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
Background: Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is a translocated aggressive malignancy with a high incidence of metastases and poor prognosis. There are few studies describing the activity of systemic... Show moreBackground: Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is a translocated aggressive malignancy with a high incidence of metastases and poor prognosis. There are few studies describing the activity of systemic therapy in CCS. We report a mufti-institutional retrospective study of the outcomes of patients with advanced CCS treated with systemic therapy within the World Sarcoma Network (WSN).Materials and methods: Patients with molecularly confirmed locally advanced or metastatic CCS treated with systemic therapy from June 1985 to May 2021 were included. Baseline demographic and treatment information, including response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1, was retrospectively collected by local investigators. Descriptive statistics were carried out.Results: Fifty-five patients from 10 institutions were included. At diagnosis, the median age was 30 (15-73) years and 24% (n = 13/55) had metastatic disease. The median age at diagnosis was 30 (15-73) years. Most primary tumours were at aponeurosis (n = 9/55, 16%) or non-aponeurosis limb sites (n = 17/55, 31%). The most common fusion was EWSR1-ATF1 (n = 24/55, 44%). The median number of systemic therapies was 1 (range 1-7). The best response rate was seen for patients treated with sunitinib (30%, n = 3/10), with a median progression-free survival of 4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1-7] months. The median overall survival for patients with advanced/metastatic disease was 15 months (95% CI 3-27 months).Conclusions: Soft tissue sarcoma-type systemic therapies have limited benefit in advanced CCS and response rate was poor. International, multicentre prospective translational studies are required to identify new treatments for this ultrarare subtype, and access to early clinical trial enrolment remains key for patients with CCS. 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
Frezza, A.M.; Ravi, V.; Vullo, S. lo; Vincenzi, B.; Tolomeo, F.; Chen, T.W.W.; ... ; Stacchiotti, S. 2021
Background This observational, retrospective effort across Europe, US, Australia, and Asia aimed to assess the activity of systemic therapies in EHE, an ultra-rare sarcoma, marked by WWTR1-CAMTA1... Show moreBackground This observational, retrospective effort across Europe, US, Australia, and Asia aimed to assess the activity of systemic therapies in EHE, an ultra-rare sarcoma, marked by WWTR1-CAMTA1 or YAP1-TFE3 fusions.Methods Twenty sarcoma reference centres contributed data. Patients with advanced EHE diagnosed from 2000 onwards and treated with systemic therapies, were selected. Local pathologic review and molecular confirmation were required. Radiological response was retrospectively assessed by local investigators according to RECIST. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.Results Overall, 73 patients were included; 21 had more than one treatment. Thirty-three patients received anthracyclines regimens, achieving 1 (3%) partial response (PR), 25 (76%) stable disease (SD), 7 (21%) progressive disease (PD). The median (m-) PFS and m-OS were 5.5 and 14.3 months respectively. Eleven patients received paclitaxel, achieving 1 (9%) PR, 6 (55%) SD, 4 (36%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were 2.9 and 18.6 months, respectively. Twelve patients received pazopanib, achieving 3 (25%) SD, 9 (75%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were.2.9 and 8.5 months, respectively. Fifteen patients received INF-alpha 2b, achieving 1 (7%) PR, 11 (73%) SD, 3 (20%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were 8.9 months and 64.3, respectively. Among 27 patients treated with other regimens, 1 PR (ifosfamide) and 9 SD (5 gemcitabine +docetaxel, 2 oral cyclophosphamide, 2 others) were reported.Conclusion Systemic therapies available for advanced sarcomas have limited activity in EHE. The identification of new active compounds, especially for rapidly progressive cases, is acutely needed. 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
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
ImportanceLocoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) is treated curatively; however, risk of recurrence remains high among some patients. The ERBB family blocker afatinib... Show moreImportanceLocoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) is treated curatively; however, risk of recurrence remains high among some patients. The ERBB family blocker afatinib has shown efficacy in recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. ObjectiveTo assess whether afatinib therapy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with HNSCC. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis multicenter, phase 3, double-blind randomized clinical trial (LUX-Head & Neck 2) studied 617 patients from November 2, 2011, to July 4, 2016. Patients who had complete response after CRT, comprising radiotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin, with or without resection of residual disease, for locoregionally advanced high- or intermediate-risk HNSCC of the oral cavity, hypopharynx, larynx, or oropharynx were included in the study. Data analysis was of the intention-to-treat population. InterventionsPatients were randomized (2:1) to treatment with afatinib (40 mg/d) or placebo, stratified by nodal status (N0-2a or N2b-3) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 or 1). Treatment continued for 18 months or until disease recurrence, unacceptable adverse events, or patient withdrawal. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was DFS, defined as time from the date of randomization to the date of tumor recurrence or secondary primary tumor or death from any cause. Secondary end points were DFS at 2 years, overall survival (defined as time from the date of randomization to death), and health-related quality of life. ResultsA total of 617 patients were studied (mean [SD] age, 58 [8.4] years; 528 male [85.6%]). Recruitment was stopped after a preplanned interim futility analysis on July 4, 2016, on recommendation from an independent data monitoring committee. Treatment was discontinued. Median DFS was 43.4 months (95% CI, 37.4 months to not estimable) in the afatinib group and not estimable (95% CI, 40.1 months to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.81-1.57; stratified log-rank test P=.48). The most common grade 3 and 4 drug-related adverse effects were acneiform rash (61 [14.8%] of 411 patients in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] of 206 patients in the placebo group), stomatitis (55 [13.4%] in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] in the placebo group), and diarrhea (32 [7.8%] in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] in the placebo group). Conclusions and RelevanceThis study's findings indicate that treatment with afatinib after CRT did not improve DFS and was associated with more adverse events than placebo in patients with primary, unresected, clinically high- to intermediate-risk HNSCC. The use of adjuvant afatinib after CRT is not recommended. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01345669 Show less
Vos, M.; Sleijfer, S.; Litiere, S.; Touati, N.; Duffaud, F.; Graaf, W.T. van der; Gelderblom, H. 2019
Background: There is an unmet need for markers predicting the outcome of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with pazopanib. Since toxicity might be related to the anti-tumor... Show moreBackground: There is an unmet need for markers predicting the outcome of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with pazopanib. Since toxicity might be related to the anti-tumor activity of the drug, the aim of this study was to determine whether pazopanib-induced proteinuria, hypothyroidism and cardiotoxicity grade 3-4 were associated with outcome.Methods: The combined results of the EORTC 62043 and 62072 trials were retrospectively assessed and used in a landmark analysis to evaluate the effect of the toxicities on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models.Results: Of the 333 eligible patients, 259 patients were included in the analyses, for which a landmark time point of 60 days after randomization/registration was selected. Proteinuria occurred in 25.1%, hypothyroidism in 22.0% and cardiotoxicity grade 3-4 in 5.8% of the patients (any grade in 41.7%). There was no effect of the occurrence of proteinuria (6-months PFS 35.4% for patients with vs. 38.3% for patients without proteinuria, HR 1.01, p=.953), hypothyroidism (41.2% vs. 36.5%, HR 0.82, p=.210) or cardiotoxicity grade 3-4 (26.7% vs. 38.2%, HR 0.97, p=.897) on PFS. Nor was there an effect of proteinuria (6-months OS 63.2% for patients with vs. 74.4% for patients without proteinuria, HR 1.22, p=.196), hypothyroidism (76.2% vs. 70.5%, HR 0.75, p=.093) or cardiotoxicity grade 3-4 (80.0% vs. 77.2%, HR 0.93, p=.801) on OS.Conclusion: There was no association between the occurrence of pazopanib-induced proteinuria, hypothyroidism and cardiotoxicity and outcome. Therefore, these toxicities cannot be used as predictors for pazopanib activity in patients with advanced STS. Show less
