PurposeIn the INTRIGUE trial, ripretinib showed no significant difference versus sunitinib in progression-free survival for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) previously... Show morePurposeIn the INTRIGUE trial, ripretinib showed no significant difference versus sunitinib in progression-free survival for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) previously treated with imatinib. We compared the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).Patients and methodsPatients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire at day (D)1, and D29 of all cycles until treatment discontinuation. Change from baseline was calculated. Time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) was estimated as the mean number of days without progression, death, or grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events per patient over 1 year of follow-up.ResultsQuestionnaire completion at baseline was 88.1% (199/226) for ripretinib and 87.7% (199/227) for sunitinib and remained high for enrolled patients throughout treatment. Patients receiving sunitinib demonstrated within-cycle variation in self-reported HRQoL, corresponding to the on/off dosing regimen. Patients receiving ripretinib reported better HRQoL at D29 assessments than patients receiving sunitinib on all scales except constipation. HRQoL was similar between treatments at D1 assessments, following 2 weeks without treatment for sunitinib patients. TWiST was greater for ripretinib patients (173 versus 126 days).ConclusionPatients receiving ripretinib experienced better HRQoL than patients receiving sunitinib during the dosing period and similar HRQoL to patients who had not received sunitinib for 2 weeks for all QLQ-C30 domains except constipation. Ripretinib may provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. Show less
PURPOSE Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI... Show morePURPOSE Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/platelet-derived growth factor alpha mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib (KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib. Show less
Purpose: Act.In.Sarc (NCT02379845) demonstrated that the first-in-class radioenhancer NBTXR3, activated by preoperative radi-ation therapy (RT), doubled the rate of pathologic complete response... Show morePurpose: Act.In.Sarc (NCT02379845) demonstrated that the first-in-class radioenhancer NBTXR3, activated by preoperative radi-ation therapy (RT), doubled the rate of pathologic complete response after resection compared with preoperative RT alone in adult patients with locally advanced soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity or trunk wall (16.1% vs 7.9%, P = .045), and more patients achieved R0 resections (77.0% vs 64.0%, P = .042). These are the toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results. Methods and Materials: Act.In.Sarc randomized eligible patients 1:1 to either NBTXR3 (single intratumoral injection, vol-ume equivalent to 10% of baseline tumor volume, at 53.3 g/L) activated by external-beam RT (arm A) or external-beam RT alone (arm B) (50 Gy in 25 fractions), followed by surgery in both arms. Here, we report the safety analyses in the all-treated population with a long-term follow-up of at least 2 years, and HRQoL in the intention-to-treat full analysis set. Results: During the on-treatment period, serious adverse events (SAEs) of all grades related to NBTXR3 occurred in 10.1% (9/89) of patients (arm A), and SAEs related to RT occurred in 5.6% (5/89) (arm A) versus 5.6% (5/90) (arm B); postsurgery hospitalization owing to SAEs occurred in 15.7% (14/89) (arm A) versus 24.4% (22/90) (arm B). During the follow-up period, posttreatment SAEs (regardless of relationship) occurred in 13.5% (12/89) (arm A) versus 24.4% (22/90) (arm B). NBTXR3 did not negatively affect HRQoL; during the follow-up period, there was an improvement in most mean Toronto extremity salvage, EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D), EQ5D02-EQ visual analog scale, reintegration to normal living index, and musculoskeletal tumor rating scale scores. Conclusions: NBTXR3 did not negatively affect safety or HRQoL. Long-term safety results reinforce the favorable benefit -risk ratio of NBTXR3 plus RT. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Show less
Background: In ultra-rare sarcomas (URS) the conduction of prospective, randomized trials is challenging. Data from retrospective observational studies (ROS) may represent the best evidence... Show moreBackground: In ultra-rare sarcomas (URS) the conduction of prospective, randomized trials is challenging. Data from retrospective observational studies (ROS) may represent the best evidence available. ROS implicit limitations led to poor acceptance by the scientific community and regulatory authorities. In this context, an expert panel from the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS), agreed on the need to establish a set of minimum requirements for conducting high-quality ROS on the activity of systemic therapies in URS. Methods: Representatives from > 25 worldwide sarcoma reference centres met in November 2020 and identified a list of topics summarizing the main issues encountered in ROS on URS. An online survey on these topics was distributed to the panel; results were summarized by descriptive statistics and discussed during a second meeting (November 2021). Results: Topics identified by the panel included the use of ROS results as external control data, the criteria for contributing centers selection, modalities for ensuring a correct pathological diagnosis and radiologic assessment, consistency of surveillance policies across centers, study end-points, risk of data duplication, results publication. Based on the answers to the survey (55 of 62 invited experts) and discussion the panel agreed on 18 statements summarizing principles of recommended practice. Conclusions: These recommendations will be disseminated by CTOS across the sarcoma community and incorporated in future ROS on URS, to maximize their quality and favor their use as control data when results from prospective studies are unavailable. These recommendations could help the optimal conduction of ROS also in other rare tumors. Show less
Spierenburg, G.; Grimison, P.; Chevreau, C.; Stacchiotti, S.; Piperno-Neumann, S.; Cesne, A. le; ... ; Gelderblom, H. 2022
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
Purpose: The effect of high-dose imatinib (800 mg/day) on survival in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected KIT exon 9-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not established.... Show morePurpose: The effect of high-dose imatinib (800 mg/day) on survival in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected KIT exon 9-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not established. Here, the association of dose and other clinicopatho-logic variables with survival was evaluated in a large multi-institutional European cohort.Experimental Design: Data from 185 patients were retrospec-tively collected in 23 European GIST reference centers. Propen-sity score matching (PSM) and inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to account for confounders. Uni-variate and multivariate unweighted and weighted Cox propor-tional hazard regression models were estimated for relapse-free survival (RFS), modified-RFS (mRFS) and imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS). Univariate Cox models were estimated for overall survival.Results: Of the 185 patients, 131 (70.8%) received a starting dose of 400 mg/d and the remaining 54 (29.2%) a dose of 800 mg/d. Baseline characteristics were partially unbalanced, suggesting a potential selection bias. PSM and IPTW analyses showed no advantage of imatinib 800 mg/d. In the weighted multivariate Cox models, high-dose imatinib was not associated with the survival outcomes [RFS: hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.94; mRFS: HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.92-3.10; IFFS: HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.79- 2.28]. The variables consistently associated with worse survival out-comes were high mitotic index and nongastric tumor location.Conclusions: In this retrospective series of patients with KIT exon 9-mutated GIST treated with adjuvant imatinib, a daily dose of 800 mg versus 400 mg did not show better results in terms of survival outcomes. Prospective evaluation of the more appropriate adjuvant treatment in this setting is warranted. Show less
Background We aimed at investigating outcome of systemic treatments in advanced breast PT. Methods All cases of advanced breast PT treated with systemic treatments from 1999 to 2019, in one of the... Show moreBackground We aimed at investigating outcome of systemic treatments in advanced breast PT. Methods All cases of advanced breast PT treated with systemic treatments from 1999 to 2019, in one of the referral sarcoma centers involved in the study, were retrospectively reviewed. Results 56 female patients were identified. Median age was 52 (range of 25-76) years. Patients received a median number of 2 systemic treatments (range of 1-4). Best responses according to RECIST were 1 (3.7%) CR, 11 (40.7%) PR, 6 (22.2%) SD, 9 (33.3%) PD with anthracyclines plus ifosfamide (AI); 2 (16.7%) PR, 4 (33.3%) SD, 6 (50.0%) PD with anthracycline alone; 3 (18.8%) PR, 4 (25.0%) SD, 9 (56.3%) PD with high-dose ifosfamide given as a continuous infusion (HD-IFX); 3 (20.0%) SD, 12 (80.0%) PD with a gemcitabine-based regimen (with 2 patients not evaluable); 1 (8.3%) PR, 2 (16.7%) SD, 9 (75.0%) PD with trabectedin (with 1 patient not evaluable); 1 (16.7%) PR, 1 (16.7%) SD, 4 (66.7%) PD with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). The median PFS were 5.7 (IQR 2.5-9.1) months with AI; 3.2 (IQR 2.2-5.0) months with anthracycline alone; 3.4 (IQR 1.4-6.7) months with HD-IFX; 2.1 (IQR 1.4-5.2) months with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy; 1.8 (IQR 0.7-6.6) months with trabectedin; 3.4 (IQR 3.1-3.8) months with TKI. With a median follow-up of 35.3 (IQR 17.6-66.9) months, OS from the start of first-line systemic treatment was 15.2 (IQR 7.6-39.6) months. Conclusion In this series of advanced PT (to our knowledge, the largest reported so far), AI was associated with a high rate of responses, however, with a median PFS of 5.7 months. Other systemic treatments were poorly active. 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 Among sarcomas, which are rare cancers, many types are exceedingly rare; however, a definition of ultra-rare cancers has not been established. The problem of ultra-rare sarcomas is... Show moreBackground Among sarcomas, which are rare cancers, many types are exceedingly rare; however, a definition of ultra-rare cancers has not been established. The problem of ultra-rare sarcomas is particularly relevant because they represent unique diseases, and their rarity poses major challenges for diagnosis, understanding disease biology, generating clinical evidence to support new drug development, and achieving formal authorization for novel therapies.Methods The Connective Tissue Oncology Society promoted a consensus effort in November 2019 to establish how to define ultra-rare sarcomas through expert consensus and epidemiologic data and to work out a comprehensive list of these diseases. The list of ultra-rare sarcomas was based on the 2020 World Health Organization classification, The incidence rates were estimated using the Information Network on Rare Cancers (RARECARENet) database and NETSARC (the French Sarcoma Network's clinical-pathologic registry). Incidence rates were further validated in collaboration with the Asian cancer registries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.Results It was agreed that the best criterion for a definition of ultra-rare sarcomas would be incidence. Ultra-rare sarcomas were defined as those with an incidence of approximately <= 1 per 1,000,000, to include those entities whose rarity renders them extremely difficult to conduct well powered, prospective clinical studies. On the basis of this threshold, a list of ultra-rare sarcomas was defined, which comprised 56 soft tissue sarcoma types and 21 bone sarcoma types.conclusions Altogether, the incidence of ultra-rare sarcomas accounts for roughly 20% of all soft tissue and bone sarcomas. This confirms that the challenges inherent in ultra-rare sarcomas affect large numbers of patients. Show less
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... Show moreBackground: 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. Show less
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... Show moreSarcomas 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. 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
IMPORTANCE The association between quality of surgery and overall survival in patients affected by localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not completely understood.OBJECTIVE To assess... Show moreIMPORTANCE The association between quality of surgery and overall survival in patients affected by localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not completely understood.OBJECTIVE To assess the risk of death with and without imatinib according to microscopic margins status (R0/R1) using data from a randomized study on adjuvant imatinib.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a post hoc observational study on patients included in the randomized, open-label, phase III trial, performed between December 2004 and October 2008. Median follow-up was 9.1 years (IQR, 8-10 years). The study was performed at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of primary GIST, with intermediate or high risk of relapse; no evidence of residual disease after surgery; older than 18 years; and no prior malignancies or concurrent severe/uncontrolled medical conditions. Data were analyzed between July17, 2017, and March 1, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized after surgery to either receive imatinib (400 mg/d) for 2 years or no adjuvant treatment. Randomization was stratified by center, risk category (high vs intermediate), tumor site (gastric vs other), and quality of surgery (R0 vs R1). Tumor rupture was included in the R1 category but also analyzed separately.MAN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary end point of this substudy was overall survival (OS), estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between R0/R1 using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors.RESULTS A total of 908 patients were included; 51.4% were men (465) and 48.6% were women (440), and the median age was 59 years (range, 18-89 years). One hundred sixty-two (17.8%) had an R1 resection, and 97 of 162 (59.9%) had tumor rupture. There was a significant difference in OS for patients undergoing an R1 vs R0 resection, overall (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.45-2.89) and by treatment arm (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.37-3.75 with adjuvant imatinib and HR. 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.99 without adjuvant imatinib). When tumor rupture was excluded, this difference in OS between R1 and R0 resections disappeared (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.54-2.01).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The difference in OS by quality of surgery with or without imatinib was associated with the presence of tumor rupture. When the latter was excluded, the presence of R1 margins was not associated with worse OS. Show less
Background The majority of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) develop resistance to imatinib and sunitinib, the standard of care for these patients. This study... Show moreBackground The majority of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) develop resistance to imatinib and sunitinib, the standard of care for these patients. This study evaluated the combination of buparlisib, an oral phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor, with imatinib in patients with advanced GIST, who have failed prior therapy with imatinib and sunitinib. Methods This Phase 1b, multicentre, open-label study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or a recommended Phase 2 dose of buparlisib in combination with 400 mg of imatinib through a dose-escalation part and a dose-expansion part, and also evaluated the clinical profile of the combination. Results Sixty patients were enrolled, including 25 in the dose-escalation part and 35 in the dose-expansion part. In the combination, MTD of buparlisib was established as 80 mg. No partial or complete responses were observed. The estimated median progression-free survival was 3.5 months in the expansion phase. Overall, 98.3% of patients had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), including 45% with grade 3 or 4 AEs. Conclusions Buparlisib in combination with imatinib provided no additional benefit compared with currently available therapies. Due to the lack of objective responses, further development of this combination was not pursued for third-line/fourth-line advanced/metastatic GIST. Show less
Chawla, S.; Blay, J.Y.; Rutkowski, P.; Cesne, A. le; Reichardt, P.; Gelderblom, H.; ... ; Palmerini, E. 2019
Background Giant-cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a rare, locally aggressive osteoclastogenic stromal tumour of the bone. This phase 2 study aimed to assess the safety and activity of denosumab in... Show moreBackground Giant-cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a rare, locally aggressive osteoclastogenic stromal tumour of the bone. This phase 2 study aimed to assess the safety and activity of denosumab in patients with surgically salvageable or unsalvageable GCTB.Methods In this multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done at 30 sites in 12 countries we enrolled adults and skeletally mature adolescents (aged >= 12 years) weighing at least 45 kg with histologically confirmed and radiographically measurable GCTB, Karnofsky performance status 50% or higher (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0, 1, or 2), and measurable active disease within 1 year of study enrolment. Patients had surgically unsalvageable GCTB (cohort 1), had surgically salvageable GCTB with planned surgery expected to result in severe morbidity (cohort 2), or were enrolled from a previous study of denosumab for GCTB (cohort 3). Patients received 120 mg subcutaneous denosumab once every 4 weeks during the treatment phase, with loading doses (120 mg subcutaneously) administered on study days 8 and 15 to patients in cohorts 1 and 2 (patients in cohort 3 did not receive loading doses). The primary endpoint was safety in terms of the type, frequency, and severity of adverse events; secondary endpoints included time to disease progression from cohort 1 and the proportion of patients without surgery at month 6 for cohort 2. The safety analysis set included all enrolled patients who received at least one dose of denosumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00680992, and has been completed.Findings Between Sept 9, 2008, and Feb 25, 2016, 532 patients were enrolled: 267 in cohort 1, 253 in cohort 2, and 12 in cohort 3. At data cutoff on Feb 24, 2017, median follow-up was 58.1 months (IQR 34.0-74.4) in the overall patient population, and 65.8 months (40.9-82.4) in cohort 1, 53.4 months (28.2-64.1) in cohort 2, and 76.4 months (61.2-76.5) in cohort 3. During the treatment phase, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypophosphataemia (24 [5%] of 526 patients), osteonecrosis of the jaw (17 [3%], pain in extremity (12 [2%]), and anaemia (11 [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 138 (26%) of 526 patients; the most common were osteonecrosis of the jaw (17 [3%]), anaemia (6 [1%]), bone giant cell tumour (6 [1%]), and back pain (5 [1%]). 28 (5%) patients had positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw, four (1%) had atypical femur fracture, and four (1%) had hypercalcaemia occurring 30 days after denosumab discontinuation. There were four cases (1%) of sarcomatous transformation, consistent with historical data. Ten (2%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred (two of which were considered treatment-related; bone sarcoma in cohort 2 and sarcoma in cohort 1). Median time to progression or recurrence for patients in cohort 1 during the first treatment phase was not reached (28 [11%] of 262 patients had progression or recurrence). 227 (92%; 95% CI 87-95) of 248 patients who received at least one dose of denosumab in cohort 2 had no surgery in the first 6 months of the study.Interpretation The types and frequencies of adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of denosumab, which showed long-term disease control for patients with GCTB with unresectable and resectable tumours. Our results suggest that the overall risk to benefit ratio for denosumab treatment in patients with GCTB remains favourable. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Frezza, A.M.; Assi, T.; Vullo, S. lo; Ben-Ami, E.; Dufresne, A.; Yonemori, K.; ... ; Stacchiotti, S. 2019
Background Intimal sarcoma (InS) is an exceedingly rare neoplasm with an unfavorable prognosis, for which new potentially active treatments are under development. We report on the activity of... Show moreBackground Intimal sarcoma (InS) is an exceedingly rare neoplasm with an unfavorable prognosis, for which new potentially active treatments are under development. We report on the activity of anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, and pazopanib in patients with InS. Methods Seventeen sarcoma reference centers in Europe, the United States, and Japan contributed data to this retrospective analysis. Patients with MDM2-positive InS who were treated with anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, or pazopanib between October 2001 and January 2018 were selected. Local pathological review was performed to confirm diagnosis. Response was assessed by RECIST1.1. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were computed by Kaplan-Meier method. Results Seventy-two patients were included (66 anthracycline-based regimens; 26 gemcitabine-based regimens; 12 pazopanib). In the anthracycline-based group, 24 (36%) patients were treated for localized disease, and 42 (64%) patients were treated for advanced disease. The real-world overall response rate (rwORR) was 38%. For patients with localized disease, the median RFS was 14.6 months. For patients with advanced disease, the median PFS was 7.7 months. No anthracycline-related cardiac toxicity was reported in patients with cardiac InS (n = 26). For gemcitabine and pazopanib, the rwORR was 8%, and the median PFS was 3.2 and 3.7 months, respectively. Conclusion This retrospective series shows the activity of anthracycline-based regimens in InS. Of note, anthracyclines were used in patients with cardiac InS with no significant cardiac toxicity. The prognosis in patients with InS remains poor, and new active drugs and treatment strategies are needed. Show less
Cesne, A. le; Bauer, S.; Demetri, G.D.; Han, G.Y.; Dezzani, L.; Ahmad, Q.; ... ; Gelderblom, H. 2019
Background PALETTE is a phase 3 trial that demonstrated single-agent activity of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcomas (aSTS). We performed retrospective subgroup analyses to explore potential... Show moreBackground PALETTE is a phase 3 trial that demonstrated single-agent activity of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcomas (aSTS). We performed retrospective subgroup analyses to explore potential relationships between patient characteristics, prior lines of therapy, dose intensity, and dose modifications on safety and efficacy of pazopanib in aSTS. Methods PALETTE compared pazopanib with placebo in patients with aSTS (age >= 18 years) whose disease had progressed during or following prior chemotherapy. In these subgroup analyses, median progression-free survival (mPFS) among patients receiving pazopanib was the efficacy outcome of interest. Adverse events (AEs) were also compared within subgroups. All analyses were descriptive and exploratory. Results A total of 246 patients received pazopanib in the PALETTE study. The mPFS was longer in patients who had only 1 prior line versus 2+ prior lines of therapy (24.7 vs 18.9 weeks, respectively); AE rates were similar regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. The mPFS was similar in patients aged < 65 and >= 65 y (20.0 and 20.1 weeks, respectively). Although AEs leading to study discontinuation were higher in older patients (>= 65 y, 30%; < 65 y, 17%), rates of dose reductions, dose interruptions, and serious AEs were similar between the 2 age groups. No reduction in mPFS was noted in patients requiring dose reductions or dose interruptions to manage toxicities. Conclusions Longer mPFS was observed in patients receiving pazopanib following only 1 line of therapy. Additionally, mPFS with pazopanib was maintained regardless of patient age or dose modifications used to manage toxicity. Show less
