Purpose: EORTC-1506-STBSG was a prospective, multicentric, randomised, open-label phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line nintedanib versus ifosfamide in patients with... Show morePurpose: EORTC-1506-STBSG was a prospective, multicentric, randomised, open-label phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line nintedanib versus ifosfamide in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The primary end-point was progression-free survival.Patients/methods: Patients with a variety of STS subtypes were randomised 1:1 to nintedanib (200 mg b.i.d. p.o. until disease progression) or ifosfamide (3 g/m(2) i.v. days 1-3, every 21 days for <= 6 cycles). A Korn design was applied aiming to detect an improvement in median progression-free survival (mPFS) from 3 to 4.5 months (HR = 0.667). An interim look was incorporated to stop the trial for futility if <19 of the first 36 patients treated with nintedanib were progression-free at week 12.Results: At the interim analysis, among the first 36 eligible and evaluable patients randomised for nintedanib, only 13 (36%) were progression-free at week 12. The trial was closed for further accrual as per protocol. In total, 80 patients were randomised (40 per treatment group). The mPFS was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.5-3.4) for nintedanib and 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.9-6.7) on ifosfamide (adjusted HR = 1.56 [80% CI: 1.14-2.13], p = 0.070). The median overall survival was 13.7 months (95% CI: 9.4-23.4) on nintedanib and 24.1 months (95% CI: 10.9-NE) on ifosfamide (adjusted HR = 1.65 [95%CI:0.89-3.06], p = 0.111). The clinical benefit rate for nintedanib and ifosfamide was 50% versus 62.5% (p = 0.368), respectively. Common treatment-related adverse events (all grades) were diarrhoea (35.9% of patients), fatigue (25.6%) and nausea (20.5%) for nintedanib; and fatigue (52.6%), nausea (44.7%) and vomiting, anorexia and alopecia (28.9% each) for ifosfamide.Conclusion: The trial was stopped for futility. The activity of nintedanib did not warrant further exploration in non-selected, advanced STSs. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Objective: Aim of the manuscript is to discuss how to improve margins in sacral chordoma.Background: Chordoma is a rare neoplasm, arising in half cases from the sacrum, with reported local failure... Show moreObjective: Aim of the manuscript is to discuss how to improve margins in sacral chordoma.Background: Chordoma is a rare neoplasm, arising in half cases from the sacrum, with reported local failure in >50% after surgery.Methods: A multidisciplinary meeting of the "Chordoma Global Consensus Group" was held in Milan in 2017, focusing on challenges in defining and achieving optimal margins in chordoma with respect to surgery, definitive particle radiation therapy (RT) and medical therapies. This review aims to report on the outcome of the consensus meeting and to provide a summary of the most recent evidence in this field. Possible new ways forward, including on-going international clinical studies, are discussed.Results: En-bloc tumor-sacrum resection is the cornerstone of treatment of primary sacral chordoma, aiming to achieve negative microscopic margins. Radical definitive particle therapy seems to offer a similar outcome compared to surgery, although confirmation in comparative trials is lacking; besides there is still a certain degree of technical variability across institutions, corresponding to different fields of treatment and different tumor coverage. To address some of these questions, a prospective, randomized international study comparing surgery versus definitive high-dose RT is ongoing. Available data do not support the routine use of any medical therapy as (neo)adjuvant/cytoreductive treatment.Conclusion: Given the significant influence of margins status on local control in patients with primary localized sacral chordoma, the clear definition of adequate margins and a standard local approach across institutions for both surgery and particle RT is vital for improving the management of these patients. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved. Show less
