Clinical benefit and fragility evaluation of systemic therapy trials for advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of systemic anticancer therapies can be unclear despite positive trials, and outcomes may not translate to real-world practice. This study evaluated the benefit of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treatments using the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) v1.1 and measured the robustness of STS trial results using Fragility Index (FI). METHODS: Database searches for adult phase II or III trials in advanced STS (January 1998-December 2023) were performed. Therapies with trial outcomes that met the criteria for MCBS were scored 1-5 (≥4 represents substantial clinical benefit). For randomized clinical trials with positive time-to-event endpoints, the number of additional events that would render results nonsignificant, FI, was calculated and expressed as a proportion of the experimental arm size (fragility quotient [FQ]). Higher FI/FQ implies more robust results. RESULTS: Among 194 trials, 19 (9.8%) were phase III. Most phase II trials (146/175; 83.4%) had single-arm or non-comparative design. Trials that were eligible for MCBS scoring (n = 78; 40.2%) evaluated 56 different agents/regimens. Median MCBS score was 2. Only three agents/regimens (all cytotoxic therapies) had an MCBS score ≥4. Among 47 randomized clinical trials, 16 (8 phase II; 8 phase III) trials had positive outcomes. Median FI was 7 (range, 2-52) and 10 trials (62.5%) had an FQ < 10%, with median of 7% (range, 1%-59%). CONCLUSIONS: Most systemic therapies in STS trials did not confer substantial clinical benefit per European Society of Medical Oncology-MCBS. Additionally, positive randomized trials were often fragile. Novel STS therapy trials should use clinically meaningful endpoints and real-world efficacy confirmation is essential, especially for less robust trials.

Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Once-Weekly Split-Dose Selinexor in Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Results of the Phase Ib METSSAR Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The approved dose of Selinexor, 60 mg twice-weekly, is associated with several clinically relevant toxicities. Preclinical studies show that a sustained-release formulation of selinexor results in a lower toxicity profile. OBJECTIVE: The phase 1b METSSAR trial assessed the safety and tolerability of an alternative dosing schedule of selinexor (to mimic the sustained-release formulation) in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Selinexor was administered in a split-dose schedule (40 mg, 20 mg, 20 mg in the morning, afternoon, and evening, respectively) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle, until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Secondary objectives were EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life (QoL) assessment, and preliminary efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty patients with 12 STS subtypes were enrolled and received a median of four cycles of treatment. There were no grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. Dysgeusia, nausea, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia were the most common grade ≤ 2 TRAEs. No treatments were discontinued due to TRAE, but four patients (20%) required dose reduction. Median change in global health status (GHS) score from baseline to cycle 2 (by QLQ-C30 v3.0) was - 8.33, and only 39% of patients reported a clinically meaningful decline in GHS score (≥ 10 points). Median symptom scale scores on treatment were increased for fatigue (+12.35), nausea/vomiting (+18.52), and anorexia (+16.67), but reduced for pain (- 3.70). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval 1.9-7.5). CONCLUSIONS: Split-dose once-weekly selinexor was reasonably well tolerated in this heterogeneous group of advanced STS patients with a better, or at least similar, clinician- and patient-reported toxicity profile compared to the standard dosing regimen. Further clinical evaluation is warranted, as better dose delivery can lead to improved antitumor efficacy.

Real-word experience of pazopanib and sorafenib in patients with desmoid tumors: A CanSaRCC multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib and pazopanib, two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), are widely used in patients with progressive symptomatic desmoid tumors (DT). Limited real-word data is available on long-term outcomes of patients who progressed on, stopped, or continued TKIs. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with DTs and treated with sorafenib or pazopanib between 2011 and 2022 at 11 institutions were reviewed. Patient history, response to therapy and toxicity were recorded. Statistical analyses utilized Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. RESULTS: 142 patients with DT treated with sorafenib (n = 126, 88.7 %) or pazopanib (n = 16, 11.3 %) were analyzed. The median treatment duration was 10.8 months (range: 0.07- 73.9). The overall response rate and the disease control rate were 26.0 % and 95.1 %, respectively. The median tumor shrinkage was - 8.5 % (range -100.0 %- +72.5 %). Among responders, the median time to an objective response was 15.2 months (range: 1.1 to 33.1). The 1-year and 2-year progression-free survival rates were 82 % and 80 %. Dose reductions were necessary in 34 (23.9 %) patients. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 36 (25.4 %) patients. On the last follow-up, 55 (38.7 %) patients continued treatment. Treatment discontinuation (n = 85, 59.9 %) was mainly for toxicity (n = 35, 45.9 %) or radiological or clinical progression (n = 30, 35.3 %). For the entire cohort, 36 (25.4 %) patients required subsequent treatment. In the 32 responders, only 1 (3.1 %) patient required a subsequent treatment. In patients who discontinued TKI, 25 (44.6 %) with stable disease received subsequent treatment compared to 0 (0.0 %) of responders. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study represents the largest cohort of DT patients treated with sorafenib or pazopanib to date. Discontinuation of treatment in responders is safe. The optimal treatment duration in patients with stable disease remains to be defined.

Afamitresgene autoleucel for advanced synovial sarcoma and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (SPEARHEAD-1): an international, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) showed acceptable safety and promising efficacy in a phase 1 trial (NCT03132922). The aim of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy of afami-cel for the treatment of patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing advanced synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma. METHODS: SPEARHEAD-1 was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial done across 23 sites in Canada, the USA, and Europe. The trial included three cohorts, of which the main investigational cohort (cohort 1) is reported here. Cohort 1 included patients with HLA-A*02, aged 16-75 years, with metastatic or unresectable synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma (confirmed by cytogenetics) expressing MAGE-A4, and who had received at least one previous line of anthracycline-containing or ifosfamide-containing chemotherapy. Patients received a single intravenous dose of afami-cel (transduced dose range 1·0 × 109-10·0 × 109 T cells) after lymphodepletion. The primary endpoint was overall response rate in cohort 1, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received afami-cel). Adverse events, including those of special interest (cytokine release syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and neurotoxicity), were monitored and are reported for the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04044768; recruitment is closed and follow-up is ongoing for cohorts 1 and 2, and recruitment is open for cohort 3. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 27, 2021, 52 patients with cytogenetically confirmed synovial sarcoma (n=44) and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (n=8) were enrolled and received afami-cel in cohort 1. Patients were heavily pre-treated (median three [IQR two to four] previous lines of systemic therapy). Median follow-up time was 32·6 months (IQR 29·4-36·1). Overall response rate was 37% (19 of 52; 95% CI 24-51) overall, 39% (17 of 44; 24-55) for patients with synovial sarcoma, and 25% (two of eight; 3-65) for patients with myxoid round cell liposarcoma. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 37 (71%) of 52 of patients (one grade 3 event). Cytopenias were the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events (lymphopenia in 50 [96%], neutropenia 44 [85%], leukopenia 42 [81%] of 52 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Afami-cel treatment resulted in durable responses in heavily pre-treated patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing synovial sarcoma. This study shows that T-cell receptor therapy can be used to effectively target solid tumours and provides rationale to expand this approach to other solid malignancies. FUNDING: Adaptimmune.

Early Changes in Tumor-Naive Cell-Free Methylomes and Fragmentomes Predict Outcomes in Pembrolizumab-Treated Solid Tumors.

Early kinetics of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma predict response to pembrolizumab but typically requires sequencing of matched tumor tissue or fixed gene panels. We analyzed genome-wide methylation and fragment-length profiles using cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq) in 204 plasma samples from 87 patients before and during treatment with pembrolizumab from a pan-cancer phase II investigator-initiated trial (INSPIRE). We trained a pan-cancer methylation signature using independent methylation array data from The Cancer Genome Atlas to quantify cancer-specific methylation (CSM) and fragment-length score (FLS) for each sample. CSM and FLS are strongly correlated with tumor-informed ctDNA levels. Early kinetics of CSM predict overall survival and progression-free survival, independently of tumor type, PD-L1, and tumor mutation burden. Early kinetics of FLS are associated with overall survival independently of CSM. Our tumor-naïve mutation-agnostic ctDNA approach integrating methylomics and fragmentomics could predict outcomes in patients treated with pembrolizumab. SIGNIFICANCE: Analysis of methylation and fragment length in plasma using cfMeDIP-seq provides a tumor-naive approach to measure ctDNA with results comparable with a tumor-informed bespoke ctDNA. Early kinetics within the first weeks of treatment in methylation and fragment quantity can predict outcomes with pembrolizumab in patients with various advanced solid tumors. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 897.

Impact on costs and outcomes of multi-gene panel testing for advanced solid malignancies: a cost-consequence analysis using linked administrative data.

Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care. Methods: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer's perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics. Findings: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers. Funding: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective 'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS).

Safety, Immunologic, and Clinical Activity of Durvalumab in Combination with Olaparib or Cediranib in Advanced Leiomyosarcoma: Results of the DAPPER Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Non-inflamed (cold) tumors such as leiomyosarcoma do not benefit from immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) monotherapy. Combining ICB with angiogenesis or PARP inhibitors may increase tumor immunogenicity by altering the immune cell composition of the tumor microenvironment (TME). The DAPPER phase II study evaluated the safety, immunologic, and clinical activity of ICB-based combinations in pretreated patients with leiomyosarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks with either olaparib 300 mg twice a day orally (Arm A) or cediranib 20 mg every day orally 5 days/week (Arm B) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Paired tumor biopsies, serial radiologic assessments and stool collections were performed. Primary endpoints were safety and immune cell changes in the TME. Objective responses and survival were correlated with transcriptomic, radiomic, and microbiome parameters. RESULTS: Among 30 heavily pretreated patients (15 on each arm), grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 3 (20%) and 2 (13%) on Arms A and B, respectively. On Arm A, 1 patient achieved partial response (PR) with increase in CD8 T cells and macrophages in the TME during treatment, while 4 had stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months. No patients on Arm B achieved PR or SD ≥ 6 months. Transcriptome analysis showed that baseline M1-macrophage and B-cell activity were associated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab plus olaparib increased immune cell infiltration of TME with clinical benefit in some patients with leiomyosarcoma. Baseline M1-macrophage and B-cell activity may identify patients with leiomyosarcoma with favorable outcomes on immunotherapy and should be further evaluated.

A tailored phase I-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey to capture the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Patient perspectives are fundamental to defining tolerability of investigational anti-neoplastic therapies in clinical trials. Phase I trials present a unique challenge in designing tools for efficiently collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) given the difficulty of anticipating adverse events of relevance. However, phase I trials also offer an opportunity for investigators to optimize drug dosing based on tolerability for future larger-scale trials and in eventual clinical practice. Existing tools for comprehensively capturing PROs are generally cumbersome and are not routinely used in phase I trials. METHODS: Here, we describe the creation of a tailored survey based on the National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE for collecting patients' perspectives on symptomatic adverse events in phase I trials in oncology. RESULTS: We describe our stepwise approach to condensing the original 78-symptom library into a modified 30 term core list of symptoms which can be efficiently applied. We further show that our tailored survey aligns with phase I trialists' perspectives on symptoms of relevance. CONCLUSIONS: This tailored survey represents the first PRO tool developed specifically for assessing tolerability in the phase I oncology population. We provide recommendations for future work aimed at integrating this survey into clinical practice.

Phase 1 study of GSK3368715, a type I PRMT inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: GSK3368715, a first-in-class, reversible inhibitor of type I protein methyltransferases (PRMTs) demonstrated anticancer activity in preclinical studies. This Phase 1 study (NCT03666988) evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of GSK3368715 in adults with advanced-stage solid tumors. METHODS: In part 1, escalating doses of oral once-daily GSK3368715 (50, 100, and 200 mg) were evaluated. Enrollment was paused at 200 mg following a higher-than-expected incidence of thromboembolic events (TEEs) among the first 19 participants, resuming under a protocol amendment starting at 100 mg. Part 2 (to evaluate preliminary efficacy) was not initiated. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in 3/12 (25%) patients at 200 mg. Nine of 31 (29%) patients across dose groups experienced 12 TEEs (8 grade 3 events and 1 grade 5 pulmonary embolism). Best response achieved was stable disease, occurring in 9/31 (29%) patients. Following single and repeat dosing, GSK3368715 maximum plasma concentration was reached within 1 h post dosing. Target engagement was observed in the blood, but was modest and variable in tumor biopsies at 100 mg. CONCLUSION: Based on higher-than-expected incidence of TEEs, limited target engagement at lower doses, and lack of observed clinical efficacy, a risk/benefit analysis led to early study termination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03666988.

Tumor-Naïve Circulating Tumor DNA as an Early Response Biomarker for Patients Treated With Immunotherapy in Early Phase Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate early circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) kinetics using a tumor-naïve assay and correlate it with clinical outcomes in early phase immunotherapy (IO) trials. METHODS: Plasma samples were analyzed using a 425-gene next-generation sequencing panel at baseline and before cycle 2 (3-4 weeks) in patients with advanced solid tumors treated with investigational IO agents. Variant allele frequency (VAF) for mutations in each gene, mean VAF (mVAF) from all mutations, and change in mVAF between both time points were calculated. Hyperprogression (HyperPD) was measured using Matos and Caramella criteria. RESULTS: A total of 162 plasma samples were collected from 81 patients with 27 different tumor types. Patients were treated in 37 different IO phase I/II trials, 72% of which involved a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. ctDNA was detected in 122 plasma samples (75.3%). A decrease in mVAF from baseline to precycle 2 was observed in 24 patients (37.5%) and was associated with longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.77; P < .01) and overall survival (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.96; P = .03) compared with an increase. These differences were more marked if there was a >50% decrease in mVAF for both progression-free survival (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.62; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.6; P = .001). No differences in mVAF changes were observed between the HyperPD and progressive disease patients. CONCLUSION: A decrease in ctDNA within 4 weeks of treatment was associated with treatment outcomes in patients in early phase IO trials. Tumor-naïve ctDNA assays may be useful for identifying early treatment benefits in phase I/II IO trials.

A Phase 1B open-label study of gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents for patients with advanced solid tumours and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b study (B2151002) evaluated the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients with various malignancies were administered gedatolisib (90‒310 mg intravenously every week [QW]) plus docetaxel (arm A) or cisplatin (arm B) (each 75 mg/m2 intravenously Q3W) or dacomitinib (30 or 45 mg/day orally). The safety and tolerability of combination therapies were assessed during dose escalation; objective response (OR) and safety were assessed during dose expansion. RESULTS: Of 110 patients enrolled, 107 received gedatolisib combination treatment. Seven of 70 (10.0%) evaluable patients had dose-limiting toxicities; the most common was grade 3 oral mucositis (n = 3). Based upon reprioritisation of the sponsor's portfolio, dose expansion focused on arm B, gedatolisib (180 mg QW) plus cisplatin in patients (N = 22) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). OR (95% CI) was achieved in four of ten patients in first-line (overall response rate 40.0% [12.2-73.8%]) and four of 12 in second/third-line (33.3% [9.9-65.1%]) settings. One patient in each TNBC arm (10%, first-line; 8.3%, second/third-line) achieved a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combination therapy showed an acceptable tolerability profile, with clinical activity at the recommended Phase 2 dose in patients with TNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01920061.

Evaluation of the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events on Phase I clinical trials using PRO-CTCAE.

BACKGROUND: Adverse event (AE) reporting in early-phase clinical trials is essential in determining the tolerability of experimental anticancer therapies. The patient-reported outcome version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) evaluates AE components such as severity and interference in daily life. The aim of this study was to correlate the grade of clinician-reported AEs with patients' reported experience of these toxicities using PRO-CTCAE. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours enrolled on Phase I clinical trials were surveyed using the PRO-CTCAE. Symptomatic AEs were recorded by physicians using the CTCAE. A logistic regression model was used to assess associations between CTCAE grade and PRO responses. RESULTS: Of 219 evaluable patients, 81 experienced a high-grade (3/4) clinician-reported symptom, and of these, only 32 (40%) and 26 (32%) patients concordantly reported these as either severe or very severe, and interfering with daily life either 'quite a bit' or 'very much', respectively. Of the 137 patients who experienced a low-grade (1/2) clinician-reported AE as their worst symptom, 98 (72%) and 118 (86%) patients concordantly reported these as either mild-moderate severity and minimally interfering with daily life, respectively. There was a statistically significant association between clinician-reported AE grade and interference. Interference scores were also associated with dose reductions. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore patient-reported severity and interference from symptomatic toxicities and compare clinician grading of the same toxicities. The study provided further evidence to support the added value of the PRO-CTCAE in Phase I oncology trials, which would make AE reporting patient-centred. Further work is needed to determine how this would affect the assessment of tolerability.

Leiomyosarcoma: Current Clinical Management and Future Horizons.

Leiomyosarcomas are soft tissue tumors that are derived from smooth muscle mainly in the pelvis and retroperitoneum. Percutaneous biopsy is paramount to confirm diagnosis. Imaging is necessary to complete clinical staging. Multimodal treatment should be directed by expert sarcoma multidisciplinary teams that see a critical volume of these rare tumors. Surgery is the mainstay of curative intent treatment; however due to its high metastatic progression, there may be a benefit for neoadjuvant systemic treatment. Adjuvant systemic treatment has no proven disease-free survival, and its main role is in the palliative setting to potentially prolong overall survival.

Quality of life of patients with soft tissue sarcoma treated with doxorubicin in the ANNOUNCE phase III clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-related quality of life, are recommended to be routinely collected in clinical trials, but data are limited from trials of sarcoma patients. In this analysis, pooled PRO data are reported from patients with advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) enrolled to the ANNOUNCE phase III trial of doxorubicin-based therapy. METHODS: ANNOUNCE was a phase III trial that randomized 509 patients with STS to receive up to eight cycles of doxorubicin with olaratumab or placebo, followed by single-agent olaratumab or placebo. Dexrazoxane was allowed at any cycle of treatment. Participants completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30, which is scored 0-100), and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form Modified (mBPI-sf, scored from 0-10) at each treatment cycle. A descriptive analysis of the longitudinal data was conducted overall and by cumulative dose of doxorubicin received to inform the clinical care of patients with STS. Worsening on the QLQ-C30 was defined as a change of 10 points or more at any post-baseline assessment. Worsening on the mPBI-sf was defined as an increase of ≥2 points from baseline. RESULTS: The majority of participants completed the baseline and at least one subsequent PRO assessment within the trial (n = 460, 90.4% EORTC QLQ-C30; n = 454, 89.2%, mBPI-sf). Patients with STS enrolled to the ANNOUNCE trial had clinically meaningful problems with physical function and pain before initiating doxorubicin. Overall, those with fewer symptoms or better function at baseline received higher cumulative doxorubicin dose throughout the study. At baseline, mean QLQ-C30 fatigue was 29.9 with a median time to first worsening of 0.9 months, and mean nausea/vomiting was 6.5 with 1.4 months until worsening; mean physical function was 78.3 with median time to worsening of 2.1 months and mean health status was 66.8 with median time to first worsening of 1.6 months. Median time to worsening of pain was 7.9 months. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced or metastatic sarcoma reported a relatively rapid decline in PROs during doxorubicin-based treatment, with patients with poorer symptoms at baseline (specifically fatigue), subsequently receiving less doxorubicin therapy. The availability of detailed summary data from the patient perspective during doxorubicin-based treatment may inform future care of these patients and can provide a resource for the development of PRO endpoints in future trials.

A Phase 2 Trial of Afatinib in Patients with Solid Tumors that Harbor Genomic Aberrations in the HER family: The MOBILITY3 Basket Study.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)- and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-targeted therapies are approved for the treatment of breast, gastric/gastrointestinal junction (GEJ), and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific molecular aberrations affecting HER family members. Over 10 % of other cancers harbor genomic aberrations affecting HER family members, but their role remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: The MOBILITY3 trial evaluated the antitumor activity of afatinib, an oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in HER-aberrant tumors outside of the licensed indications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-center basket trial, patients with advanced solid tumors that harbor mutations and/or amplifications of any of the HER family members (EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB3, ERBB4) were enrolled. The EGFR-mutated NSCLC and HER2-positive breast cancers were excluded. Participants were treated with oral afatinib 40 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. RESULTS: The study enrolled 12 patients with 6 tumor types (NSCLC, sarcoma, salivary gland, gastric/GEJ, breast and pancreatic cancer). Objective response rate was 8 % (95 % CI 0.2-38%) and median PFS was 11.4 weeks (95% CI 4.6-33.3 weeks). All 3 patients with salivary gland cancers and 1 patient with ERBB2-mutant NSCLC had clinical benefit (stable disease or partial response lasting > 24 weeks). Due to slow accrual and a lower-than-expected response rate, trial recruitment was terminated before the target of 30 patients were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: In the MOBILITY3 study (NCT02506517), afatinib demonstrated modest activity in tumors that possess EGFR and ERBB2 aberrations. Clinical benefit seen in all 3 salivary gland cancers supports the growing evidence for the utility of HER-targeted therapies in the treatment of this specific tumor type.

Co-Targeting of MDM2 and CDK4/6 with Siremadlin and Ribociclib for the Treatment of Patients with Well-Differentiated or Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: Results from a Proof-of-Concept, Phase Ib Study.

PURPOSE: Well-differentiated (WDLPS) and dedifferentiated (DDLPS) liposarcoma are characterized by co-amplification of the murine double minute-2 (MDM2) and cyclin-dependent kinase-4 (CDK4) oncogenes. Siremadlin, a p53-MDM2 inhibitor, was combined with ribociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, in patients with locally advanced/metastatic WDLPS or DDLPS who had radiologically progressed on, or despite, prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this proof-of-concept, phase Ib, dose-escalation study, patients received siremadlin and ribociclib across different regimens until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, and/or treatment discontinuation: Regimen A [4-week cycle: siremadlin once daily (QD) and ribociclib QD (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off)], Regimen B [3-week cycle: siremadlin once every 3 weeks; ribociclib QD (2 weeks on, 1 week off)], and Regimen C [4-week cycle: siremadlin once every 4 weeks; ribociclib QD (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off)]. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of siremadlin plus ribociclib in one or more regimens. RESULTS: As of October 16, 2019 (last patient last visit), 74 patients had enrolled. Median duration of exposure was 13 (range, 1-174) weeks. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 10 patients, most of which were Grade 3/4 hematologic events. The RDE was siremadlin 120 mg every 3 weeks plus ribociclib 200 mg QD (Regimen B). Three patients achieved a partial response, and 38 achieved stable disease. One patient (Regimen C) died as a result of treatment-related hematotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Siremadlin plus ribociclib demonstrated manageable toxicity and early signs of antitumor activity in patients with advanced WDLPS or DDLPS.

Canadian consensus on TRK-inhibitor therapy for NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma.

Malignant sarcomas are rare accounting for <1% of all adult solid malignancies and approximately 11% to 13% of all pediatric malignancies. TRK-inhibitors have demonstrated robust and long-lasting responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors, including sarcoma. Access to these agents in many jurisdictions such as Canada remains limited. We undertook a modified Delphi consensus to articulate and convey the clinical importance of these agents for the Canadian sarcoma community. A systematic search of published and presented literature was conducted to identify clinical trials reporting outcomes on the use of TRK-inhibitors in relapsed/refractory NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma. Three main consensus questions were identified: (a) is there currently an unmet clinical need for systemic therapy options in relapsed/refractory sarcoma? (b) do TRK-inhibitors confer a clinical benefit to patients with NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma? (c) do phase I/II basket trials provide sufficient evidence to justify funding of TRK-inhibitors in NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma? Response rates to the first and second surveys were 57% (n = 30) and 42% (n = 22), respectively. There was strong agreement among the Canadian sarcoma community that there was unmet clinical need for effective systemic therapy options in relapsed/refractory sarcoma, that TRK-inhibitors are a safe and effective treatment option for patients with NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma, and that available phase I/II basket trials provide sufficient evidence to support funding of these agents in relapsed/refractory NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma. TRK-inhibitors are a safe and effective systemic therapy option for patients with relapsed/refractory NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma.