Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Multi-Institutional Validation of Prognostic Nomograms.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic nomograms for patients with resected extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) include the Sarculator and Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSKCC) nomograms. We sought to validate these two nomograms within a large, modern, multi-institutional cohort of resected primary extremity STS patients. METHODS: Resected primary extremity STS patients from 2000 to 2017 were identified across nine high-volume U.S. institutions. Predicted 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) and distant metastases cumulative incidence (DMCI), and 4-, 8-, and 12-year disease-specific survival (DSS) were calculated with Sarculator and MSKCC nomograms, respectively. Predicted survival probabilities stratified in quintiles were compared in calibration plots to observed survival assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. Cumulative incidence was estimated for DMCI. Harrell's concordance index (C-index) assessed discriminative ability of nomograms. RESULTS: A total of 1326 patients underwent resection of primary extremity STS. Common histologies included: undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (35%), fibrosarcoma (13%), and leiomyosarcoma (9%). Median tumor size was 8.0 cm (IQR 4.5-13.0). Tumor grade distribution was: Grade 1 (13%), Grade 2 (9%), Grade 3 (78%). Median OS was 172 months, with estimated 5- and 10-year OS of 70% and 58%. C-indices for 5- and 10-year OS (Sarculator) were 0.72 (95% CI 0.70-0.75) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.75), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75) for 5- and 10-year DMCI. C-indices for 4-, 8-, and 12-year DSS (MSKCC) were 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.75). Calibration plots showed good prognostication across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Sarculator and MSKCC nomograms demonstrated good prognostic ability for survival and recurrence outcomes in a modern, multi-institutional validation cohort of resected primary extremity STS patients. External validation of these nomograms supports their ongoing incorporation into clinical practice.

A multi-institutional validation study of prognostic nomograms for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognostic nomograms for patients undergoing resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) include the Sarculator and Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) sarcoma nomograms. We sought to validate the Sarculator and MSK nomograms within a large, modern multi-institutional cohort of patients with primary RPS undergoing resection. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection of primary RPS between 2000 and 2017 across nine high-volume US institutions were identified. Predicted 7-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) and 4-, 8-, and 12-year disease-specific survival (DSS) were calculated from the Sarculator and MSK nomograms, respectively. Nomogram-predicted survival probabilities were stratified in quintiles and compared in calibration plots to observed survival outcomes assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. Discriminative ability of nomograms was quantified by Harrell's concordance index (C-index). RESULTS: Five hundred and two patients underwent resection of primary RPS. Histologies included leiomyosarcoma (30%), dedifferentiated liposarcoma (23%), and well-differentiated liposarcoma (15%). Median tumor size was 14.0 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 8.5-21.0 cm). Tumor grade distribution was: Grade 1 (27%), Grade 2 (17%), and Grade 3 (56%). Median DFS was 31.5 months; 7-year DFS was 29%. Median OS was 93.8 months; 7-year OS was 51%. C-indices for 7-year DFS, and OS by the Sarculator nomogram were 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.69) and 0.69 (95%CI: 0.65-0.73); plots demonstrated good calibration for predicting 7-year outcomes. The C-index for 4-, 8-, and 12-year DSS by the MSK nomogram was 0.71 (95%CI: 0.67-0.75); plots demonstrated similarly good calibration ability. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse, modern validation cohort of patients with resected primary RPS, both Sarculator and MSK nomograms demonstrated good prognostic ability, supporting their ongoing adoption into clinical practice.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study of Regorafenib Versus Placebo in Advanced/Metastatic, Treatment-Refractory Liposarcoma: Results from the SARC024 Study.

LESSONS LEARNED: The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist. BACKGROUND: Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recurrent and metastatic non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. We conducted a randomized, phase II study of regorafenib versus placebo in refractory liposarcoma patients. METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic, treatment-refractory liposarcoma were randomized 1:1 to receive regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off). Patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma only were excluded. Crossover for placebo was allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), according to RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects with liposarcoma (34 dedifferentiated, 12 myxoid/round cell, 2 pleomorphic) were enrolled. Median PFS was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-3.67) months for regorafenib versus 2.07 (95% CI, 1.64-3.44) months for placebo; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 (95% CI, 0.46, 1.58), p = .62. No responses were seen on regorafenib. One PR was observed on placebo. Median overall survival was 6.46 (95% CI, 4.16-23.48) months for regorafenib and 4.89 (95% CI, 3.02-9.77) months for placebo, stratified HR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31-1.40), p = .28). Treatment-related adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of regorafenib. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib did not appear to improve PFS in treatment-refractory liposarcoma. No new significant safety signals were observed.

Olaratumab and doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone for treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma: an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with doxorubicin is a present standard of care for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma and median overall survival for those treated is 12-16 months, but few, if any, novel treatments or chemotherapy combinations have been able to improve these poor outcomes. Olaratumab is a human antiplatelet-derived growth factor receptor α monoclonal antibody that has antitumour activity in human sarcoma xenografts. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaratumab plus doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: We did an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 study of doxorubicin plus olaratumab treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma at 16 clinical sites in the USA. For both the phase 1b and phase 2 parts of the study, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma not previously treated with an anthracycline, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and available tumour tissue to determine PDGFRα expression by immunohistochemistry. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either olaratumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously on day 1 and day 8 plus doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2)) or doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to eight cycles. Randomisation was dynamic and used the minimisation randomisation technique. The phase 1b primary endpoint was safety and the phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a two-sided α level of 0.2 and statistical power of 0.8. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01185964. FINDINGS: 15 patients were enrolled and treated with olaratumab plus doxorubicin in the phase 1b study, and 133 patients were randomised (66 to olaratumab plus doxorubicin; 67 to doxorubicin alone) in the phase 2 trial, 129 (97%) of whom received at least one dose of study treatment (64 received olaratumab plus doxorubicin, 65 received doxorubicin). Median progression-free survival in phase 2 was 6.6 months (95% CI 4.1-8.3) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 4.1 months (2.8-5.4) with doxorubicin (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 0.44-1.02, p=0.0615). Median overall survival was 26.5 months (20.9-31.7) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 14.7 months (9.2-17.1) with doxorubicin (stratified HR 0.46, 0.30-0.71, p=0.0003). The objective response rate was 18.2% (9.8-29.6) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 11.9% (5.3-22.2) with doxorubicin (p=0.3421). Steady state olaratumab serum concentrations were reached during cycle 3 with mean maximum and trough concentrations ranging from 419 µg/mL (geometric coefficient of variation in percentage [CV%] 26.2) to 487 µg/mL (CV% 33.0) and from 123 µg/mL (CV% 31.2) to 156 µg/mL (CV% 38.0), respectively. Adverse events that were more frequent with olaratumab plus doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone included neutropenia (37 [58%] vs 23 [35%]), mucositis (34 [53%] vs 23 [35%]), nausea (47 [73%] vs 34 [52%]), vomiting (29 [45%] vs 12 [18%]), and diarrhoea (22 [34%] vs 15 [23%]). Febrile neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was similar in both groups (olaratumab plus doxorubicin: eight [13%] of 64 patients vs doxorubicin: nine [14%] of 65 patients). INTERPRETATION: This study of olaratumab with doxorubicin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma met its predefined primary endpoint for progression-free survival and achieved a highly significant improvement of 11.8 months in median overall survival, suggesting a potential shift in the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Cixutumumab and temsirolimus for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown synergistic antitumour activity by inhibition of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and mTOR. The expression of IGF-1R seems to be crucial for this effect. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of the IGF-1R antibody cixutumumab and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with chemotherapy-refractory bone and soft-tissue sarcomas according to IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study in 19 cancer centres in the USA. Patients aged at least 16 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of bone or soft-tissue sarcoma were allocated on the basis of IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry to one of three treatment groups: IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma (group A), IGF-1R-positive bone sarcomas (group B), or IGF-1R-negative bone and soft-tissue sarcoma (group C). Patients received weekly treatment with cixutumumab (6 mg/kg, intravenous) and temsirolimus (25 mg, intravenous flat dose) in 6-week cycles. A Simon optimal two-stage design was used for every arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks by intention-to-treat analysis in the first 54 patients assigned to every treatment arm. Although patients still remain on treatment, this trial has completed enrolment and this represents the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016015. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2009, and April 11, 2012, 388 patients were screened for IGF-1R expression and 54 were assigned to each arm. 17 of 54 patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (31%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 21%; two-sided 90% CI 21-43), 19 of 54 in IGF-1R-positive bone sarcoma group (35%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 24%; two-sided 90% CI 24-47), and 21 of 54 in the IGF-1R-negative group (39%, one-sided 95% CI lower bound 28%; two-sided 90% CI 28-51) were progression free at 12 weeks. On April 6, 2011, the protocol was amended to include three additional patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (total of 57 patients) and nine more in the IGF-1R-negative group (total of 63 patients). There were 2546 adverse events reported during the study, 214 (8%) of which were grade 3-4. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities in the 174 treated patients were anaemia in 16 (9%) patients, hyperglycaemia in 18 (10%), hypophosphataemia in 16 (9%), lymphopenia in 25 (14%), oral mucositis in 19 (11%), and thrombocytopenia in 19 (11%). INTERPRETATION: The combination of cixutumumab and temsirolimus shows clinical activity in patients with sarcoma and forms a basis for future trials. However, IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry is not predictive of clinical outcome after treatment with this combination. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and CycleforSurvival Fund, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Palbociclib in Patients With Soft Tissue Sarcoma With CDK4 Amplifications: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study.

PURPOSE: Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with soft tissue sarcoma with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) amplification treated with palbociclib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16+ weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. The DC rate was estimated with a 90% CI. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Forty-two patients with CDK4 amplification were enrolled. One patient was not evaluable for efficacy. One patient with partial response and 18 with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 46% (90% CI, 36 to 100) and 2% (95% CI, <1 to 13), respectively. Median PFS was 16 weeks (95% CI, 9 to 28) and median OS was 69 weeks (95% CI, 31 to 111) for evaluable patients. Twenty patients had at least one grade 3 to 4 adverse event (AE) at least possibly related to palbociclib, including alanine aminotransferase increase, anemia, fatigue, hypophosphatemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: Palbociclib met prespecified criteria to declare a signal of antitumor activity in patients with sarcoma and CDK4 amplification.

Genomic alterations and clinical outcomes in patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with unresectable dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) have poor overall outcomes. Few genomic alterations have been identified with limited therapeutic options. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients treated at Levine Cancer Institute with DDLPS were identified. Next generation sequencing (NGS), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing were performed on tumor tissue collected at diagnosis or recurrence/progression. Confirmation of genomic alterations was performed by orthologous methods and correlated with clinical outcomes. Univariate Cox regression was used to identify genomic alterations associated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight DDLPS patients with adequate tissue for genomic profiling and clinical data were identified. Patient characteristics included: median age at diagnosis (66 years), race (84.2% Caucasian), and median follow-up time for the entire cohort was 12.1 years with a range from approximately 3.5 months to 14.1 years. Genes involved in cell cycle regulation, including MDM2 (74%) CDK4 (65%), and CDKN2A (23%), were amplified along with WNT/Notch pathway markers: HMGA2, LGR5, MCL1, and CALR (19%-29%). While common gene mutations were identified, PDE4DIP and FOXO3 were also mutated in 47% and 34% of patients, respectively, neither of which have been previously reported. FOXO3 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) (HR 0.37; p = 0.043) along with MAML2 (HR 0.30; p = 0.040). Mutations that portended worse prognosis included RECQL4 (disease-specific survival HR 4.67; p = 0.007), MN1 (OS HR = 3.38; p = 0.013), NOTCH1 (OS HR 2.28, p = 0.086), and CNTRL (OS HR 2.42; p = 0.090). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest retrospective reports analyzing genomic aberrations in relation to clinical outcomes for patients with DDLPS. Our results suggest therapies targeting abnormalities should be explored and confirmation of prognostic markers is needed. Dedifferentiated liposarcoma is one of the most common subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma yet little is known of its molecular aberrations and possible impact on outcomes. The work presented here is an evaluation of genetic abnormalities among a population of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma and how they corresponded with survival and risk of metastases. There were notable gene mutations and amplifications commonly found, some of which had interesting prognostic implications.

A phase II trial of regorafenib in patients with advanced Ewing sarcoma and related tumors of soft tissue and bone: SARC024 trial results.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib is one of several FDA-approved cancer therapies targeting multiple tyrosine kinases. However, there are few subtype-specific data regarding kinase inhibitor activity in sarcomas. We report results of a single arm, phase II trial of regorafenib in advanced Ewing family sarcomas. METHODS: Patients with metastatic Ewing family sarcomas (age ≥ 18, ECOG 0-2, good organ function) who had received at least one line of therapy and experienced progression within 6 months of registration were eligible. Prior kinase inhibitors were not allowed. The initial dose of regorafenib was 160 mg oral days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was estimating progression-free rate (PFR) at 8 weeks employing RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: Thirty patients (median age, 32 years; 33% women [10 patients]; bone primary, 40%; extraskeletal primary, 60%) enrolled at 14 sites. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities were hypophosphatemia (5 grade 3, 1 grade 4), hypertension (2 grade 3), elevated ALT (2 grade 3). Sixteen patients required dose reductions, most often for hypophosphatemia (n = 7 reductions in 6 patients); two stopped regorafenib for toxicity. There was one death unrelated to treatment in the 30-day post-study period. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.8 weeks (95% CI 7.3-15.9); PFR at 8 weeks by Kaplan-Meier analysis was 63% (95% CI 46-81%). The RECIST 1.1 response rate was 10%. Median OS was 53 weeks (95% CI 37-106 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib has modest activity in the Ewing family sarcomas. Toxicity was similar to that seen in approval studies.

Cobimetinib Plus Vemurafenib in Patients With Solid Tumors With BRAF Mutations: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study.

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket study evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. The results in a cohort of patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease of at least 16-weeks duration (SD16+). Low-accruing histology-specific cohorts with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib were collapsed into a single histology-pooled cohort for this analysis. The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power, .82; α, .10). The secondary end points were objective response (OR), progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. Patients had tumors with BRAF V600E (n = 26), K601E (n = 2), or other (n = 3) mutations. Two patients with CR (breast and ovarian cancers; V600E), 14 with PR (13 V600E, one N581I), and three with SD16+ (two V600E, one T599_V600insT) were observed with a DC rate of 68% (P < .0001; one-sided 90% CI, 54 to 100) and an OR rate of 57% (95% CI, 37 to 76). Nineteen patients experienced ≥one drug-related grade 3-5 adverse event or serious adverse event including one death attributed to treatment-related kidney injury. CONCLUSION: Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutations; additional study is warranted to confirm the antitumor activity in tumors with non-V600E BRAF mutations.

Phase II Randomized Study of CMB305 and Atezolizumab Compared With Atezolizumab Alone in Soft-Tissue Sarcomas Expressing NY-ESO-1.

PURPOSE: CMB305 is a heterologous prime-boost vaccination regimen created to prime NY-ESO-1-specific CD8 T-cell populations and then activate the immune response with a potent TLR-4 agonist. This open-label randomized phase II trial was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of adding the CMB305 regimen to atezolizumab (anti-programmed death ligand-1 therapy) in comparison with atezolizumab alone in patients with synovial sarcoma or myxoid liposarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, relapsed, or metastatic synovial sarcoma or myxoid liposarcoma (any grade) were randomly assigned to receive CMB305 with atezolizumab (experimental arm) or atezolizumab alone (control arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Safety and immune responses were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were enrolled; 55.1% had received ≥ 2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Median PFS was 2.6 months and 1.6 months in the combination and control arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.3). Median OS was 18 months in both treatment arms. Patients treated with combination therapy had a significantly higher rate of treatment-induced NY-ESO-1-specific T cells (P = .01) and NY-ESO-1-specific antibody responses (P < .0001). In a post hoc analysis of all dosed patients, OS was longer (36 months) in the subset who developed anti-NY-ESO-1 T-cell immune response (hazard ratio, 0.3; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Although the combination of CMB305 and atezolizumab did not result in significant increases in PFS or OS compared with atezolizumab alone, some patients demonstrated evidence of an anti-NY-ESO-1 immune response and appeared to fare better by imaging than those without such an immune response. Combining prime-boost vaccines such as CMB305 with anti-programmed death ligand-1 therapies merits further evaluation in other clinical contexts.

Phase II Study of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Doxorubicin in Metastatic and Unresectable Soft-Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Doxorubicin is standard therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) with minimal improvement in efficacy and increased toxicity with addition of other cytotoxic agents. Pembrolizumab monotherapy has demonstrated modest activity and tolerability in previous advanced STS studies. This study combined pembrolizumab with doxorubicin to assess safety and efficacy in frontline and relapsed settings of advanced STS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center, single-arm, phase II trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic STS with no prior anthracycline therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. and doxorubicin (60 mg/m2 cycle 1 with subsequent escalation to 75 mg/m2 as tolerated). The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS) based on RECIST v1.1 guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled (53.3% female; median age 61.5 years; 87% previously untreated) with 4 (13.3%) patients continuing treatment. The study met its primary safety endpoint by prespecified Bayesian stopping rules. The majority of grade 3+ treatment-emergent adverse events were hematologic (36.7% 3+ neutropenia). ORR was 36.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.9-56.1%], with documented disease control in 80.0% (95% CI, 61.4-92.3%) of patients. Ten (33.3%) patients achieved partial response, 1 (3.3%) patient achieved complete response, and 13 (43.3%) patients had stable disease. Median PFS and OS were 5.7 months (6-month PFS rate: 44%) and 17 months (12-month OS rate: 62%), respectively. Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression was associated with improved ORR, but not OS or PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Combination pembrolizumab and doxorubicin has manageable toxicity and preliminary promising activity in treatment of patients with anthracycline-naive advanced STS.

Randomized Double-Blind Phase II Study of Regorafenib in Patients With Metastatic Osteosarcoma.

PURPOSE: SARC024 is a phase II clinical trial of the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in specific sarcoma subtypes, including advanced osteosarcoma. We hypothesized that regorafenib would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with sarcoma and report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial enrolled patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma with measurable disease by RECIST who had received at least one prior line of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to regorafenib or placebo. Crossover was allowed at time of disease progression. PFS was the primary end point of the study, which was powered to detect a difference of at least 3 months in median PFS. RESULTS: Forty-two patients from 12 centers were enrolled between September 2014 and May 2018. Median age was 37 years (range, 18 to 76 years). Patients had received an average of 2.3 prior therapy regimens. Ten patients receiving placebo crossed over to active drug at time of progression. Study enrollment was stopped early, after a data safety monitoring committee review. Median PFS was significantly improved with regorafenib versus placebo: 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0 to 7.6 months) versus 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.85; P = .017). In the context of the crossover design, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival. Fourteen (64%) of 22 patients initially randomly assigned to regorafenib experienced grade 3 to 4 events attributed to treatment, including one grade 4 colonic perforation. CONCLUSION: The study met its primary end point, demonstrating activity of regorafenib in patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma. No new safety signals were observed. Regorafenib should be considered a treatment option for patients with relapsed metastatic osteosarcoma.

Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic or recurrent sarcomas.

PURPOSE Since activity of sorafenib was observed in sarcoma patients in a phase I study, we performed a multicenter phase II study of daily oral sorafenib in patients with recurrent or metastatic sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS We employed a multiarm study design, each representing a sarcoma subtype with its own Simon optimal two-stage design. In each arm, 12 patients who received 0 to 1 prior lines of therapy were treated (0 to 3 for angiosarcoma and malignant peripheral-nerve sheath tumor). If at least one Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was observed, 25 further patients with that sarcoma subtype were accrued. Results Between October 2005 and November 2007, 145 patients were treated; 144 were eligible for toxicity and 122 for response. Median age was 55 years; female-male ratio was 1.8:1. The median number of cycles was 3. Five of 37 patients with angiosarcoma had a partial response (response rate, 14%). This was the only arm to meet the RECIST response rate primary end point. Median progression-free survival was 3.2 months; median overall survival was 14.3 months. Adverse events (typically dermatological) necessitated dose reduction for 61% of patients. Statistical modeling in this limited patient cohort indicated sorafenib toxicity was correlated inversely to patient height. There was no correlation between phosphorylated extracellular signal regulated kinase expression and response in six patients with angiosarcoma with paired pre- and post-therapy biopsies. CONCLUSION As a single agent, sorafenib has activity against angiosarcoma and minimal activity against other sarcomas. Further evaluation of sorafenib in these and possibly other sarcoma subtypes appears warranted, presumably in combination with cytotoxic or kinase-specific agents.