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 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
