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.

MR-guided focused ultrasound therapy of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors: a multicenter retrospective study of 105 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) for the treatment extra-abdominal desmoids. METHODS: A total of 105 patients with desmoid fibromatosis (79 females, 26 males; 35 ± 14 years) were treated with MRgFUS between 2011 and 2021 in three centers. Total and viable tumors were evaluated per patient at last follow-up after treatment. Response and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed with (modified) response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST v.1.1 and mRECIST). Change in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain and 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores were compared. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The median initial tumor volume was 114 mL (IQR 314 mL). After MRgFUS, median total and viable tumor volume decreased to 51 mL (95% CI: 30-71 mL, n = 101, p < 0.0001) and 29 mL (95% CI: 17-57 mL, n = 88, p < 0.0001), respectively, at last follow-up (median: 15 months, 95% CI: 11-20 months). Based on total tumor measurements (RECIST), 86% (95% CI: 75-93%) had at least stable disease or better at last follow-up, but 50% (95% CI: 38-62%) of remaining viable nodules (mRECIST) progressed within the tumor. Median PFS was reached at 17 and 13 months for total and viable tumors, respectively. NRS decreased from 6 (IQR 3) to 3 (IQR 4) (p < 0.001). SF-36 scores improved (physical health (41 (IQR 15) to 46 (IQR 12); p = 0.05, and mental health (49 (IQR 17) to 53 (IQR 9); p = 0.02)). Complications occurred in 36%, most commonly 1st/2nd degree skin burns. CONCLUSION: MRgFUS reduced tumor volume, reduced pain, and improved quality of life in this series of 105 patients with extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Imaging-guided ablation is being increasingly used as an alternative to surgery, radiation, and medical therapy for the treatment of desmoid fibromatosis. MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound is an incisionless ablation technique that can be used to reduce tumor burden effectively and safely. KEY POINTS: • Desmoid fibromatosis was treated with MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound in 105 patients. • MR-guided focused ultrasound ablation reduced tumor volume and pain and improved quality of life. • MR-guided focused ultrasound is a treatment option for patients with extra-abdominal desmoid tumors.

Pexidartinib Provides Modest Pain Relief in Patients With Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumor: Results From ENLIVEN.

BACKGROUND: The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of orally administered PLX3397 in patients with pigmented villonodular synovitis or giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath (ENLIVEN) showed that pexidartinib provides a robust objective tumor response in adults with tenosynovial giant cell tumors (TGCT) not amenable to improvement with surgery. Based on these results, in 2019, pexidartinib received accelerated approval in the United States in this population as a breakthrough therapy under an orphan drug designation. However, the ability of pexidartinib to relieve pain in ENLIVEN was not fully detailed, and the relationship between pain relief and objective tumor response was not described. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What level of pain relief was achieved by pexidartinib treatment in ENLIVEN? (2) How was pain relief related to objective tumor responses? (3) How durable was pain relief? METHODS: The current study included planned primary and exploratory assessments of patient-assessed worst pain at the site of the tumor in the ENLIVEN trial. ENLIVEN was a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which adults with TGCT not amenable to improvement with surgery received pexidartinib or placebo for 24 weeks, after which eligible patients could receive open-label pexidartinib. Of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 121 were randomized (50% [60] to placebo, 50% [61] to pexidartinib), and 120 were given either placebo or pexidartinib (59 received placebo and 61 received pexidartinib) and were included in an intent-to-treat analysis. Fifty-nine percent (71 of 120) of the overall treated population was female, and 88% (106 of 120) were White. Mean age was 45 ± 13 years. Tumors were mostly in the lower extremities (92% [110 of 120]), most commonly in the knee (61% [73 of 120]) and ankle (18% [21 of 120]). As a secondary outcome, patients scored worst pain at the site of the tumor in the past 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary definition of a pain response was a decrease of at least 30% in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score and increase of less than 30% in narcotic analgesic use between baseline and week 25. Planned exploratory assessments of pain included the frequency of a pain response using alternative thresholds, including a decrease in worst-pain NRS score of 50% or more and a decrease of at least 2 points (minimum clinically important difference [MCID]), the magnitude of pain reduction between baseline and week 25, correlation between worst-pain NRS score and tumor shrinkage by RECIST 1.1 criteria, and the durability of the pain response during the open-label extension. Pain responses during the randomized portion of the trial were compared according to intention-to-treat analysis, with a one-sided threshold of p < 0.025 to reduce the risk of false-positive results. Pain assessment was complete for 59% (35 of 59) of patients in the placebo group and 54% (33 of 61) of patients in the pexidartinib group. Demographic and disease characteristics did not differ between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: A difference in the primary assessment of a pain response was not detected between pexidartinib and placebo (response percentage 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 15% [9 of 59] [95% CI 8% to 27%]; one-sided p = 0.03). In the exploratory analyses, pexidartinib provided a modest improvement in pain (response percentage 26% [16 of 61] [95% CI 17% to 38%] versus 10% [6 of 59] [95% CI 5% to 20%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the 50% threshold and 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 14% [8 of 59] [95% CI 7% to 25%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the MCID threshold). The least-squares mean change in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score between baseline and week 25 was larger in patients treated with pexidartinib than placebo (-2.5 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.9] versus -0.3 [95% CI -0.9 to 0.3]; p < 0.001), although the mean difference between the two groups (-2.2 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.4]) was just over the MCID. Improvement in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score correlated with the reduction in tumor size (r = 0.44; p < 0.001) and tumor volume score (r = 0.61; p < 0.001). For patients in the open-label extension, the change in the worst-pain NRS score from baseline was similar to the change at the end of the randomized portion and just above the MCID (mean -2.7 ± 2.2 after 25 weeks and -3.3 ± 1.7 after 50 weeks of receiving pexidartinib). CONCLUSION: Based on the current study, a modest reduction in pain, just larger than the MCID, may be an added benefit of pexidartinib in these patients, although the findings are insufficient to justify the routine use of pexidartinib for pain relief. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Treatment of De-Differentiated Liposarcoma in the Era of Immunotherapy.

Well-differentiated/de-differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS/DDLPS) is one of the most common histologic subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma (STS); however, treatment options remain limited. WDLPS and DDLPS both exhibit the characteristic amplification of chromosome region 12q13-15, which contains the genes CDK4 and MDM2. DDLPS exhibits higher amplification ratios of these two and carries additional genomic lesions, including the amplification of chromosome region 1p32 and chromosome region 6q23, which may explain the more aggressive biology of DDLPS. WDLPS does not respond to systemic chemotherapy and is primarily managed with local therapy, including multiple resections and debulking procedures whenever clinically feasible. In contrast, DDLPS can respond to chemotherapy drugs and drug combinations, including doxorubicin (or doxorubicin in combination with ifosfamide), gemcitabine (or gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel), trabectedin, eribulin, and pazopanib. However, the response rate is generally low, and the response duration is usually short. This review highlights the clinical trials with developmental therapeutics that have been completed or are ongoing, including CDK4/6 inhibitors, MDM2 inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review will also discuss the current landscape in assessing biomarkers for identifying tumors sensitive to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors, Version 2.2022.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are the most common type of soft tissue sarcoma that occur throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Most of these tumors are caused by oncogenic activating mutations in the KIT or PDGFRA genes. The NCCN Guidelines for GIST provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with these tumors. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines, including revised systemic therapy options for unresectable, progressive, or metastatic GIST based on mutational status, and updated recommendations for the management of GIST that develop resistance to specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare malignancies of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Soft Tissue Sarcoma provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis and treatment of retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, outlines treatment recommendations, and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.

Safety and Feasibility of Cryoablation during Immunotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) undergo a wide array of treatments, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and ablative therapies, to control their disease. The combination of cryoablation and immunotherapy may lead to an enhanced antitumor immune response via the abscopal effect. It is hypothesized that the combination of cryoablation and immunotherapy in patients with metastatic STS is safe and feasible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis was performed on patients with metastatic STS who underwent cryoablation. Sixteen patients were treated with 27 cryoablation procedures while receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab from April 2017 to July 2020. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, 1.1, were used to determine the outcomes of nontarget tumors. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of the first cryoablation after initiating immunotherapy until progression or death. RESULTS: Thirty-four tumors were cryoablated, 23 of which were intentionally subtotal. The most common tumor subtype was liposarcoma (n = 4). Thirteen (81%) patients had previously demonstrated disease progression on multiple lines of chemotherapy. All tumors cryoablated with a complete intention demonstrated a complete response. Seven patients had a clinical benefit, including 1 with a complete response, 1 with a partial response, and 5 with stable disease. The median OS was 14.1 months, with a median PFS of 2.3 months (95% confidence interval, 1.8-14.3). Five patients had pneumothoraces after cryoablation, 2 of whom required chest tube placement. Eleven patients experienced adverse events related to immunotherapy, 10 of whom experienced grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation in patients with metastatic STS undergoing immunotherapy is feasible and safe.

Skin angiography assisted mastectomy in secondary breast angiosarcoma: Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Radiation-induced breast angiosarcoma, or secondary angiosarcoma (SAS), is a rare entity with a high risk of metastatic recurrence. Herein, we describe the use of intraoperative fluorescence-based skin angiography to guide surgical resection following a novel immunotherapy-based regimen for SAS resulting in a complete pathological response.

Pexidartinib improves physical functioning and stiffness in patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor: results from the ENLIVEN randomized clinical trial.

Background and purpose - The ENLIVEN trial showed that, after 25 weeks, pexidartinib statistically significantly reduced tumor size more than placebo in patients with symptomatic, advanced tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) for whom surgery was not recommended. Here, we detail the effect of pexidartinib on patient-reported physical function and stiffness in ENLIVEN.Patients and methods - This was a planned analysis of patient-reported outcome data from ENLIVEN, a double-blinded, randomized phase 3 trial of adults with symptomatic, advanced TGCT treated with pexidartinib or placebo. Physical function was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-physical function (PF), and worst stiffness was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS). A mixed model for repeated measures was used to compare changes in PROMIS-PF and worst stiffness NRS scores from baseline to week 25 between treatment groups. Response rates for the PROMIS-PF and worst stiffness NRS at week 25 were calculated based on threshold estimates from reliable change index and anchor-based methods.Results - Between baseline and week 25, greater improvements in physical function and stiffness were experienced by patients receiving pexidartinib than patients receiving placebo (change in PROMIS-PF = 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-6.3] vs. -0.9 [CI -3.0 to 1.2]; change in worst stiffness NRS = -2.5 [CI -3.0 to -1.9] vs. -0.3 [CI -0.9 to 0.3]). Patients receiving pexidartinib had higher response rates than patients receiving placebo for meaningful improvements in physical function and stiffness. Improvements were sustained after 50 weeks of pexidartinib treatment.Interpretation - Pexidartinib treatment provided sustained, meaningful improvements in physical function and stiffness for patients with symptomatic, advanced TGCT.

Pexidartinib versus placebo for advanced tenosynovial giant cell tumour (ENLIVEN): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT), a rare, locally aggressive neoplasm, overexpresses colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1). Surgery is standard with no approved systemic therapy. We aimed to evaluate pexidartinib, a CSF1 receptor inhibitor, in patients with TGCT to provide them with a viable systemic treatment option, especially in cases that are not amenable to surgical resection. METHODS: This phase 3 randomised trial had two parts. Part one was a double-blind study in which patients with symptomatic, advanced TGCT for whom surgery was not recommended were randomly assigned via an integrated web response system (1:1) to the pexidartinib or placebo group. Individuals in the pexidartinib group received a loading dose of 1000 mg pexidartinib per day orally (400 mg morning; 600 mg evening) for the first 2 weeks, followed by 800 mg per day (400 mg twice a day) for 22 weeks. Part two was an open-label study of pexidartinib for all patients. The primary endpoint, assessed in all intention-to-treat patients, was overall response at week 25, and was centrally reviewed by RECIST, version 1.1. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02371369. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 120 patients were randomly assigned to, and received, pexidartinib (n=61) or placebo (n=59). There were 11 dropouts in the placebo group and nine in the pexidartinib group. Emergence of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity caused the data monitoring committee to stop enrolment six patients short of target. The proportion of patients who achieved overall response was higher for pexidartinib than placebo at week 25 by RECIST (24 [39%] of 61 vs none of 59; absolute difference 39% [95% CI 27-53]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events occurred in eight (13%) of 61 patients in the pexidartinib group and one (2%) of 59 patients in the placebo group. Hair colour changes (67%), fatigue (54%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (39%), nausea (38%), alanine aminotransferase increase (28%), and dysgeusia (25%) were the most frequent pexidartinib-associated adverse events. Three patients given pexidartinib had aminotransferase elevations three or more times the upper limit of normal with total bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase two or more times the upper limit of normal indicative of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity, one lasting 7 months and confirmed by biopsy. INTERPRETATION: Pexidartinib is the first systemic therapy to show a robust tumour response in TGCT with improved patient symptoms and functional outcomes; mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity is an identified risk. Pexidartinib could be considered as a potential treatment for TGCT associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations in cases not amenable to improvement with surgery. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study of Regorafenib Versus Placebo in Advanced/Metastatic, Treatment-Refractory Liposarcoma: Results from the SARC024 Study.

LESSONS LEARNED: The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist. BACKGROUND: Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recurrent and metastatic non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. We conducted a randomized, phase II study of regorafenib versus placebo in refractory liposarcoma patients. METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic, treatment-refractory liposarcoma were randomized 1:1 to receive regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off). Patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma only were excluded. Crossover for placebo was allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), according to RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects with liposarcoma (34 dedifferentiated, 12 myxoid/round cell, 2 pleomorphic) were enrolled. Median PFS was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-3.67) months for regorafenib versus 2.07 (95% CI, 1.64-3.44) months for placebo; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 (95% CI, 0.46, 1.58), p = .62. No responses were seen on regorafenib. One PR was observed on placebo. Median overall survival was 6.46 (95% CI, 4.16-23.48) months for regorafenib and 4.89 (95% CI, 3.02-9.77) months for placebo, stratified HR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31-1.40), p = .28). Treatment-related adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of regorafenib. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib did not appear to improve PFS in treatment-refractory liposarcoma. No new significant safety signals were observed.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with soft tissue sarcomas. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines, including the development of a separate and distinct guideline for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs); reconception of the management of desmoid tumors; inclusion of further recommendations for the diagnosis and management of extremity/body wall, head/neck sarcomas, and retroperitoneal sarcomas; modification and addition of systemic therapy regimens for sarcoma subtypes; and revision of the principles of radiation therapy for soft tissue sarcomas.

Effect of Doxorubicin Plus Olaratumab vs Doxorubicin Plus Placebo on Survival in Patients With Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: The ANNOUNCE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have a median overall survival of less than 2 years. In a phase 2 study, an overall survival benefit in this population was observed with the addition of olaratumab to doxorubicin over doxorubicin alone. Objective: To determine the efficacy of doxorubicin plus olaratumab in patients with advanced/metastatic STS. Design, Setting, and Participants: ANNOUNCE was a confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial conducted at 110 sites in 25 countries from September 2015 to December 2018; the final date of follow-up was December 5, 2018. Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1, and cardiac ejection fraction of 50% or greater. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive doxorubicin, 75 mg/m2 (day 1), combined with olaratumab (n = 258), 20 mg/kg in cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg in subsequent cycles, or placebo (n = 251) on days 1 and 8 for up to 8 21-day cycles, followed by olaratumab/placebo monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dual primary end points were overall survival with doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs doxorubicin plus placebo in total STS and leiomyosarcoma (LMS) populations. Results: Among the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.9 years; 58.2% women; 46.0% with LMS), all were included in the primary analysis and had a median length of follow-up of 31 months. No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed between the doxorubicin plus olaratumab group vs the doxorubicin plus placebo group in either population (total STS: hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.84-1.30], P = .69, median overall survival, 20.4 months vs 19.7 months; LMS: hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.69-1.31], P = .76, median overall survival, 21.6 months vs 21.9 months). Adverse events of grade 3 or greater reported in 15% or more of total patients with STS were neutropenia (46.3% vs 49.0%), leukopenia (23.3% vs 23.7%), and febrile neutropenia (17.5% vs 16.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 3 clinical trial of patients with advanced STS, treatment with doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs doxorubicin plus placebo resulted in no significant difference in overall survival. The findings did not confirm the overall survival benefit observed in the phase 2 trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02451943.

Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare solid tumors of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Guidelines for STS provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as intra-abdominal/retroperitoneal STS, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of STS of the extremities, superficial trunk, or head and neck; outlines treatment recommendations by disease stage; and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.

Aldoxorubicin therapy for the treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

Soft tissue sarcomas are a group of rare tumors of mesenchymal origin, and account for less than 1% of all cancers. The most commonly used drug for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma is anthracycline chemotherapeutic agent, doxorubicin. The major limitation for doxorubicin is cardiotoxicity. Hence, to overcome this limitation and to increase efficacy, aldoxorubicin was developed, which has demonstrated activity in soft tissue sarcomas without much cardiotoxicity. In this review article, we discuss mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, preclinical studies, clinical trial data and safety profile of aldoxorubicin and its potential applicability in the future of sarcoma treatment.

Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS: We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5-20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6-96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30-60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6-22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2-22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3-4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. FUNDING: Threshold Pharmaceuticals.

Phase 2 study of dasatinib in patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, chordoma, epithelioid sarcoma, or solitary fibrous tumor.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), chondrosarcoma (CS), chordoma, epithelioid sarcoma, and solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) are malignant tumors that are relatively resistant to chemotherapy and for which more effective drug therapy is needed. METHODS: The 5 listed subtypes were enrolled into a single indolent sarcoma cohort in a phase 2 study of dasatinib using a Bayesian continuous monitoring rule for enrollment. The primary objective was to estimate the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate according to the Choi criteria with a target of ≥50%. Cross-sectional imaging was performed before the start of treatment, every 2 months for 6 months, and then every 3 months during treatment. The 2- and 5-year survival rates were determined. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen patients were enrolled within 45 months, and 109 began treatment with dasatinib. The 6-month PFS rate and the median PFS were 48% and 5.8 months, respectively. The PFS rate at 6 months was highest with ASPS (62%) and lowest with SFT (30%). More than 10% of the patients with ASPS, CS, or chordoma had stable disease for more than 1 year. Collectively, for all 5 subtypes, the 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 44% and 13%, respectively. An objective response was observed in 18% of the patients with CS or chordoma. CONCLUSIONS: Dasatinib failed to achieve control of sarcoma growth for at least 6 months in more than 50% of the patients in this trial according to the Choi tumor response criteria. An objective tumor response and prolonged stable disease was observed in >10% of patients with CS or chordoma. Cancer 2017;90-97. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Long-term outcomes, secondary malignancies and stem cell collection following bendamustine in patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Despite the long history of bendamustine as treatment for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, long-term efficacy and toxicity data are minimal. We reviewed long-term data from three clinical trials to characterize the toxicity and efficacy of patients receiving bendamustine. Data were available for 149 subjects at 21 sites. The median age was 60 years at the start of bendamustine (range 39-84), and patients had received a median of 3 prior therapies. The histologies included grades 1-2 follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 73), grade 3 FL (n = 23), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 20), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 15), mantle cell lymphoma (n = 9), transformed lymphomas (n = 5), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (n = 2) and not reported (n = 2). The median event-free survival was 14·1 months. Nine of 12 attempted stem cell collections were successful. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years, 23 patients developed 25 cancers, including 8 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukaemia. These data provide important information regarding the long-term toxicity of bendamustine in previously treated patients. A small but meaningful number of patients achieved durable remissions following bendamustine. These rigorously collected, patient-level, long-term follow-up data provide reassurance that bendamustine or bendamustine plus rituximab is associated with efficacy and safety for patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Efficacy and safety of trabectedin or dacarbazine in patients with advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma after failure of anthracycline-based chemotherapy: Subgroup analysis of a phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Trabectedin demonstrated significantly improved disease control in leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma patients in a global phase 3 trial (NCT01343277). A post hoc analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of trabectedin or dacarbazine in women with uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS), the largest subgroup of enrolled patients (40%). METHODS: Of 577 patients randomized 2:1 to receive trabectedin 1.5mg/m2 by 24-hour IV infusion or dacarbazine 1g/m2 by 20-120-minute IV infusion once every three weeks, 232 had uLMS (trabectedin: 144; dacarbazine: 88). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR: complete responses+partial responses+stable disease [SD] for at least 18weeks), duration of response (DOR), and safety. RESULTS: PFS for trabectedin was 4.0months compared with 1.5months for dacarbazine (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57; 95% CI 0.41-0.81; P=0.0012). OS was similar (trabectedin 13.4months vs. dacarbazine 12.9months, HR=0.89; 95% CI 0.65-1.24; P=0.51) between groups. ORR was 11% with trabectedin vs. 9% with dacarbazine (P=0.82). CBR for trabectedin was 31% vs. 18% with dacarbazine (P=0.05); median DOR was 6.5months for trabectedin vs. 4.1months for dacarbazine (P=0.32). Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events observed in ≥10% of patients in the trabectedin group included transient aminotransferase (aspartate/alanine) elevations, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc subset analysis of patients with uLMS who had received prior anthracycline therapy, trabectedin treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS versus dacarbazine, with an acceptable safety profile. There was no difference in OS.

Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors: a retrospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) for the treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumours. METHODS: Fifteen patients with desmoid fibromatosis (six males, nine females; age range, 7-66 years) were treated with MRgFUS, with seven patients requiring multiple treatments (25 total treatments). Changes in viable and total tumour volumes were measured after treatment. Efficacy was evaluated using an exact one-sided Wilcoxon test to determine if the median reduction in viable tumour measured immediately after initial treatment exceeded a threshold of 50 % of the targeted volume. Median decrease after treatment of at least two points in numerical rating scale (NRS) worst and average pain scores was tested with an exact one-sided Wilcoxon test. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: After initial MRgFUS treatment, median viable targeted tumour volume decreased 63 %, significantly beyond our efficacy threshold (P = 0.0013). Median viable total tumour volume decreased (105 mL [interquartile range {IQR}, 217 mL] to 54 mL [IQR, 92 mL]) and pain improved (worst scores, 7.5 ± 1.9 vs 2.7 ± 2.6, P = 0.027; average scores, 6 ± 2.3 vs 1.3 ± 2, P = 0.021). Skin burn was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: MRgFUS significantly and durably reduced viable tumour volume and pain in this series of 15 patients with extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis. KEY POINTS: • Retrospective four-centre study shows MRgFUS safely and effectively treats extra-abdominal desmoid tumours • This non-invasive procedure can eradicate viable tumour in some cases • Alternatively, MRgFUS can provide durable control of tumour growth through repeated treatments • Compared to surgery or radiation, MRgFUS has relatively mild side effects.