Discontinuation versus continuation of imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (BFR14): exploratory long-term follow-up of an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) discontinuation on resistance and survival in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is unclear. We report the exploratory long-term outcomes of patients with advanced GIST stopping imatinib in the BFR14 trial. METHODS: BFR14, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 17 comprehensive cancer centres or hospitals across France. Patients with advanced GIST aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3, no previous treatment with imatinib, and no previous malignancy were eligible. Patients were treated with oral imatinib 400 mg daily. Patients with a complete or partial response, or stable disease, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (1.0) at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years from the start of treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment discontinuation until progression (interruption group) or treatment continuation until progression (continuation group). Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks of two and six patients stratified by participating centre and presence or absence of residual disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included time to imatinib resistance and overall survival. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned patients who were not lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00367861. FINDINGS: Between May 12, 2003, and March 16, 2004, after 1 year of imatinib, 32 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 26 to the continuation group. Between June 13, 2005, and May 30, 2007, after 3 years of imatinib, 25 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 25 to the continuation group. Between Nov 9, 2007, and July 12, 2010, after 5 years of imatinib, 14 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 13 to the continuation group. Median follow-up was 235·2 months (IQR 128·8-236·6) after the 1-year randomisation, 200·9 months (190·2-208·4) after the 3-year randomisation, and 164·5 months (134·4-176·4) after the 5-year randomisation. Median progression-free survival in the interruption group versus the continuation group after 1 year of imatinib was 6·1 months (95% CI 2·5-10·1) versus 27·8 months (19·5-37·9; hazard ratio [HR] 0·36 [95% CI 0·20-0·64], log-rank p=0·0003), after 3 years of imatinib was 7·0 months (3·5-11·7) versus 67·0 months (48·8-85·6; 0·15 [0·07-0·32], log-rank p<0·0001), and after 5 years of imatinib was 12·0 months (9·0-16·6) versus not reached (NR; NR-NR; 0·13 [0·03-0·58], log-rank p=0·0016). The median time to imatinib resistance after 1 year of imatinib was 28·7 months (95% CI 18·1-39·1) versus 90·6 months (25·3-156·1; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·51-1·71], log-rank p=0·82), after 3 years was 66·2 months (43·0-89·6) versus 127·3 months (15·0-239·7; 0·35 [0·17-0·72, log-rank p=0·0028), and after 5 years was 58·6 months (0·0-167·4) versus NR (NR-NR; 0·24 [0·05-1·12], log-rank p=0·049). Median overall survival after 1 year of imatinib was 56·0 months (95% CI 30·3-82·9) versus 105·0 months (20·6-189·6; HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·46-1·54], log-rank p=0·57), after 3 years was 104·0 months (90·7-118·7) versus 134·0 months (89·7-178·3; 0·40 [0·20-0·82], log-rank p=0·0096), and after 5 years was NR (NR-NR) versus 110·4 months (82·7-154·1; 1·28 [0·41-3·99]; log-rank p=0·67), INTERPRETATION: Imatinib interruption in patients with GIST without progressive disease is not recommended. Imatinib interruption in non-progressing patients with GIST was associated with rapid progression, faster resistance to imatinib, and shorter overall survival in the long-term follow-up when compared with imatinib continuation in patients after 3 years and 5 years of imatinib. FUNDING: Centre Léon Bérard, INCa, CONTICANET, Ligue Contre le Cancer, and Novartis.

Long term survival in adult osteosarcoma patients treated with a two-drug regimen: Final results of the OSAD93 phase II study of the FSG-GETO.

RATIONALE: We report a phase II trial (OSAD93) testing CDDP with ifosfamide (IFO), without doxorubicin in neoadjuvant phase, in adult osteosarcoma with a 25 years follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a multicentric phase II study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with IFO and CDDP in localized high-grade osteosarcoma of patients. Patients received 4 pre-operative courses of IFO 9 g/m2 and CDDP 100 mg/m2 on day 4 (SHOC regimen), followed by local treatment. Doxorubicin was added post-operatively (HOCA regimen) in patients with > 10 % residual tumor cells. A Good Histological Response (GHR), ie ≤ 10 % residual tumor cells in > 30 % of patients, was the primary objective. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary objectives. RESULTS: From Jan 1994 to Jun 1998, 60 patients were included. Median age was 27 (range: 16-63). Primary tumor sites were limbs (76 %), trunk, head or neck (24 %). After neoadjuvant SHOC, grade 3-4 and febrile neutropenia, thrombopenia, and re-hospitalization occurred in 58 %, 17 %, 17 % and 22 % of SHOC courses and in 76 %, 28 %, 47 %, 47 % of HOCA courses, respectively. GHR was obtained in 16/60 (27.5 %) patients. With a median follow-up of 322 months, the DFS and OS were 51.8 % and 64.4 % at 5 years. At 10 years, DFS and OS were 49.9 % and 64.4 %. At 25 years, DFS and OS were 47.8 % and 55.9 %. No long-term cardiac toxicity was observed. Three patients developed a second malignancy (one fatal) after 300 months. CONCLUSION: Though the primary endpoint of OSAD93 was not met, this pre-operative doxorubicin-free regimen led to excellent long-term survival with limited toxicity in localized osteosarcoma.

Qualitative evaluation of motives for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials in a French comprehensive cancer center: the PALPHA study.

PURPOSE: The integration of palliative care (PC) into oncological management is recommended well before the end of life. It improves quality of life and symptom control and reduces the aggressiveness of end-of-life care. However, its appropriate timing is still debated. Entry into an early-phase clinical trial (ECT) represents hopes for the patient when standard treatments have failed. It is an opportune moment to integrate PC to preserve the patient's general health status. The objective of this study was to evaluate the motives for acceptance or refusal of early PC management in patients included in an ECT. METHODS: Patients eligible to enter an ECT were identified and concomitant PC was proposed. All patients received exploratory interviews conducted by a researcher. Their contents were analyzed in a double-blind thematic analysis with a self-determination model. RESULTS: Motives for acceptance (PC acceptors: n = 27) were both intrinsic (e.g., pain relief, psychological support, anticipation of the future) and extrinsic (e.g., trust in the medical profession, for a relative, to support the advance of research). Motives for refusal (PC refusers: n = 3) were solely intrinsic (e.g., PC associated with death, negative representation of psychological support, no need for additional care, claim of independence). CONCLUSIONS: The motives of acceptors and refusers are not internalized in the same way and call for different autonomy needs. Acceptors and refusers are influenced by opposite representations of PC and a different perception of mixed management.

PEC-PRO: A new prognostic score from a series of 87 patients with localized perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) treated with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) encompass a heterogeneous family of mesenchymal tumors. Previously described clinicopathologic features aimed at distinguishing benign from malignant variants but lacked prognostic value. METHODS: This retrospective analysis examined clinicopathologic data from patients who had localized PEComa across French Sarcoma Network centers. The authors analyzed 12 clinicopathologic features in a Cox proportional hazard framework to derive a multivariate prognostic risk model for event-free survival (EFS). They built the PEComa prognostic score (PEC-PRO), in which scores ranged from 0 to 5, based on the coefficients of the multivariate model. Three groups were identified: low risk (score = 0), intermediate risk (score = 1), and high risk (score ≥ 2). RESULTS: Analyzing 87 patients who had a median 46-month follow-up (interquartile range, 20-74 months), the median EFS was 96.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1 months to not applicable), with 2-year and 5-year EFS rates of 64.7% and 58%, respectively. The median overall survival was unreached, with 2-year and 5-year overall survival rates of 82.3% and 69.3%, respectively. The simplified Folpe classification did not correlate with EFS. Multivariate analysis identified three factors affecting EFS: positive surgical margins (hazard ratio [HR], 5.17; 95% CI, 1.65-16.24; p = .008), necrosis (HR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.16-13.43; p = .030), and male sex (HR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.19-8.27; p = 0.023). Four variables were retained in the prognostic model. Patients with low-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 93.7% (95% CI, 83.8%-100.0%), those with intermediate-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 67.4% (95% CI, 53.9%-80.9%), and those with high-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 2.3% (95% CI, 0.0%-18.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The PEC-PRO score reliably predicts the risk of postoperative recurrence in patients with localized PEComa. It has the potential to improve follow-up strategies but requires validation in a prospective trial.

KIT ATP-Binding Pocket/Activation Loop Mutations in GI Stromal Tumor: Emerging Mechanisms of Kinase Inhibitor Escape.

PURPOSE: Imatinib resistance in GI stromal tumors (GISTs) is primarily caused by secondary KIT mutations, and clonal heterogeneity of these secondary mutations represents a major treatment obstacle. KIT inhibitors used after imatinib have clinical activity, albeit with limited benefit. Ripretinib is a potent inhibitor of secondary KIT mutations in the activation loop (AL). However, clinical benefit in fourth line remains limited and the molecular mechanisms of ripretinib resistance are largely unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Progressing lesions of 25 patients with GISTs refractory to ripretinib were sequenced for KIT resistance mutations. Resistant genotypes were validated and characterized using novel cell line models and in silico modeling. RESULTS: GISTs progressing on ripretinib were enriched for secondary mutations in the ATP-binding pocket (AP), which frequently occur in cis with preexisting AL mutations, resulting in highly resistant AP/AL genotypes. AP/AL mutations were rarely observed in a cohort of progressing GIST samples from the preripretinib era but represented 50% of secondary KIT mutations in patients with tumors resistant to ripretinib. In GIST cell lines harboring secondary KIT AL mutations, the sole genomic escape mechanisms during ripretinib drug selection were AP/AL mutations. Ripretinib and sunitinib synergize against mixed clones with secondary AP or AL mutants but do not suppress clones with AP/AL genotypes. CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore that KIT remains the central oncogenic driver even in late lines of GIST therapy. KIT-inhibitor combinations may suppress resistance because of secondary KIT mutations. However, the emergence of KIT AP/AL mutations after ripretinib treatment calls for new strategies in the development of next-generation KIT inhibitors.