Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in adult patients with metastatic osteosarcoma: a non-comparative, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib has proven activity in patients with pretreated gastrointestinal stromal tumours and colorectal and hepatocellular carcinoma. We designed REGOBONE to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma and other bone sarcomas. This trial comprised four parallel independent cohorts: osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and chordoma. In this Article, we report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. METHODS: In this non-comparative, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, patients aged 10 years or older with histologically confirmed osteosarcoma whose disease had progressed after treatment with one to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral regorafenib (160 mg/day, for 21 of 28 days) or matching placebo. Patients in both groups also received best supportive care. Randomisation was done using a web-based system and was stratified (permuted block) by age at inclusion (<18 vs ≥18 years old). Investigators and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Patients in the placebo group, after centrally confirmed progressive disease, could cross over to receive regorafenib. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without disease progression at 8 weeks. Analyses were done by modified intention to treat (ie, patients without any major entry criteria violation who initiated masked study drug treatment were included). All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389244, and the results presented here are the final analysis of the osteosarcoma cohort (others cohorts are ongoing). FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and April 4, 2017, 43 adult patients were enrolled from 13 French comprehensive cancer centres. All patients received at least one dose of assigned treatment and were evaluable for safety; five patients were excluded for major protocol violations (two in the placebo group and three in the regorafenib group), leaving 38 patients who were evaluable for efficacy (12 in the placebo group and 26 in the regorafenib group). 17 of 26 patients (65%; one-sided 95% CI 47%) in the regorafenib group were non-progressive at 8 weeks compared with no patients in the placebo group. Ten patients in the placebo group crossed over to receive open-label regorafenib after centrally confirmed disease progression. 13 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (24%) of 29 patients in the regorafenib group versus none of 14 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events during the double-blind period of treatment included hypertension (in seven [24%] of 29 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (three [10%] vs none), fatigue (three [10%] vs one [3%]), hypophosphataemia (three [10%] vs none), and chest pain (three [10%] vs none). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity in adult patients with recurrent, progressive, metastatic osteosarcoma after failure of conventional chemotherapy, with a positive effect on delaying disease progression. Regorafenib should be further evaluated in the setting of advanced disease as well as potentially earlier in the disease course for patients at high risk of relapse. Regorafenib might have an important therapeutic role as an agent complementary to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy in the therapeutic armamentarium against osteosarcoma. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare.

Pazopanib plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours resistant to imatinib and sunitinib (PAZOGIST): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Imatinib followed by sunitinib and regorafenib is the standard sequence of treatment for advanced disease. Pazopanib is effective in soft tissue sarcomas but has never been assessed in advanced GIST in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with previously treated advanced GIST. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label phase 2 study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib from 12 comprehensive cancer centres or university hospitals in France and randomly assigned them 1:1 using an interactive web-based centralised platform to 800 mg oral pazopanib once daily in 4-week cycles plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous treatment regimens (2 vs ≥3); no-one was masked to treatment group allocation. Upon disease progression, patients in the best supportive care group were allowed to switch to pazopanib as compassionate treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. All randomised participants who received at least one dose of pazopanib were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01323400. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2011, and Dec 9, 2013, 81 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to pazopanib plus best supportive care (n=40) or best supportive care alone (n=41). The median follow-up was 26·4 months (IQR 22·0-37·8) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 28·9 months (22·0-35·2) in the best supportive care group. 4-month investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 45·2% (95% CI 29·1-60·0) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group versus 17·6% (7·8-30·8) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·37-0·96; p=0·029). Median progression-free survival was 3·4 months (95% CI 2·4-5·6) with pazopanib plus best supportive care and 2·3 months (2·1-3·3) with best supportive care alone (HR 0·59 [0·37-0·96], p=0·03). 36 (88%) of the patients originally assigned to the best supportive care group switched to pazopanib following investigator-assessed disease progression; these patients had a median progression-free survival from pazopanib initiation of 3·5 months (95% CI 2·2-5·2). 55 (72%) of the 76 pazopanib-treated patients had pazopanib-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, the most common of which was hypertension (15 [38%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 13 [36%] in the best supportive care group). 20 (26%) patients had pazopanib-related serious adverse events (14 [35%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and six [17%] in the best supportive care group), including pulmonary embolism in eight (9%) patients (five [13%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and three [7%] in the best supportive care group). Three pazopanib-related deaths occurred (two pulmonary embolisms [one in each group] and one hepatic cytolysis [in the best supportive care group]). Three adverse event-related but not pazopanib-related deaths occurred in the best supportive care group after switch to pazopanib; these deaths were from hyperammonaemic encephalopathy, pneumopathy, and respiratory failure. INTERPRETATION: Pazopanib plus best supportive care improves progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone in patients with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib, with a toxicity profile similar to that reported for other sarcomas. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting for these patients. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline, French National Cancer Institute, EuroSARC (FP7-278742), Centre Léon Bérard.

Management of desmoid tumours: A nationwide survey of labelled reference centre networks in France.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of rare tumours (i.e. from accurate diagnosis to management in reference centres) is a public health challenge. In 2009, the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) identified and financially supported the two expert networks for pathological and clinical diagnosis and management of soft tissue tumours. METHODS: The activities of both networks were prospectively collected using a nationwide database (rreps.org). Data describing the diagnosis management of 863 successive cases of desmoids tumours (DT) were prospectively collected from 2010 to 2013 and analysed. RESULTS: The number of confirmed DT constantly improved from January 2010 to December 2013 (from 173 to 273 cases per year); the expected incidence ranged from 132 to 330 cases/year. The rate of cases diagnosed with core-needle biopsies and CTNNB1 mutational status analysis increased from 30.6 to 40.7% and from 87.8 to 94.1%, respectively. The mean delay for pathological diagnosis confirmation constantly decreased from 107 to 47 d. Among the 846 adult patients, 414 (48.9%) patients were treated by reference centres. The rate of patients managed by reference centres constantly increased with time from 36.9 to 49.5% since 2010. The median management time of the referral centres constantly decreased from 440 to 67 d. CONCLUSION: The two expert networks worked synergistically and improved diagnosis modalities of rare desmoid tumours at a national level. The impact of management by expert networks on the outcome will be prospectively analysed in the future.

Sorafenib in patients with progressive epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: a phase 2 study by the French Sarcoma Group (GSF/GETO).

BACKGROUND: There is no standard treatment for progressive epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE). To investigate the significant vascularization of EHE, the activity/toxicity of sorafenib in patients with progressive EHE was explored. METHODS: In this multicenter, 1-stage, phase 2 trial of sorafenib (800 mg daily), the primary endpoint, which was chosen by default, was the 9-month progression-free rate. All patients had documented progressive disease at the time of study entry. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled between June 2009 and February 2011. The median age was 57 years (range, 31-76 years), and the ratio of men to women was 9:6. The performance status was zero in 10 patients and 1 in 5 patients. Twelve patients had metastases, mainly in the lung (12 patients), liver (5 patients), and bone (3 patients). Five patients had received prior chemotherapy (doxorubicin in 5 patients and taxane in 3 patients). The median sorafenib treatment duration was 124 days (range, from 27 to >271 days). Seven patients required dose reductions or transient treatment discontinuation. The 9-month progression-free rate was 30.7% (4 of 13 patients). The 2-month, 4-month, and 6-month progression-free rate was 84.6% (11 of 13 patients), 46.4% (6 of 13 patients), and 38.4% (5 of 13 patients), respectively. Two partial responses were observed that lasted 2 months and 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical trials exploring sorafenib as treatment of progressive EHE are needed.

Sorafenib for patients with advanced angiosarcoma: a phase II Trial from the French Sarcoma Group (GSF/GETO).

BACKGROUND: Angiosarcomas account for <2% of all soft tissue sarcomas. This subtype is one of the most aggressive forms of soft tissue sarcoma. The prognosis for angiosarcoma patients in the advanced phase remains poor with current cytotoxic agents (progression-free survival [PFS] time of ∼4 months and overall survival [OS] time of ∼8 months). We investigated the antitumor activity of sorafenib in patients with metastatic or advanced angiosarcomas in a phase II trial. METHODS: We conducted a stratified phase II trial. The primary endpoint was the progression-free rate (PFR) at 9 months according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. A two-stage design (optimal Simon design) was used. Patients received sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) for 9 months until unacceptable toxicity or tumor progression. Central pathological and radiological reviews were performed. Data on stratum A (superficial angiosarcoma) and stratum B (visceral angiosarcoma) are currently available. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier, NCT00874874). FINDINGS: Strata A and B recruited 26 and 15 patients, respectively. The median age was 63 years (range, 31-82 years), with 17 male and 24 female patients. Fourteen cases arose in irradiated fields. Thirty patients (73.0%) had been pretreated with conventional chemotherapy. No unexpected toxicity occurred. The PFR at 9 months was 3.8% in stratum A and 0.0% in stratum B. The median PFS times were 1.8 months and 3.8 months, respectively, whereas the median OS times were 12.0 months and 9.0 months, respectively. No responses were observed in chemotherapy-naïve patients, whereas a 40% tumor control rate and 23% response rate were observed in the pretreated population. In this cohort, no activating mutation of the KDR gene (exons 15, 16, 24) was detected. INTERPRETATION: Sorafenib showed limited antitumor activity in pretreated patients only, for both visceral and superficial angiosarcoma, but tumor control was of short duration.

Patterns of care, prognosis, and survival in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) refractory to first-line imatinib and second-line sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the management and outcome of patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) refractory to 1st-line imatinib and 2nd-line sunitinib are limited. METHODS: Medical records of 223 imatinib-resistant and sunitinib-resistant GIST who were treated in 11 major referral centers were reviewed. RESULTS: The three most frequent drugs used in the 3rd-line setting were: nilotinib n = 67 (29.5%), sorafenib n = 55 (24.5%), and imatinib n = 40 (17.5%). There were 18 patients (8%) who received best supportive care (BSC) only. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on 3rd-line treatment were 3.6 months [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 3.1-4.1] and 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.5-10.9), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that, in the 3rd-line setting, albumin level and KIT/PDGFRA mutational status were significantly associated with PFS, whereas performance status and albumin level were associated with OS. After adjustment for prognostic factors, nilotinib and sorafenib provided the best PFS and OS. Rechallenge with imatinib was also associated with improved OS in comparison with BSC. CONCLUSION: In the 3rd-line setting, rechallenge with imatinib provided limited clinical benefit but was superior to BSC. Sorafenib and nilotinib have significant clinical activity in imatinib-resistant and sunitinib-resistant GIST and may represent an alternative for rechallenge with imatinib.

O-Mel-Inib: a Cancéro-pôle Nord-Ouest multicenter phase II trial of high-dose imatinib mesylate in metastatic uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, there is no consensual and effective treatment in metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM). Numerous preclinical data (for example, 75% of MUM express c-kit) suggest that imatinib mesylate (IM) may be a potential treatment of UMM. METHODS: The primary objective of this phase II trial was to determine the non-progression rate at 3 months for patients receiving IM at dose of 400 mg twice per day orally. The study was based on a Simon's optimal design, which allows entry a total of 29 patients, if at least two non-progressions among ten first patients were observed. RESULT: Thirteen patients including ten assessable patients were enrolled in 12 months. No objective response and only one stable disease with duration of 5 months were noted. Five and one out of 13 enrolled patients experienced grade 3 and grade 4 toxicities, respectively. The most common severe adverse events were abdominal pain. The overall survival was 10.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising preclinical data, IM is an inactive single agent in MUM. This phase II clinical trial has been stopped at the first step.

[Sustained clinical response of large hepatocellular carcinoma after chemoembolization with pirarubicin, amiodarone and Lipiodol]. / Réponse majeure d'un volumineux carcinome hépatocellulaire à une chimioembolisation par pirarubicine, amiodarone et Lipiodol.

Although chemoembolization is known to be an effective palliative treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma, it has a limited effect in large tumors. We report the case of a patient with a large hepatocellular carcinoma of the left liver who had a significant and sustained clinical response after six sessions of chemoembolization with a pirarubicin/amiodarone/lipiodol emulsion. Pirarubicin is an anthracycline which penetrates faster than doxorubicin into cancer cells. Amiodarone is a multidrug resistance inhibitor. Polysorbate 80, an excipient of injectable amiodarone stabilizes the anthracycline/lipiodol emulsion. The clinical efficacy of this new formulation could be evaluated in a phase II clinical trial.