were identified via literature review in PubMed (published 2003-2018, >10 adult LMS patients). End-points were 3-and 6-month progression-free survival rates (PFSR-3m and PFSR-6m). When estimates could not be derived from publications, data requests were sent out. Treatments were classified as recommended (R-T) or non-recommended (NR-T) according to the ESMO 2018 guidelines. A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool trial-specific estimates for first-line (1L) or pre-treated (2L+) patients separately. The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale was used to guide the treatment effect to target in future trials. Results: From 47 studies identified, we obtained information on 7 1L and 16 2L+ trials for 1500 LMS patients. Overall, in 1L, PFSR-3m and PFSR-6m were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64-82%) and 58% (95% CI 50-66%), respectively. For 2L+, PFSR-3m was 48% (95% CI 41-54%), and PFSR-6m was 28% (95% CI 22-34%). No difference was observed between R-T and NR-T for first or later lines. Under the alternative that the true benefit amounts to a hazard ratio of 0.65, a PFSR-6m >70% can be considered to suggest drug activity in 1L. For 2L+, a PFSR-3m >62% or PFSR-6m >44% would suggest drug activity. Specific results are also provided for uterine LMS. Conclusions: This work provides a new benchmark for designing phase II studies for advanced or metastatic LMS. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
