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.

Primary intradural Extraosseous Ewing's sarcoma of the cauda equina: A case report and literature review.

Intradural Extraosseous Ewing sarcoma (IEES) is an infrequent occurrence. We report a case of a 66-year-old male who presented with a 2-month history of low back pain and bilateral S1 sciatica, with acute sphincter dysfunction. Imaging studies revealed an intradural extramedullary lesion in the cauda equina spanning from level L4 to S1. The patient underwent partial removal of the intradural lesion. Histopathological examination showed the presence of small round cells, which were consistent with Ewing Sarcoma. The patient was then treated with targeted radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The rarity of IEES in this specific location underscores the significance of evaluating and managing patients with intradural spinal tumors with careful consideration of this diagnosis. To further investigate this condition, we conducted a thorough review of the literature on IEES involving the lumbar spine and cauda equina. Our analysis revealed that patients with this condition frequently exhibit rapidly progressive neurological symptoms likely attributed to hemorrhagic transformation. This characteristic may serve as a distinguishing factor from other lesion types, particularly benign ones. Our study provides a comprehensive summary that can offer direction for clinical management in comparable uncommon and novel cases.

PEC-PRO: A new prognostic score from a series of 87 patients with localized perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) treated with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) encompass a heterogeneous family of mesenchymal tumors. Previously described clinicopathologic features aimed at distinguishing benign from malignant variants but lacked prognostic value. METHODS: This retrospective analysis examined clinicopathologic data from patients who had localized PEComa across French Sarcoma Network centers. The authors analyzed 12 clinicopathologic features in a Cox proportional hazard framework to derive a multivariate prognostic risk model for event-free survival (EFS). They built the PEComa prognostic score (PEC-PRO), in which scores ranged from 0 to 5, based on the coefficients of the multivariate model. Three groups were identified: low risk (score = 0), intermediate risk (score = 1), and high risk (score ≥ 2). RESULTS: Analyzing 87 patients who had a median 46-month follow-up (interquartile range, 20-74 months), the median EFS was 96.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1 months to not applicable), with 2-year and 5-year EFS rates of 64.7% and 58%, respectively. The median overall survival was unreached, with 2-year and 5-year overall survival rates of 82.3% and 69.3%, respectively. The simplified Folpe classification did not correlate with EFS. Multivariate analysis identified three factors affecting EFS: positive surgical margins (hazard ratio [HR], 5.17; 95% CI, 1.65-16.24; p = .008), necrosis (HR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.16-13.43; p = .030), and male sex (HR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.19-8.27; p = 0.023). Four variables were retained in the prognostic model. Patients with low-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 93.7% (95% CI, 83.8%-100.0%), those with intermediate-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 67.4% (95% CI, 53.9%-80.9%), and those with high-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 2.3% (95% CI, 0.0%-18.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The PEC-PRO score reliably predicts the risk of postoperative recurrence in patients with localized PEComa. It has the potential to improve follow-up strategies but requires validation in a prospective trial.