Final analysis of the randomized trial on imatinib as an adjuvant in localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) from the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG), the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG), UNICANCER, French Sarcoma Group (FSG), Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG), and Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS)☆.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery in localized, high/intermediate-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients. Interim analysis results were published in 2015 upon recommendation from an independent data review committee. We report the final outcome of the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial carried out at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Patients were randomized to 2 years of imatinib, 400 mg daily, or no further therapy after surgery. The primary endpoint was imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS), while relapse-free survival (RFS), relapse-free interval (RFI), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Adjusting for the interim analyses, results on IFFS were assessed on a 4.3% significance level; for the other endpoints, 5% was used. RESULTS: Nine hundred and eight patients were randomized between January 2005 and October 2008: 454 to imatinib and 454 to observation; 835 patients were eligible. With a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 5 (10)-year IFFS was 87% (75%) in the imatinib arm versus 83% (74%) in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95.7% confidence interval (CI) (0.65; 1.15), P = 0.31]; RFS was 70% versus 63% at 5 years and 63% versus 61% at 10 years, [HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.57; 0.89), P = 0.002]; OS was 93% versus 92% at 5 years and 80% versus 78% at 10 years [HR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.65; 1.21), P = 0.43]. Among 526 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathology, 10-year IFFS and RFS were 69% versus 61%, and 48% versus 43%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With 9.1 years of follow-up, a trend toward better long-term IFFS in imatinib-treated patients was observed in the high-risk subgroup. Although the difference was not statistically significant and the surrogacy value of such an endpoint is not validated, this may be seen as supporting the results reported by the Scandinavian/German trial, showing a sustained small but significant long-term OS benefit in high-risk GIST patients treated with 3 years of adjuvant imatinib.

A randomized phase III trial comparing trabectedin to best supportive care in patients with pre-treated soft tissue sarcoma: T-SAR, a French Sarcoma Group trial.

BACKGROUND: The French Sarcoma Group assessed the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) of trabectedin versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study included adults with STS who progressed after 1-3 prior treatment lines. Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to receive trabectedin 1.5 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or BSC, stratified into L-STS (liposarcoma/leiomyosarcoma) and non-L-STS groups (other histotypes). Patients from the BSC arm were allowed to cross over to trabectedin at progression. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) confirmed by blinded central review and analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between 26 January 2015 and 5 November 2015, 103 heavily pre-treated patients (60.2% with L-STS) from 16 French centers were allocated to receive trabectedin (n = 52) or BSC (n = 51). Median PFS was 3.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-5.9 months] in the trabectedin arm versus 1.5 months (0.9-2.6 months) in the BSC arm (hazard ratio = 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64, P < 0.001) with benefits observed across almost all analyzed subgroups, but particularly in patients with L-STS (5.1 versus 1.4 months, P = 0.0001). Seven patients (13.7%) in the trabectedin arm (all with L-STS) achieved a partial response, while no objective responses were observed in the BSC arm (P = 0.004). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (44.2% of patients), leukopenia (34.6%), and transaminase increase (32.7%). Health-related 30-item core European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire evidenced no statistical differences between the arms for any domain and at any time point. After progression, 91.8% of patients crossed over from BSC to trabectedin. CONCLUSION: Trabectedin demonstrates superior disease control to BSC without impairing QoL in patients with recurrent STS of multiple histologies, with greater impact in patients with L-STS.

Diagnosis and management of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusion sarcomas: expert recommendations from the World Sarcoma Network.

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with mesenchymal lineage differentiation. The discovery of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions as tissue-agnostic oncogenic drivers has led to new personalized therapies for a subset of patients with sarcoma in the form of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors. NTRK gene rearrangements and fusion transcripts can be detected with different molecular pathology techniques, while TRK protein expression can be demonstrated with immunohistochemistry. The rarity and diagnostic complexity of NTRK gene fusions raise a number of questions and challenges for clinicians. To address these challenges, the World Sarcoma Network convened two meetings of expert adult oncologists and pathologists and subsequently developed this article to provide practical guidance on the management of patients with sarcoma harboring NTRK gene fusions. We propose a diagnostic strategy that considers disease stage and histologic and molecular subtypes to facilitate routine testing for TRK expression and subsequent testing for NTRK gene fusions.

Phase I study of emactuzumab single agent or in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors reveals depletion of immunosuppressive M2-like macrophages.

BACKGROUND: Emactuzumab is a monoclonal antibody against the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor and targets tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). This study assessed the safety, clinical activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of emactuzumab, as monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, phase Ia/b study comprised two parts (dose escalation and dose expansion), each containing two arms (emactuzumab, every 2 or 3 weeks, as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly). The dose-escalation part explored the maximum tolerated dose and optimal biological dose (OBD). The dose-expansion part extended the safety assessment and investigated the objective response rate. A PK/PD analysis of serial blood, skin and tumor biopsies was used to explore proof of mechanism and confirm the OBD. RESULTS: No maximum tolerated dose was reached in either study arm, and the safety profile of emactuzumab alone and in combination does not appear to preclude its use. No patients receiving emactuzumab monotherapy showed an objective response; the objective response rate for emactuzumab in combination with paclitaxel was 7% across all doses. Skin macrophages rather than peripheral blood monocytes or circulating colony-stimulating factor-1 were identified as an optimal surrogate PD marker to select the OBD. Emactuzumab treatment alone and in combination with paclitaxel resulted in a plateau of immunosuppressive TAM reduction at the OBD of 1000 mg administered every 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Emactuzumab showed specific reduction of immunosuppressive TAMs at the OBD in both treatment arms but did not result in clinically relevant antitumor activity alone or in combination with paclitaxel. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01494688).

Molecular screening program to select molecular-based recommended therapies for metastatic cancer patients: analysis from the ProfiLER trial.

BACKGROUND: Antitumor activity of molecular-targeted agents is guided by the presence of documented genomic alteration in specific histological subtypes. We aim to explore the feasibility, efficacy and therapeutic impact of molecular profiling in routine setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentric prospective study enrolled adult or pediatric patients with solid or hematological advanced cancer previously treated in advanced/metastatic setting and noneligible to curative treatment. Each molecular profile was established on tumor, relapse or biopsies, and reviewed by a molecular tumor board (MTB) to identify molecular-based recommended therapies (MBRT). The main outcome was to assess the incidence rate of genomic mutations in routine setting, across specific histological types. Secondary objectives included a description of patients with actionable alterations and for whom MBRT was initiated, and overall response rate. RESULTS: Four centers included 2579 patients from February 2013 to February 2017, and the MTB reviewed the molecular profiles achieved for 1980 (76.8%) patients. The most frequently altered genes were CDKN2A (N = 181, 7%), KRAS (N = 177, 7%), PIK3CA (N = 185, 7%), and CCND1 (N = 104, 4%). An MBRT was recommended for 699/2579 patients (27%), and only 163/2579 patients (6%) received at least one MBRT. Out of the 182 lines of MBRT initiated, 23 (13%) partial responses were observed. However, only 0.9% of the whole cohort experienced an objective response. CONCLUSION: An MBRT was provided for 27% of patients in our study, but only 6% of patients actually received matched therapy with an overall response rate of 0.9%. Molecular screening should not be used at present to guide decision-making in routine clinical practice outside of clinical trials.This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774409.

Surgery in reference centers improves survival of sarcoma patients: a nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 sarcoma reference centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB) aiming to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients. Since 2010, presentation to an MDTB and expert pathological review are mandatory for sarcoma patients nationwide. In the present work, the impact of surgery in a reference center on the survival of sarcoma patients investigated using this national NETSARC registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients' characteristics and follow-up are prospectively collected and data monitored. Descriptive, uni- and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors were conducted in the entire series (N = 35 784) and in the subgroup of incident patient population (N = 29 497). RESULTS: Among the 35 784 patients, 155 different histological subtypes were reported. 4310 (11.6%) patients were metastatic at diagnosis. Previous cancer, previous radiotherapy, neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), and Li-Fraumeni syndrome were reported in 12.5%, 3.6%, 0.7%, and 0.1% of patients respectively. Among the 29 497 incident patients, 25 851 (87.6%) patients had surgical removal of the sarcoma, including 9949 (33.7%) operated in a NETSARC center. Location, grade, age, size, depth, histotypes, gender, NF1, and surgery outside a NETSARC center all correlated to overall survival (OS), local relapse free survival (LRFS), and event-free survival (EFS) in the incident patient population. NF1 history was one of the strongest adverse prognostic factors for LRFS, EFS, and OS. Presentation to an MDTB was associated with an improved LRFS and EFS, but was an adverse prognostic factor for OS if surgery was not carried out in a reference center. In multivariate analysis, surgery in a NETSARC center was positively correlated with LRFS, EFS, and OS [P < 0.001 for all, with a hazard ratio of 0.681 (95% CI 0.618-0.749) for OS]. CONCLUSION: This nationwide registry of sarcoma patients shows that surgical treatment in a reference center reduces the risk of relapse and death.

Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma with rearrangement of TFE3: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) phase II trial 90101 'CREATE'.

Background: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is an orphan malignancy associated with a rearrangement of transcription factor E3 (TFE3), leading to abnormal MET gene expression. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of the MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor crizotinib in patients with advanced or metastatic ASPS. Patients and methods: Eligible patients with reference pathology-confirmed ASPS received oral crizotinib 250 mg bd. By assessing the presence or absence of a TFE3 rearrangement, patients were attributed to MET+ and MET- sub-cohorts. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) according to local investigator. Secondary end points included duration of response, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), progression-free rate, overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: Among 53 consenting patients, all had a centrally confirmed ASPS and 48 were treated. A total of 45 were eligible, treated and assessable. Among 40 MET+ patients, 1 achieved a confirmed partial response (PR) that lasted 215 days and 35 had stable disease (SD) as best response (ORR: 2.5%, 95% CI 0.6% to 80.6%). Further efficacy end points in MET+ cases were DCR: 90.0% (95% CI 76.3% to 97.2%), 1-year PFS rate: 37.5% (95% CI 22.9% to 52.1%) and 1-year OS rate: 97.4% (95% CI 82.8% to 99.6%). Among 4 MET- patients, 1 achieved a PR that lasted 801 days and 3 had SD (ORR: 25.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 80.6%) for a DCR of 100% (95% CI 39.8% to 100.0%). The 1-year PFS rate in MET- cases was 50% (95% CI 5.8% to 84.5%) and the 1-year OS rate was 75% (95% CI 12.8% to 96.1%). One patient with unknown MET status due to technical failure achieved SD but stopped treatment due to progression after 17 cycles. The most common crizotinib-related adverse events were nausea [34/48 (70.8%)], vomiting [22/48 (45.8%)], blurred vision [22/48 (45.8%)], diarrhoea (20/48 (41.7%)] and fatigue [19/48 (39.6%)]. Conclusion: According to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) efficacy criteria for soft tissue sarcoma, our study demonstrated that crizotinib has activity in TFE3 rearranged ASPS MET+ patients. Clinical trial number: EORTC 90101, NCT01524926.

Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced clear-cell sarcoma with MET alterations: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase II trial 90101 'CREATE'.

BACKGROUND: Clear-cell sarcoma (CCSA) is an orphan malignancy, characterized by a specific t(12;22) translocation, leading to rearrangement of the EWSR1 gene and overexpression of MET. We prospectively investigated the efficacy and safety of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor crizotinib in patients with advanced or metastatic CCSA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CCSA received oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), secondary end points included duration of response, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), progression-free rate (PFR), overall survival (OS), OS rate and safety. The study design focused on MET+ disease with documented rearrangement of the EWSR1 gene by fluorescence in situ hybridization. RESULTS: Among 43 consenting patients with the local diagnosis of CCSA, 36 had centrally confirmed CCSA, 28 of whom were eligible, treated and assessable. Twenty-six out of the 28 patients had MET+ disease, of whom one achieved a confirmed partial response and 17 had stable disease (SD) (ORR 3.8%, 95% confidence interval: 0.1-19.6). Further efficacy end points in MET+ CCSA were DCR: 69.2% (48.2% to 85.7%), median PFS: 131 days (49-235), median OS: 277 days (232-442). The 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month PFR was 53.8% (34.6-73.0), 26.9% (9.8-43.9), 7.7% (1.3-21.7) and 7.7% (1.3-21.7), respectively. Among two assessable MET- patients, one had stable disease and one had progression. The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea [18/34 (52.9%)], fatigue [17/34 (50.0%)], vomiting [12/34 (35.3%)], diarrhoea [11/34 (32.4%)], constipation [9/34 (26.5%)] and blurred vision [7/34 (20.6%)]. CONCLUSIONS: The PFS with crizotinib in MET+ CCSA is similar to results achieved first-line in non-selected metastatic soft tissue sarcomas with single-agent doxorubicin. The PFS is similar to results achieved with pazopanib in previously treated sarcoma patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: EORTC 90101, EudraCT number 2011-001988-52, NCT01524926.

Genomic alterations and radioresistance in breast cancer: an analysis of the ProfiLER protocol.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) patients with comparable prognostic features have heterogeneous outcomes, party related to a possible radiotherapy resistance leading to local-regional recurrences (LRR). The objective of the present study was to identify predictive molecular biomarkers of LRR of BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Genetic profile of 146 BC patients' tumours included in the ProfiLER clinical trial (NC01774409) between 2013 and 2016 were analysed using next-generation-sequencing and comparative-genomic-hybridization tests. Patients and tumour characteristics were retrospectively collected and analysed for association with genomic rearrangements (mutations, amplification, deletions). Only gene alterations observed in >3% of the tumours were selected. RESULTS: A total of 193 genomic rearrangements were identified, and 16 were observed in >3% of tumours. One was statistically correlated to the risk of local relapse. A median loco-regional progression-free survival (LRPFS) of 23.6 years was reported for PIK3CA mutation carriers (n = 31, 21.2%) versus 9.9 years for PIK3CA wild-type patients (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.65, P = 0.002 in univariate analysis). PIK3CA mutation was identified as an independent protective factor on LRR using multivariate analysis (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.99, P = 0.047). All other mutations, amplifications or deletions were not found associated with LRPFS. CONCLUSION: PIK3CA mutation was associated with a lower risk of local relapse in this population of BCs. This is consistent with recent studies suggesting PIK3CA to be part of biological pathways impacting the radiosensitivity.

Improved survival using specialized multidisciplinary board in sarcoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Sarcomas are rare but aggressive diseases. Specialized multidisciplinary management is not implemented for all patients in most countries. We investigated the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) presentation before treatment in a nationwide study over 5 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized MDTB, funded by the French National Cancer Institute to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients. Since 2010, presentation to an MDTB and second pathological review are mandatory for sarcoma patients in France. Patients' characteristics and follow-up are collected in a database regularly monitored and updated. The management and survival of patients presented to these MDTB before versus after initial treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of the 12 528 patients aged ≥15 years, with a first diagnosis of soft tissue and visceral sarcoma obtained between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014, 5281 (42.2%) and 7247 (57.8%) were presented to the MDTB before and after the initiation of treatment, respectively. The former group had generally worse prognostic characteristics. Presentation to a MDTB before treatment was associated with a better compliance to clinical practice guidelines, for example, biopsy before surgery, imaging, quality of initial surgery, and less reoperations (all P < 0.001). Local relapse-free survival and relapse-free survival were significantly better in patients presented to a MDTB before initiation of treatment, both in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The compliance to clinical practice guidelines and relapse-free survival of sarcoma patients are significantly better when the initial treatment is guided by a pre-therapeutic specialized MDTB.

Outcome of uterine sarcoma patients treated with pazopanib: A retrospective analysis based on two European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) clinical trials 62043 and 62072.

BACKGROUND: Uterine sarcomas are a group of mesenchymal tumours comprising several histologies. They have a high recurrence rate following surgery, modest outcome to systemic therapy, and poor overall survival. Pazopanib is a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for non-adipocytic advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Here we investigated whether response to pazopanib in patients with uterine sarcomas differs from that of patients with non-uterine sarcomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Uterine sarcoma patients were retrieved from all soft tissue sarcoma patients treated with pazopanib in EORTC Phase II (n=10) and Phase III (PALETTE) (n=34) studies. Patient and tumour characteristics, response, progression free and overall survival data were compared. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with uterine sarcoma were treated with pazopanib. The majority of patients had uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS) (n=39, 88.6%) with high grade tumours (n=37, 84.1%) compared to 54.8% (n=164) in the non-uterine population. The median age was 55years (range 33-79) and median follow up was 2.3years. Uterine patients were heavily pre-treated, 61.3% having ≥2 lines of chemotherapy prior to pazopanib compared to 40.8% in the non-uterine population. Five patients (11%), all LMS, had a partial response (95% CI 3.8-24.6). Median progression free survival (PFS) 3.0months (95% CI 2.5-4.7) in uterine versus 4.5 (95% CI 3.7-5.1) in non-uterine STS. Median overall survival (OS) was 17.5months (95% CI 11.1-19.6), longer than the non-uterine population, 11.1months (95% CI 10.2-12.0) (p=0.352). CONCLUSIONS: Despite heavy pre-treatment, pazopanib shows signs of activity in patients with uterine sarcoma with the similar outcomes to patients with non-uterine STS.

Rare Cancers Europe (RCE) methodological recommendations for clinical studies in rare cancers: a European consensus position paper.

While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to sequentially test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I development stage, should be encouraged. Also the compassionate and the off-label settings should be exploited to generate new evidence, and flexible regulatory innovations such as adaptive licensing could convey new agents early to rare cancer patients, while generating evidence. Though validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones. Disease-based communities, involving clinicians and patients, should be regularly consulted by regulatory bodies when setting their policies on drug approval and reimbursement in specific rare cancers.