A randomised phase II study of extended pleurectomy/decortication preceded or followed by chemotherapy in patients with early-stage pleural mesothelioma: EORTC 1205.

BACKGROUND: The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma remains controversial. It may be appropriate in highly selected patients as part of a multimodality treatment including chemotherapy. Recent years have seen a shift from extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy toward extended pleurectomy/decortication. The most optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy remains unknown. METHODS: EORTC-1205-LCG was a multicentric, noncomparative phase 2 trial, 1:1 randomising between immediate (arm A) and deferred surgery (arm B), followed or preceded by chemotherapy. Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1) had treatment-naïve, borderline resectable T1-3 N0-1 M0 mesothelioma of any histology. Primary outcome was rate of success at 20 weeks, a composite end-point including 1) successfully completing both treatments within 20 weeks; 2) being alive with no signs of progressive disease; and 3) no residual grade 3-4 toxicity. Secondary end-points were toxicity, overall survival, progression-free survival and process indicators of surgical quality. FINDINGS: 69 patients were included in this trial. 56 (81%) patients completed three cycles of chemotherapy and 58 (84%) patients underwent surgery. Of the 64 patients in the primary analysis, 21 out of 30 patients in arm A (70.0%; 80% CI 56.8-81.0%) and 17 out of 34 patients (50.0%; 80% CI 37.8-62.2%) in arm B reached the statistical end-point for rate of success. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.8 (95% CI 8.5-17.2) months and 27.1 (95% CI 22.6-64.3) months in arm A, and 8.0 (95% CI 7.2-21.9) months and 33.8 (95% CI 23.8-44.6) months in arm B. Macroscopic complete resection was obtained in 82.8% of patients. 30- and 90-day mortality were both 1.7%. No new safety signals were found, but treatment-related morbidity was high. INTERPRETATION: EORTC 1205 did not succeed in selecting a preferred sequence of pre- or post-operative chemotherapy. Either procedure is feasible with a low mortality, albeit consistent morbidity. A shared informed decision between surgeon and patient remains essential.

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: No prospective trial with anthracycline-based chemotherapy has individually assessed response in a well-differentiated (WD)/dedifferentiated (DD) liposarcoma patient cohort. We conducted a retrospective analysis of first-line chemotherapy in liposarcoma of intra-abdominal origin (IA-LPS) in patients who had entered the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) trials. METHODS: We searched for all adult patients treated with first-line chemotherapy for advanced IA-LPS in the EORTC STBSG phase 2 and 3 trials from 1978. Treatment was aggregated into 5 groups: anthracycline alone, ifosfamide alone, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide (D+IFO), doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/dacarbazine, and "other" (brostallicin, trabectedin). Response was assessed prospectively by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or World Health Organization criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were computed by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients with IA-LPS from 13 trials were identified (104 evaluable for response). Overall, there were 10/109 (9.2%) responders: 3/48 (6.3%) in the anthracycline alone group, 2/15 (13%) in the ifosfamide alone group, and 4/18 (22%) in the D+IFO group. At the 10-month median follow-up (interquartile range, 6-24), the median OS was 19 months (95% CI, 15-21) and median PFS 4 months (95% CI, 3-6). D+IFO achieved a not statistically significant longer median PFS (12 months) and median OS (31 months) than observed with other regimens. Univariate/multivariate analysis did not identify prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Cytotoxic chemotherapy, in particular anthracycline alone, had marginal activity in advanced IA-LPS. Ifosfamide-containing regimens showed higher activity, although it was not statistically significant and in a small number of cases, with the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide appearing to be the more active regimen available in fit patients. This series provides a benchmark for future trials on new drugs in WD/DD liposarcoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Placebo in Resected Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has been found to prolong progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 double-blind trial to evaluate pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage III melanoma were randomly assigned (with stratification according to cancer stage and geographic region) to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab (514 patients) or placebo (505 patients) intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses (approximately 1 year) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. Recurrence-free survival in the overall intention-to-treat population and in the subgroup of patients with cancer that was positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were the primary end points. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo in the overall intention-to-treat population (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 75.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 71.3 to 78.9] vs. 61.0% [95% CI, 56.5 to 65.1]; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.57; 98.4% CI, 0.43 to 0.74; P<0.001) and in the subgroup of 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 77.1% [95% CI, 72.7 to 80.9] in the pembrolizumab group and 62.6% [95% CI, 57.7 to 67.0] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P<0.001). Adverse events of grades 3 to 5 that were related to the trial regimen were reported in 14.7% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 3.4% of patients in the placebo group. There was one treatment-related death due to myositis in the pembrolizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, 200 mg of pembrolizumab administered every 3 weeks for up to 1 year resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo, with no new toxic effects identified. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02362594 ; EudraCT number, 2014-004944-37 .).

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

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

Impact of acute kidney injury on anticancer treatment dosage and long-term outcomes: a pooled analysis of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: The impact of kidney dysfunction on long-term outcomes of patients with advanced cancer remains unclear. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer included in trials conducted by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer were eligible for this retrospective analysis. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was identified using serum creatinine levels and using adverse events reported by investigators. The impact of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was investigated. Pooled estimates of the impact of AKI on dose intensity, treatment duration, PFS and OS were obtained following a meta-analytic process. RESULTS: Nine trials were included in this study, totalling 2872 metastatic patients with various tumour types and various systemic treatment types. Baseline eGFR had homogeneously no impact on PFS or OS. Most Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function and End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) events occurred early during the course of the treatment. AKI was not associated with an increased rate of treatment discontinuation, while it decreased the study treatment dose intensity. Occurrence of a first RIFLE event significantly and homogeneously reduced PFS (pooled hazard ratio = 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.30; P = 0.0012), while its impact on OS was more heterogeneous across trials. CONCLUSION: AKI is associated with reduced treatment dose intensity and reduced PFS. Therefore, close monitoring of the kidney function during the first months of treatment should be included in clinical trial protocols and probably also in daily practice to enable early AKI diagnosis and management. Collaboration between oncologists and nephrologists is needed to reduce the risk of undertreatment of patients experiencing AKI.

EORTC-1203-GITCG - the "INNOVATION"-trial: Effect of chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus trastuzumab, versus chemotherapy plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, in the perioperative treatment of HER2 positive, gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma on pathologic response rate: a randomized phase II-intergroup trial of the EORTC-Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Group, Korean Cancer Study Group and Dutch Upper GI-Cancer group.

BACKGROUND: 10-20% of patients with gastric cancer (GC) have HER2+ tumors. Addition of trastuzumab (T) to cisplatin/fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (CT) improved survival in metastatic, HER2+ GC. When pertuzumab (P) was added to neoadjuvant T and CT, a significant increase in histopathological complete response rate was observed in HER2+ breast cancer. This study aims to investigate the added benefit of using both HER2 targeting drugs (T alone or the combination of T + P), in combination with perioperative CT for localized HER2+ GC. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, open-label, phase II trial. HER2 status from patients with resectable GC (UICC TNM7 tumor stage Ib-III) will be centrally determined. Two hundred and-fifteen patients from 52 sites in 14 countries will be centrally randomized (1:2:2 ratio) to one of the following treatment arms: 1. Standard: CT alone. CT regimens will be FLOT (5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, taxotere) CapOx (capecitabine, oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) according to investigator's choice in Europe, and cisplatin/capecitabine in Asia. 2. Experimental arm 1: CT as in control group, plus T (8 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) at day 1, independent of CT chosen for 3 cycles of 3 weeks before and after surgery. 3. Experimental arm 2: CT plus T as in experimental arm 1, plus P (840 mg every 3 weeks) on day 1. Adjuvant treatment with T or T + P will continue for 17 cycles in total. Stratification factors are: histology (intestinal/non-intestinal); region (Asia vs Europe); location (GEJ vs non-GEJ); HER2 immunohistochemistry score (IHC 3+ vs IHC 2+/FISH+) and chemotherapy regimen. Primary objective is to detect an increase in the major pathological response rate from 25 to 45% either with CT plus T alone, or with CT plus the combination of T and P. DISCUSSION: Depending on the results of the INNOVATION trial, the addition of HER2 targeted treatment with either T or T and P to CT may inform future study designs or become a standard in the perioperative management HER2+ GC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This article reports a health care intervention on human participants and was registered on July 10, 2014 under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02205047 ; EudraCT: 2014-000722-38.

Prognostic factors for soft tissue sarcoma patients with lung metastases only who are receiving first-line chemotherapy: An exploratory, retrospective analysis of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC-STBSG).

The prognosis of adult soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients with metastases is generally poor. As little is known about the impact of the involvement of different metastatic sites and the extent of pulmonary lesions on the outcome for patients receiving first-line chemotherapy, we aimed to establish prognostic factors for STS patients with lung metastases only. A retrospective, exploratory analysis was performed on 2,913 metastatic STS patients who received first-line chemotherapy. Detailed information from 580 patients who had lung metastases only, was used for prognostic factor analysis. Patients with lung metastases only were more often asymptomatic and had undergone complete primary tumor resection more frequently compared to patients with additional metastases outside the lung or without lung metastases. For extremity STS, the incidence of lung metastases only was much higher compared to non-extremity STS. Lung involvement only was an independent favorable prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) with regard to metastatic site. Within this subgroup, in a multivariate model, other factors associated with improved OS included: good performance status (PS), no progression at primary site, low histological grade, younger age, long interval between initial diagnosis and trial registration, and smaller diameter of the largest lung lesion. This unique analysis on prognostic factors in STS patients with lung metastases confirms well-known patient factors (such as age and PS), and tumor characteristics (including tumor grade, interval between primary diagnosis, and metastases), but also identifies diameter of the largest lung lesion as a new prognostic factor. Knowledge about these factors may support decision-making within multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Outcomes of Elderly Patients with Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma Treated with First-Line Chemotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 12 EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Trials.

BACKGROUND: Almost half of patients diagnosed with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are older than 65 years; however, the outcomes of elderly patients with metastatic disease are not well described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An elderly cohort of patients aged ≥65 years was extracted from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group database of patients treated with first-line chemotherapy for advanced STS within 12 EORTC clinical trials. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and response rate (RR). RESULTS: Of 2,810 participants in EORTC trials, there were 348 elderly patients (12.4%, median 68 years; interquartile range [IQR], 67-70; maximum 84 years) and 2,462 patients aged <65 years (median 49 years; IQR, 39-57). Most elderly patients had a performance status of 0 (n = 134; 39%) or 1 (n = 177; 51%). Leiomyosarcoma (n = 130; 37%) was the most common histological subtype. Lung metastases were present in 181 patients (52%) and liver metastases in 63 patients (18%). Overall, 126 patients (36%) received doxorubicin, 114 patients (33%) doxorubicin + ifosfamide, 43 patients (12%) epirubicin, 39 patients (11%) trabectedin, and 26 patients (7%) ifosfamide. Overall RR was 14.9% (n = 52), median PFS was 3.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-4.3), and median OS was 10.8 months (95% CI, 9.43-11.83). In patients aged <65 years, overall RR was 20.3% (n = 501), median OS was 12.3 months (95% CI, 11.9-12.9), and median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI, 3.9-4.6). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with metastatic STS treated with first-line chemotherapy were largely underrepresented in these EORTC STS trials. Their outcomes were only slightly worse than those of younger patients. Novel trials with broader eligibility criteria are needed for elderly patients. These trials should incorporate geriatric assessments and measurements of age-adjusted health-related quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This analysis demonstrates that elderly patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma are underrepresented in clinical trials of first-line chemotherapy by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Furthermore, the elderly participants were generally of excellent performance status, which is not representative of an unselected elderly population. These data provide rationale for development of novel trials for elderly patients that are not only for "elite" patients but include comprehensive geriatric assessments for risk stratification. Because chemotherapy for advanced soft tissue sarcomas is largely given with palliative intent, incorporation of health-related quality of life measures with traditional endpoints will provide a more holistic approach to future clinical trials.

Results from a Phase I Study of Lapatinib with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced or Metastatic Bladder Cancer: EORTC Trial 30061.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Lapatinib is a potent HER1 and HER2 inhibitor. Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) is a standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced/metastatic bladder cancer. This phase I study examined the safety of lapatinib in combination with GC in patients with bladder cancer. The primary aim was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lapatinib in combination with GC. METHODS: A 3 + 3 dose escalation protocol was used with lapatinib at 750, 1,000 and then 1,250 mg. It was dosed daily with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15) and cisplatin (70 mg/m2 on day 2) every 28 days. In all, 18 patients with a median age of 63 years (range 50-77) were included; 3/6, 3/5 and 6/7 patients received lapatinib at 750, 1,000 and 1,250 mg, combined with GC, in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in cohort 1 or 2 (3 patients each); in cohort 3 (2 × 3 patients), 1 of the 6 patients presented DLTs (grade 4, treatment-related febrile neutropenia and renal failure). Twelve patients received 6 cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Lapatinib at 750-1,250 mg combined with GC appears safe and tolerable. The MTD of lapatinib combined with GC in bladder cancer was 1,250 mg.

Immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (EORTC 30994): an intergroup, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS: This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3-pT4 disease or node positive (pN1-3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin [high-dose MVAC], or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00028756. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (IQR 5.2-8.7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08; p=0.13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.73, p<0.0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47.6% (95% CI 38.8-55.9) in the immediate treatment group and 31.8% (24.2-39.6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group. INTERPRETATION: Our data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Lilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.

Health-related quality-of-life results from PALETTE: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with soft tissue sarcoma whose disease has progressed during or after prior chemotherapy-a European Organization for research and treatment of cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group global network study (EORTC 62072).

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was an exploratory endpoint in the PALETTE trial, a global, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial of pazopanib 800 mg versus placebo as second-line or later treatment for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (N = 369). In that trial, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the pazopanib arm (median, 4.6 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.31; P < .001), and toxicity of pazopanib consisted mainly of fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, weight loss, and hypertension. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using the 30-item core European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, and 12 in patients who received treatment on protocol. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale. RESULTS: Compliance with HRQoL assessments was good, ranging from 94% at baseline to 81% at week 12. Differences in scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status subscale between the 2 treatment arms were not statistically significant and did not exceed the predetermined, minimal clinically important difference of 10 points (P = .291; maximum difference, 3.8 points). Among the other subscales, the pazopanib arm reported significantly worse symptom scores for diarrhea (P < .001) loss of appetite (P < .001), nausea/vomiting (P < .001), and fatigue (P = .012). In general, HRQoL scores tended to decline over time in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL did not improve with the receipt of pazopanib. However, the observed improvement in progression-free survival without impairment of HRQoL was considered a meaningful result. The toxicity profile of pazopanib was reflected in the patients' self-reported symptoms but did not translate into significantly worse overall global health status during treatment.

Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

PURPOSE: (18)F-Labelled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) can detect early changes in tumour metabolism and may be a useful quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) for prediction of disease stabilization, response and duration of progression-free survival (PFS). Standardization of imaging procedures is a prerequisite, especially in multicentre clinical trials. In this study we reviewed the quality of FDG scans and compliance with the imaging guideline (IG) in a phase III clinical trial. METHODS: Forty-four cancer patients were enroled in an imaging sub-study of a randomized international multicentre trial. FDG scan had to be performed at baseline and 10-14 days after treatment start. The image transmittal forms (ITFs) and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) [1] standard headers were analysed for compliance with the IG. Mean liver standardized uptake values (LSUVmean) were measured as recommended by positron emission tomography (PET) Response Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (PERCIST) [2]. RESULTS: Of 88 scans, 81 were received (44 patients); 36 were properly anonymized; 77/81 serum glucose values submitted, all but one within the IG. In 35/44 patients both scans were of sufficient visual quality. In 22/70 ITFs the reported UT differed by >1 min from the DICOM headers (max. difference 1 h 4 min). Based on the DICOM, UT compliance for both scans was 31.4%. LSUVmean was fairly constant for the 11 patients with UT compliance: 2.30 ± 0.33 at baseline and 2.27 ± 0.48 at follow-up (FU). Variability substantially increased for the subjects with unacceptable UT (11 patients): 2.27 ± 1.04 at baseline and 2.18 ± 0.83 at FU. CONCLUSION: The high attrition number of patients due to low compliance with the IG compromised the quantitative assessment of the predictive value for early response monitoring. This emphasizes the need for better regulated procedures in imaging departments, which may be achieved by education of involved personnel or efforts towards regulations. LSUVmean could be monitored to assess quality and compliance in an FDG PET/CT study.

Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective targeted treatment is unavailable for most sarcomas and doxorubicin and ifosfamide-which have been used to treat soft-tissue sarcoma for more than 30 years-still have an important role. Whether doxorubicin alone or the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide should be used routinely is still controversial. We assessed whether dose intensification of doxorubicin with ifosfamide improves survival of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma compared with doxorubicin alone. METHODS: We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial (EORTC 62012) at 38 hospitals in ten countries. We included patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma, age 18-60 years with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. They were randomly assigned (1:1) by the minimisation method to either doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2) by intravenous bolus on day 1 or 72 h continuous intravenous infusion) or intensified doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2); 25 mg/m(2) per day, days 1-3) plus ifosfamide (10 g/m(2) over 4 days with mesna and pegfilgrastim) as first-line treatment. Randomisation was stratified by centre, performance status (0 vs 1), age (<50 vs ≥50 years), presence of liver metastases, and histopathological grade (2 vs 3). Patients were treated every 3 weeks till progression or unacceptable toxic effects for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00061984. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2003, and May 25, 2010, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin and 227 to receive doxorubicin and ifosfamide. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 31-77) in the doxorubicin only group and 59 months (36-72) in the combination group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median overall survival 12·8 months [95·5% CI 10·5-14·3] in the doxorubicin group vs 14·3 months [12·5-16·5] in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·83 [95·5% CI 0·67-1·03]; stratified log-rank test p=0·076). Median progression-free survival was significantly higher for the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group (7·4 months [95% CI 6·6-8·3]) than for the doxorubicin group (4·6 months [2·9-5·6]; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·60-0·90], stratified log-rank test p=0·003). More patients in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group than in the doxorubicin group had an overall response (60 [26%] of 227 patients vs 31 [14%] of 228; p<0·0006). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxic effects-which were all more common with doxorubicin and ifosfamide than with doxorubicin alone-were leucopenia (97 [43%] of 224 patients vs 40 [18%] of 223 patients), neutropenia (93 [42%] vs 83 [37%]), febrile neutropenia (103 (46%) vs 30 [13%]), anaemia (78 [35%] vs 10 [5%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [33%]) vs one [<1%]). INTERPRETATION: Our results do not support the use of intensified doxorubicin and ifosfamide for palliation of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma unless the specific goal is tumour shrinkage. These findings should help individualise the care of patients with this disease. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, EORTC Charitable Trust, UK NHS, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Amgen.

The challenge of running trials in advanced angiosarcoma: A systematic review of the literature from EORTC/STBSG to guide the development of angiosarcoma-specific trials.

INTRODUCTION: While available systemic treatments have modest long term efficacy in advanced angiosarcoma, immunotherapy represents an interesting new therapeutic opportunity. To establish its benefit, it is required to conduct a clinical trial assessing its efficacy and toxicity compared to standard treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a literature review from PubMed search. RESULTS: Several systemic treatments (chemotherapy and TKI) are currently used in advanced angiosarcoma with ORR ranging from 12.5 to 68 % and PFS from 2 to 7 months. However, few randomized trials, mainly phase II, has been conducted to compare these treatments. While most centers propose doxorubicin containing regimens or paclitaxel in 1st or 2nd line, a high heterogeneity of regimens administered in this setting is observed even across sarcoma specialized centers with no consensual standard treatment. Encouraging signals of immunotherapy activity have been reported in angiosarcoma from several retrospective and phase II studies assessing anti-PD1 either alone or in combination with anti CTLA4 or TKI. Although cutaneous and head and neck location seems to benefit more from immunotherapy, response may be observed in any angiosarcoma subtype. In sarcoma in general and AS in particular, no biomarker has been clearly established to predict the efficacy of immunotherapy: high tumor mutational burden and presence of tertiary lymphoid structures are under assessment. DISCUSSION: Even essential, developing a randomized clinical trial in AS struggles with the heterogeneity of the disease, the lack of consensual standard regimen, the uncertainty on optimal immunotherapy administration and the absence of established predictive biomarkers. CONCLUSION: International collaboration is essential to run randomized trial in advanced AS and asses the efficacy of immune therapy in this rare and heterogeneous disease.

Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has single-agent activity in patients with advanced non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma. We investigated the effect of pazopanib on progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. METHODS: This phase 3 study was done in 72 institutions, across 13 countries. Patients with angiogenesis inhibitor-naive, metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, progressing despite previous standard chemotherapy, were randomly assigned by an interactive voice randomisation system in a 2:1 ratio in permuted blocks (with block sizes of six) to receive either pazopanib 800 mg once daily or placebo, with no subsequent cross-over. Patients, investigators who gave the treatment, those assessing outcomes, and those who did the analysis were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753688. FINDINGS: 372 patients were registered and 369 were randomly assigned to receive pazopanib (n=246) or placebo (n=123). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·7-4·8) for pazopanib compared with 1·6 months (0·9-1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·31, 95% CI 0·24-0·40; p<0·0001). Overall survival was 12·5 months (10·6-14·8) with pazopanib versus 10·7 months (8·7-12·8) with placebo (HR 0·86, 0·67-1·11; p=0·25). The most common adverse events were fatigue (60 in the placebo group [49%] vs 155 in the pazopanib group [65%]), diarrhoea (20 [16%] vs 138 [58%]), nausea (34 [28%] vs 129 [54%]), weight loss (25 [20%] vs 115 [48%]), and hypertension (8 [7%] vs 99 [41%]). The median relative dose intensity was 100% for placebo and 96% for pazopanib. INTERPRETATION: Pazopanib is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after previous chemotherapy. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.