Investigating the prognostic impact of NY-ESO-1 expression and HLA subtypes in metastatic synovial sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: To better understand the importance of the New York esophageal squamous cell carcinoma 1 (NY-ESO-1) and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) subtypes in treatment decision-making, further investigation of their prevalence and prognostic impact among patients with metastatic synovial sarcoma (mSS) is needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective clinico-biological cohort study of adults with mSS. Patient data were collected from the French Sarcoma Group NetSARC database and supplemented by electronic medical records. Primary tumor samples were collected and analyzed for NY-ESO-1 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and HLA-A∗02 status by RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). The primary cohort included patients with available primary tumor samples; the impact of a larger sample size was explored by including patients who had either a primary or metastatic sample (termed the exploratory cohort). P values are provided for descriptive purposes. RESULTS: In 92 patients with primary tumor samples, ∼25% (n = 23) were positive for NY-ESO-1 and HLA-A∗02 expression (dual positive). Among 106 patients with IHC data, 61% (n = 65) were NY-ESO-1 positive, and among 94 patients with RNA-seq data, 45% (n = 42) were HLA-A∗02 positive. The median overall survival (OS) for positive versus negative NY-ESO-1 status was 35.3 and 21.7 months, respectively (unadjusted P = 0.0428). We observed no difference in median OS for HLA-A∗02-positive versus -negative and dual-positive patients versus others (both unadjusted P > 0.05). Multivariate analyses of OS showed no prognostic impact for NY-ESO-1 among primary tumor samples and in the exploratory cohort. However, in the latter we observed an association between NY-ESO-1 expression and OS in the first-line (P = 0.0041) but not in the second-line setting. CONCLUSIONS: The primary tumor cohort showed no association between NY-ESO-1 expression and OS (including stratification by HLA-A∗02 subtype and treatment line) when adjusting for important prognostic factors, possibly due to small sample sizes.

Sclerosing Epithelioid Fibrosarcoma (SEF) versus Low Grade Fibromyxoid Sarcoma (LGFMS): Presentation and outcome in the nationwide NETSARC+ series of 330 patients over 13 years.

Sclerosing Epithelioid Fibrosarcoma (SEF) and Low Grade Fibromyxoid Sarcoma (LGFMS) are ultrarare sarcomas sharing common translocations whose natural history are not well known. We report on the nationwide exhaustive series of 330 patients with SEF or LGFMS in NETSARC+ since 2010. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB). Since 2010, (i) pathological review has been mandatory for sarcoma,and (ii) tumour/patients' characteristics have been collected in the NETSARC+ nationwide database. The characteristics of patients with SEF and LGFMS and their outcome are compared. RESULTS: 35/73 (48%) and 125/257(49%) of patients with SEF and LGFMS were female. More visceral, bone and trunk primary sites were observed in SEF (p < 0.001). 30% of SEF vs 4% of LGFMS patients had metastasis at diagnosis (p < 0.0001). Median size of the primary tumor was 51 mm (range 10-90) for LGFMS vs 80 (20-320) for SEF (p < 0.001). Median age for LGFMS patients was 12 years younger than that of SEF patients (43 [range 4-98] vs 55 [range 10-91], p < 0.001). Neoadjuvant treatment was more often given to SEF (16% vs 9%, p = 0.05). More patients with LGFMS were operated first in reference centers (51% vs 26%, p < 0.001). The R0 rate on the operative specimen was 41% in LGFMS vs 16% in SEF (p < 0.001). Median event-free survival (EFS) of patients with SEF and LGFMS were 32 vs 136 months (p < 0.0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Fifty-months OS was 93% vs 81% for LGFMS vs SEF (p = 0.05). Median OS was 77 months after first relapse, similar for SEF and LGFMS. In multivariate analysis, age, tumor size, metastasis at diagnosis were independent prognostic factors for OS in LGFMS. CONCLUSIONS: Although sharing close molecular alterations, SEF and LGFMS have a different natural history, clinical presentation and outcome, with a higher risk of metastatic relapse in SEF. Survival after relapse is longer than with other sarcomas, and similar for SEF and LGFMS.