Afamitresgene autoleucel for advanced synovial sarcoma and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (SPEARHEAD-1): an international, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) showed acceptable safety and promising efficacy in a phase 1 trial (NCT03132922). The aim of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy of afami-cel for the treatment of patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing advanced synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma. METHODS: SPEARHEAD-1 was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial done across 23 sites in Canada, the USA, and Europe. The trial included three cohorts, of which the main investigational cohort (cohort 1) is reported here. Cohort 1 included patients with HLA-A*02, aged 16-75 years, with metastatic or unresectable synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma (confirmed by cytogenetics) expressing MAGE-A4, and who had received at least one previous line of anthracycline-containing or ifosfamide-containing chemotherapy. Patients received a single intravenous dose of afami-cel (transduced dose range 1·0 × 109-10·0 × 109 T cells) after lymphodepletion. The primary endpoint was overall response rate in cohort 1, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received afami-cel). Adverse events, including those of special interest (cytokine release syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and neurotoxicity), were monitored and are reported for the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04044768; recruitment is closed and follow-up is ongoing for cohorts 1 and 2, and recruitment is open for cohort 3. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 27, 2021, 52 patients with cytogenetically confirmed synovial sarcoma (n=44) and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (n=8) were enrolled and received afami-cel in cohort 1. Patients were heavily pre-treated (median three [IQR two to four] previous lines of systemic therapy). Median follow-up time was 32·6 months (IQR 29·4-36·1). Overall response rate was 37% (19 of 52; 95% CI 24-51) overall, 39% (17 of 44; 24-55) for patients with synovial sarcoma, and 25% (two of eight; 3-65) for patients with myxoid round cell liposarcoma. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 37 (71%) of 52 of patients (one grade 3 event). Cytopenias were the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events (lymphopenia in 50 [96%], neutropenia 44 [85%], leukopenia 42 [81%] of 52 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Afami-cel treatment resulted in durable responses in heavily pre-treated patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing synovial sarcoma. This study shows that T-cell receptor therapy can be used to effectively target solid tumours and provides rationale to expand this approach to other solid malignancies. FUNDING: Adaptimmune.

Emerging therapies in Ewing sarcoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is an unmet need to improve outcomes for patients for Ewing sarcoma, a rare, aggressive sarcoma with a peak incidence in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Current therapy at diagnosis involves multiagent chemotherapy and local therapy, but despite intensification of treatment, those with metastases at diagnosis and recurrent disease have poor outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Improved understanding of Ewing sarcoma biology has identified novel targets with promising activity in Ewing sarcoma patients, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors that are now undergoing evaluation as combination and maintenance therapy. Other emerging therapies include those that target the EWSR1::FLI1 fusion oncoprotein, and act on DNA damage, cell cycle and apoptotic pathways. Immunotherapeutic approaches, particularly CAR-T-cell therapy directed at GD2, also hold promise. Recent collaborative clinical trials that have defined an international standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma and novel platform studies with adaptive designs offer unique opportunities to investigate these therapies inclusive of all ages. SUMMARY: Close international collaboration between clinicians and biologists will allow us to prioritize promising emerging therapies and develop biomarkers to facilitate their incorporation into standard of care and more rapidly translate into benefit for Ewing sarcoma patients.

Incidence and survival of soft tissue sarcoma in England between 2013 and 2017, an analysis from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service.

There is a paucity of population-based data detailing the incidence and survival of patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS), in part due to the heterogeneity of disease and changes to classification. Here, the incidence and survival of all STS subtypes registered in England between 2013 and 2017 were analysed using cancer registry data held by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Age-standardised incidence rates were calculated per 1 000 000 using the 2013 European Standard Population. Net survival was computed using Brenner's alternative method, with the Ederer II estimator. Age-specific overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier. The influence of age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation and diagnostic routes on survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards modelling. In total, 19 717 patients were diagnosed with STS, an average of 3943 patients per year and representing approximately 0.8% of malignancies. The most common histological diagnoses were Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST), leiomyosarcoma and undifferentiated sarcoma, accounting for 20.2%, 13.3% and 12.7% of all sarcomas, respectively. Five-year net survival for all malignant STS was 65.0%; and was lowest for patients with vascular tumours at 39%. Patients from most deprived cohorts had 23% greater chance of dying within 5 years than patients in least deprived areas. This population-based study has allowed us for the first time to define the incidence and survival rates of prevalent STS subtypes in England such as GIST, liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma, as well as rare entities and groups with inferior outcome. This data is invaluable for service provision, benchmarking and addressing inequality.

Axitinib in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (Axi-STS): an open-label, multicentre, phase II trial in four histological strata.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor with anti-tumour activity in renal, thyroid, and pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Axi-STS was a pathologically-stratified, non-randomised, open-label, multi-centre, phase II trial of continuous axitinib treatment in patients ≥16 years, performance status ≤2, with pathologically-confirmed advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Patients were recruited within four tumour strata, each analysed separately: angiosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, or other eligible STSs. The primary outcome was progression-free survival at 12 weeks (PFS12). A Simon's two-stage design with activity defined as PFS12 rate of 40% determined a sample size of 33 patients per strata. RESULTS: Between 31-August-2010 and 29-January-2016, 145 patients were recruited: 38 angiosarcoma, 37 leiomyosarcoma, 36 synovial sarcoma, and 34 other subtypes. PFS12 rate for each stratum analysed was 42% (95% lower confidence interval (LCI); 29), 45% (95% LCI; 32), 57% (95% LCI; 42), and 33% (95% LCI; 21), respectively. There were 74 serious adverse events including two treatment-related deaths of pulmonary haemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding. Fatigue and hypertension were the most common grade 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib showed clinical activity in all STS strata investigated. The adverse event profile was acceptable, supporting further investigation in phase III trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 60791336.

Comparison of two chemotherapy regimens in patients with newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma (EE2012): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, a single standard chemotherapy treatment for Ewing sarcoma is not defined. Because different chemotherapy regimens were standard in Europe and the USA for newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma, and in the absence of novel agents to investigate, we aimed to compare these two strategies. METHODS: EURO EWING 2012 was a European investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial done in 10 countries. We included patients aged 2-49 years, with any histologically and genetically confirmed Ewing sarcoma of bone or soft tissue, or Ewing-like sarcomas. The eligibility criteria originally excluded patients with extrapulmonary metastatic disease, but this was amended in the protocol (version 3.0) in September, 2016. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the European regimen of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction, and consolidation using vincristine, actinomycin D, with ifosfamide or cyclophosphamide, or busulfan and melphalan (group 1); or the US regimen of vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and etoposide induction, plus ifosfamide and etoposide, and consolidation using vincristine and cyclophosphamide, or vincristine, actinomycin D, and ifosfamide, with busulfan and melphalan (group 2). All drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome measure was event-free survival. We used a Bayesian approach for the design, analysis, and interpretation of the results. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were considered in the safety analysis. The trial was registered with EudraCT, 2012-002107-17, and ISRCTN, 54540667. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2014, and May 1, 2019, 640 patients were entered into EE2012, 320 (50%) randomly allocated to each group. Median follow-up of surviving patients was 47 months (range 0-84). Event-free survival at 3 years was 61% with group 1 and 67% with group 2 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% credible interval 0·55-0·92 in favour of group 1). The probability that the true HR was less than 1·0 was greater than 0·99. Febrile neutropenia as a grade 3-5 treatment toxicity occurred in 234 (74%) patients in group 1 and in 183 (58%) patients in group 2. More patients in group 1 (n=205 [64%]) required at least one platelet transfusion compared with those in group 2 (n=138 [43%]). Conversely, more patients required blood transfusions in group 2 (n=286 [89%]) than in group 1 (n=277 [87%]). INTERPRETATION: Dose-intensive chemotherapy with vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and etoposide is more effective, less toxic, and shorter in duration for all stages of newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma than vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction and should now be the standard of care for Ewing sarcoma. FUNDING: The European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development, and Demonstration; The National Coordinating Centre in France, Centre Léon Bérard; SFCE; Ligue contre le cancer; Cancer Research UK.

Outcomes from a mechanistic biomarker multi-arm and randomised study of liposomal MTP-PE (Mifamurtide) in metastatic and/or recurrent osteosarcoma (EuroSarc-Memos trial).

The phase III clinical study of adjuvant liposomal muramyl tripeptide (MTP-PE) in resected high-grade osteosarcoma (OS) documented positive results that have been translated into regulatory approval, supporting initial promise for innate immune therapies in OS. There remains, however, no new approved treatment such as MTP-PE for either metastatic or recurrent OS. Whilst the addition of different agents, including liposomal MTP-PE, to surgery for metastatic or recurrent high-grade osteosarcoma has tried to improve response rates, a mechanistic hiatus exists in terms of a detailed understanding the therapeutic strategies required in advanced disease. Here we report a Bayesian designed multi-arm, multi-centre, open-label phase II study with randomisation in patients with metastatic and/or recurrent OS, designed to investigate how patients with OS might respond to liposomal MTP-PE, either given alone or in combination with ifosfamide. Despite the trial closing because of poor recruitment within the allocated funding period, with no objective responses in eight patients, we report the design and feasibility outcomes for patients registered into the trial. We demonstrate the feasibility of the Bayesian design, European collaboration, tissue collection with genomic analysis and serum cytokine characterisation. Further mechanistic investigation of liposomal MTP-PE alone and in combination with other agents remains warranted in metastatic OS.

Current approaches to management of bone sarcoma in adolescent and young adult patients.

Bone tumors are a group of histologically diverse diseases that occur across all ages. Two of the commonest, osteosarcoma (OS) and Ewing sarcoma (ES), are regarded as characteristic adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancers with an incidence peak in AYAs. They are curable for some but associated with unacceptably high rates of treatment failure and morbidity. The introduction of effective new therapeutics for bone sarcomas is slow, and to date, complex biology has been insufficiently characterized to allow more rapid therapeutic exploitation. This review focuses on current standards of care, recent advances that have or may soon change that standard of care and challenges to the expert clinical research community that we suggest must be met.

Lenvatinib with etoposide plus ifosfamide in patients with refractory or relapsed osteosarcoma (ITCC-050): a multicentre, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have shown activity in osteosarcoma and might enhance the efficacy of chemotherapy. We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and antitumour activity of lenvatinib with etoposide plus ifosfamide in patients with refractory or relapsed osteosarcoma. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 trial was done at 17 hospitals in six countries. Eligible patients were aged 2-25 years, had relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma, measurable or evaluable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, Lansky play-performance score or Karnofsky performance score of 50% or higher, up to one previous VEGF or VEGF receptor-targeted therapy, and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. This study includes a combination dose-finding phase 1 part (cohort 3A) and a phase 2 combination expansion in patients with osteosarcoma (cohort 3B). Lenvatinib was administered orally at a starting dose of 11 mg/m2 per day, capped at 24 mg per day, and etoposide (100 mg/m2 per day) plus ifosfamide (3000 mg/m2 per day) were administered intravenously on days 1-3 of each 21-day cycle for a maximum of five cycles. Lenvatinib monotherapy continued after these five cycles until disease progression, toxic effects, or patient choice to discontinue. The phase 1 primary endpoint was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose by evaluating dose-limiting toxicity and the phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 4 months. Progression-free survival was measured in the full analysis set, which included all patients enrolled for efficacy outcomes; safety was assessed in all patients who received any study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02432274. FINDINGS: 30 patients were screened for enrolment into cohort 3A between May 9, 2016, and June 3, 2019, and 22 patients for enrolment into cohort 3B between Sept 13, 2018, and July 18, 2019. Eight patients from cohort 3A and two from cohort 3B were ineligible for enrolment in the study. In phase 1, dose-limiting toxicities were observed in three patients (one in the lenvatinib 11 mg/m2 combination group and two in the 14 mg/m2 combination group) and the recommended phase 2 dose was determined as lenvatinib 14 mg/m2 per day (with daily dose cap of 24 mg) and etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day plus ifosfamide 3000 mg/m2 per day administered intravenously on days 1-3 of each 21-day cycle for a maximum of five cycles. 35 patients from phase 1 (cohort 3A; n=15) and phase 2 (cohort 3B; n=20) were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose and their results were pooled. Progression-free survival at 4 months was 51% (95% CI 34-69) in 18 of 35 patients per the binomial estimate. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (27 [77%] of 35), thrombocytopenia (25 [71%]), anaemia (19 [54%]), and decreased white blood cell count (19 [54%]). 26 [74%] of 35 patients had serious treatment-emergent adverse events and no treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib with etoposide plus ifosfamide shows promising antitumour activity with no new safety signals in patients with refractory and relapsed osteosarcoma. These findings warrant further investigation in an ongoing randomised phase 2 study (NCT04154189). FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

SARC025 arms 1 and 2: A phase 1 study of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib with temozolomide or irinotecan in patients with advanced Ewing sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: In preclinical Ewing sarcoma (ES) models, poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors were identified as a potential therapeutic strategy with synergy in combination with cytotoxic agents. This study evaluated the safety and dosing of the PARP1/2 inhibitor niraparib (NIR) with temozolomide (TMZ; arm 1) or irinotecan (IRN; arm 2) in patients with pretreated ES. METHODS: Eligible patients in arm 1 received continuous NIR daily and escalating TMZ (days 2-6 [D2-6]) in cohort A. Subsequent patients received intermittent NIR dosing (cohort B), with TMZ re-escalation in cohort C. In arm 2, patients were assigned to NIR (days 1-7 [D1-7]) and escalating doses of IRN (D2-6). RESULTS: From July 2014 to May 2018, 29 eligible patients (23 males and 6 females) were enrolled in arms 1 and 2, which had 7 dose levels combined. Five patients experienced at least 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in arm 1 (grade 4 [G4] neutropenia for >7 days or G4 thrombocytopenia), and 3 patients experienced at least 1 DLT in arm 2 (grade 3 [G3] colitis, G3 anorexia, or G3 alanine aminotransferase elevation). The maximum tolerated dose was NIR at 200 mg every day on D1-7 plus TMZ at 30 mg/m2 every day on D2-6 (arm 1) or NIR at 100 mg every day on D1-7 plus IRN at 20 mg/m2 every day on D2-6 (arm 2). One confirmed partial response was observed in arm 2; the median progression-free survival was 9.0 weeks (95% CI, 7.0-10.1 weeks) and 16.3 weeks (95% CI, 5.1-69.7 weeks) in arms 1 and 2, respectively. The median decrease in tumor poly(ADP-ribose) activity was 89% (range, 83%-98%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of NIR and TMZ or IRN was tolerable, but at lower doses in comparison with conventional cytotoxic combinations. A triple-combination study of NIR, IRN, and TMZ has commenced.

Current questions in bone sarcomas.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma, the most common primary bone tumours in young people, are curable in most patients. However, these tumours remain a significant challenge due to the complexity and intensity of treatment and its long-term morbidity and the significant proportion of patients in whom treatment is unsuccessful. This review addresses questions about current management and emerging therapeutic targets for patients with osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma and chondrosarcoma, the commonest bone sarcoma but more common in older patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The largest collaborative international study in osteosarcoma, EURAMOS-1 determined that treatment of patients with resectable disease should not be altered on basis of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In view of little improvement in outcome being evident in recent years, novel therapeutic approaches are required. Putative targets and clinical trials of novel agents are discussed, including emerging targets such as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition and isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibition in Ewing sarcoma and chondrosarcoma, respectively. Newer radiotherapy techniques including proton beam and particle ion therapy may be important for local tumour control in selected patients. SUMMARY: Collaborative studies are essential to answer current questions and investigate novel therapies in these malignancies to improve outcome and quality of life for patients.

Gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment in previously untreated advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (GeDDiS): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009-014907-29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7-29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5-54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5-54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6-30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1-20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99-1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. INTERPRETATION: Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

EGFR inhibitors identified as a potential treatment for chordoma in a focused compound screen.

Chordoma is a rare malignant bone tumour with a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. We undertook a focused compound screen (FCS) against 1097 compounds on three well-characterized chordoma cell lines; 154 compounds were selected from the single concentration screen (1 µm), based on their growth-inhibitory effect. Their half-maximal effective concentration (EC50 ) values were determined in chordoma cells and normal fibroblasts. Twenty-seven of these compounds displayed chordoma selective cell kill and 21/27 (78%) were found to be EGFR/ERBB family inhibitors. EGFR inhibitors in clinical development were then studied on an extended cell line panel of seven chordoma cell lines, four of which were sensitive to EGFR inhibition. Sapitinib (AstraZeneca) emerged as the lead compound, followed by gefitinib (AstraZeneca) and erlotinib (Roche/Genentech). The compounds were shown to induce apoptosis in the sensitive cell lines and suppressed phospho-EGFR and its downstream pathways in a dose-dependent manner. Analysis of substituent patterns suggested that EGFR-inhibitors with small aniline substituents in the 4-position of the quinazoline ring were more effective than inhibitors with large substituents in that position. Sapitinib showed significantly reduced tumour growth in two xenograft mouse models (U-CH1 xenograft and a patient-derived xenograft, SF8894). One of the resistant cell lines (U-CH2) was shown to express high levels of phospho-MET, a known bypass signalling pathway to EGFR. Neither amplifications (EGFR, ERBB2, MET) nor mutations in EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB4, PIK3CA, BRAF, NRAS, KRAS, PTEN, MET or other cancer gene hotspots were detected in the cell lines. Our findings are consistent with the reported (p-)EGFR expression in the majority of clinical samples, and provide evidence for exploring the efficacy of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of patients with chordoma and studying possible resistance mechanisms to these compounds in vitro and in vivo. © 2016 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Comparison of MAPIE versus MAP in patients with a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy for newly diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma (EURAMOS-1): an open-label, international, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We designed the EURAMOS-1 trial to investigate whether intensified postoperative chemotherapy for patients whose tumour showed a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy (≥10% viable tumour) improved event-free survival in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma. METHODS: EURAMOS-1 was an open-label, international, phase 3 randomised, controlled trial. Consenting patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, high-grade osteosarcoma aged 40 years or younger were eligible for randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either postoperative cisplatin, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (MAP) or MAP plus ifosfamide and etoposide (MAPIE) using concealed permuted blocks with three stratification factors: trial group; location of tumour (proximal femur or proximal humerus vs other limb vs axial skeleton); and presence of metastases (no vs yes or possible). The MAP regimen consisted of cisplatin 120 mg/m2, doxorubicin 37·5 mg/m2 per day on days 1 and 2 (on weeks 1 and 6) followed 3 weeks later by high-dose methotrexate 12 g/m2 over 4 h. The MAPIE regimen consisted of MAP as a base regimen, with the addition of high-dose ifosfamide (14 g/m2) at 2·8 g/m2 per day with equidose mesna uroprotection, followed by etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day over 1 h on days 1-5. The primary outcome measure was event-free survival measured in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00134030. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2005, and June 30, 2011, 2260 patients were registered from 325 sites in 17 countries. 618 patients with poor response were randomly assigned; 310 to receive MAP and 308 to receive MAPIE. Median follow-up was 62·1 months (IQR 46·6-76·6); 62·3 months (IQR 46·9-77·1) for the MAP group and 61·1 months (IQR 46·5-75·3) for the MAPIE group. 307 event-free survival events were reported (153 in the MAP group vs 154 in the MAPIE group). 193 deaths were reported (101 in the MAP group vs 92 in the MAPIE group). Event-free survival did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [95% CI 0·78-1·23]); hazards were non-proportional (p=0·0003). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (268 [89%] patients in MAP vs 268 [90%] in MAPIE), thrombocytopenia (231 [78% in MAP vs 248 [83%] in MAPIE), and febrile neutropenia without documented infection (149 [50%] in MAP vs 217 [73%] in MAPIE). MAPIE was associated with more frequent grade 4 non-haematological toxicity than MAP (35 [12%] of 301 in the MAP group vs 71 [24%] of 298 in the MAPIE group). Two patients died during postoperative therapy, one from infection (although their absolute neutrophil count was normal), which was definitely related to their MAP treatment (specifically doxorubicin and cisplatin), and one from left ventricular systolic dysfunction, which was probably related to MAPIE treatment (specifically doxorubicin). One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was reported in the MAP group: bone marrow infarction due to methotrexate. INTERPRETATION: EURAMOS-1 results do not support the addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to postoperative chemotherapy in patients with poorly responding osteosarcoma because its administration was associated with increased toxicity without improving event-free survival. The results define standard of care for this population. New strategies are required to improve outcomes in this setting. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, National Cancer Institute, European Science Foundation, St Anna Kinderkrebsforschung, Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen, Parents Organization, Danish Medical Research Council, Academy of Finland, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Semmelweis Foundation, ZonMw (Council for Medical Research), Research Council of Norway, Scandinavian Sarcoma Group, Swiss Paediatric Oncology Group, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals, and Biomedical Research Centre.

Follow-up practices for high-grade extremity Osteosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: The optimal conduct of follow-up (FU) of patients with osteosarcoma is uncertain. In the absence of any formal validation of optimal timing and method of surveillance, guidance is provided by oncology societies' recommendations. FU is designed to detect either local recurrence or metastatic disease at a time when early treatment is still possible and might be effective. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 101 patients with high-grade extremity osteosarcoma in a single centre. Chest x-ray (CXR) was used as routine surveillance method; however patients with initial lung metastases or previous suspicious findings had computed tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS: With a median FU time of 30.7 months 34 patients relapsed. Relapse-free survival after 5 years was 61% (CI 52%; 73%), late relapses occurred in only two patients between 2 and 5 years of FU. Twenty-five of the 34 relapses were detected at routine FU appointments. All 8 local recurrences were noted clinically. Twenty-two patients had metastases confined to the lungs, either detected on CXR or CT. Thirty-two percent of patients with lung metastases only were salvaged successfully. CONCLUSIONS: Routine FU in high-grade osteosarcoma results in clinical detection of local relapse, and detection of lung metastases by CXR at a time when metastatectomy is possible. The optimal time interval for FU appointments is not known, however we recommend more frequent surveillance visits during the two years after treatment. We hypothesize that routine CT scans are not required and propose CXR for detection of lung metastases.

Is [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography of value in the management of patients with craniofacial bone sarcomas undergoing neo-adjuvant treatment?

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the role of 18FDG PET/CT used to assess response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients with primary craniofacial bone sarcomas. METHODS: Fourteen patients with craniofacial bone sarcomas (13 osteosarcoma, 1 spindle cell sarcoma) were retrospectively evaluated. All patients received up to 6 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy followed by resection of the primary tumour. Response to treatment was assessed using MRI (RECIST criteria) and 18FDG PET/CT (EORTC guidelines), performed at least at baseline, after 2-4 cycles and pre-operatively. RESULTS: The median baseline 18FDG PET/CT SUV was 10.2 (range 0-41); in 2 patients no uptake was detected. The preoperative 18FDG PET/CT, compared with the baseline, demonstrated a partial metabolic response in 7 patients (59%), complete metabolic response in 2 (16%) and stable metabolic disease in 3 (25%). In contrast, only two patients achieved a RECIST response on MRI: 10 (83%) had stable disease. One patient underwent early resection due to clinical progression after an initial response to treatment. This was confirmed by PET (SUV from 21 to 42) but not on MRI. Twelve of 14 patients (86%) had <90% histological necrosis in the resected tumour. At a median follow-up 23 months, 11 patients (79%) remain disease free, two had metastatic progression (14%) and 1 a local relapse (7%). The median DFS was 17 months. For those patients who achieved a response to preoperative 18FDG PET/CT the median DFS was 19 months (range: 1-66) compared with 3 months (range: 3-13) in those who did not (p = 0.01). In contrast, the median disease free survival (DFS) did not differ according to histological response (19 versus 17 months, >90% versus <90% necrosis, p = 0.45) or resection margins (19 months for R0 versus 18 months for R1, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: 18FDG PET/CT is more reliable than standard imaging in evaluating response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in craniofacial bone sarcomas, changed management in one patient, and in this small series, correlated better with patient outcome than histological response and resection margins. These results warrant prospective validation in a larger cohort of patients.

Biological sample collection to advance research and treatment: a Fight Osteosarcoma Through European Research (FOSTER) and Euro Ewing Consortium (EEC) statement.

Osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma are bone tumours mostly diagnosed in children, adolescents and young adults. Despite multi-modal therapy, morbidity is high and survival rates remain low, especially in the metastatic disease setting. Trials investigating targeted therapies and immunotherapies have not been ground-breaking. Better understanding of biological subgroups, the role of the tumour immune microenvironment, factors that promote metastasis and clinical biomarkers of prognosis and drug response are required to make progress. A prerequisite to achieve desired success is a thorough, systematic and clinically linked biological analysis of patient samples but disease rarity and tissue processing challenges such as logistics and infrastructure have contributed to a lack of relevant samples for clinical care and research. There is a need for a Europe-wide framework to be implemented for the adequate and minimal sampling, processing, storage and analysis of patient samples. Two international panels of scientists, clinicians and patient and parent advocates have formed the Fight Osteosarcoma Through European Research (FOSTER) consortium and the Euro Ewing Consortium (EEC). The consortia shared their expertise and institutional practices to formulate new guidelines. We report new reference standards for adequate and minimally required sampling (time points, diagnostic samples, liquid biopsy tubes), handling and biobanking to enable advanced biological studies in bone sarcoma. We describe standards for analysis and annotation to drive collaboration and data harmonisation with practical, legal and ethical considerations. This position paper provides comprehensive guidelines that should become the new standards of care that will accelerate scientific progress, promote collaboration and improve outcomes.

Bad to the Bone: Emerging Approaches to Aggressive Bone Sarcomas.

Bone sarcomas are rare heterogeneous tumors that affect patients of all ages including children, adolescent young adults, and older adults. They include many aggressive subtypes and patient groups with poor outcomes, poor access to clinical trials, and lack of defined standard therapeutic strategies. Conventional chondrosarcoma remains a surgical disease, with no defined role for cytotoxic therapy and no approved targeted systemic therapies. Here, we discuss promising novel targets and strategies undergoing evaluation in clinical trials. Multiagent chemotherapy has greatly improved outcomes for patients with Ewing sarcoma (ES) and osteosarcoma, but management of those with high-risk or recurrent disease remains challenging and controversial. We describe the impact of international collaborative trials, such as the rEECur study, that aim to define optimal treatment strategies for those with recurrent, refractory ES, and evidence for high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell support. We also discuss current and emerging strategies for other small round cell sarcomas, such as CIC-rearranged, BCOR-rearranged tumors, and the evaluation of emerging novel therapeutics and trial designs that may offer a new paradigm to improve survival in these aggressive tumors with notoriously bad (to the bone) outcomes.

Primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: A comparison of survival outcomes in specialist and non-specialist sarcoma centres.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines outline that patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) should be managed within specialist sarcoma centres (SSC). There is, however, a paucity of population-based data detailing incidence and outcomes in these patients. Hence, we aimed to evaluate patterns of care among RPS patients in England and compare outcomes for those undergoing surgery in high-volume specialist sarcoma centres (HV-SSC), low-volume SSC (LV-SSC), and non-SSC (N-SSC). METHODS: Data on patients diagnosed with primary RPS between 2013 and 2018 were extracted from NHS Digital's National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service using the national cancer registration dataset. Diagnostic pathways, treatment, and survival outcomes were compared between HV-SSC, LV-SSC, and N-SSC. Uni- and multivariate analyses were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1878 patients diagnosed with RPS, 1120 (60%) underwent surgery within 12 months of diagnosis, with 847 (76%) operated on at SSC; of these, 432 patients (51%) were operated on in HV-SSC, and 415 (49%) in LV-SSC. One- and 5-year estimated overall survival (OS) rates for patients undergoing surgery in N-SSC were 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.8-75.7) and 42.0% (CI: 35.9-47.9), compared to 85.0% (CI: 81.1-88.1) and 51.7% (CI: 46.6-56.6) in LV-SSC (p < 0.01), and 87.4% (CI: 83.9-90.2) and 62.8% (CI: 57.9-67.4) in HV-SSC, (p < 0.01). After adjusting for patient- and treatment-related factors, patients treated in HV-SSC were found to have significantly longer OS than those treated at LV-SSC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.78 (CI: 0.62-0.96, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with RPS undergoing surgery in HV-SSC have significantly better survival outcomes than those treated in N-SSC and L-SSC.

A systematic review of recent phase-II trials in refractory or recurrent osteosarcoma: Can we inform future trial design?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To analyze changes in recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma phase II trials over time to inform future trials in this population with poor prognosis. METHODS: A systematic review of trials registered on trial registries between 01/01/2017-14/02/2022. Comparison of 98 trials identified between 2003 and 2016. Publication search/analysis for both periods, last update on 01/12/2022. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2022, 71 phase-II trials met our selection criteria (19 osteosarcoma-specific trials, 14 solid tumor trials with and 38 trials without an osteosarcoma-specific stratum). The trial number increased over time: 13.9 versus 7 trials/year (p = 0.06). Monotherapy remained the predominant treatment (62% vs. 62%, p = 1). Targeted therapies were increasingly evaluated (66% vs. 41%, P = 0.001). Heterogeneity persisted in the trial characteristics. The inclusion criteria were measurable disease (75%), evaluable disease (14%), and surgical remission (11%). 82% of the trials included pediatric or adolescent patients. Biomarker-driven trials accounted for 25% of the total trials. The survival endpoint use (rather than response) slightly increased (40% versus 31%), but the study H1/H0 hypotheses remained heterogeneous. Single-arm designs predominated over multiarm trials (n = 7). Available efficacy data on 1361 osteosarcoma patients in 58 trials remained disappointing, even though 21% of these trials were considered positive, predominantly those evaluating multi-targeted kinase inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Despite observed changes in trial design and an increased number of trials investigating new therapies, high heterogeneity remained with respect to patient selection, study design, primary endpoints, and statistical hypotheses in recently registered phase II trials for osteosarcoma. Continued optimization of trial design informed by a deeper biological understanding should strengthen the development of new therapies.