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.

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.

Relevance of Reference Centers in Sarcoma Care and Quality Item Evaluation: Results from the Prospective Registry of the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcoma (GEIS).

BACKGROUND: Reference centers (RCs) are a key point for improving the survival of patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). The aim of this study was to evaluate selected items in the management of patients with STS, comparing results between RC and local hospitals (LHs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnostic and therapeutic data from patients diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2011 were collected. Correlation with outcome was performed. RESULTS: A total of 622 sarcomas were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 40 months. Imaging of primary tumor preoperatively (yes vs. no) correlated with a higher probability of free surgical margins (77.4% versus 53.7%; p = .006). The provenance of the biopsy (RC vs. LH) significantly affected relapse-free survival (RFS; 3-year RFS 66% vs. 46%, respectively; p = .019). Likewise, 3-year RFS was significantly worse in cases with infiltrated (55.6%) or unknown (43.4%) microscopic surgical margins compared with free margins (63.6%; p < .001). Patients managed by RCs had a better 3-year overall survival compared with those managed by LHs (82% vs. 70.4%, respectively; p = .003). Perioperative chemotherapy in high-risk STS, more frequently administered in RCs than in LHs, resulted in significantly better 3-year RFS (66% vs. 44%; p = .011). In addition, patients with stage IV disease treated in RCs survived significantly longer compared with those in LHs (30.4 months vs. 18.5 months; p = .036). CONCLUSION: Our series indicate that selected quality-of-care items were accomplished better by RCs over LHs, all with significant prognostic value in patients with STS. Early referral to an RC should be mandatory if the aim is to improve the survival of patients with STS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This prospective study in patients diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma shows the prognostic impact of reference centers in the management of these patients. The magnitude of this impact encompasses all steps of the process, from the initial management (performing diagnostic biopsy) to the advanced disease setting. This is the first prospective evidence showing improvement in outcomes of patients with metastatic disease when they are managed in centers with expertise. This study provides extra data supporting referral of patients with sarcoma to reference centers.

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).

Guía de práctica clínica en los sarcomas de partes blandas / Soft tissue sarcomas: clinical practice guidelines

Los sarcomas de partes blandas (SPB) son un grupo heterogéneo de tumores poco frecuentes constituidos por una amplia variedad de subtipos histológicos que requieren un tratamiento multidisciplinario, con frecuencia especializado y complejo. A pesar de los avances obtenidos en el conocimiento de la fisiopatologý´a de la enfermedad, en Espan˜a no hay unas recomendaciones multidisciplinarias de consenso acerca del diagnóstico y el tratamiento de los SPB. El objetivo de estas guý´as es proporcionar unas recomendaciones terapéuticas prácticas que puedan contribuir a mejorar los resultados terapéuticos en esta enfermedad en nuestro medio. Con este propósito, el Grupo Español de Investigación de Sarcomas (GEIS) celebro una reunión con un grupo multidisciplinario de expertos en el estudio y el tratamiento de los sarcomas. El resultado de esta reunión se recoge en este documento, en el cual se incluyen recomendaciones acerca del diagnóstico, el tratamiento y el seguimiento de los sarcomas de partes blandas. En definitiva, lo que se pretende con estas guías es facilitar la identificacio´n y elmanejo terapéutico de SPB en la práctica clínica en España (AU)

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) constitute a rare heterogeneous group of tumours that include a wide variety of histological subtypes, which require a multidisciplinary and, frequently specialized and complex management. Despite advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease, there are no consensus multidisciplinary recommendations about its diagnosis and treatment in our country. The objective of these guidelines is to provide practical therapeutic recommendations that may contribute to improve the therapeutic results of this disease in our environment. With this purpose, the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcomas (GEIS) held a meeting with a multidisciplinary group of experts for the study and management of sarcomas. The results of this meeting are compiled in this document, in which recommendations on diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of soft tissue sarcomas are included. In summary, these guidelines aim to facilitate the identification and management of STS for clinical practice in Spain (AU)

[Soft tissue sarcomas: clinical practice guidelines]. / Guía de práctica clínica en los sarcomas de partes blandas.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) constitute a rare heterogeneous group of tumours that include a wide variety of histological subtypes, which require a multidisciplinary and, frequently specialized and complex management. Despite advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease, there are no consensus multidisciplinary recommendations about its diagnosis and treatment in our country. The objective of these guidelines is to provide practical therapeutic recommendations that may contribute to improve the therapeutic results of this disease in our environment. With this purpose, the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcomas (GEIS) held a meeting with a multidisciplinary group of experts for the study and management of sarcomas. The results of this meeting are compiled in this document, in which recommendations on diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of soft tissue sarcomas are included. In summary, these guidelines aim to facilitate the identification and management of STS for clinical practice in Spain.