Cetuximab versus methotrexate in first-line treatment of older, frail patients with inoperable recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (ELAN UNFIT): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: At present, there is no established standard treatment for frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cetuximab to those of methotrexate (the reference regimen) in this population. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 20 hospitals in France. Patients aged 70 years or older, assessed as frail by the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation, with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cetuximab 500 mg/m2 intravenously every 2 weeks or methotrexate 40 mg/m2 intravenously every week, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, serum albumin concentration, and geriatrician consultation. To avoid deterministic minimisation and assure allocation concealment, patients were allocated with a probability of 0·80 to the treatment that most reduced the imbalance. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression, death, discontinuation of treatment, or loss of 2 or more points on the Activities in Daily Living scale, whichever occurred first) and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. 151 failures expected out of 164 patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·625 with 0·05 alpha error, with 80% power. A futility interim analysis was planned when approximately 80 failures were observed, based on failure-free survival. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01884623) and was stopped for futility after the interim analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2013, and April 23, 2018, 82 patients were enrolled (41 to the cetuximab group and 41 to the methotrexate group); 60 (73%) were male, 37 (45%) were aged 80 years or older, 35 (43%) had an ECOG performance status of 2, and 36 (44%) had metastatic disease. Enrolment was stopped for futility at the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 30·8-52·1). At data cutoff, all 82 patients had failure; failure-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 1·4 months [95% CI 1·0-2·1] in the cetuximab group vs 1·9 months [1·1-2·6] in the methotrexate group; adjusted HR 1·03 [95% CI 0·66-1·61], p=0·89). The frequency of patients who had grade 3 or worse adverse events was 63% (26 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 73% (30 of 41) in the methotrexate group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the cetuximab group were fatigue (four [10%] of 41 patients), lung infection (four [10%]), and rash acneiform (four [10%]), and those in the methotrexate group were fatigue (nine [22%] of 41), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (seven [17%]), natraemia disorder (four [10%]), anaemia (four [10%]), leukopenia (four [10%]), and neutropenia (four [10%]). The frequency of patients who had serious adverse events was 44% (18 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 39% (16 of 41) in the methotrexate group. Four patients presented with a fatal adverse event in the cetuximab group (sepsis, decreased level of consciousness, pulmonary oedema, and death of unknown cause) as did two patients in the methotrexate group (dyspnoea and death of unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: The study showed no improvement in failure-free survival with cetuximab versus methotrexate. Patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 did not benefit from these systemic therapies. New treatment options including immunotherapy should be explored in frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, after an initial geriatric evaluation, such as the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation. FUNDING: French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), GEMLUC, GEFLUC, and Merck Santé. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

[French national standard for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of upper aero-digestive tract - General principles of treatment]. / Référentiel national de traitement des carcinomes épidermoïdes des voies aérodigestives supérieures ­ Principes généraux de traitement.

OBJECTIVES: The management of upper aerodigestive tract cancers is a complex specialty. It is essential to provide an update to establish optimal care. At the initiative of the INCa and under the auspices of the SFORL, the scientific committee, led by Professor Béatrix Barry, Dr. Gilles Dolivet, and Dr. Dominique De Raucourt, decided to develop a reference framework aimed at defining, in a scientific and consensus-based manner, the general principles of treatment for upper aerodigestive tract cancers applicable to all sub-locations. METHODOLOGY: To develop this framework, a multidisciplinary team of practitioners was formed. A systematic analysis of the literature was conducted to produce recommendations classified by grades, in accordance with the standards of the French National Authority for Health (HAS). RESULTS: The grading of recommendations according to HAS standards has allowed the establishment of a reference for patient care based on several criteria. In this framework, patients benefit from differentiated care based on prognostic factors they present (age, comorbidities, TNM status, HPV status, etc.), conditions of implementation, and quality criteria for indicated surgery (operability, resectability, margin quality, mutilation, salvage surgery), as well as quality criteria for radiotherapy (target volume, implementation time, etc.). The role of medical and postoperative treatments was also evaluated based on specific criteria. Finally, supportive care must be organized from the beginning and throughout the patients' care journey. CONCLUSION: All collected data have led to the development of a comprehensive framework aimed at harmonizing practices nationally, facilitating decision-making in multidisciplinary consultation meetings, promoting equality in practices, and providing a state-of-the-art and reference practices for assessing the quality of care. This new framework is intended to be updated every 5 years to best reflect the latest advances in the field.

[Unusual association of BRAF and MEK inhibitors: Clinical response of metastatic melanoma treated with dabrafenib-cobimetinib]. / Association inhabituelle d'inhibiteurs de BRAF et de MEK : réponse clinique d'un mélanome métastatique traité par dabrafénib­cobimétinib.

Despite the efficacy of targeted therapies in melanoma, the management of adverse events with BRAFi and MEKi (inhibitors) is one of the limits of these treatments. Close monitoring is required to ensure efficacy and patient safety. In this case study, we report a patient treated for metastatic melanoma with an unusual and innovative combination of dabrafenib (BRAFi) and cobimetinib (MEKi), to manage pyrexia, and lead to complete remission for 19 months. This is the first case ever reported of metastatic melanoma treated with this off-label combination and characterized by the use of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Immune Infiltrate and Tumor Microenvironment Transcriptional Programs Stratify Pediatric Osteosarcoma into Prognostic Groups at Diagnosis.

The outcomes of adolescents/young adults with osteosarcoma have not improved in decades. The chaotic karyotype of this rare tumor has precluded the identification of prognostic biomarkers and patient stratification. We reasoned that transcriptomic studies should overcome this genetic complexity. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) of 79 osteosarcoma diagnostic biopsies identified stable independent components that recapitulate the tumor and microenvironment cell composition. Unsupervised classification of the independent components stratified this cohort into favorable (G1) and unfavorable (G2) prognostic tumors in terms of overall survival. Multivariate survival analysis ranked this stratification as the most influential variable. Functional characterization associated G1 tumors with innate immunity and G2 tumors with angiogenic, osteoclastic, and adipogenic activities as well as PPARγ pathway upregulation. A focused gene signature that predicted G1/G2 tumors from RNA-seq data was developed and validated within an independent cohort of 82 osteosarcomas. This signature was further validated with a custom NanoString panel in 96 additional osteosarcomas. This study thus proposes new biomarkers to detect high-risk patients and new therapeutic options for osteosarcoma. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings indicate that the osteosarcoma microenvironment composition is a major feature to identify hard-to-treat patient tumors at diagnosis and define the biological pathways and potential actionable targets associated with these tumors.

Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin versus platinum, fluorouracil, and cetuximab as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (GORTEC 2014-01 TPExtreme): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2, both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6-44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5-45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5-15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2-15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment. FUNDING: Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma.

Pharmacogenetic Study of Trabectedin-Induced Severe Hepatotoxicity in Patients with Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

Hepatotoxicity is an important concern for nearly 40% of the patients treated with trabectedin for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS). The mechanisms underlying these liver damages have not yet been elucidated but they have been suggested to be related to the production of reactive metabolites. The aim of this pharmacogenetic study was to identify genetic variants of pharmacokinetic genes such as CYP450 and ABC drug transporters that could impair the trabectedin metabolism in hepatocytes. Sixty-three patients with ASTS from the TSAR clinical trial (NCT02672527) were genotyped by next-generation sequencing for 11 genes, and genotype-toxicity association analyses were performed with R package SNPassoc. Among the results, ABCC2 c.1249A allele (rs2273697) and ABCG2 intron variant c.-15994T (rs7699188) were associated with an increased risk of severe cytolysis, whereas ABCC2 c.3563A allele had a protective effect, as well as ABCB1 variants rs2032582 and rs1128503 (p-value < 0.05). Furthermore, CYP3A5*1 rs776746 (c.6986A > G) increased the risk of severe overall hepatotoxicity (p = 0.012, odds ratio (OR) = 5.75), suggesting the implication of metabolites in the hepatotoxicity. However, these results did not remain significant after multiple analysis correction. These findings need to be validated on larger cohorts of patients, with mechanistic studies potentially being able to validate the functional consequences of these variants.

A double-blind phase III trial of immunomodulating nutritional formula during adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients: IMPATOX.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase II study an immunonutrient supplement was found to reduce severe acute toxicities for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) patients treated with concomitant cisplatin and radiotherapy. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate efficacy of the same immunonutrient supplement on severe mucositis. Secondary objectives included tolerance, compliance to oral supplementation, chemotherapy interruptions and delays, quality of life, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 1, 2, and 3 y. METHODS: Between November 2009 and June 2013, 180 HNSCC patients eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery with curative intent were included in our double-blind phase III multicenter trial. They were assigned to receive oral supplementation (3 sachets/d) of either a formula enriched with l-arginine and omega-3 (n-3) fatty and ribonucleic acids (experimental arm), or an isocaloric isonitrogenous control (control arm), for 5 d before each of 3 cycles of cisplatin. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were undertaken, along with subgroup analyses of ≥75% compliant patients, to compare the incidence of acute mucositis (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and WHO scales) and 36-mo survival. RESULTS: At 1 mo after terminating chemoradiotherapy (CRT), no differences were observed in the incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis between treatment groups, in the ITT, PP (172 patients), and subgroup (≥75% compliance, n = 112) analyses. The immunomodulating supplement did not significantly improve survival in the ITT and PP analyses at 3 y after CRT. Among ≥75% compliant patients, however, OS at 3 y was significantly improved in the immunomodulating formula group (81%; 95% CI: 67%, 89%) compared with controls (61%; 95% CI: 46%, 73%; P = 0.034), as well as PFS (73%; 95% CI: 58%, 83% compared with 50%; 95% CI: 36%, 63%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Although this immunomodulating formula failed to reduce severe mucositis during CRT, the findings suggest that the long-term survival of compliant HNSCC patients was improved.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01149642.

Methotrexate-Etoposide-Ifosfamide Compared with Doxorubicin-Cisplatin-Ifosfamide Chemotherapy in Osteosarcoma Treatment, Patients Aged 18-25 Years.

Purpose: The French standard chemotherapy for osteosarcoma combines high-dose methotrexate (HDM) and etoposide-ifosfamide (EI) in children and adolescents, and API-AI (doxorubicin-cisplatin-ifosfamide) in adults. We herein present the results of M-EI and API-AI in 18- to 25-year-old patients. Methods: Patients, 18-25 years old, received either M-EI or API-AI regimens. M-EI comprised seven M and two EI doses preoperatively then M-EI in standard-risk patients (good histological response without metastasis) and five M-AP (methotrexate-doxorubicin-cisplatin) in high-risk patients (poor histological response, metastasis, and/or unresectable primary), postoperatively. API-AI comprised three API and two AI doses preoperatively, then two AI and two PI in standard-risk patients and five EI in high-risk patients, postoperatively. Results: We analyzed 95 patients 18-25 years of age: 55 received M-EI and 40 API-AI. The groups had similar baseline characteristics. Eighty-nine patients (94%) had surgery. Twenty-nine of 55 M-EI patients (60%) and 16/40 API-AI patients (41%) had good histological responses to preoperative chemotherapy. At 5 years, event-free survival was 50% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39-60) and overall survival was 65% (95% CI: 54-74). Acute toxicity was similar, without treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Survival outcomes with M-EI and API-AI were not significantly different. Tolerance was acceptable with both regimens. HDM is thus feasible for young adults. However, our study limitations preclude any definitive conclusions.

Results of API-AI based regimen in osteosarcoma adult patients included in the French OS2006/Sarcome-09 study.

In the OS2006 study, patients younger than 18 years were treated with a methotrexate-based regimen (MTX), patients older than 25 years with a doxorubicin-cisplatin-ifosfamide-based regimen (API-AI), whereas patients aged 18-25 years received either API-AI or MTX. We herein report the prespecified subgroup analysis of the outcome of 106 patients treated with API-AI. Preoperative chemotherapy combined three doxorubicin-ifosfamide-cisplatin (API) and two doxorubicin-ifosfamide (AI) courses. Postoperative chemotherapy was assigned by risk group: localised patients with a good histological response (<10% viable cells) received two AI and two cisplatin-ifosfamide (PI) courses; patients with synchronous metastases, poor histological response or unresectable primary received five cycles of etoposide-ifosfamide (EI). Of the 106 patients, 61 were randomised to receive or not zoledronate. Median age was 30 years (range 18-67), 66 (62%) patients were >25 years. The primary tumours were axial in 28 patients (26%), and 28 (26%) presented with metastases. Ninety-six patients (91%) had surgery, conservative in 82 (85%); 36 patients (38%, 95% CI 28-48%) were good responders. Toxicity was manageable, with no significant difference in severe acute toxicity between patients aged >25 years and those younger. With a median follow-up of 4.8 years, the 5-year event-free survival and overall survival rates were 46% (95% CI 36-56) and 57% (95% CI 47-67), respectively. The primary tumour size and initial metastases correlated with a higher risk of event. In these 106 osteosarcoma adult patients, API-AI proved feasible with no excess of toxicity, and favourable activity despite poor-prognosis factors.

Circulating Tumor Cells as a Prognostic Factor in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: The CIRCUTEC Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: This prospective multicenter study evaluated the prognostic value of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in relapsing nonoperable or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (rHNSCC) treated by chemotherapy and cetuximab. METHODS: In 65 patients suitable for analyses, peripheral blood was taken at day 0 (D0) D7, and D21 of treatment for CTC detection by CellSearch®, EPISPOT, and flow cytometry (FCM). Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: At D0, CTCs were detected with EPISPOT, CellSearch, and FCM in 69% (45/65), 21% (12/58), and 11% (7/61) of patients, respectively. In the patients tested with all 3 methods, EPISPOT identified 92% (36/39), 92% (35/38), and 90% (25/28) of all positive samples at D0, D7, and D21, respectively. Median PFS time was significantly lower in (a) patients with increasing or stable CTC counts (36/54) from D0 to D7 with EPISPOTEGFR (3.9 vs 6.2 months; 95% CI, 5.0-6.9; P = 0.0103) and (b) patients with ≥1 CTC detected with EPISPOT or CellSearch® (37/51) (P = 0.0311), EPISPOT or FCM (38/54) (P = 0.0480), and CellSearch or FCM (11/51) (P = 0.0005) at D7. CONCLUSIONS: CTCs can be detected before and during chemotherapy in patients with rHNSCC. D0-D7 CTC kinetics evaluated with EPISPOTEGFR are associated with the response to treatment. This study indicates that CTCs can be used as a real-time liquid biopsy to monitor the early response to chemotherapy in rHNSCC. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02119559.

Afatinib as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Subgroup analyses of treatment adherence, safety and mode of afatinib administration in the LUX-Head and Neck 1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) can experience severe symptom burden and/or difficulty swallowing, leading to problems with treatment adherence/administration. In LUX-Head and Neck 1 (LH&N1; NCT01345682), second-line afatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. We report adherence and safety across pre-specified and additional subgroups potentially linked to afatinib PFS benefit in LH&N1 (p16 status, smoking history), and afatinib adherence, safety and efficacy by administration (oral versus feeding tube; post-hoc analysis). METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week). RESULTS: Among 320 afatinib-treated and 160 methotrexate-treated patients, 83-92% and 76-92% (of patients with data available) across all subgroups took ≥80% of treatment. Across p16 status and smoking history subgroups, the most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (70-91%), rash/acne (72-84%), stomatitis (34-73%) with afatinib; and included stomatitis (39-100%), fatigue (22-50%), nausea (19-36%) with methotrexate. Dose reduction decreased AE incidence/severity. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between oral/feeding tube (n = 276/n = 46) groups. 89%/89% (of patients with data available) took ≥80% of assigned afatinib. Median PFS was 2.6 versus 2.7 months (hazard ratio: 0.997; 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.38). The most common afatinib-related AEs were: rash/acne (74% versus 74%), diarrhea (73% versus 65%), stomatitis (40% versus 30%). CONCLUSION: Subgroup analyses of LH&N1 demonstrate that afatinib has predictable and manageable safety across patient subgroups, with high treatment adherence, and is effective via oral and feeding tube administration.

Cetuximab pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics relationships in advanced head and neck carcinoma patients.

AIMS: Cetuximab associated with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil is used to treat patients with inoperable or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) up until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. To date, no biomarkers of efficacy are available to select patients who will benefit from treatment. METHODS: An ancillary pharmacokinetics (PK) exploration was performed in the context of a prospective study investigating circulating-tumour cells vs progression-free survival (PFS). Cetuximab plasma concentrations were analysed according to a population PK model. Individual exposure parameters were confronted with soluble epidermal growth factor receptor (sEGFR) concentrations, tumour response and PFS. RESULTS: PK data (28 patients, 203 observations) were best described by a two-compartment model with linear elimination. Performance status (PS) significantly correlated to both cetuximab clearance and central volume of distribution with both parameters increasing by 33.3% (95% CI 1-65.6) for each 1-point increase of PS compared to PS = 0. Univariate analysis showed that patients with higher trough cetuximab concentrations at Day 7 (Cmin,D7 ) had better tumour response (P = 0.03) and longer PFS (P = 0.035). However, multivariate analysis revealed that only PS and tumour size at baseline remained significantly associated with PFS. Levels of sEGFR increased during cetuximab treatment but were not associated with PFS in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study prospectively indicates that PS is likely a confounding factor in the relationship between cetuximab PK and PFS, patients with a poor PS having lower cetuximab plasma exposure and lower PFS.

Advanced chordoma treated by first-line molecular targeted therapies: Outcomes and prognostic factors. A retrospective study of the French Sarcoma Group (GSF/GETO) and the Association des Neuro-Oncologues d'Expression Française (ANOCEF).

BACKGROUND: To assess the role of first-line Molecular Targeted Therapies (MTTs) in Advanced chordoma (AC) patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of 80 patients treated between January 2004 and December 2015 at 15 major French Sarcoma or Neurooncology Centres. RESULTS: The sex ratio M/F was 46/34. The median age was 59 (6-86) years. The primary sites were the sacrum (50, 62.5%), mobile spine (12, 15.0%), and skull base (18, 22.5%). Metastases were present in 28 patients (36.0%). The first line of MTTs consisted of imatinib (62, 77.5%), sorafenib (11, 13.7%), erlotinib (5, 6.3%), sunitinib (1, 1.2%) and temsirolimus (1, 1.2%). The reported responses were: partial response (5, 6.3%), stable disease (58, 72.5%), or progressive disease (10, 12.5%). Symptomatic improvement was seen in 28/66 assessable patients (42.4%) and was associated with an objective response occurrence (p = 0.005), imatinib (p = 0.020) or erlotinib use (p = 0.028). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4°months (95% CI, [6.8-16.1]). Two independent factors of poor prognosis for PFS were identified: a skull-based primary location (HR = 2.5, p = 0.019), and the interval between diagnosis and MTT of <52months (HR = 2.8, p < 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) was 4.4°years (95% CI, [3.8-5.6]). Four independent factors of poor prognosis for OS were identified: the presence of liver metastases (HR = 13.2, p < 0.001), pain requiring opioids (HR = 2.9, p = 0.012), skull-based primary location (HR = 19.7, p < 0.001), and prior radiotherapy (photon alone) (HR = 2.5, p = 0.024). The PFS and OS did not significantly differ between the MTT. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic factors identified require validation in an independent database but are potently useful to guide treatment decisions and design further clinical trials.

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.

Relationship between imatinib trough concentration and outcomes in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours in a real-life setting.

BACKGROUND: Imatinib has dramatically improved the prognosis of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Clinical trial data showed that patients with trough imatinib plasma concentrations (Cmin) below 1100 ng/ml (quartile 1) had shorter time to progression, but no threshold has been defined. The main objective of this study was to investigate in advanced GIST whether a Cmin threshold value associated with a longer progression-free survival (PFS) could be specified. This would be the first step leading to therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib in GIST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced GIST patients (n=96) treated with imatinib 400 mg/d (41 stomach, 34 small bowel, and 21 other primary site localisations) were prospectively included in this real-life setting study. Routine plasma level testing imatinib (Cmin) and clinical data of were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: Small bowel localisation was associated with an increased relative risk of progression of 3.09 versus stomach localisation (p=0.0255). Mean Cmin (±standard deviation) was 868 (±536) ng/ml with 75% inter-individual and 26% intra-patient variability. A Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml defined by log-rank test was associated with longer PFS for the whole population (p=0.0256) and for both stomach (p=0.043) and small bowel (p=0.049) localisations when analysed separately. Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that Cmin above 760 ng/ml was associated with 65% reduction risk of progression (p=0.0271) in the whole population independently of the anatomical localisation. CONCLUSION: Concentration of imatinib significantly influences duration of tumour control treatment in GIST patients with a Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml associated with prolonged PFS in real-life setting.

Long-term outcome of molecular subgroups of GIST patients treated with standard-dose imatinib in the BFR14 trial of the French Sarcoma Group.

BACKGROUND: The added value of tumoural genomic profiles to conventional clinico-biological factors to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was prospectively investigated in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) treated in the BFR14 study. METHODS: Of the 434 included patients, mutational analysis was performed in 322 patients. Survival analysis was performed in patients with validated mutational status. RESULTS: Mutational status was validated in 228 patients. We identified 196 patients with tumours harbouring 200 KIT alterations (exon 11: 173 patients, exon 9: 22 patients, exon 17: 3 patients, exon 13: 2 patients; 4 patients had double KIT mutations), 6 patients with PDGFRA mutations and 26 patients with wild-type (WT) GIST genotype. On a median follow-up of 73 months, median PFS/OS were 12.3/54.9 months for WT GIST, 12.6/55 months for KIT exon 9, and 39.4 months/not reached (69.1% at 5 years) for KIT exon 11. Tumour size, female gender, KIT exon 11 mutations and CD34 positivity were independent prognostic factors for a higher PFS. A higher OS was predicted by performance status (PS) <2, low neutrophil and normal lymphocyte counts, KIT exon 11 mutations, non-advanced tumour and female gender. KIT exon 11 mutations at codons 557-558 showed better tumour response (p=0.028) but shorter PFS (p=0.0176). CONCLUSIONS: In GIST patients, presence of a KIT exon 11 mutation is an independent prognostic factor for PFS and OS, along with gender, PS, tumour size, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts. Subsets of exon 11 mutations are associated with significantly different response patterns and PFS.

Paclitaxel Given Once Per Week With or Without Bevacizumab in Patients With Advanced Angiosarcoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized, phase II trial was to explore the activity and safety of adding bevacizumab to paclitaxel once per week in treatment of angiosarcomas (AS). METHODS: Patients were treated with paclitaxel alone (90 mg/m(2) per week for six cycles of 28 days each; arm A) or with paclitaxel combined with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks; arm B). In the combination treatment arm, bevacizumab was administered after the six cycles of chemotherapy as maintenance therapy (15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) until intolerance or progression occurred. Stratification factors were superficial versus visceral AS and de novo versus radiation-induced AS. The primary end point was the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate, which was based on RECIST, version 1.1. Statistical assumptions were P0 = 20%, P1 = 40%, a = 10%, and b = 20%. P0 was the PFS rate at 6 months defining inactive drug, and P1 was the PFS rate at 6 months defining promising drug. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were enrolled, and 50 were randomly assigned in 14 centers. The most common primary sites were the breast (49%) and skin (12%). There were 17 (34%) visceral and 24 (49%) radiation-induced AS. The performance status was 0 in 24 patients (49%) and 1 in the remaining 25 patients (51%). The median follow-up time was 14.5 months. Both treatment regimens were considered active, with 6-month PFS rates of 54% (14 of 26) in arm A and 57% (14 of 24) in arm B. The median overall survival rates were 19.5 months in arm A and 15.9 months in arm B. Toxicity was higher with the combination arm and included one fatal drug-related toxicity (intestinal occlusion). CONCLUSION: The primary objective was met in both treatment arms. However, the present data do not support additional clinical investigation of combined paclitaxel/bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced AS.

Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 1): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m(2) per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345682. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·7] for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months [1·5-2·4] for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·65-0·98], p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 [10%] of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 [9%] vs three [2%]), stomatitis (20 [6%] vs 13 [8%]), fatigue (18 [6%] vs five [3%]), and neutropenia (1 [<1%] vs 11 [7%]); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients. INTERPRETATION: Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Ombrabulin plus cisplatin versus placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas after failure of anthracycline and ifosfamide chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ombrabulin (AVE8062) disrupts the vasculature of established tumours and has shown preclinical synergistic anti-tumour activity when combined with cisplatin. In this phase 3 trial, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ombrabulin plus cisplatin compared with placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS: We did this multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study at 44 centres in ten countries. Patients aged 18 years and older with metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and who had previously received treatment with anthracycline and ifosfamide were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous infusion of ombrabulin 25 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or intravenous infusion of placebo plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Patients were allocated to treatment using a permuted blocks randomisation scheme (block size of four) via an interactive voice-response system, and stratified by histological subtype. Patients, medical staff, study investigators, and individuals who handled and analysed the data were masked to treatment assignment. Our primary endpoint was median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done on all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is now closed, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699517. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2008, and April 26, 2012, we randomly assigned 355 patients to ombrabulin plus cisplatin (n=176) or placebo plus cisplatin (n=179). Median duration of follow-up was 27·9 (IQR 20·9-33·2) in the placebo group and 30·5 months (20·7-37·6) in the ombrabulin group. Progression-free survival was slightly, but significantly, improved in the ombrabulin group compared with the placebo group (median 1·54 months [95% CI 1·45-2·69] vs 1·41 [1·38-1·58] months; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·59-0·98]; p=0·0302). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred more frequently in individuals in the ombrabulin group than in those in the placebo group and included neutropenia (34 [19%] in the ombrabulin group vs 14 [8%] in the placebo group) and thrombocytopenia (15 [8%] vs six [3%] for placebo). Adverse events leading to death occurred in 18 patients in the ombrabulin group and 10 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The combination of ombrabulin and cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival; however, it did not show a sufficient clinical benefit in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas to support its use as a therapeutic option. Predictive biomarkers are needed for the rational clinical development of tumour vascular-disrupting drugs for soft-tissue sarcomas. FUNDING: Sanofi.