Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in High-Grade Myxoid Liposarcoma: Results of the Expanded Cohort of a Randomized Trial From Italian (ISG), Spanish (GEIS), French (FSG), and Polish Sarcoma Groups (PSG).

PURPOSE: A randomized trial was conducted to compare neoadjuvant standard (S) anthracycline + ifosfamide (AI) regimen with histology-tailored (HT) regimen in selected localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The results of the trial demonstrated the superiority of S in all STS histologies except for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS) where S and HT appeared to be equivalent. To further evaluate the noninferiority of HT compared with S, the HG-MLPS cohort was expanded. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had localized high-grade (cellular component >5%; size ≥5 cm; deeply seated) MLPS of extremities or trunk wall. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was overall survival (OS). The trial used a noninferiority Bayesian design, wherein HT would be considered not inferior to S if the posterior probability of the true hazard ratio (HR) being >1.25 was <5%. RESULTS: From May 2011 to June 2020, 101 patients with HG-MLPS were randomly assigned, 45 to the HT arm and 56 to the S arm. The median follow-up was 66 months (IQR, 37-89). Median size was 107 mm (IQR, 84-143), 106 mm (IQR, 75-135) in the HT arm and 108 mm (IQR, 86-150) in the S arm. At 60 months, the DFS and OS probabilities were 0.86 and 0.73 (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.46]; log-rank P = .26 for DFS) and 0.88 and 0.90 (HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.37 to 3.93]; log-rank P = .77 for OS) in the HT and S arms, respectively. The posterior probability of HR being >1.25 for DFS met the Bayesian monitoring cutoff of <5% (4.93%). This result confirmed the noninferiority of trabectedin to AI suggested in the original study cohort. CONCLUSION: Trabectedin may be an alternative to standard AI in HG-MLPS of the extremities or trunk when neoadjuvant treatment is a consideration.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk soft tissue sarcomas: A Sarculator-based risk stratification analysis of the ISG-STS 1001 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is not completely understood. This study investigated the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to prognostic stratification based on the Sarculator nomogram for STS. METHODS: This study analyzed data from ISG-STS 1001, a randomized study that tested 3 cycles of neoadjuvant anthracycline plus ifosfamide (AI) or histology-tailored (HT) chemotherapy in adult patients with STS. The 10-year predicted overall survival (pr-OS) was estimated with the Sarculator and was stratified into higher (10-year pr-OS < 60%) and lower risk subgroups (10-year pr-OS ≥ 60%). RESULTS: The median pr-OS was 0.63 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.51-0.72) for the entire study population, 0.62 (IQR, 0.51-0.70) for the AI arm, and 0.64 (IQR, 0.51-0.73) for the HT arm. Three- and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.93) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.86) in lower risk patients and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.51-0.72) in the higher risk patients (log-rank test, P = .004). In higher risk patients, the 3- and 5-year Sarculator-predicted and study-observed OS rates were 0.68 and 0.58, respectively, and 0.85 and 0.66, respectively, in the AI arm (P = .04); the corresponding figures in the HT arm were 0.69 and 0.60, respectively, and 0.69 and 0.55, respectively (P > .99). In lower risk patients, the 3- and 5-year Sarculator-predicted and study-observed OS rates were 0.85 and 0.80, respectively, and 0.89 and 0.82, respectively, in the AI arm (P = .507); the corresponding figures in the HT arm were 0.87 and 0.81, respectively, and 0.86 and 0.74, respectively (P = .105). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients treated with AI performed better than predicted, and this adds to the evidence for the efficacy of neoadjuvant AI in STS. LAY SUMMARY: People affected by soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and trunk wall are at some risk of developing metastasis after surgery. Preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy has been tested in clinical trials to reduce the chances of distant metastasis. However, study findings have not been conclusive. This study stratified the risk of metastasis for people affected by sarcomas who were included in a clinical trial testing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Exploiting the prognostic nomogram Sarculator, it found a benefit for chemotherapy when the predicted risk, based on patient and tumor characteristics, was high.

The PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) Study Investigating the Need for Ovarian Function and/or Fertility Preservation Strategies in Premenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Offering ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies in premenopausal women with newly diagnosed breast cancer candidates to undergo chemotherapy is standard of care. However, few data are available on uptake and main reasons for refusing these options. METHODS: The PREFER study (NCT02895165) is an observational, prospective study enrolling premenopausal women with early breast cancer, aged between 18 and 45 years, candidates to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Primary objective is to collect information on acceptance rates and reasons for refusal of the proposed strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation available in Italy. RESULTS: At the study coordinating center, 223 patients were recruited between November 2012 and December 2020. Median age was 38 years (range 24 - 45 years) with 159 patients (71.3%) diagnosed at ≤40 years. Temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) was accepted by 58 out of 64 (90.6%) patients aged 41-45 years and by 151 out of 159 (95.0%) of those aged ≤40 years. Among patients aged ≤40 years, 57 (35.8%) accepted to access the fertility unit to receive a complete oncofertility counseling and 29 (18.2%) accepted to undergo a cryopreservation technique. Main reasons for refusal were fear of delaying the initiation of antineoplastic treatments and contraindications to the procedure or lack of interest in future childbearing. Patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer had a tendency for a higher acceptance rates of ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies than those with hormone-receptor negative disease. CONCLUSIONS: More than 90% of premenopausal women with early breast cancer, and particularly those with hormone receptor-positive disease, were concerned about the potential risk of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency and/or infertility and accepted GnRHa administration. Less than 1 out of 5 women aged ≤40 years accepted to undergo cryopreservation strategies.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in High-Risk Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Final Results of a Randomized Trial From Italian (ISG), Spanish (GEIS), French (FSG), and Polish (PSG) Sarcoma Groups.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the administration of histology-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HT) was superior to the administration of standard anthracycline plus ifosfamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy (A+I) in high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of an extremity or the trunk wall. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Patients had localized high-risk STS (grade 3; size, ≥ 5 cm) of an extremity or trunk wall, belonging to one of the following five histologic subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS); leiomyosarcoma (LMS), synovial sarcoma (SS), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three cycles of A+I or HT. The HT regimens were as follows: trabectedin in HG-MLPS; gemcitabine plus dacarbazine in LMS; high-dose prolonged-infusion ifosfamide in SS; etoposide plus ifosfamide in MPNST; and gemcitabine plus docetaxel in UPS. Primary and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01710176). RESULTS: Between May 2011 and May 2016, 287 patients (UPS: n = 97 [33.8%]; HG-MLPS: n = 65 [22.6%]; SS: n = 70 [24.4%]; MPNST: n = 27 [9.4%]; and LMS: n = 28 [9.8%]) were randomly assigned to either A+I or HT. At the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 52 months, the projected DFS and OS probabilities were 0.55 and 0.47 (log-rank P = .323) and 0.76 and 0.66 (log-rank P = .018) at 60 months in the A+I arm and HT arm, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSION: In a population of patients with localized high-risk STS, HT was not associated with a better DFS or OS, suggesting that A+I should remain the regimen to choose whenever neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used in patients with high-risk STS.

Prospective study to optimize care and improve knowledge on ovarian function and/or fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients: Results of the pilot phase of the PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of different strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients candidates for chemotherapy, limited data are available on patients' actual need of these options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PREFER study is a prospective cohort study including premenopausal women with newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer between the age of 18 and 45 years and candidates for chemotherapy. The study aimed to investigate patients' preferences and their choices of the different available strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation (i.e. acceptance rate) and reasons for refusal. RESULTS: A total of 131 consecutive patients referred from a single breast unit were included. Median age was 38.9 years with 92 patients (70.3%) diagnosed at ≤ 40 years. The majority of patients (122, 93.1%) were concerned about the risk of treatment-induced premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and/or infertility. A total of 120 (91.6%) patients underwent temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy for ovarian function preservation. Among patients with ≤40 years, only 11 (12.0%) decided to access cryopreservation strategies for fertility preservation. The main reason for not accessing the fertility unit was completion of family planning before breast cancer diagnosis; for patients who accessed the fertility unit, fear of the procedure was the main reason to refuse the proposed cryopreservation strategies. CONCLUSION: Despite the majority of young breast cancer patients are concerned about the risk of treatment-induced POI and/or infertility, only a limited number of them required to access the fertility unit to undergo cryopreservation strategies.

Combined vemurafenib and fotemustine in patients with BRAF V600 melanoma progressing on vemurafenib.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib achieves high response rate and an improvement in survival in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. However, median progression-free survival is only 6.9 months in the phase 3 study. Retrospective analyses suggest that treatment with BRAF inhibitors beyond initial progression might be associated with improved overall survival. We aimed to prospectively investigate the activity of prolonged treatment with vemurafenib and the addition of fotemustine in patients with systemic progression on prior single-agent BRAF inhibitor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this two-centres, single-arm Phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with systemic progressive disease during single-agent vemurafenib treatment. Participants received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily or dose administered at time of disease progression with vemurafenib previous treatment and fotemustine 100 mg/m2 intravenously every three weeks. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled in the study; 16 patients had brain metastases at baseline. Median PFS was 3.9 months and 19 patients (61.3%) achieved disease control (1 CR, 4 PR, 14 SD). For patients achieving disease control, median duration of treatment was 6 months. Median OS was 5.8 months from enrolment and 15.4 months from start of previous vemurafenib. Five patients (16.1%) had a G3-4 AE, the most common being thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 3 patients.This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01983124. CONCLUSION: The combination of vemurafenib plus fotemustine has clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in BRAF-refractory patients.

Histotype-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas (ISG-STS 1001): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials from our group suggested an overall survival benefit with five cycles of adjuvant full-dose epirubicin plus ifosfamide in localised high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities or trunk wall, and no difference in overall survival benefit between three cycles versus five cycles of the same neoadjuvant regimen. We aimed to show the superiority of the neoadjuvant administration of histotype-tailored regimen to standard chemotherapy. METHODS: For this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial, patients were enrolled from 32 hospitals in Italy, Spain, France, and Poland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with localised, high-risk (high malignancy grade, 5 cm or longer in diameter, and deeply located according to the investing fascia), soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities or trunk wall and belonging to one of five histological subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three cycles of full-dose standard chemotherapy (epirubicin 60 mg/m2 per day [short infusion, days 1 and 2] plus ifosfamide 3 g/m2 per day [days 1, 2, and 3], repeated every 21 days) or histotype-tailored chemotherapy: for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, trabectedin 1·3 mg/m2 via 24-h continuous infusion, repeated every 21 days; for leiomyosarcoma, gemcitabine 1800 mg/m2 on day 1 intravenously over 180 min plus dacarbazine 500 mg/m2 on day 1 intravenously over 20 min, repeated every 14 days; for synovial sarcoma, high-dose ifosfamide 14 g/m2, given over 14 days via an external infusion pump, every 28 days; for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, intravenous etoposide 150 mg/m2 per day (days 1, 2, and 3) plus intravenous ifosfamide 3 g/m2 per day (days 1, 2, and 3), repeated every 21 days; and for undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 intravenously over 90 min plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 intravenously over 1 h, repeated every 21 days. Randomisation was stratified by administration of preoperative radiotherapy and by country of enrolment. Computer-generated random lists were prepared by use of permuted balanced blocks of size 4 and 6 in random sequence. An internet-based randomisation system ensured concealment of the treatment assignment until the patient had been registered into the system. No masking of treatment assignments was done. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The primary and safety analyses were planned in the intention-to-treat population. We did yearly futility analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01710176, and with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials, number EUDRACT 2010-023484-17, and is closed to patient entry. FINDINGS: Between May 19, 2011, and May 13, 2016, 287 patients were randomly assigned to a group (145 to standard chemotherapy and 142 to histotype-tailored chemotherapy), all of whom, except one patient assigned to standard chemotherapy, were included in the efficacy analysis (97 [34%] with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma; 64 [22%] with high-grade myxoid liposarcoma; 70 [24%] with synovial sarcoma; 27 [9%] with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour; and 28 [10%] with leiomyosarcoma). At the third futility analysis, with a median follow-up of 12·3 months (IQR 2·75-28·20), the projected disease-free survival at 46 months was 62% (95% CI 48-77) in the standard chemotherapy group and 38% (22-55) in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (stratified log-rank p=0·004; hazard ratio 2·00, 95% CI 1·22-3·26; p=0·006). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the standard chemotherapy group (n=125) were neutropenia (107 [86%]), anaemia (24 [19%]), and thrombocytopenia (21 [17%]); the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (n=114) was neutropenia (30 [26%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported in both groups. In agreement with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, the study was closed to patient entry after the third futility analysis. INTERPRETATION: In a population of patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma, we did not show any benefit of a neoadjuvant histotype-tailored chemotherapy regimen over the standard chemotherapy regimen. The benefit seen with the standard chemotherapy regimen suggests that this benefit might be the added value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy itself in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING: European Union grant (Eurosarc FP7 278472).

The PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study: an Italian multicenter prospective cohort study on fertility preservation and pregnancy issues in young breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Fertility and pregnancy issues are of key importance for young breast cancer patients. Despite several advances in the field, there are still multiple unmet needs and barriers in discussing and dealing with these concerns. To address the significant challenges related to fertility and pregnancy issues, the PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study was developed as a national comprehensive program aiming to optimize care and improve knowledge around these topics. METHODS: The PREFER study is a prospective cohort study conducted across several Italian institution affiliated with the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) group evaluating patterns of care and clinical outcomes of young breast cancer patients dealing with fertility and pregnancy issues. It is composed of two distinctive studies: PREFER-FERTILITY and PREFER-PREGNANCY. The PREFER-FERTILITY study is enrolling premenopausal patients aged 18-45 years, diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer, who are candidates to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and not previously exposed to anticancer therapies. The primary objective is to obtain and centralize data about patients' preferences and choices towards the available fertility preserving procedures. The success and safety of these strategies and the hormonal changes during chemotherapy and study follow-up are secondary objectives. The PREFER-PREGNANCY study is enrolling survivors achieving a pregnancy after prior history of breast cancer and patients diagnosed with pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC). The primary objectives are to obtain and centralize data about the management and clinical outcomes of these women. Patients' survival outcomes, and the fetal, obstetrical and paediatric care of their children are secondary objectives. For both studies, the initial planned recruitment period is 5 years and patients will remain in active follow-up for up to 15 years. The PREFER-FERTILITY study was first activated in November 2012, and the PREFER-PREGNANCY study in May 2013. DISCUSSION: The PREFER study is expected to support and improve oncofertility counseling in Italy, to explore the real need of fertility preserving procedures, and to acquire prospectively more robust data on the efficacy and safety of the available strategies for fertility preservation, on the management of breast cancer survivors achieving a pregnancy and of women with PABC (including the possible short- and long-term complications in their children). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02895165 (Retrospectively registered in August 2016).

The postoperative analgesic efficacy of preperitoneal continuous wound infusion compared to epidural continuous infusion with local anesthetics after colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Open colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery induces severe and prolonged postoperative pain. The optimal method of postoperative analgesia in CRC surgery has not been established. We evaluated the efficacy of preperitoneal continuous wound infusion (CWI) of ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia after open CRC surgery in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Candidates for open CRC surgery randomly received preperitoneal CWI analgesia or continuous epidural infusion (CEI) analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% 10 mL/h for 48 hours after surgery. Fifty-three patients were allocated to each group. All patients received patient-controlled IV morphine analgesia. RESULTS: Over the 72-hour period after the end of surgery, CWI analgesia was not inferior to CEI analgesia. The difference of the mean visual analog scale score between CEI and CWI patients was 1.89 (97.5% confidence interval = -0.42, 4.19) at rest and 2.76 (97.5% confidence interval = -2.28, 7.80) after coughing. Secondary end points, morphine consumption and rescue analgesia, did not differ between groups. Time to first flatus was 3.06 ± 0.77 days in the CWI group and 3.61 ± 1.41 days in the CEI group (P = 0.002). Time to first stool was shorter in the CWI than the CEI group (4.49 ± 0.99 vs 5.29 ± 1.62 days; P = 0.001). Mean time to hospital discharge was shorter in the CWI group than in the CEI group (7.4 ± 0.41 and 8.0 ± 0.38 days, respectively). More patients in the CWI group reported excellent quality of postoperative pain control (45.3% vs 7.6%). Quality of night sleep was better with CWI analgesia, particularly at the postoperative 72-hour evaluation (P = 0.009). Postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly less frequent with CWI analgesia at 24 hours (P = 0.02), 48 hours (P = 0.01), and 72 hours (P = 0.007) after surgery evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Preperitoneal CWI analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% continuous infusion at 10 mL/h during 48 hours after open CRC surgery provided effective postoperative pain relief not inferior to CEI analgesia.