BACKGROUND No prospective trial with anthracycline-based chemotherapy has individually assessed response in a well-differentiated (WD)/dedifferentiated (DD) liposarcoma patient cohort. We conducted... Show moreBACKGROUND No prospective trial with anthracycline-based chemotherapy has individually assessed response in a well-differentiated (WD)/dedifferentiated (DD) liposarcoma patient cohort. We conducted a retrospective analysis of first-line chemotherapy in liposarcoma of intra-abdominal origin (IA-LPS) in patients who had entered the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) trials. METHODS We searched for all adult patients treated with first-line chemotherapy for advanced IA-LPS in the EORTC STBSG phase 2 and 3 trials from 1978. Treatment was aggregated into 5 groups: anthracycline alone, ifosfamide alone, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide (D+IFO), doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/dacarbazine, and "other" (brostallicin, trabectedin). Response was assessed prospectively by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or World Health Organization criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were computed by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS A total of 109 patients with IA-LPS from 13 trials were identified (104 evaluable for response). Overall, there were 10/109 (9.2%) responders: 3/48 (6.3%) in the anthracycline alone group, 2/15 (13%) in the ifosfamide alone group, and 4/18 (22%) in the D+IFO group. At the 10-month median follow-up (interquartile range, 6-24), the median OS was 19 months (95% CI, 15-21) and median PFS 4 months (95% CI, 3-6). D+IFO achieved a not statistically significant longer median PFS (12 months) and median OS (31 months) than observed with other regimens. Univariate/multivariate analysis did not identify prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS Cytotoxic chemotherapy, in particular anthracycline alone, had marginal activity in advanced IA-LPS. Ifosfamide-containing regimens showed higher activity, although it was not statistically significant and in a small number of cases, with the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide appearing to be the more active regimen available in fit patients. This series provides a benchmark for future trials on new drugs in WD/DD liposarcoma. 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
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
