CSF1R Inhibition in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors or Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumor: A Phase 1 Study of Vimseltinib.

PURPOSE: Tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) is a locally aggressive neoplasm caused by dysregulation of the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) gene and overexpression of the CSF1 ligand. Surgery is the standard of care for most patients, but there are limited treatment options for patients with TGCT not amenable to surgery. This study evaluates vimseltinib, an investigational, oral, switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor designed to selectively and potently inhibit the CSF1 receptor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This first-in-human, multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 study of vimseltinib in patients with malignant solid tumors (N = 37) or TGCT not amenable to surgery (N = 32) followed a pharmacologically guided 3 + 3 study design (NCT03069469). The primary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability, determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), and characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK); exploratory objectives included pharmacodynamics and efficacy. RESULTS: Vimseltinib was well tolerated; the majority of non-laboratory treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1/2. There was no evidence of cholestatic hepatotoxicity or drug-induced liver injury. The RP2D was determined to be 30 mg twice weekly (no loading dose), and vimseltinib plasma exposure increased with the dose. In patients with TGCT, the median treatment duration was 25.1 months (range, 0.7 to 46.9), and the objective response rate as assessed by independent radiological review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 was 72%. CONCLUSIONS: Vimseltinib demonstrated long-term tolerability, manageable safety, dose-dependent exposure, and robust antitumor activity in patients with TGCT whose disease is not amenable to surgery.

Vimseltinib versus placebo for tenosynovial giant cell tumour (MOTION): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT) is a locally aggressive neoplasm for which few systemic treatment options exist. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of vimseltinib, an oral, switch-control, CSF1R inhibitor, in patients with symptomatic TGCT not amenable to surgery. METHODS: MOTION is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 35 specialised hospitals in 13 countries. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of TGCT for which surgical resection could potentially worsen functional limitation or cause severe morbidity. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) with interactive response technology to vimseltinib (30 mg orally twice weekly) or placebo, administrated in 28-day cycles for 24 weeks. Patients and site personnel were masked to treatment assignment until week 25, unless progressive disease was confirmed earlier. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by independent radiological review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST) at week 25 in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05059262, and enrolment is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 21, 2022, and Feb 21, 2023, 123 patients were randomly assigned (83 to vimseltinib and 40 to placebo). 73 (59%) patients were female and 50 (41%) were male. Nine (11%) of 83 patients assigned to vimseltinib and five (13%) of 40 patients assigned to placebo discontinued treatment before week 25; one patient in the placebo group did not receive any study drug. Objective response rate per RECIST was 40% (33 of 83 patients) in the vimseltinib group vs 0% (none of 40) in the placebo group (difference 40% [95% CI 29-51]; p<0·0001). Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were grade 1 or 2; the only grade 3 or 4 TEAE that occurred in more than 5% of patients receiving vimseltinib was increased blood creatine phosphokinase (eight [10%] of 83). One patient in the vimseltinib group had a treatment-related serious TEAE of subcutaneous abscess. No evidence of cholestatic hepatotoxicity or drug-induced liver injury was noted. INTERPRETATION: Vimseltinib produced a significant objective response rate and clinically meaningful functional and symptomatic improvement in patients with TGCT, providing an effective treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals.

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination Lurbinectedin plus Doxorubicin from a Phase 1b Trial in Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Soft-Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: While cytotoxic chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), clinical outcomes remain suboptimal. Our prior study showed lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin is well tolerated with promising clinical activity in STS. We designed this phase 1b trial to optimize dosing as the basis for a randomized trial in leiomyosarcoma and to further explore the safety profile and efficacy signal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had advanced/metastatic STS and no prior anthracycline/lurbinectedin/trabectedin. Escalation followed a 3 + 3 design with 3-week cycles: lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 day 1) and two doxorubicin levels (DL1, 25 mg/m2 day 1; DL2, 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8). The primary objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose for subsequent randomized trials. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled in a 6-month period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were grade (G) 2 fatigue and nausea, and G2 cytopenias with no febrile neutropenia events. There were two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at DL2 [day 8 (G2 alanine aminotransferase [ALT]/aspartate aminotransferase increase, G3 neutropenia)], and one DLT in DL1 (G3 ALT increase). These were reversible and all patients continued the study. DL1 was chosen for further study. At the time of data cutoff, the estimated median progression-free survival is 16.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-ND]. The objective response rate was 60% (6/10 confirmed partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1b study, the recommended dose is lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 in combination with doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The study combination was well tolerated and demonstrated intriguing clinical activity.

Probing single electrons across 300-mm spin qubit wafers.

Building a fault-tolerant quantum computer will require vast numbers of physical qubits. For qubit technologies based on solid-state electronic devices1-3, integrating millions of qubits in a single processor will require device fabrication to reach a scale comparable to that of the modern complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) industry. Equally important, the scale of cryogenic device testing must keep pace to enable efficient device screening and to improve statistical metrics such as qubit yield and voltage variation. Spin qubits1,4,5 based on electrons in Si have shown impressive control fidelities6-9 but have historically been challenged by yield and process variation10-12. Here we present a testing process using a cryogenic 300-mm wafer prober13 to collect high-volume data on the performance of hundreds of industry-manufactured spin qubit devices at 1.6 K. This testing method provides fast feedback to enable optimization of the CMOS-compatible fabrication process, leading to high yield and low process variation. Using this system, we automate measurements of the operating point of spin qubits and investigate the transitions of single electrons across full wafers. We analyse the random variation in single-electron operating voltages and find that the optimized fabrication process leads to low levels of disorder at the 300-mm scale. Together, these results demonstrate the advances that can be achieved through the application of CMOS-industry techniques to the fabrication and measurement of spin qubit devices.

Design and Implementation of an Opt-Out, End-to-End, Preemptive DPYD Testing Program for Patients Planned for a Systemic Fluoropyrimidine.

PURPOSE: Several allelic variants of the gene DPYD encoding dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) are associated with impaired metabolism of the systemic fluoropyrimidine fluorouracil (5FU) and its oral prodrug, capecitabine, which elevates the risk for severe toxicity. Following a patient death related to capecitabine toxicity in which DPD deficiency was suspected, a multidisciplinary advisory panel was convened to develop an institution-wide approach to future patients planned for a systemic fluoropyrimidine. METHODS: The panel selected an opt-out testing strategy which focused on developing reliable processes to collect and report test results and targeted education. An electronic health record-based automated reminder was designed to activate when a 5FU- or capecitabine-containing chemotherapy regimen was ordered for a patient without prior exposure to either agent and without a prior DPYD sequencing test result. DPYD testing was standardized across all sites of care, and a closed loop reporting system for abnormal test results was created. Before implementation, targeted education was provided to providers, pharmacists, and nurses, and a failure mode and effects analysis was performed. Program rollout was staged over a 6-month period. RESULTS: At 10 months, the rate of preemptive testing increased from a baseline of 26% to a sustained rate of >90%. In the six network sites, the testing rate increased from 9% to 96%. A total of 1,043 patients have been tested preemptively; allelic variants have been identified in 43 (4.1%). Among 25 evaluable patients, dose reduction or change to a non-fluoropyrimidine-based regimen was accomplished in 96%. CONCLUSION: Preemptive DPYD testing is feasible, and high rates of testing can be achieved using an opt-out, reminder-based program. We provide the details of the implementation and encourage others to emulate it.

Phase II Trial of nab-Sirolimus in Patients With Advanced Malignant Perivascular Epithelioid Cell Tumors (AMPECT): Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Update.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.nab-Sirolimus is approved in the United States for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) on the basis of the primary analysis results of the phase II Advanced Malignant Perivascular Epithelioid Cell Tumors (AMPECT) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02494570). Results from the primary analysis were previously published; however, the median duration of response (mDOR) had not been reached at that time. Here, 3 years after the primary analysis, we report final efficacy and safety data (data cutoff: April 29, 2022). At study completion, the confirmed overall response rate (by independent radiologist review using RECIST v1.1) was 38.7% (95% CI, 21.8 to 57.8), with an additional converted confirmed complete response (n = 2). Median progression-free survival remained the same at 10.6 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 41.2). The mDOR was reached at 39.7 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not reached [NR]), and the median overall survival at completion was 53.1 months (95% CI, 22.2 to NR). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were stomatitis (82.4%) and fatigue and rash (each 61.8%). No new or unexpected adverse events occurred, and no grade ≥4 TRAEs were reported. These results highlight the long-term clinical benefit of nab-sirolimus in patients with advanced malignant PEComa, with a DOR of >3 years.

Best Overall Response-Associated Signature to Doxorubicin in Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A Transcriptomic Analysis from ANNOUNCE.

PURPOSE: This exploratory analysis evaluated the tumor samples of the patients treated with doxorubicin (with or without olaratumab) in a negative phase III ANNOUNCE trial to better understand the complexity of advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS) and to potentially identify its predictive markers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: RNA sequencing was performed on pretreatment tumor samples (n = 273) from the ANNOUNCE trial to evaluate response patterns and identify potential predictive treatment markers for doxorubicin. A BOR-associated signature to doxorubicin (REDSARC) was created by evaluating tumors with radiographic response versus progression. An external cohort of doxorubicin-treated patients from the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS) was used for refinement and validation. RESULTS: A total of 259 samples from the trial were considered for analysis. Comparative analyses by the treatment arm did not explain the negative trial. However, there was an association between the BOR signature and histologic subtype (χ2P = 2.0e-7) and grade (P = 0.002). There were no associations between the BOR signature and gender, age, ethnicity, or stage. Applied to survival outcomes, REDSARC was also predictive for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Using the GEIS cohort, a refined 25-gene signature was identified and applied to the ANNOUNCE cohort, where it was predictive of PFS and OS in leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, and other sarcoma subtypes, but not in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. CONCLUSIONS: The refined REDSARC signature provides a potential tool to direct the application of doxorubicin in sarcomas and other malignancies. Validation and further refinement of the signature in other potentially subtype specific prospective cohorts is recommended.

Phase II Study of Eribulin plus Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Soft-tissue Sarcomas: Clinical Outcomes and Biological Correlates.

PURPOSE: Eribulin modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment via cGAS-STING signaling in preclinical models. This non-randomized phase II trial evaluated the combination of eribulin and pembrolizumab in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in one of three cohorts: leiomyosarcoma (LMS), liposarcomas (LPS), or other STS that may benefit from PD-1 inhibitors, including undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS). Eribulin was administered at 1.4 mg/m2 i.v. (days 1 and 8) with fixed-dose pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. (day 1) of each 21-day cycle, until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or completion of 2 years of treatment. The primary endpoint was the 12-week progression-free survival rate (PFS-12) in each cohort. Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate, median PFS, safety profile, and overall survival (OS). Pretreatment and on-treatment blood specimens were evaluated in patients who achieved durable disease control (DDC) or progression within 12 weeks [early progression (EP)]. Multiplexed immunofluorescence was performed on archival LPS samples from patients with DDC or EP. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients enrolled (LMS, n = 19; LPS, n = 20; UPS/Other, n = 18). The PFS-12 was 36.8% (90% confidence interval: 22.5-60.4) for LMS, 69.6% (54.5-89.0) for LPS, and 52.6% (36.8-75.3) for UPS/Other cohorts. All 3 patients in the UPS/Other cohort with angiosarcoma achieved RECIST responses. Toxicity was manageable. Higher IFNα and IL4 serum levels were associated with clinical benefit. Immune aggregates expressing PD-1 and PD-L1 were observed in a patient that completed 2 years of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of eribulin and pembrolizumab demonstrated promising activity in LPS and angiosarcoma.

Clinician Perspectives Regarding the Impact of Information Technology on Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A National Comprehensive Cancer Network Survey.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) support high-quality cancer care. Little is known about the impact of information technology (IT) tools on the operational and technical aspects of MTBs. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network EHR Oncology Advisory Group formed a workgroup to investigate the impact of IT tools such as EHRs and virtual conferencing on MTBs. METHODS: The workgroup created a cross-sectional survey for oncology clinicians (eg, pathology, medical, surgical, radiation, etc) participating in MTBs at 31 National Comprehensive Cancer Network member institutions. A standard invitation e-mail was shared with each EHR Advisory Group Member with a hyperlink to the survey, and each member distributed the survey to MTB participants at their institution or identified the appropriate person at their institution to do so. The survey was open from February 26, 2022, to April 26, 2022. Descriptive statistics were applied in the analysis of responses, and a qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses was completed. RESULTS: Individuals from 27 institutions participated. Almost all respondents (99%, n = 764 of 767) indicated that their MTBs had participants attending virtually. Most indicated increased attendance (69%, n = 514 of 741) after virtualization with the same or improved quality of discussion (75%, n = 557 of 741) compared with in-person MTBs. Several gaps between the current and ideal state emerged regarding EHR integration: 57% (n = 433 of 758) of respondents noted the importance of adding patients for MTB presentation via the EHR, but only 40% (n = 302 of 747) reported being able to do so most of the time. Similarly, 87% (n = 661 of 760) indicated the importance of documenting recommendations in the EHR, but only 53% (n = 394 of 746) reported this occurring routinely. CONCLUSION: Major gaps include the lack of EHR integration for MTBs. Clinical workflows and EHR functionalities could be improved to further optimize EHRs for MTB management and documentation.

Supporting patients in the transition to the revised pexidartinib dosing regimen: perspectives from the multidisciplinary clinical and allied health professional team.

Pexidartinib is a colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor inhibitor approved in the United States for treatment of adult patients with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and not amenable to improvement with surgery. Because of the risk of severe and potentially fatal hepatotoxicity, pexidartinib is only available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program. Pexidartinib pharmacokinetics are influenced by the fat content of meals: compared with the fasted state, consuming a high-fat meal with pexidartinib increases pexidartinib absorption by 100%; a low-fat meal increases absorption by approximately 60%. Pexidartinib was initially authorized to be taken at 800 mg/day on an empty stomach; therefore, if this same dose of pexidartinib is taken with food, there is a risk of overexposure and potential toxicity. To reduce the risk of hepatotoxicity and improve patient compliance, pexidartinib has undergone a revised dosing regimen, from 800 mg/day (400 mg twice daily) fasted to 500 mg/day (250 mg twice daily) with a low-fat meal (approximately 11-14 g of total fat). The objective of this report is to educate clinical and allied health professionals on the revised dosing regimen and the importance of patient compliance with a low-fat meal. Healthcare professionals need to understand the rationale for the switch from pexidartinib dosing on an empty stomach to dosing with a low-fat meal and how meal composition and timing influence pharmacokinetics. Finally, we provide guidance for the healthcare team of prescribing providers, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians who are caring for patients with TGCT on pexidartinib. It is important for healthcare providers to deliver consistent messaging on the low-fat meal requirement and help patients fit pexidartinib into their regular meal schedules. Consulting a dietitian may be helpful for patients, especially those with complex dietary needs. We provide an overview of the roles and responsibilities of each healthcare professional and outline steps to best support patients, including key questions and answers related to the revised dosing regimen. This report provides the information necessary to guide the multidisciplinary team caring for patients with TGCT and to support them through the pexidartinib dosing regimen change.

Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial of Olaratumab in Combination with Gemcitabine and Docetaxel in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas.

Gemcitabine plus docetaxel is an effective treatment regimen for advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STSs). However, the prognosis for patients remains poor, and thus there is an urgent medical need for novel and effective therapies to improve long-term outcomes. The aim of the ANNOUNCE 2 trial was to explore the addition of olaratumab (O) to gemcitabine (G) and docetaxel (D) for advanced STS. Adults with unresectable locally advanced/metastatic STS, ≤2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0-1 were eligible. In Phase 2, patients were randomized 1:1 from two cohorts (O-naïve and O-pretreated) to 21-day cycles of olaratumab (20 mg/kg Cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, Days 1 and 8), gemcitabine (900 mg/m2, Days 1 and 8), and docetaxel (75 mg/m2, Day 8). The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population (α level = 0.20). Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated), other efficacy parameters, patient-reported outcomes, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. A total of 167 and 89 patients were enrolled in the O-naïve and O-pretreated cohorts, respectively. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. No statistically significant difference in OS was observed between the investigational vs. control arm for either cohort (O-naïve cohort: HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.64-1.40), p = 0.78, median OS, 16.8 vs. 18.0 months; O-pretreated cohort: HR = 0.67 (95% CI: 0.39-1.16), p = 0.15, median OS 19.8 vs. 17.3 months). Safety was manageable across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population, and therefore based on hierarchical evaluation no other outcomes in this study can be considered statistically significant. No new safety signals were observed.

Distribution and Rate of Myxoid Liposarcoma Spine Metastases: Impact on Surveillance Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Myxoid liposarcoma (LPS) has a unique tendency to spread to extrapulmonary sites, including osseous sites such as the spine, and adjacent sites such as the paraspinous tissue. No clear consensus exists to guide the approach to imaging in these patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the rate and distribution of spine metastases in patients with myxoid LPS and detection modality. METHODS: Records of all patients with myxoid LPS evaluated at our sarcoma center were retrospectively reviewed. Disease patterns and imaging modality utilization were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2020, 164 patients with myxoid LPS were identified. The majority (n = 148, 90%) presented with localized disease, with half (n = 82, 50%) of all patients developing metastases or recurrence during their disease course. With a median follow-up of 69.2 months, spine/paraspinous metastases developed in 38 patients (23%), of whom 35 (92%) already had synchronous, non-spine metastases. Spine disease was only visible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as opposed to other imaging modalities, for over one-quarter of patients with spine metastases (n = 10). For patients with metastatic disease, spine metastases were associated with worse median overall survival (2.1 vs. 8.7 years, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Spine metastases occurred in nearly one-quarter of patients with myxoid LPS and represented an advanced disease state, as they primarily presented in the setting of synchronous, non-spine metastases, and were associated with worse overall survival. Routine surveillance with spine MRI in patients with localized disease likely provides no benefit but may be considered in those with known metastatic disease.

Results of an Open-label, Phase Ia/b Study of Pembrolizumab plus Olaratumab in Patients with Unresectable, Locally Advanced, or Metastatic Soft-Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: The study evaluated safety and efficacy of olaratumab + pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced/metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) with disease progression on standard treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was open-label, multicenter, nonrandomized, phase Ia/Ib dose-escalation study followed by cohort expansion (olaratumab + pembrolizumab intravenous infusion). Primary objectives were safety and tolerability. RESULTS: The majority of patients enrolled (n = 41) were female [phase Ia: 9 of 13, phase Ib/dose-expansion cohort (DEC), 17 of 28], aged < 65 years. In phases Ia and Ib, 13 and 26 patients received prior systemic therapy, respectively. Patients received olaratumab 15 mg/kg (phase Ia; cohort 1) or 20 mg/kg (phase Ia; cohort 2 and phase Ib) and pembrolizumab 200 mg (phase Ia/Ib). The median (Q1-Q3) duration of therapy (olaratumab) was 6.0 (3.0-11.9; cohort 1), 14.4 (12.4-20.9; cohort 2), and 14.0 (6.0-21.8) weeks (DEC). No dose-limiting toxicities and few grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAE; 15 mg/kg: 2 (increased lipase); 20 mg/kg: 1 (increased lipase), 1 (colitis), 2 (diarrhea), 3 (anemia)] were reported. Two TEAEs (increased lipase) were related to study discontinuations. Twenty-one patients reported mild (grade ≤ 2) TEAEs [phase Ia, disease control rate (DCR):14.3% (1/7, cohort 1); 66.7% (4/6, cohort 2); no responses were reported; phase Ib, DCR: 53.6% (15/28); objective response rate: 21.4% (6/28; RECIST and irRECIST criteria)]. No response was observed in patients with programmed death ligand-1-positive tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Antitumor activity was observed in some patients in DEC, and combination was well tolerated with manageable safety profile. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and mechanistic impact of platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitors with immune checkpoint modulator coadministration.

Dosing Recommendation Based on the Effects of Different Meal Types on Pexidartinib Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Subjects: Implementation of Model-informed Drug Development Strategy.

Pexidartinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of the colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor, is approved for treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and not amenable to improvement with surgery. The original dosing regimen is 400 mg of pexidartinib (2 × 200-mg capsules) twice daily, administered on an empty stomach at least 1 hour before or 2 hours after a meal or snack. Because pexidartinib is likely to be taken over an extended period of time, the ability to take pexidartinib with a meal would simplify timing of administration and potentially improve compliance. Since administering 400 mg of pexidartinib with a low-fat meal increases exposure by ≈60% relative to the fasted state, administering 250 mg of pexidartinib with a low-fat meal (low-fat meal dosing regimen) was predicted to achieve an exposure similar to 400 mg administered during a fasted state (original dosing regimen). Based on clinical trial simulations with two one-sided t-tests and bootstrapping (ie, resampling) analyses, a bioequivalence study (n = 24) would have >90% power to conclude that the original dosing regimen (400 mg fasted twice daily) and the low-fat meal dosing regimen (250 mg with a low-fat meal twice daily) are bioequivalent. This report provides the outcome of the implementation of the model-informed drug development strategy to recommend and justify a low-fat meal dosing regimen for pexidartinib that has the potential to improve patient compliance while maintaining drug exposure.

Datasets for reporting of soft-tissue sarcoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

AIMS: Soft-tissue tumours are rare and both accurate diagnosis and proper treatment represent a global challenge. Current treatment guidelines also recommend review by specialised pathologists. Here we report on international consensus-based datasets for the pathology reporting of biopsy and resection specimens of soft-tissue sarcomas. The datasets were produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of international pathology and cancer organisations. METHODS AND RESULTS: According to the ICCR's guidelines for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pathologists, a surgical oncologist, and a medical oncologist produced a set of core and noncore data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. All professionals involved were subspecialised soft-tissue sarcoma experts and affiliated with tertiary referral centres. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or noncore element, its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the documents were finalised and ratified, and the datasets, which included a synoptic reporting guide, were published on the ICCR website. CONCLUSION: These first international datasets for soft-tissue sarcomas are aimed to promote high-quality, standardised pathology reporting. Their adoption will improve consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will help to improve patient's management.

Datasets for the reporting of primary tumour in bone: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bone tumours are relatively rare and, as a consequence, treatment in a centre with expertise is required. Current treatment guidelines also recommend review by a specialised pathologist. Here we report on international consensus-based datasets for the pathology reporting of biopsy and resection specimens of bone sarcomas. The datasets were produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major (inter-)national pathology and cancer organisations. METHODS AND RESULTS: According to the ICCR's process for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pathologists, an oncologic orthopaedic surgeon, a medical oncologist, and a radiologist produced a set of core and noncore data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. All professionals involved were bone tumour experts affiliated with tertiary referral centres. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or noncore element, its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the documents were finalised and ratified, and the datasets, including a synoptic reporting guide, were published on the ICCR website. CONCLUSION: These first international datasets for bone sarcomas are intended to promote high-quality, standardised pathology reporting. Their widespread adoption will improve the consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will help to improve management of bone sarcoma patients.

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

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

Clinical genomic profiling in the management of patients with soft tissue and bone sarcoma.

There are more than 70 distinct sarcomas, and this diversity complicates the development of precision-based therapeutics for these cancers. Prospective comprehensive genomic profiling could overcome this challenge by providing insight into sarcomas' molecular drivers. Through targeted panel sequencing of 7494 sarcomas representing 44 histologies, we identify highly recurrent and type-specific alterations that aid in diagnosis and treatment decisions. Sequencing could lead to refinement or reassignment of 10.5% of diagnoses. Nearly one-third of patients (31.7%) harbor potentially actionable alterations, including a significant proportion (2.6%) with kinase gene rearrangements; 3.9% have a tumor mutational burden ≥10 mut/Mb. We describe low frequencies of microsatellite instability (<0.3%) and a high degree of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity (15%) across sarcomas, which are not readily explained by homologous recombination deficiency (observed in 2.5% of cases). In a clinically annotated subset of 118 patients, we validate actionable genetic events as therapeutic targets. Collectively, our findings reveal the genetic landscape of human sarcomas, which may inform future development of therapeutics and improve clinical outcomes for patients with these rare cancers.

Management of Locally Recurrent Retroperitoneal Sarcoma in the Adult: An Updated Consensus Approach from the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), but local recurrence is common. Biologic behavior and recurrence patterns differ significantly among histologic types of RPS, with implications for management. The Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group (TARPSWG) published a consensus approach to primary RPS, and to complement this, one for recurrent RPS in 2016. Since then, additional studies have been published, and collaborative discussion is ongoing to address the clinical challenges of local recurrence in RPS. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed, and the previous consensus statements for recurrent RPS were updated after review by TARPSWG members. The search included the most common RPS histologic types: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, solitary fibrous tumor, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor. RESULTS: Recurrent RPS management was evaluated from diagnosis to follow-up evaluation. For appropriately selected patients, resection is safe. Nomograms currently are available to help predict outcome after resection. These and other new findings have been combined with expert recommendations to provide 36 statements, each of which is attributed a level of evidence and grade of recommendation. In this updated document, more emphasis is placed on histologic type and clarification of the intent for surgical treatment, either curative or palliative. Overall, the fundamental tenet of optimal care for patients with recurrent RPS remains individualized treatment after multidisciplinary discussion by an experienced team with expertise in RPS. CONCLUSIONS: Updated consensus recommendations are provided to help guide decision-making for treatment of locally recurrent RPS and better selection of patients who would potentially benefit from surgery.

Selinexor in Advanced, Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS: SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461). RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.