Utility of Clinical Next Generation Sequencing Tests in KIT/PDGFRA/SDH Wild-Type Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

Objective: The vast majority of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are driven by activating mutations in KIT, PDGFRA, or components of the succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) complex (SDHA, SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD genes). A small fraction of GISTs lack alterations in KIT, PDGFRA, and SDH. We aimed to further characterize the clinical and genomic characteristics of these so-called "triple-negative" GISTs. Methods: We extracted clinical and genomic data from patients seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a diagnosis of GIST and available clinical next generation sequencing data to identify "triple-negative" patients. Results: Of the 20 patients identified, 11 (55.0%) had gastric, 8 (40.0%) had small intestinal, and 1 (5.0%) had rectal primary sites. In total, 18 patients (90.0%) eventually developed recurrent or metastatic disease, and 8 of these presented with de novo metastatic disease. For the 13 patients with evaluable response to imatinib (e.g., neoadjuvant treatment or for recurrent/metastatic disease), the median PFS with imatinib was 4.4 months (range 0.5-191.8 months). Outcomes varied widely, as some patients rapidly developed progressive disease while others had more indolent disease. Regarding potential genomic drivers, four patients were found to have alterations in the RAS/RAF/MAPK pathway: two with a BRAF V600E mutation and two with NF1 loss-of-function (LOF) mutations (one deletion and one splice site mutation). In addition, we identified two with TP53 LOF mutations, one with NTRK3 fusion (ETV6-NTRK3), one with PTEN deletion, one with FGFR1 gain-of-function (GOF) mutation (K654E), one with CHEK2 LOF mutation (T367fs*), one with Aurora kinase A fusion (AURKA-CSTF1), and one with FANCA deletion. Patients had better responses with molecularly targeted therapies than with imatinib. Conclusions: Triple-negative GISTs comprise a diverse cohort with different driver mutations. Compared to KIT/PDGFRA-mutant GIST, limited benefit was observed with imatinib in triple-negative GIST. In depth molecular profiling can be helpful in identifying driver mutations and guiding therapy.

High-Grade Pleomorphic Sarcomas Treated with Immune Checkpoint Blockade: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas (UPSs) are amongst the most common subtypes of soft-tissue sarcomas. Few real-world data on the use of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in UPS patients and other high-grade pleomorphic STS patients are available. PURPOSE: The purpose of our study is to describe the efficacy and toxicity of ICB in patients with advanced UPSs and other high-grade pleomorphic sarcomas treated at our institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study of all patients with metastatic high-grade pleomorphic sarcomas treated with FDA-approved ICB at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2023. Patients included in trials for which results are not yet published were excluded. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with advanced/metastatic pleomorphic sarcomas were included. The median age was 52 years. A total of 26 patients (72%) had UPSs and 10 patients (28%) had other high-grade pleomorphic sarcomas. The median follow-up time was 8.8 months. The median PFS was 2.9 months. The 3-month PFS and 6-month PFS were 46% and 32%, respectively. The median OS was 12.9 months. The 12-month OS and 24-month OS were 53% and 29%, respectively. The best response, previous RT, and type of ICB treatment were significantly and independently associated with shorter PFS (p = 0.0012, p = 0.0019 and p = 0.036, respectively). No new safety signal was identified, and the toxicity was overall manageable with no toxic deaths and only four patients (11%) stopping treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world retrospective data are consistent with the published literature, with a promising 6-month PFS of 32%. Partial or stable responders to ICB treatment have significantly improved PFS compared to progressors.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous image-guided ablation for soft tissue sarcoma metastases to the liver.

PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes following percutaneous image-guided ablation of soft tissue sarcoma metastases to the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-institution retrospective analysis of patients with a diagnosis of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma who underwent percutaneous image-guided ablation of hepatic metastases between January 2011 and December 2021 was performed. Patients with less than 60 days of follow-up after ablation were excluded. The primary outcome was local tumor progression-free survival (LPFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, liver-specific progression-free survival. and chemotherapy-free survival. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients who underwent percutaneous ablation for 84 metastatic liver lesions were included. The most common histopathological subtypes were leiomyosarcoma (23/55), followed by gastrointestinal stromal tumor (22/55). The median treated liver lesions was 2 (range, 1-8), whereas the median size of metastases were 1.8 cm (0.3-8.7 cm). Complete response at 2 months was achieved in 90.5% of the treated lesions. LPFS was 83% at 1 year and 80% at 2 years. Liver-specific progression-free survival was 66% at 1 year and 40% at 2 years. The overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 98% and 94%. The chemotherapy-free holiday from the start of ablation was 71.2% at 12 months. The complication rate was 3.6% (2/55); one of the complications was Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher. LPFS subgroup analysis for leiomyosarcoma versus gastrointestinal stromal tumor suggests histology-agnostic outcomes (2 years, 89% vs 82%, p = .35). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous image-guided liver ablation of soft tissue sarcoma metastases is safe and efficacious.

Outcomes of Late-Line Systemic Treatment in GIST: Does Sequence Matter?

Ripretinib and avapritinib have demonstrated activity in the late-line treatment of gastrointestinal stomal tumors (GISTs). We investigated whether patients previously treated with ripretinib benefit from avapritinib, and vice versa. Patients diagnosed with metastatic/unresectable GIST and treated with both drugs at two institutions in 2000-2021 were included. Patients were grouped by drug sequence: ripretinib-avapritinib (RA) or avapritinib-ripretinib (AR). Radiographic response was evaluated using RECIST 1.1. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to compare time-to-progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Thirty-four patients (17 per group) were identified, with a median age of 48 years. The most common primary site was the small bowel (17/34, 50%), followed by the stomach (10/34, 29.4%). Baseline characteristics and tumor mutations were not significantly different between groups. Response rates (RRs) for ripretinib were 18% for RA and 12% for AR; RRs for avapritinib were 12% for AR and 18% for RA. Median TTPs for ripretinib were 3.65 months (95%CI 2-5.95) for RA and 4.73 months (1.87-15.84) for AR. Median TTPs for avapritinib were 5.39 months (2.86-18.99) for AR and 4.11 months (1.91-11.4) for RA. Median OS rates following RA or AR initiation were 29.63 (95%CI 13.8-50.53) and 33.7 (20.03-50.57) months, respectively. Both ripretinib and avapritinib were efficacious in the late-line treatment of GIST, with no evidence that efficacy depended on sequencing.

Ripretinib versus sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: ctDNA biomarker analysis of the phase 3 INTRIGUE trial.

INTRIGUE was an open-label, phase 3 study in adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib and who were randomized to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or sunitinib 50 mg. In the primary analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) with ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib. In clinical and nonclinical studies, ripretinib and sunitinib have demonstrated differential activity based on the exon location of KIT mutations. Therefore, we hypothesized that mutational analysis using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) might provide further insight. In this exploratory analysis (N = 362), baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing-based assay. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%) samples with KIT mutations in 213/362 patients (59%). Imatinib-resistant mutations were found in the KIT ATP-binding pocket (exons 13/14) and activation loop (exons 17/18). Mutational subgroup assessment showed 2 mutually exclusive populations with differential treatment effects. Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 13/14 mutations (ripretinib, n = 21; sunitinib, n = 20) had better PFS with sunitinib versus ripretinib (median, 15.0 versus 4.0 months). Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations (ripretinib, n = 27; sunitinib, n = 25) had better PFS with ripretinib versus sunitinib (median, 14.2 versus 1.5 months). The results of this exploratory analysis suggest ctDNA sequencing may improve the prediction of the efficacy of single-drug therapies and support further evaluation of ripretinib in patients with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501.

SABR for Sarcoma Lung Metastases: Indications for Treatment and Guidance for Patient Selection.

PURPOSE: The lungs are the most common site of metastasis for patients with soft tissue sarcoma. SABR is commonly employed to treat lung metastases among select patients with sarcoma with limited disease burden. We sought to evaluate outcomes and patterns of failure among patients with sarcoma treated with SABR for their lung metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective review of patients treated at a tertiary cancer center between 2006 and 2020. Patient disease status at the time of SABR was categorized as either oligorecurrent or oligoprogressive. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease outcomes. Uni- and multivariable analyses were conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We identified 70 patients with soft tissue sarcoma treated with SABR to 98 metastatic lung lesions. Local recurrence-free survival after SABR treatment was 83% at 2 years. On univariable analysis, receipt of comprehensive SABR to all sites of pulmonary metastatic disease at the time of treatment was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [0.29-0.88]; P = .02). On multivariable analysis, only having systemic disease controlled at the time of SABR predicted improved PFS (median PFS, 14 vs 4 months; HR, 0.37 [0.20-0.69]; P = .002) and overall survival (median overall survival, 51 vs 14 months; HR, 0.17 [0.08-0.35]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: SABR provides durable long-term local control for sarcoma lung metastases. The most important predictor for improved outcomes was systemic disease control. Careful consideration of these factors should help guide decisions in a multidisciplinary setting to appropriately select the optimal candidates for SABR.

MDM2-p53 in liposarcoma: The need for targeted therapies with novel mechanisms of action.

Well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcomas (WDLPS and DDLPS) are rare tumors that arise from lipocytes in soft tissue. There is a high unmet need in patients with these liposarcomas given poor outcomes, particularly for DDLPS. WDLPS and DDLPS share important genetic and histological characteristics - most notably, the amplification of the 2 genes MDM2 and CDK4. Both genes are considered oncogenes because of their ability to shut down tumor suppressor pathways. There are multiple therapeutic approaches that aim to target MDM2 and CDK4 activity for the purpose of restoring intrinsic tumor suppressor cellular response and terminating oncogenesis. However, current understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in WDLPS and DDLPS pathology is limited. In recent years, significant efforts have been made to refine and implement targeted therapy for this patient population. The use of patient-derived cell and tumor xenograft models has been an important tool for recapitulating WDLPS and DDLPS biology. These models also offer valuable insights for drug development and drug combination studies. Here we offer a review of the current understanding of WDLPS and DDLPS biology and its therapeutic implications.

Multi-disciplinary management of recurrent gastrointestinal stromal tumor harboring KIT exon 11 mutation with the switch-control kinase inhibitor ripretinib and surgery.

Ripretinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was approved by the United States FDA in 2020 for treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in patients who received prior treatment with three or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In this case report, we show the durable clinical benefit achieved in a patient with GIST by using ripretinib and repeated timely surgical resection of limited disease progression. The total time on ripretinib was 43 months which is longer than the current reported data from ripretinib clinical trials. Such approach for using multi-disciplinary disease management can improve the durability of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including ripretinib, and associated clinical outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes and tolerability in patients receiving ripretinib versus sunitinib after treatment with imatinib in INTRIGUE, a phase 3, open-label study.

PURPOSE: In the INTRIGUE trial, ripretinib showed no significant difference versus sunitinib in progression-free survival for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) previously treated with imatinib. We compared the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire at day (D)1, and D29 of all cycles until treatment discontinuation. Change from baseline was calculated. Time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) was estimated as the mean number of days without progression, death, or grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events per patient over 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion at baseline was 88.1% (199/226) for ripretinib and 87.7% (199/227) for sunitinib and remained high for enrolled patients throughout treatment. Patients receiving sunitinib demonstrated within-cycle variation in self-reported HRQoL, corresponding to the on/off dosing regimen. Patients receiving ripretinib reported better HRQoL at D29 assessments than patients receiving sunitinib on all scales except constipation. HRQoL was similar between treatments at D1 assessments, following 2 weeks without treatment for sunitinib patients. TWiST was greater for ripretinib patients (173 versus 126 days). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving ripretinib experienced better HRQoL than patients receiving sunitinib during the dosing period and similar HRQoL to patients who had not received sunitinib for 2 weeks for all QLQ-C30 domains except constipation. Ripretinib may provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib.

A Phase I, Multicenter, Open-Label, First-in-Human Study of DS-6157a in Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor.

PURPOSE: To evaluate DS-6157a, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting G protein-coupled receptor 20 (GPR20), in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I multicenter, open-label, multiple-dose study, patients with previously treated advanced GIST received intravenous DS-6157a on Day 1 of 21-day cycles, with a starting dose of 1.6 mg/kg. The primary objective evaluated the safety and tolerability of DS-6157a, while determining dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the MTD. Secondary objectives included plasma pharmacokinetics parameters, plasma antidrug antibodies (ADA), and efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients enrolled. DS-6157a was well tolerated, with DLTs in 4 patients (11.8%) at doses of 6.4 mg/kg, 9.6 mg/kg, and 12.8 mg/kg; the MTD was determined to be 6.4 mg/kg. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) grade ≥3 occurred in 17 patients (50.0%), including decreased platelet count (23.5%), anemia (20.6%), decreased neutrophil count (14.7%), and decreased white blood cell count (11.8%). Four patients (11.8%) experienced serious adverse events related to DS-6157a. Six patients died with 5 due to disease progression and 1 due to DS-6157a-related TEAE. Tumor shrinkage was observed in 7 patients (20.6%), and 1 patient (2.9%) achieved a partial response. Plasma concentrations and exposure of intact DS-6157a, DXd, and total anti-GPR20 antibody all demonstrated a dose-dependent profile. No treatment-emergent ADAs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting GPR20 with DS-6157a was tolerated in patients with advanced GIST with tumor shrinkage demonstrated in KIT/PDGFRA wild-type GIST. However, the study did not proceed further due to lower efficacy outcomes than anticipated.

Phase 1b study of combined selinexor and eribulin for the treatment of advanced solid tumors and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor (KPT-330) is a potent inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1), in turn inhibiting tumor growth. Selinexor enhances the antitumor efficacy of eribulin in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in vitro and in vivo. Given the unmet medical need in TNBC and sarcoma, the authors explored the safety and efficacy of this combination. METHODS: The authors conducted a phase 1b trial of combined selinexor and eribulin using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design in patients who had advanced solid tumors and in those who had TNBC in a dose-expansion cohort. RESULTS: Patients with TNBC (N = 19), sarcoma (N = 9), and other cancers (N = 3) were enrolled in the dose-escalation cohort (N = 10) and in the dose-expansion cohort (N = 21). The median number lines of prior therapy received was four (range, from one to seven prior lines). The most common treatment-related adverse events for selinexor were nausea (77%), leukopenia (77%), anemia (68%), neutropenia (68%), and fatigue (48%). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at the first dose level with prolonged grade 3 neutropenia. The recommended phase 2 dose was 80 mg of selinexor orally once per week and 1 mg/m2 eribulin on days 1 and 8 intravenously every 3 weeks. The objective response rate (ORR) was 10% in three patients. In the dose-escalation cohort, the ORR was 10%, whereas six patients with had stable disease. In the TNBC dose-expansion cohort (n = 18), ORR was 11%, and there were two confirmed partial responses with durations of 10.8 and 19.1 months (ongoing). CONCLUSIONS: Selinexor and eribulin had an acceptable toxicity profile and modest overall efficacy with durable responses in select patients. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Effective therapies for advanced, triple-negative breast cancer and sarcoma represent an unmet need. Exportin 1 is associated with the transport of cancer-related proteins. Preclinical studies have demonstrated tumor growth inhibition and enhanced tumor sensitivity in patients who receive selinexor combined with eribulin. In this phase 1b study, the authors evaluated the safety profile and clinical activity of the combination of selinexor, a potent oral inhibitor of exportin 1, and eribulin in patients with advanced cancers enriched for triple-negative breast cancer or sarcoma. The combination was well tolerated; most adverse events were mild or moderate, reversible, and managed with dose modifications or growth factor support. The combination of selinexor and eribulin produced an antitumor response, particularly in some patients with triple-negative breast cancer. This work lays the foundation for prospective investigations of the role of selinexor and eribulin in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer.

Impact of Biomarker-Matched Therapies on Outcomes in Patients with Sarcoma Enrolled in Early-Phase Clinical Trials (SAMBA 101).

PURPOSE: Developing new therapeutics for any of the more than 100 sarcoma subtypes presents a challenge. After progression from standard therapies, patients with sarcoma may be referred for enrollment in early-phase trials. This study aimed to investigate whether enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase clinical trials leads to better outcomes for patients with advanced sarcoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this retrospective analysis, investigational treatment characteristics and longitudinal survival outcomes were analyzed in patients with biopsy-confirmed sarcoma enrolled in early-phase trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center from May 2006 to July 2021. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-seven patients were included [405 soft tissue, 122 bone, 60 gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST); median of three prior lines of therapy]. Most common subtypes were leiomyosarcoma (17.2%), liposarcoma (14.0%), and GIST (10.2%). Molecular testing was available for 511 patients (87.1%); 221 patients (37.6%) were treated in matched trials. Overall response rate was 13.1% matched compared with 4.9% in unmatched (P < 0.001); the clinical benefit rate at 6 months was 43.9% vs. 19.9% (P < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients in matched trials (median, 5.5 vs. 2.4 months; P < 0.001), and overall survival was also superior for patients in matched trials (median, 21.5 vs. 12.3 months; P < 0.001). The benefit of enrollment in matched trials was maintained when patients with GIST were excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase trials is associated with improved outcomes in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic sarcoma. Molecular testing of tumors from patients with advanced sarcoma and enrollment in matched trials is a reasonable therapeutic strategy.

First-in-human phase I study of the OX40 agonist GSK3174998 with or without pembrolizumab in patients with selected advanced solid tumors (ENGAGE-1).

BACKGROUND: The phase I first-in-human study ENGAGE-1 evaluated the humanized IgG1 OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibody GSK3174998 alone (Part 1 (P1)) or in combination with pembrolizumab (Part 2 (P2)) in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: GSK3174998 (0.003-10 mg/kg) ± pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks using a continuous reassessment method for dose escalation. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. RESULTS: 138 patients were enrolled (45 (P1) and 96 (P2, including 3 crossovers)). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% (P1) and 64% (P2) of patients, fatigue being the most common (11% and 24%, respectively). No dose-toxicity relationship was observed, and maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities (P2) included Grade 3 (G3) pleural effusion and G1 myocarditis with G3 increased troponin. GSK3174998 ≥0.3 mg/kg demonstrated pharmacokinetic linearity and >80% receptor occupancy on circulating T cells; 0.3 mg/kg was selected for further evaluation. Limited clinical activity was observed for GSK3174998 (P1: disease control rate (DCR) ≥24 weeks 9%) and was not greater than that expected for pembrolizumab alone (P2: overall response rate 8%, DCR ≥24 weeks 28%). Multiplexed immunofluorescence data from paired biopsies suggested that increased infiltration of natural killer (NK)/natural killer T (NKT) cells and decreased regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment may contribute to clinical responses: CD16+CD56-CD134+ NK /NKT cells and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+CD134+ Tregs exhibited the largest magnitude of change on treatment, whereas CD3+CD8+granzyme B+PD-1+CD134+ cytotoxic T cells were the least variable. Tumor gene expression profiling revealed an upregulation of inflammatory responses, T-cell proliferation, and NK cell function on treatment with some inflammatory cytokines upregulated in peripheral blood. However, target engagement, evidenced by pharmacologic activity in peripheral blood and tumor tissue, did not correlate with clinical efficacy. The low number of responses precluded identifying a robust biomarker signature predictive of response. CONCLUSIONS: GSK3174998±pembrolizumab was well tolerated over the dose range tested and demonstrated target engagement. Limited clinical activity does not support further development of GSK3174998±pembrolizumab in advanced cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02528357.

Case report: Responses to the combination of gemcitabine with sirolimus in two patients with TSC-mutated sarcomas.

TSC-mutated sarcomas are rare molecular and histologic types of sarcoma. Due to the presence of their specific oncogenic driver mutation, these sarcomas are particularly sensitive to mTOR inhibitors. Recently, nab-sirolimus, an albumin-bound mTOR inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for PEComas, which harbor a TSC mutation, and this drug remains the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for these tumors. We report on two cases of patients with TSC-mutated sarcomas who experienced significant responses to the combination of gemcitabine and sirolimus, after progression on prior gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and single agent mTOR inhibition with nab-sirolimus. Preclinical and clinical data support rationale for a synergistic effect of the combination. This combination may represent a valid therapeutic option after failure of nab-sirolimus in these patients, with no standard-of-care treatment options.

Myxoid Liposarcomas: Systemic Treatment Options.

OPINION STATEMENT: Myxoid/round-cell liposarcoma (MRCL) account for 30% of liposarcomas and are the most chemo-sensitive subtype of liposarcoma. The 5-year local relapse and distant metastasis rates are 10% and 20%, respectively. In the advanced setting, the first-line median progression-free survival and overall survival is 9 and 30 months, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST with anthracycline-based chemotherapy is around 40% and with trabectedin is 20%, although response is higher when captured by CHOI criteria. Anthracycline-based combination chemotherapy regimens remain the standard of care first-line treatment option. However, trabectedin is also effective and may be considered in the first-line setting when anthracyclines cannot be prescribed. Beyond chemotherapy, new therapeutic classes are being developed, including autologous adoptive modified T cell receptor cellular therapies which have shown promising results thus far. These new therapies utilize the immunogenic potential of cancer testis antigens, NY-ESO-1 and MAGE-A4, which are expressed in the vast majority of MRCL. Early phase trials have shown encouraging results with up to 40% ORR and a median progression-free survival up to 8.7 months. Other innovative strategies are being developed, tailored to the molecular biology of MRCL. This review summarizes current evidence for the use of standard chemotherapy and the new biomarker-selected treatments under development.

Emerging Data on the Safety and Efficacy of Ripretinib for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

In patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), systemic treatment after disease progression on imatinib is challenging. Sunitinib and regorafenib are approved in the second- and third-line setting, respectively, with activity against certain secondary mutations with comparatively much lower response rates and survival increment compared to imatinib. All three of these drugs were serendipitously found to have activity in GIST, starting with imatinib, which was formulated for its ability to inhibit BCR-ABL in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Ripretinib is a drug that was specifically developed as a more potent KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), with broad-spectrum activity against the mutations encountered in GIST. Encouraging responses in early and later lines of treatment in the Phase 1 trial of ripretinib in GIST led to the rapid development of this novel drug. In a Phase 3 randomized clinical trial with cross-over, ripretinib demonstrated superior PFS and overall survival (OS) in 4th-line treatment and beyond compared to placebo. This established 150 mg once daily ripretinib as the standard of care in this setting. Ripretinib is generally well tolerated, with common adverse effects of hair loss, diarrhea, cramps, fatigue and nausea. The favorable safety profile and efficacy of ripretinib prompted its evaluation in a randomized phase 3 trial in the 2nd-line treatment setting. However, it did not result in a longer PFS duration than sunitinib. Although the efficacy of ripretinib in this unselected patient population was not significantly different from that of sunitinib, the tolerability profile was better. This review article aims to review the efficacy and tolerability profile of ripretinib, together with its role in the setting of unresectable or metastatic GIST.

Sequential Targeting of Retinoblastoma and DNA Synthesis Pathways Is a Therapeutic Strategy for Sarcomas That Can Be Monitored in Real Time.

Treatment strategies with a strong scientific rationale based on specific biomarkers are needed to improve outcomes in patients with advanced sarcomas. Suppression of cell-cycle progression through reactivation of the tumor suppressor retinoblastoma (Rb) using CDK4/6 inhibitors is a potential avenue for novel targeted therapies in sarcomas that harbor intact Rb signaling. Here, we evaluated combination treatment strategies (sequential and concomitant) with the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemacicib to identify optimal combination strategies. Expression of Rb was examined in 1,043 sarcoma tumor specimens, and 50% were found to be Rb-positive. Using in vitro and in vivo models, an effective two-step sequential combination strategy was developed. Abemaciclib was used first to prime Rb-positive sarcoma cells to reversibly arrest in G1 phase. Upon drug removal, cells synchronously traversed to S phase, where a second treatment with S-phase targeted agents (gemcitabine or Wee1 kinase inhibitor) mediated a synergistic response by inducing DNA damage. The response to treatment could be noninvasively monitored using real-time positron emission tomography imaging and serum thymidine kinase activity. Collectively, these results show that a novel, sequential treatment strategy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor followed by a DNA-damaging agent was effective, resulting in synergistic tumor cell killing. This approach can be readily translated into a clinical trial with noninvasive functional imaging and serum biomarkers as indicators of response and cell cycling. SIGNIFICANCE: An innovative sequential therapeutic strategy targeting Rb, followed by treatment with agents that perturb DNA synthesis pathways, results in synergistic killing of Rb-positive sarcomas that can be noninvasively monitored.

Examining Stripes on a Herd of Zebras: Impact of Genomic Matching for Ultrarare Sarcomas in Phase 1 Clinical Trials (SAMBA 102).

PURPOSE: Recently, the Connective Tissue Oncology Society published consensus guidelines for recognizing ultrarare sarcomas (URS), defined as sarcomas with an incidence ≤1 per 1,000,000. We assessed the outcomes of 56 patients with soft tissue, and 21 with bone sarcomas, enrolled in Phase 1 trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this Sarcoma-Matched Biomarker Analysis (SAMBA-102 study), we reviewed records from patients on Phase 1 trials at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2013 and June 2021. RESULTS: Among 587 sarcomas, 106 (18.1%) were classified as URS. Fifty (47%) were male, and the median age was 44.3 years (range, 19-82). The most common subtypes were alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), chordoma, dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, and sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma. Compared with common sarcomas, median OS was similar 16.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.6-17.5] versus 16.1 (95% CI, 8.2-24.0) in URS (P = 0.359). Objective response to treatment was higher in URS 13.2% (n = 14/106) compared with common sarcomas 6.9% (n = 33/481; P = 0.029). Median OS for those treated on matched trials was 27.3 months (95% CI, 1.9-52.7) compared with 13.4 months (95% CI, 6.3-20.6) for those not treated on matched trials (P = 0.291). Eight of 33 (24%) molecularly matched treatments resulted in an objective response, whereas 6 of 73 unmatched treatments (8.2%) resulted in an objective response (P = 0.024). Clinical benefit rate was 36.4% (12/33) in matched trials versus 26.0% (19/73) in unmatched trials (P = 0.279). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the benefit of genomic selection in Phase 1 trials to help identify molecular subsets likely to benefit from targeted therapy.