Background: Diffuse-type tenosynovial giant cell tumour (D-TGCT) is a nonmalignant but locally aggressive tumour driven by overexpression of colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF1). CSF1R inhibitors are... Show moreBackground: Diffuse-type tenosynovial giant cell tumour (D-TGCT) is a nonmalignant but locally aggressive tumour driven by overexpression of colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF1). CSF1R inhibitors are potential therapeutic strategies for patients not amenable to surgery. We report here the long-term outcome of nilotinib in patients with advanced D-TGCT treated within a phase II prospective international study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01261429). Methods: Patients were enrolled between December 2010-September 2012 at 11 cancer centres. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed D-TGCT, not amenable to surgery. Patients received nilotinib until evidence of progression, toxicity or a maximum of one year. Long-term data were retrospectively collected after the completion of the phase II trial. Patients with nilotinib treatment >= 12 weeks and follow-up >= 12 months were included for long-term analysis. Results: Forty-eight of 56 enrolled patients were included. Median treatment duration was 11 months; 31 (65%) patients completed the treatment protocol. After 102 months of follow-up (median; range 12-129), 25 patients (52%) had progression. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 77 months. The five-year PFS rate was 53%. Fifteen patients (n=15/46; 33%) experienced clinical worsening after 11 months (median). Twenty-seven patients (58%) received additional treatment, after which eleven patients (n = 11/27; 41%) had a second relapse. Nine patients required a subsequent treatment, primarily other CSF1R inhibitors (n = 6/9; 67%). No unfavourable long-term effects were observed. Conclusion: This long-term analysis of nilotinib for advanced D-TGCT showed that about half of the patients had progression and underwent additional treatment after 8.5 years follow-up. Contrarily, several patients had ongoing disease control after limited treatment duration, demonstrating the mixed effect of nilotinib. Show less
A. Kawai43, K. Kopeckova44, D. A. Krakorova45, A. Le Cesne46, F. Le Grange1, E. Legius47, A. Leithner48, A. Lopez Pousa49, J. Martin-Broto36, O. Merimsky50, C. Messiou51, A. B. Miah52, O. Mir53, M.... Show moreA. Kawai43, K. Kopeckova44, D. A. Krakorova45, A. Le Cesne46, F. Le Grange1, E. Legius47, A. Leithner48, A. Lopez Pousa49, J. Martin-Broto36, O. Merimsky50, C. Messiou51, A. B. Miah52, O. Mir53, M. Montemurro54, B. Morland55, C. Morosi56, E. Palmerini57, M. A. Pantaleo58, R. Piana59, S. Piperno-Neumann60, P. Reichardt61, P. Rutkowski62, A. A. Safwat63, C. Sangalli64, M. Sbaraglia19, S. Scheipl48, P. Schoffski65, S. Sleijfer66, D. Strauss67, K. Sundby Hall13, A. Trama68, M. Unk69, M. A. J. van de Sande70, W. T. A. van der Graaf66,71, W. J. van Houdt72, T. Frebourg73x, R. Ladenstein41z, P. G. Casali2,74z & Show less
Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade... Show moreEpithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade sarcoma and it is marked by a high propensity for systemic involvement. No active systemic agents are currently approved specifically for EHE, which is typically refractory to the antitumor drugs used in sarcomas. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy for EHE patients and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of the disease make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for many EHE patients. To address the shortcoming, a global consensus meeting was organized in December 2020 under the umbrella of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) involving >80 experts from several disciplines from Europe, North America and Asia, together with a patient representative from the EHE Group, a global, disease-specific patient advocacy group, and Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN). The meeting was aimed at defining, by consensus, evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to primary and metastatic EHE. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication. Show less
Background The optimal treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma is still debated. Given histotype-specific prospective controlled data lacking, this study retrospectively evaluated doxorubicin plus... Show moreBackground The optimal treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma is still debated. Given histotype-specific prospective controlled data lacking, this study retrospectively evaluated doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and doxorubicin alone as first-line treatments for advanced/metastatic leiomyosarcoma treated at European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC-STBSG) sites.Methods The inclusion criteria were a confirmed histological diagnosis, treatment between January 2010 and December 2015, measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status <= 2, and an age >= 18 years. The endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR). PFS was analyzed with methods for interval-censored data. Patients were matched according to their propensity scores, which were estimated with a logistic regression model accounting for histology, grade, age, sex, performance status, tumor site, and tumor extent.Results Three hundred three patients from 18 EORTC-STBSG sites were identified. One hundred seventeen (39%) received doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, 71 (23%) received doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and 115 (38%) received doxorubicin. In the 2:1:2 propensity score-matched population (205 patients), the estimated median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-9.7 months), 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.2-10.1 months), and 4.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-6.0 months) with ORRs of 30.9%, 19.5%, and 25.6% for doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and doxorubicin alone, respectively. PFS was significantly longer with doxorubicin plus dacarbazine versus doxorubicin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99). Doxorubicin plus dacarbazine was associated with longer OS (median, 36.8 months; 95% CI, 27.9-47.2 months) in comparison with both doxorubicin plus ifosfamide (median, 21.9 months; 95% CI, 16.7-33.4 months; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.40-1.06) and doxorubicin (median, 30.3 months; 95% CI, 21.0-36.3 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-0.99). Adjusted analyses retained an effect for PFS but not for OS. None of the factors selected for multivariate analysis had a significant interaction with the received treatment for both PFS and OS.Conclusions This is the largest retrospective study of first-line treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma. In the propensity score-matched population, doxorubicin and dacarbazine showed favorable activity in terms of both ORR and PFS and warrants further evaluation in prospective trials. Show less
