Outcomes of non-angiosarcoma radiation-associated soft tissue sarcomas of the chest.

BACKGROUND: Radiation-associated soft tissue sarcomas (RA-STS) are rare complications of patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) and are generally associated with a poor prognosis. Most of the literature surrounding RA-STS of the chest is centered on angiosarcoma. Therefore, we aim to document the management and outcome of patients with non-angiosarcoma RA-STS of the chest. METHODS: We reviewed 17 patients (all female, median age 65 years) diagnosed with RA-STS. The most common primary malignancy was breast carcinoma (n = 15), with a median RT dose of 57.9 Gy. All patients underwent surgical resection; five patients (29%) received radiotherapy; and five patients (29%) received peri-operative chemotherapy. RESULTS: The 5-year local recurrence and metastatic-free survival were 61% and 60%, while the 5-year disease-specific survival was 53%. Local recurrence was associated with death due to disease (HR 9.06, p = 0.01). Complications occurred in nine of patients, most commonly due to a wound complication (n = 7). At the most recent follow-up, the median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score was 63%. CONCLUSION: RA-STS involving the chest wall are aggressive tumors with a high risk of local relapse and death due to disease. Local recurrence was associated with death due to disease; as such, we recommend aggressive surgical management with evaluation for adjuvant therapies.

Assessment of minimum target dose as a predictor of local failure after spine SBRT.

OBJECTIVES: Metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated robust clinical benefits in carefully selected patients, improving local control and even overall survival (OS). We assess a large database to determine clinical and dosimetric predictors of local failure after spine SBRT. METHODS: Spine SBRT treatments with imaging follow-up were identified. Patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost technique using 1 or 3 fractions, delivering 20-24 Gy in 1 fraction to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and 16 Gy to the low dose volume (or 27-36 Gy and 21-24 Gy for 3 fraction treatments). Exclusions included: lack of imaging follow-up, proton therapy, and benign primary histologies. RESULTS: 522 eligible spine SBRT treatments (68 % single fraction) were identified in 377 unique patients. Patients had a median OS of 43.7 months (95 % confidence interval: 34.3-54.4). The cumulative incidence of local failure was 10.5 % (7.4-13.4) at 1 year and 16.3 % (12.6-19.9) at 2 years. Local control was maximized at 15.3 Gy minimum dose for single-fraction treatment (HR = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.17 - 0.56, p < 0.0001) and confirmed via multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence of local failure was 6.1 % (2.6-9.4) vs. 14.2 % (8.3-19.8) at 1 year using this cut-off, with comparable findings for minimum 14 Gy. Additionally, epidural and soft tissue involvement were predictive of local failure (HR = 1.77 and 2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Spine SBRT offers favorable local control; however, minimum dose to the GTV has a strong association with local control. Achieving GTV minimum dose of 14-15.3 Gy with single fraction SBRT is recommended whenever possible.

A Single Arm Phase 2 Trial of Trametinib in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma.

PURPOSE: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular cancer with pathogenic TAZ-CAMTA1 operating as an oncogenic driver through activation of MAPK pathway. Trametinib is an inhibitor of MEK, a critical kinase in the MAPK pathway. We sought to evaluate the effect of trametinib in patients with EHE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase 2 trial of trametinib was conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic EHE. Eligibility requirements included evidence of tumor progression or presence of EHE-related pain requiring opiates for management prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST1.1 in cases with TAZ-CAMTA1 confirmed by fusion-FISH. Secondary objectives were to estimate ORR for all patients, median PFS, 2-year OS rate, patient safety, and change in patient-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. RESULTS: 44 patients enrolled and 42 started trametinib. TAZ-CAMTA1 was detected in 27 tumor samples. The ORR was 3.7% (95% CI: 0.094, 19.0), median PFS was 10.4 months (95% CI: 7.1, NA), and 2-year OS rate was 33.3% (95% CI: 19.1, 58.2) in the target population. Median pain intensity and interference scores improved significantly after 4 weeks of trametinib in patients using opiates. Common AEs related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, alopecia and edema; one Grade 5 ARDS/pneumonitis was related to trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib was associated with reduction in EHE-related pain and median PFS of more than 6 months providing palliative benefit in patients with advanced EHE, but the trial did not meet the ORR goal.

Ripretinib versus sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: ctDNA biomarker analysis of the phase 3 INTRIGUE trial.

INTRIGUE was an open-label, phase 3 study in adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib and who were randomized to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or sunitinib 50 mg. In the primary analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) with ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib. In clinical and nonclinical studies, ripretinib and sunitinib have demonstrated differential activity based on the exon location of KIT mutations. Therefore, we hypothesized that mutational analysis using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) might provide further insight. In this exploratory analysis (N = 362), baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing-based assay. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%) samples with KIT mutations in 213/362 patients (59%). Imatinib-resistant mutations were found in the KIT ATP-binding pocket (exons 13/14) and activation loop (exons 17/18). Mutational subgroup assessment showed 2 mutually exclusive populations with differential treatment effects. Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 13/14 mutations (ripretinib, n = 21; sunitinib, n = 20) had better PFS with sunitinib versus ripretinib (median, 15.0 versus 4.0 months). Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations (ripretinib, n = 27; sunitinib, n = 25) had better PFS with ripretinib versus sunitinib (median, 14.2 versus 1.5 months). The results of this exploratory analysis suggest ctDNA sequencing may improve the prediction of the efficacy of single-drug therapies and support further evaluation of ripretinib in patients with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501.