Discontinuation versus continuation of imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (BFR14): exploratory long-term follow-up of an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) discontinuation on resistance and survival in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is unclear. We report the exploratory long-term outcomes of patients with advanced GIST stopping imatinib in the BFR14 trial. METHODS: BFR14, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 17 comprehensive cancer centres or hospitals across France. Patients with advanced GIST aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3, no previous treatment with imatinib, and no previous malignancy were eligible. Patients were treated with oral imatinib 400 mg daily. Patients with a complete or partial response, or stable disease, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (1.0) at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years from the start of treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment discontinuation until progression (interruption group) or treatment continuation until progression (continuation group). Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks of two and six patients stratified by participating centre and presence or absence of residual disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included time to imatinib resistance and overall survival. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned patients who were not lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00367861. FINDINGS: Between May 12, 2003, and March 16, 2004, after 1 year of imatinib, 32 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 26 to the continuation group. Between June 13, 2005, and May 30, 2007, after 3 years of imatinib, 25 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 25 to the continuation group. Between Nov 9, 2007, and July 12, 2010, after 5 years of imatinib, 14 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 13 to the continuation group. Median follow-up was 235·2 months (IQR 128·8-236·6) after the 1-year randomisation, 200·9 months (190·2-208·4) after the 3-year randomisation, and 164·5 months (134·4-176·4) after the 5-year randomisation. Median progression-free survival in the interruption group versus the continuation group after 1 year of imatinib was 6·1 months (95% CI 2·5-10·1) versus 27·8 months (19·5-37·9; hazard ratio [HR] 0·36 [95% CI 0·20-0·64], log-rank p=0·0003), after 3 years of imatinib was 7·0 months (3·5-11·7) versus 67·0 months (48·8-85·6; 0·15 [0·07-0·32], log-rank p<0·0001), and after 5 years of imatinib was 12·0 months (9·0-16·6) versus not reached (NR; NR-NR; 0·13 [0·03-0·58], log-rank p=0·0016). The median time to imatinib resistance after 1 year of imatinib was 28·7 months (95% CI 18·1-39·1) versus 90·6 months (25·3-156·1; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·51-1·71], log-rank p=0·82), after 3 years was 66·2 months (43·0-89·6) versus 127·3 months (15·0-239·7; 0·35 [0·17-0·72, log-rank p=0·0028), and after 5 years was 58·6 months (0·0-167·4) versus NR (NR-NR; 0·24 [0·05-1·12], log-rank p=0·049). Median overall survival after 1 year of imatinib was 56·0 months (95% CI 30·3-82·9) versus 105·0 months (20·6-189·6; HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·46-1·54], log-rank p=0·57), after 3 years was 104·0 months (90·7-118·7) versus 134·0 months (89·7-178·3; 0·40 [0·20-0·82], log-rank p=0·0096), and after 5 years was NR (NR-NR) versus 110·4 months (82·7-154·1; 1·28 [0·41-3·99]; log-rank p=0·67), INTERPRETATION: Imatinib interruption in patients with GIST without progressive disease is not recommended. Imatinib interruption in non-progressing patients with GIST was associated with rapid progression, faster resistance to imatinib, and shorter overall survival in the long-term follow-up when compared with imatinib continuation in patients after 3 years and 5 years of imatinib. FUNDING: Centre Léon Bérard, INCa, CONTICANET, Ligue Contre le Cancer, and Novartis.

A novel fusion variant LSM14A::NR4A3 in extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma.

Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (EMC) is a rare soft tissue neoplasm of uncertain lineage characterized by the pathognomonic rearrangement of the NR4A3 gene, which in most cases is fused with EWSR1. Other NR4A3 fusion partners have been described, namely TAF15, FUS, TCF12, and TGF. Some studies suggest that EMCs with non-EWSR1 variant fusion are associated with high-grade morphology and worst clinical behavior compared to EWSR1::NR4A3 tumors, supporting the potential significance of particular fusion variant in EMC. We report a case of a 34-year-old male who presented with calf EMC and subsequently developed a slowly progressive metastatic disease 3 years after diagnosis. Whole-transcriptome analysis with total RNA sequencing enabled identification of a novel fusion transcript LSM14A::NR4A3, expanding the molecular spectrum of EMC.

Management and outcomes of adolescent and young adult sarcoma patients: results from the French nationwide database NETSARC.

BACKGROUND: The initial management of patients with sarcoma is a critical issue. We used the nationwide French National Cancer Institute-funded prospective sarcoma database NETSARC to report the management and oncologic outcomes in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) patients with sarcoma at the national level. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC database gathers regularly monitored and updated data from patients with sarcoma. NETSARC was queried for patients (15-30 years) with sarcoma diagnosed from 2010 to 2017 for whom tumor resection had been performed. We reported management, locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in AYA treated in French reference sarcoma centers (RSC) and outside RSC (non-RSC) and conducted multivariable survival analyses adjusted for classical prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among 3,227 patients aged 15-30 years with sarcoma diagnosed between 2010 and 2017, the study included 2,227 patients with surgery data available, among whom 1,290 AYAs had been operated in RSC, and 937 AYAs in non-RSC. Significant differences in compliance to guidelines were observed including pre-treatment biopsy (RSC: 85.9%; non-RSC 48.1%), pre-treatment imaging (RSC: 86.8%; non-RSC: 56.5%) and R0 margins (RSC 57.6%; non-RSC: 20.2%) (p < 0.001). 3y-OS rates were 81.1% (95%CI 78.3-83.6) in AYA in RSC and 82.7% (95%CI 79.4-85.5) in AYA in non-RSC, respectively. Whereas no significant differences in OS was observed in AYAs treated in RSC and in non-RSC, LRFS and PFS were improved in AYAs treated in RSC compared to AYAs treated in non-RSC (Hazard Ratios (HR): 0.58 and 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance for AYA patients with sarcoma to be managed in national sarcoma reference centers involving multidisciplinary medical teams with paediatric and adult oncologists.

Pregnancy in Women with Metastatic Sarcomas.

Successful pregnancy in women with metastatic cancer is rare in the published literature. We report here on four women with sarcoma who started and conducted their first pregnancies while in metastatic disease. All four pregnancies were first pregnancies, and all four women are long-term survivors from 20 to 248 months after pregnancy. One patient had three pregnancies. All four women stopped systemic cancer treatment during their pregnancies, and two had RECIST progression during treatment interruption. Three patients still have unresectable metastatic disease, whereas one is in complete remission. In selected metastatic sarcomas with indolent courses, successful pregnancies are possible with no or minor impact on cancer progression and with prolonged life duration after pregnancy. As metastatic cancer becomes more often a chronic disease, this possibility opens important practical and ethical questions on how to best to advise women of childbearing age with metastatic cancers who are long-term survivors.

Progressive Desmoid Tumor: Radiomics Compared With Conventional Response Criteria for Predicting Progression During Systemic Therapy-A Multicenter Study by the French Sarcoma Group.

OBJECTIVE. The response of desmoid tumors (DTs) to chemotherapy is evaluated with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) in daily practice and clinical trials. MRI shows early change in heterogeneity in responding tumors due to a decrease in cellular area and an increase in fibronecrotic content before dimensional response. Heterogeneity can be quantified with radiomics. Our aim was to develop radiomics-based response criteria and to compare their performances with clinical and radiologic response criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty-two patients (median age, 38.2 years) were included in this retrospective multicenter study because they presented with progressive DT and had an MRI examination at baseline, which we refer to as "MRI-0," and an early MRI evaluation performed after the first chemotherapy cycle (mean time after first chemotherapy cycle, 3 months [SD, 28 days]), which we refer to as "MRI-1." After signal intensity normalization, voxel size standardization, discretization, and segmentation of DT volume on fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging, 90 baseline and delta 3D radiomics features were extracted. Using cross-validation and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-penalized Cox regression, a radiomics score was generated. The performances of models based on the radiomics score, modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria, Cheson criteria, Choi criteria, and revised Choi criteria from MRI-0 to MRI-1 to predict progression-free survival (PFS, as defined by RECIST 1.1) were assessed with the concordance index. The results were adjusted for performance status, tumor volume, prior chemotherapy, current chemotherapy, and ß-catenin mutation. RESULTS. There were 10 cases of progression. The radiomics score included four variables. A high score indicated a poor prognosis. The radiomics score independently correlated with PFS (adjusted hazard ratio = 5.60, p = 0.003), and none of the usual response criteria independently correlated with PFS. The prognostic model based on the radiomics score had the highest concordance index (0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96). CONCLUSION. Quantifying early changes in heterogeneity through a dedicated radiomics score could improve response evaluation for patients with DT undergoing chemotherapy.

Safety and efficacy of Pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: PALETTE (EORTC 62072) subgroup analyses.

BACKGROUND: PALETTE is a phase 3 trial that demonstrated single-agent activity of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcomas (aSTS). We performed retrospective subgroup analyses to explore potential relationships between patient characteristics, prior lines of therapy, dose intensity, and dose modifications on safety and efficacy of pazopanib in aSTS. METHODS: PALETTE compared pazopanib with placebo in patients with aSTS (age ≥ 18 years) whose disease had progressed during or following prior chemotherapy. In these subgroup analyses, median progression-free survival (mPFS) among patients receiving pazopanib was the efficacy outcome of interest. Adverse events (AEs) were also compared within subgroups. All analyses were descriptive and exploratory. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients received pazopanib in the PALETTE study. The mPFS was longer in patients who had only 1 prior line versus 2+ prior lines of therapy (24.7 vs 18.9 weeks, respectively); AE rates were similar regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. The mPFS was similar in patients aged < 65 and ≥ 65 y (20.0 and 20.1 weeks, respectively). Although AEs leading to study discontinuation were higher in older patients (≥65 y, 30%; < 65 y, 17%), rates of dose reductions, dose interruptions, and serious AEs were similar between the 2 age groups. No reduction in mPFS was noted in patients requiring dose reductions or dose interruptions to manage toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Longer mPFS was observed in patients receiving pazopanib following only 1 line of therapy. Additionally, mPFS with pazopanib was maintained regardless of patient age or dose modifications used to manage toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00753688 , first posted September 16, 2008 (registered prospectively).

Quality of life and patients' expectations in soft tissue sarcoma.

Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is essential for holistic care. Greater efforts are required to incorporate HRQoL measures into clinical trials and daily practice. Considerable HRQoL data are available for localized soft tissue sarcomas (STS), particularly in the orthopedic setting. In future, HRQoL is expected to become increasingly important in the evaluation of palliative therapy in advanced STS. A patient-centric approach is advocated for STS management. Greater awareness of STS by nonspecialist clinicians, and timely referral to specialized sarcoma reference centers, is crucial for patient welfare. The patient is central to shared decision-making during consultations and during case review in tumor boards. The management approach to STS should be collaborative, involving a multidisciplinary team, multiple centers and patient advocacy groups.

Expression and role of TYRO3 and AXL as potential therapeutical targets in leiomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) are 15% of adult sarcomas and remain seldom curable in metastatic phase. The TAM receptors and their ligands are overexpressed or activated in multiple malignancies, including LMS. METHODS: The TAM receptor and ligand expression was evaluated in LMS cell lines and 358 sarcoma samples by either gene expression or immunohistochemistry. TYRO3 and AXL were knocked down. Crizotinib and foretinib were investigated in vitro. RESULTS: High expression of TYRO3 and AXL was detected in LMS cell lines. TYRO3 or AXL gene knockdown reduced cell proliferation/colony formation. Crizotinib and foretinib decreased TYRO3 and AXL phosphorylation, apoptosis, G2/arrest and reduced colony formation. Immunohistochemistry performed in 107 sarcomas showed higher expression of TYRO3 and GAS6 in LMS vs other sarcomas and nuclear TYRO3 only in LMS. Microarray gene expression performed in 251 sarcomas revealed significantly higher expression of TYRO3 and GAS6 in LMS than other sarcomas. Leiomyosarcoma patients with high expression of GAS6 or PROS1 present a significantly worse PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Leiomyosarcoma patients, especially those whom develop metastasis, express higher levels of TYRO3 and GAS6. Crizotinib and foretinib showed effective antitumour activity in LMS through TYRO3 and AXL deactivation indicating that clinical trials using TYRO3 and AXL inhibitors are warranted in advanced LMS.

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

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

Safety and efficacy of regorafenib in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (REGOSARC): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor with proven activity in refractory gastrointestinal stromal tumours and chemotherapy-refractory advanced colorectal cancers. We assessed this agent's efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas previously treated with anthracycline. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial undertaken in France and Austria, we enrolled patients aged 18 years and older with advanced soft tissue sarcomas who had received previous doxorubicin or other anthracycline treatment. These patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into one of the following four cohorts: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and other sarcomas. Participants were treated with oral regorafenib (160 mg per day 3 weeks on and 1 week off) or matched placebo. Patients receiving placebo were offered optional crossover in case of centrally confirmed disease progression. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated with permuted blocks of four patients, with two stratification factors: country (France or Austria) and previous exposure to pazopanib (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included patients with histologically proven advanced and inoperable soft tissue sarcomas with intolerance or failure to doxorubicin or other anthracycline-based chemotherapy and at least one unidimensionally or bidimensionally measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1). The primary endpoint was RECIST-based progression-free survival after central radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. Patients, physicians, and radiologists of the panel were masked to treatment allocation. This study is still open for recruitment for an additional stratum (patients previously treated with pazopanib) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01900743. FINDINGS: From Aug 5, 2013, to Nov 26, 2014, 182 patients were randomly assigned to one of four cohorts and included in the final analysis. At the cutoff date (Jan 7, 2016), the number of required events was reached for the four cohorts. In the liposarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 1·1 months (95% CI 0·9-2·3) with regorafenib versus 1·7 months (0·9-1·8) with placebo (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·48-1·64] p=0·70). In the leiomyosarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 3·7 months (95% CI 2·5-5·0) with regorafenib versus 1·8 (1·0-2·8) months with placebo (HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·46-0·80] p=0·0045). In the synovial sarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 1·4-11·6) with regorafenib versus 1·0 (0·8-1·4) with placebo (HR 0·10 [95% CI 0·03-0·35] p<0·0001). In the other sarcoma cohort, progression-free survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 1·0-7·8) with regorafenib versus 1·0 (0·9-1·9) with placebo (HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·25-0·81] p=0·0061). Before crossover, the most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher adverse events were arterial hypertension (17 [19%] events in the 89 patients in the regorafenib group vs two [2%] events in the 92 patients in the placebo group), hand and foot skin reaction (14 [15%] vs no events) and asthenia (12 [13%] vs six [6%]). One treatment-related death occurred in the regorafenib group due to liver failure. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib has an important clinical antitumour effect in non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcomas, improving progression-free survival. Regorafenib should be further evaluated in this setting, and its therapeutic role has to be defined in the context of the growing therapeutic armamentarium, already including one approved multikinase inhibitor, pazopanib. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare.

LAG-3 Inhibitors: Novel Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Changing the Landscape of Immunotherapy.

One of the most important steps forward in the management of cancer was the discovery of immunotherapy. It has become an essential pillar in the treatment paradigm of cancer patients. Unfortunately, despite the various options presented with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), the benefit is still limited to select patients and the vast majority of these patients gain either minimal benefit or eventually progress, leaving an unmet need for the development of novel therapeutic agents and strategies. Lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3), an immune checkpoint receptor protein, is a molecule found on the surface of activated T-cells. It plays a major role in negatively regulating T-cell function thereby providing tumors with an immune escape in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Given its importance in regulating the immune system, LAG-3 has been considered as a promising target in oncology and precision medicine. To date, two LAG-3-directed agents (eftilagimod alpha and relatlimab) have been approved in combination with programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors in the setting of advanced solid tumors. In this review, we discuss the structure of LAG-3, its mechanism of action, and its interaction with its ligands. We also shed light on the emerging treatments targeting LAG-3 for the treatment of solid tumors.

Single-agent gemcitabine in patients with advanced, pre-treated angiosarcoma: A multicenter, retrospective study.

Gemcitabine has shown clinical activity against angiosarcoma in small series, alone, or combined with taxanes. We aimed to evaluate its activity as a single-agent in a larger series of patients with advanced angiosarcoma. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of consecutive adult patients with advanced angiosarcoma treated with single-agent gemcitabine at our institutions from January 2010 to January 2021. Response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1, and toxicity was graded according to NCI-CTC v5.0. 42 patients were identified. 38 patients (90%) had received prior anthracyclines and weekly paclitaxel, and 9 (21%) had received pazopanib. The best tumor response was partial response (PR) in 16 patients (38%), or stable disease (10 patients, 24%). All 8 patients with cardiac angiosarcoma experienced a PR. Median PFS was 5.4 months (95%CI: 3.1-6.5), and median OS was 9.9 months (95%CI: 6.6-13.4). Single-agent gemcitabine has clinically meaningful activity in advanced, heavily pre-treated angiosarcoma.

Final Safety and Health-Related Quality of LIfe Results of the Phase 2/3 Act.In.Sarc Study With Preoperative NBTXR3 Plus Radiation Therapy Versus Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Soft-Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Act.In.Sarc (NCT02379845) demonstrated that the first-in-class radioenhancer NBTXR3, activated by preoperative radiation therapy (RT), doubled the rate of pathologic complete response after resection compared with preoperative RT alone in adult patients with locally advanced soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity or trunk wall (16.1% vs 7.9%, P = .045), and more patients achieved R0 resections (77.0% vs 64.0%, P = .042). These are the toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Act.In.Sarc randomized eligible patients 1:1 to either NBTXR3 (single intratumoral injection, volume equivalent to 10% of baseline tumor volume, at 53.3 g/L) activated by external-beam RT (arm A) or external-beam RT alone (arm B) (50 Gy in 25 fractions), followed by surgery in both arms. Here, we report the safety analyses in the all-treated population with a long-term follow-up of at least 2 years, and HRQoL in the intention-to-treat full analysis set. RESULTS: During the on-treatment period, serious adverse events (SAEs) of all grades related to NBTXR3 occurred in 10.1% (9/89) of patients (arm A), and SAEs related to RT occurred in 5.6% (5/89) (arm A) versus 5.6% (5/90) (arm B); postsurgery hospitalization owing to SAEs occurred in 15.7% (14/89) (arm A) versus 24.4% (22/90) (arm B). During the follow-up period, posttreatment SAEs (regardless of relationship) occurred in 13.5% (12/89) (arm A) versus 24.4% (22/90) (arm B). NBTXR3 did not negatively affect HRQoL; during the follow-up period, there was an improvement in most mean Toronto extremity salvage, EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D), EQ5D02-EQ visual analog scale, reintegration to normal living index, and musculoskeletal tumor rating scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: NBTXR3 did not negatively affect safety or HRQoL. Long-term safety results reinforce the favorable benefit-risk ratio of NBTXR3 plus RT.