Preoperative Radiotherapy in Patients With Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: EORTC-62092 Trial (STRASS) Versus Off-trial (STREXIT) Results.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of radiotherapy (RT) on abdominal recurrence-free survival (ARFS) in patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma treated in the EORTC-STBSG-62092 (STRASS) phase 3 randomized controlled trial (STRASS cohort) and off-trial (STREXIT cohort) and to pool STRASS and STREXIT data to test the hypothesis that RT improves ARFS in patients with liposarcoma. BACKGROUND: The STRASS trial did not show any difference in ARFS between patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy+surgery (RT+S) versus surgery alone (S). METHODS: All consecutive adult patients not enrolled in STRASS and underwent curative-intent surgery for a primary retroperitoneal sarcoma with or without preoperative RT between 2012 and 2017 (STRASS recruiting period) among ten STRASS-recruiting centres formed the STREXIT cohort. The effect of RT in STREXIT was explored with a propensity score (PS)-matching analysis. Primary endpoint was ARFS defined as macroscopically incomplete resection or abdominal recurrence or death of any cause, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: STRASS included 266 patients, STREXIT included 831 patients (727 after excluding patients who received preoperative chemotherapy, 202 after 1:1 PS-matching). The effect of RT on ARFS in STRASS and 1:1 PS-matched STREXIT cohorts, overall and in patients with liposarcoma, was similar. In the pooled cohort analysis, RT administration was associated with better ARFS in patients with liposarcoma [N=321, hazard ratio (HR), 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.89]. In particular, patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma and G1-2 dedifferentiated liposarcoma (G1-2 DDLPS, n=266) treated with RT+S had better ARFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97) while patients with G3 DDLPS and leiomyosarcoma had not. At the current follow-up, there was no association between RT and overall survival or distant metastases-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, preoperative RT was associated with better ARFS in patients with primary well-differentiated liposarcoma and G1-2 DDLPS.

New benchmarks to design clinical trials with advanced or metastatic liposarcoma or synovial sarcoma patients: An EORTC - Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) meta-analysis based on a literature review for soft-tissue sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Recently, we performed a meta-analysis based on a literature review for STS trials (published 2003-2018, ≥10 adult patients) to update long-standing reference values for leiomyosarcomas. This work is extended for liposarcomas (LPS) and synovial sarcomas (SS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study endpoints were progression-free survival rates (PFSRs) at 3 and 6 months. Trial-specific estimates were pooled per treatment line (first-line or pre-treated) with random effects meta-analyses. The choice of the therapeutic benefit to target in future trials was guided by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). RESULTS: Information was acquired for 1030 LPS patients (25 trials; 7 first-line, 17 pre-treated, 1 both) and 348 SS patients (13 trials; 3 first-line, 10 pre-treated). For LPS, the overall pooled first-line PFSRs were 69% (95%-CI 60-77%) and 56% (95%-CI 45-67%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. These rates were 49% (95%-CI 40-57%)/28% (95%-CI 22-34%) for >1 lines. For SS, first-line PFSRs were 74% (95%-CI 58-86%)/56% (95%-CI 31-78%) at 3 and 6 months, and pre-treated rates were 45% (95%-CI 34-57%)/25% (95%-CI 16-36%). Following ESMO-MCBS guidelines, the minimum values to target are 79% and 69% for first-line LPS (82% and 69% for SS) at 3 and 6 months. For pre-treated LPS, recommended PFSRs at 3 and 6 months suggesting drug activity are 63% and 44% (60% and 41% for SS). CONCLUSIONS: New benchmarks are proposed for advanced/metastatic LPS or SS to design future histology-specific phase II trials. More data are needed to provide definitive thresholds for the different LPS subtypes.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is a standard-of-care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091), patients were recruited from 196 medical centres in 29 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with completely resected, pathologically confirmed stage IB (tumours of ≥4 cm in diameter), II, or IIIA NSCLC per the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition) of any histology or PD-L1 expression level, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; adjuvant chemotherapy was to be considered for stage IB disease and was strongly recommended for stage II and IIIA disease, according to national and local guidelines. Using a central interactive voice-response system, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation technique and stratified by disease stage, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 18 cycles. Participants, investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival in the overall population and in the population with PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) of 50% or greater. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here we report results of the second interim analysis, prespecified to occur when approximately 118 disease-free survival events had occurred in the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504372, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20, 2016, and May 6, 2020, 1177 (60%) of 1955 screened participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=590, including n=168 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) or placebo (n=587; including n=165 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) and included in the ITT population. Median follow-up as of data cutoff (Sept 20, 2021) for this interim analysis was 35·6 months (IQR 27·1-45·5). In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 53·6 months (95% CI 39·2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab group versus 42·0 months (31·3 to not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·63-0·91], p=0·0014). In the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population, median disease-free survival was not reached in either the pembrolizumab group (95% CI 44·3 to not reached) or the placebo group (95% CI 35·8 to not reached; HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·57-1·18]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 198 (34%) of 580 participants who received pembrolizumab and 150 (26%) of 581 participants who received placebo. Grade 3 or worse events that occurred in at least ten participants in either treatment group were hypertension (35 [6%]) and pneumonia (12 [2%]) with pembrolizumab and hypertension (32 [6%]) with placebo. Serious adverse events occurred in 142 (24%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 90 (15%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events that occurred in more than 1% of participants were pneumonia (13 [2%]), pneumonitis (12 [2%]), and diarrhoea (seven [1%]) with pembrolizumab and pneumonia (nine [2%]) with placebo. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four (1%) participants treated with pembrolizumab (one due to both cardiogenic shock and myocarditis, one due to both septic shock and myocarditis, one due to pneumonia, and one due to sudden death) and in no participants treated with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival compared with placebo and was not associated with new safety signals in completely resected, PD-L1-unselected, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Pembrolizumab is potentially a new treatment option for stage IB-IIIA NSCLC after complete resection and, when recommended, adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of PD-L1 expression. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Activity of Cabazitaxel in Metastatic or Inoperable Locally Advanced Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Phase 2 Study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG).

Importance: Treatment options for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) are limited. New drugs are required. Objective: To assess whether cabazitaxel demonstrated sufficient antitumor activity in patients with metastatic or inoperable locally advanced DDLPS to justify further investigation in a phase 3 setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international multicenter, open-label single-arm phase 2 trial was conducted at 10 institutions in 4 European countries from March 2015 to March 2019. Eligible patients had to have metastatic or locally advanced histologically proven DDLPS with evidence of disease progression within the past 6 months and had to have received no more than 1 previous line of chemotherapy. Interventions: After mandatory central review of tumor blocks, if the DDLPS diagnosis was confirmed, patients started treatment within 72 hours after registration. Cabazitaxel was administered at a dose of 25 mg/m2 IV infusion over 1 hour every 21 days until intolerance, progression, or withdrawal of consent. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 weeks per RECIST 1.1. Based on a Simon 2-stage design, at least 4 of 17 (stage 1) and 11 of 37 (stage 2) eligible and evaluable patients who were progression free at 12 weeks were needed. The final analysis report was completed on November 17, 2021. Results: Forty patients were registered, with 2 patients being ineligible. The number of cycles ranged from 1 to 30, with a median of 5; 26 patients (65%) received at least 4 cycles of cabazitaxel. Progression-free survival at 12 weeks was 55%, achieving the primary study end point. At a median follow-up of 21.6 months, median PFS was 6 months and median OS 21 months. Response rate (RR) was 8% with 1 clinical response (CR) and 2 partial responses (PR). Twenty-three (60.5%) patients had a stable disease (SD). Disease control (PR+SD) was achieved in 26 patients (68%). Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized phase 2 clinical trial met its primary end point, with 21 of 38 patients (55%) being progression free at 12 weeks. These results suggest important activity of cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic or inoperable locally advanced DDLPS. The drug is worth being further studied in these tumors in a phase 3 setting.

First-line chemotherapy in advanced intra-abdominal well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma: An EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: 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.

Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas: Results from the EORTC 62092-22092 STRASS trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 22092-62092 STRASS trial failed to demonstrate the superiority of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) over surgery alone in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. Therefore, an RT quality-assurance program was added to the study protocol to detect and correct RT deviations. The authors report results from the trial RT quality-assurance program and its potential effect on patient outcomes. METHODS: To evaluate the effect of RT compliance on survival outcomes, a composite end point was created. It combined the information related to planning target volume coverage, target delineation, total dose received, and overall treatment time into 2 groups: non-RT-compliant (NRC) for patients who had unacceptable deviation(s) in any of the previous categories and RT-compliant (RC) otherwise. Abdominal recurrence-free survival (ARFS) and overall survival were compared between the 2 groups using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Thirty-six of 125 patients (28.8%) were classified as NRC, and the remaining 89 patients (71.2%) were classified as RC. The 3-year ARFS rate was 66.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55.8%-75.7%) and 49.8% (95% CI, 32.7%-64.8%) for the RC and NRC groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.25-4.32; P = .008). Local recurrence after macroscopic complete resection occurred in 13 of 89 patients (14.6%) versus 2 of 36 patients (5.6%) in the RC and NRC groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current analysis suggests a significant benefit in terms of ARFS in favor of the RC group. This association did not translate into less local relapses after complete resection in the RC group. Multidisciplinary collaboration and review of cases are critical to avoid geographic misses, especially for rare tumors like retroperitoneal sarcoma.

Long term outcome data from the EORTC 75111-10114 ETF/BCG randomized phase II study: Pertuzumab and trastuzumab with or without metronomic chemotherapy for older patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, followed by T-DM1 after progression.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients are at higher risk of chemotherapy-induced toxicity, raising interest in less toxic anti-HER2 regimens for older persons with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study randomized (1:1) patients with HER2+ MBC, aged 70+ or frail 60+, to first line chemotherapy with metronomic oral cyclophosphamide (M) + Trastuzumab (T) and Pertuzumab (P) or TP alone. T-DM1 was offered in case of progression. RESULTS: In total, 39 and 41 patients were randomized to TP and TPM arm respectively. Median follow-up is 54.0 months. 24-month PFS was 18.7% (95% CI 8.2-32.4) and 28.7% (95% CI 15.8-43.0), respectively. A total of 49 (61.3%) patients died of whom 37 (75.5%) from disease progression; number of deaths per arm was 27 (69.2%) for TP and 22 (53.7%) for TPM. There was no significant difference in OS between the two arms (median OS TP vs TPM: 32.1 vs 37.5 months, p 0.25). Among the 40 patients who have started T-DM1 after disease progression on TP/TPM, PFS rate at 6 months after start of T-DM1 was 43.6% (95% CI: 27.7-58.5) and grade 3 or higher AE occurred in 18 pts (45%). CONCLUSIONS: Metronomic chemotherapy-based dual blockade (TPM), followed by T-DM1 after progression, provides an active and relatively well tolerated treatment option in an older/frail HER2+ MBC population, with a median survival of over 3 years. Nevertheless, the majority of this older/frail population died from breast cancer, highlighting the need for well tolerated and efficacious treatments in these patients.

Prognostic Significance of Bone Metastasis in Soft Tissue Sarcoma Patients Receiving Palliative Systemic Therapy: An Explorative, Retrospective Pooled Analysis of the EORTC-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) Database.

Background: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) constitute a rare group of heterogeneous mesenchymal tumours containing more than 100 histologic subtypes. Here, we investigate whether, and if so, to what extent, skeletal metastases affect the outcome of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Materials and Methods: Selected patients participated in five clinical trials of EORTC-STBSG. Individuals were included if they started treatment with an active drug and had advanced/metastatic STS. The endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate and multivariate pooled analyses (after correcting for 12 covariates) were employed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression to model the impact of bone metastasis at presentation per treatment line stratified by study. For the subset of patients with bone metastasis, the impact of another metastatic organ site was explored with multivariate Cox regression models. Results: 565 out of 1034 (54.6%) patients received first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Bone metastases were present in 140 patients (77 first-line, 63 second-line or higher). The unadjusted difference in OS/PFS with or without bone metastasis was statistically significant only for first-line patients. For OS, the adjusted hazard ratios for bone metastasis presence were 1.33 (95%-CI: 0.99-1.78) and 1.11 (95%-CI: 0.81-1.52) for first-line/second-line or higher treated patients, respectively. Likewise, the adjusted hazard ratios for PFS were 1.31 (95%-CI: 1.00-1.73) and 1.07 (95%-CI: 0.80-1.43). Effects were not statistically significant, despite a trend in first-line patients for both endpoints. Subgroup analyses indicated bone and lymph node metastasis as the most detrimental combination for OS and bone and lung metastasis for PFS. Conclusions: Adult STS patients receiving palliative systemic therapy with bone metastasis carried an overall worse prognosis than STS patients without bone metastases. Skeletal metastasis was detrimental for both OS and PFS, independent of the treatment line. Findings may have implications for the management of these patients.

Five-Year Analysis of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab or Placebo in Stage III Melanoma.

Pembrolizumab or Placebo in Stage III MelanomaPatients with stage III melanoma randomly received adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo. Five-year recurrence-free survival was 55.4% (95% CI, 50.8 to 59.8) versus 38.3% (33.9 to 42.7) and 5-year metastasis-free survival was 60.6% (56.0 to 64.9) versus 44.5% (39.9 to 48.9) for adjuvant pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. No new safety signals were associated with adjuvant pembrolizumab.

Crossover and rechallenge with pembrolizumab in recurrent patients from the EORTC 1325-MG/Keynote-054 phase III trial, pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma with complete resection of lymph nodes. In the pembrolizumab group, the incidence of grade I-V and of grade III-V immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 37% and 7%, respectively. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive intravenous (i.v.) pembrolizumab 200 mg (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) every 3 weeks, up to 1 year. On recurrence, patients could enter part 2 of the study: pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks up to 2 years, for crossover (those who received placebo) or rechallenge (those who had recurrence ≥6 months after completing 1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy). For these patients, we present the safety profile and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: At the clinical cut-off (16-Oct-2020), in the placebo group, 298 patients had a disease recurrence, in which 155 (52%) crossed over ('crossover'). In the pembrolizumab group, 297 patients completed the 1-year treatment period; 47 had a recurrence ≥6 months later, in which 20 (43%) entered the rechallenge part 2 ('rechallenge'). In the crossover group, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7-15.2) and the 3-year PFS rate was 32% (95% CI 25-40%). Among 80 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 31 (39%) had an objective response: 14 (18%) patients with complete response (CR) and 17 (21%) patients with partial response. The 2-year PFS rate from response was 69% (95% CI 48-83%). In the rechallenge group, the median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6-NE). Among 9 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 1 had an objective response (CR). Among the 175 patients, 51 (29%) had a grade I-IV irAE and 11 (6%) had a grade III-IV irAE. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab treatment after crossover yielded an overall 3-year PFS rate of 32% and a 39% ORR in evaluable patients, but the efficacy (11% ORR) was lower in those rechallenged.

Efficacy thresholds for clinical trials with advanced or metastatic leiomyosarcoma patients: A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group meta-analysis based on a literature review for soft-tissue sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: In 2002, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group reported well-established values for conducting phase II trials for soft-tissue sarcomas. An update is provided for leiomyosarcoma (LMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical trials with advanced or metastatic LMS were identified via literature review in PubMed (published 2003-2018, ≥10 adult LMS patients). End-points were 3- and 6-month progression-free survival rates (PFSR-3m and PFSR-6m). When estimates could not be derived from publications, data requests were sent out. Treatments were classified as recommended (R-T) or non-recommended (NR-T) according to the ESMO 2018 guidelines. A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool trial-specific estimates for first-line (1L) or pre-treated (2L+) patients separately. The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale was used to guide the treatment effect to target in future trials. RESULTS: From 47 studies identified, we obtained information on 7 1L and 16 2L+ trials for 1500 LMS patients. Overall, in 1L, PFSR-3m and PFSR-6m were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64-82%) and 58% (95% CI 50-66%), respectively. For 2L+, PFSR-3m was 48% (95% CI 41-54%), and PFSR-6m was 28% (95% CI 22-34%). No difference was observed between R-T and NR-T for first or later lines. Under the alternative that the true benefit amounts to a hazard ratio of 0.65, a PFSR-6m ≥70% can be considered to suggest drug activity in 1L. For 2L+, a PFSR-3m ≥62% or PFSR-6m ≥44% would suggest drug activity. Specific results are also provided for uterine LMS. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides a new benchmark for designing phase II studies for advanced or metastatic LMS.

Genomic and Transcriptomic Analyses of Breast Cancer Primaries and Matched Metastases in AURORA, the Breast International Group (BIG) Molecular Screening Initiative.

AURORA aims to study the processes of relapse in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) by performing multi-omics profiling on paired primary tumors and early-course metastases. Among 381 patients (primary tumor and metastasis pairs: 252 targeted gene sequencing, 152 RNA sequencing, 67 single nucleotide polymorphism arrays), we found a driver role for GATA1 and MEN1 somatic mutations. Metastases were enriched in ESR1, PTEN, CDH1, PIK3CA, and RB1 mutations; MDM4 and MYC amplifications; and ARID1A deletions. An increase in clonality was observed in driver genes such as ERBB2 and RB1. Intrinsic subtype switching occurred in 36% of cases. Luminal A/B to HER2-enriched switching was associated with TP53 and/or PIK3CA mutations. Metastases had lower immune score and increased immune-permissive cells. High tumor mutational burden correlated to shorter time to relapse in HR+/HER2- cancers. ESCAT tier I/II alterations were detected in 51% of patients and matched therapy was used in 7%. Integration of multi-omics analyses in clinical practice could affect treatment strategies in MBC. SIGNIFICANCE: The AURORA program, through the genomic and transcriptomic analyses of matched primary and metastatic samples from 381 patients with breast cancer, coupled with prospectively collected clinical data, identified genomic alterations enriched in metastases and prognostic biomarkers. ESCAT tier I/II alterations were detected in more than half of the patients.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2659.

Randomised phase 2 study comparing the efficacy and safety of the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor nintedanib with single agent ifosfamide in patients with advanced, inoperable, metastatic soft tissue sarcoma after failure of first-line chemotherapy: EORTC-1506-STBSG "ANITA".

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 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/m2 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.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): distant metastasis-free survival results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial assessed pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. At 15-month median follow-up, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74], p<0·0001) compared with placebo, leading to its approval in the USA and Europe. This report provides the final results for the secondary efficacy endpoint, distant metastasis-free survival and an update of the recurrence-free survival results. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph node, classified as American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system, seventh edition (AJCC-7) stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central interactive voice response system to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and region, using a minimisation technique, and clinical investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing the data were masked to treatment assignment. The two coprimary endpoints were recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours. The secondary endpoint reported here was distant metastasis-free survival in the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). At an overall median follow-up of 42·3 months (IQR 40·5-45·9), 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was higher in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group in the ITT population (65·3% [95% CI 60·9-69·5] in the pembrolizumab group vs 49·4% [44·8-53·8] in the placebo group; HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was 66·7% (95% CI 61·8-71·2) in the pembrolizumab group and 51·6% (46·6-56·4) in the placebo group (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·49-0·76]; p<0·0001). Recurrence-free survival remained longer in the pembrolizumab group 59·8% (95% CI 55·3-64·1) than the placebo group 41·4% (37·0-45·8) at this 3·5-year follow-up in the ITT population (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·70]) and in those with PD-L1-positive tumours 61·4% (56·3-66·1) in the pembrolizumab group and 44·1% (39·2-48·8) in the placebo group (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in distant metastasis-free survival at a 3·5-year median follow-up, which was consistent with the improvement in recurrence-free survival. Therefore, the results of this trial support the indication to use adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy in patients with resected high risk stage III cutaneous melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 trial in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74]; p<0·0001). This study reports the results from the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) exploratory endpoint. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated histologically confirmed stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a central interactive voice-response system on the basis of a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographic region to receive intravenously 200 mg pembrolizumab or placebo. Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for 1 year, or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, with global health/quality of life (GHQ) over 2 years measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 as the primary analysis. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37, and long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Median follow-up was 15·1 months (IQR 12·8-16·9) at the time of this analysis. HRQOL compliance was greater than 90% at baseline, greater than 70% during the first year, and greater than 60% thereafter for both groups. Because of low absolute compliance numbers at later follow-up, the analysis was truncated to week 84. Baseline GHQ scores were similar between groups (77·55 [SD 18·20] in the pembrolizumab group and 76·54 [17·81] in the placebo group) and remained stable over time. The difference in average GHQ score between the two groups over the 2 years was -2·2 points (95% CI -4·3 to -0·2). The difference in average score during treatment was -1·1 points (95% CI -3·2 to 0·9) and the difference in average score after treatment was -2·2 points (-4·8 to 0·4). These differences are within the 5-point clinical relevance threshold for the QLQ-C30 and are therefore clinically non-significant. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab does not result in a clinically significant decrease in HRQOL compared with placebo when given as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Pre- and Postoperative Capecitabine Without or With Oxaliplatin in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: PETACC 6 Trial by EORTC GITCG and ROG, AIO, AGITG, BGDO, and FFCD.

PURPOSE: The PETACC 6 trial investigates whether the addition of oxaliplatin to preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation and postoperative capecitabine improves disease-free survival (DFS) in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: Between November 2008 and September 2011, patients with rectal adenocarcinoma within 12 cm from the anal verge, T3/4 and/or node positive, were randomly assigned to 5 weeks preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation (45-50.4 Gy) followed by six cycles of adjuvant capecitabine, both without (control arm, 1) or with (experimental arm, 2) oxaliplatin. The primary end point was improvement of 3-year DFS by oxaliplatin from 65% to 72% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.763). RESULTS: A total of 1,094 patients were randomly assigned (intention to treat), and 1,068 eligible patients started their allocated treatment (arm 1, 543; arm 2, 525), with completion of protocol treatment in 68% (arm 1) v 54% (arm 2). A higher rate of grade 3/4 adverse events was reported in the experimental arm (14.4% v 37.3% and 23.4% v 46.6% for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, respectively). At a median follow-up of 68 months (interquartile range, 58-74 months), 157 and 156 DFS events were observed in arms 1 and 2, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.28; P = .835). Three-year DFS rate was not different, with 76.5% (95% CI, 72.7% to 79.9%) in arm 1, which is higher than anticipated, and 75.8% (95% CI, 71.9% to 79.3%) in arm 2. The 7-year DFS and overall survival (OS) rates were not different as well, with DFS of 66.1% v 65.5% (HR, 1.02) and OS of 73.5% v 73.7% (HR, 1.19) in arms 1 and 2, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed heterogeneity in treatment effect according to German versus non-German site location, without detectable confounding factors in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: The addition of oxaliplatin to preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy impairs tolerability and feasibility and does not improve efficacy.

Preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (EORTC-62092: STRASS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Unlike for extremity sarcomas, the efficacy of radiotherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma is not established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone on abdominal recurrence-free survival. METHODS: EORTC-62092 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done in 31 research institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 13 countries in Europe and North America. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically documented, localised, primary retroperitoneal sarcoma that was operable and suitable for radiotherapy, who had not been previously treated and had a WHO performance status and American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 2 or lower, were centrally randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive web response system and a minimisation algorithm, to receive either surgery alone or preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by hospital and performance status. Radiotherapy was delivered as 50·4 Gy (in 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy) in either 3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, and the objective of surgery was a macroscopically complete resection of the tumour mass with en-bloc organ resection as necessary. The primary endpoint was abdominal recurrence-free survival, as assessed by the investigator, and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who started their allocated treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344018. FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2012 and April 10, 2017, 266 patients were enrolled, of whom 133 were randomly assigned to each group. The median follow-up was 43·1 months (IQR 28·8-59·2). 128 (96%) patients from the surgery alone group had surgery, and 119 (89%) patients in the radiotherapy and surgery group had both radiotherapy and surgery. Median abdominal recurrence-free survival was 4·5 years (95% CI 3·9 to not estimable) in the radiotherapy plus surgery group and 5·0 years (3·4 to not estimable) in the surgery only group (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·71-1·44; log rank p=0·95). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were lymphopenia (98 [77%] of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group vs one [1%] of 128 patients in the surgery alone group), anaemia (15 [12%] vs ten [8%]), and hypoalbuminaemia (15 [12%] vs five [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 30 (24%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group, and in 13 (10%) of 128 patients in the surgery alone group. One (1%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events (gastropleural fistula), and no patients in the surgery alone group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative radiotherapy should not be considered as standard of care treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma. FUNDING: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and European Clinical Trials in Rare Sarcomas.