Atezolizumab for Advanced Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma with a poor prognosis and no established therapy. Recently, encouraging responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors have been reported. METHODS: We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicenter, single-group, phase 2 study of the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent atezolizumab in adult and pediatric patients with advanced ASPS. Atezolizumab was administered intravenously at a dose of 1200 mg (in patients ≥18 years of age) or 15 mg per kilogram of body weight with a 1200-mg cap (in patients <18 years of age) once every 21 days. Study end points included objective response, duration of response, and progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, as well as pharmacodynamic biomarkers of multistep drug action. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were evaluated. An objective response was observed in 19 of 52 patients (37%), with 1 complete response and 18 partial responses. The median time to response was 3.6 months (range, 2.1 to 19.1), the median duration of response was 24.7 months (range, 4.1 to 55.8), and the median progression-free survival was 20.8 months. Seven patients took a treatment break after 2 years of treatment, and their responses were maintained through the data-cutoff date. No treatment-related grade 4 or 5 adverse events were recorded. Responses were noted despite variable baseline expression of programmed death 1 and PD-L1. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab was effective at inducing sustained responses in approximately one third of patients with advanced ASPS. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141684.).

Outcomes of non-angiosarcoma radiation-associated soft tissue sarcomas of the chest.

BACKGROUND: Radiation-associated soft tissue sarcomas (RA-STS) are rare complications of patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) and are generally associated with a poor prognosis. Most of the literature surrounding RA-STS of the chest is centered on angiosarcoma. Therefore, we aim to document the management and outcome of patients with non-angiosarcoma RA-STS of the chest. METHODS: We reviewed 17 patients (all female, median age 65 years) diagnosed with RA-STS. The most common primary malignancy was breast carcinoma (n = 15), with a median RT dose of 57.9 Gy. All patients underwent surgical resection; five patients (29%) received radiotherapy; and five patients (29%) received peri-operative chemotherapy. RESULTS: The 5-year local recurrence and metastatic-free survival were 61% and 60%, while the 5-year disease-specific survival was 53%. Local recurrence was associated with death due to disease (HR 9.06, p = 0.01). Complications occurred in nine of patients, most commonly due to a wound complication (n = 7). At the most recent follow-up, the median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score was 63%. CONCLUSION: RA-STS involving the chest wall are aggressive tumors with a high risk of local relapse and death due to disease. Local recurrence was associated with death due to disease; as such, we recommend aggressive surgical management with evaluation for adjuvant therapies.

Neoadjuvant pazopanib in nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas (ARST1321): A report of major wound complications from the Children's Oncology Group and NRG Oncology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The impact upon wound healing of targeted molecular therapies, when incorporated into neoadjuvant therapy of soft tissue sarcoma, is largely unknown. Here, we describe wound complications following addition of pazopanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), to neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) +/- chemotherapy for soft tissue sarcoma. METHODS: Wound complications were evaluated on dose-finding and randomized arms of ARST1321, a phase II/III study incorporating neoadjuvant RT, +/- pazopanib, +/- ifosfamide/doxorubicin (ID) for sarcoma therapy. RESULTS: Of 85 evaluable patients, 35 (41%) experienced postoperative wound complications. Most (57%) were grade III. Randomization to pazopanib + RT + ID carried a 50% wound complication rate (17/34, with 47% grade III), compared to 22% (5/23) with ID + RT alone. In nonchemotherapy study arms, pazopanib + RT resulted in a 59% wound complication rate versus 25% for those receiving RT alone. Grade III wound complications occurred among 26% (15/58) of all patients receiving pazopanib. Wound complications occurred a median of 35 days postoperatively. Some occurred following diagnostic biopsies and at remote surgical sites. CONCLUSION: The addition of pazopanib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and RT resulted in a higher wound complication rate following therapy of soft tissue sarcoma. The rate of grade III complications remained comparable to that reported in contemporary literature.

Patient Understanding of Chemotherapy and Goals of Care as Provided by Different Care Team Members.

Chemotherapy can be challenging and overwhelming for patients, but when patients are knowledgeable about chemotherapy, their comfort level, overall satisfaction, and coping improve. It is currently unknown whether patients prefer information about chemotherapy to be provided by specific care team members and whether demographic characteristics affect learning preferences. We developed a 31-question questionnaire that asked patients when chemotherapy information was discussed and who they wanted that information to come from. The questionnaire was given to 50 patients who had completed 1 cycle of chemotherapy. Patients were evenly distributed among age categories of 45 to 64 years, 65 to 74 years, and 75 years or older. Thirty participants (60%) were women, 33 (66%) had high school degrees, and 23 (46%) were receiving their first chemotherapy regimen. Sixty percent of patients best understood goals of care from oncologists, 70% wanted goals of care to come from oncologists, and 61% best understood and wanted to understand logistics of chemotherapy from oncologists. Sixty-six percent of patients understood adverse effects when they were explained by nursing staff, and 56% wanted explanations of adverse effects to come from nursing staff. Patients did not prefer a specific care team member or information source when receiving financial cost information. Patients often preferred to receive chemotherapy information from their oncologist; however, other members of the care team also provided information to patients in a way that was understood.

Phase II study of pazopanib with oral topotecan in patients with metastatic and non-resectable soft tissue and bone sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib is active in refractory soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) and significantly prolongs PFS. Prior studies of combinations of metronomic topotecan with pazopanib have indicated preclinical evidence of response in patients with sarcoma. METHODS: This prospective, single arm, phase II study evaluated the efficacy of the combination of pazopanib with topotecan in patients with metastatic or unresectable non-adipocytic STS. Furthermore, it incorporated exploratory arms for osteosarcoma and liposarcoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate at 12 weeks in the non-adipocytic STS cohort. RESULTS: 57.5% of patients in the non-adipocytic STS cohort were progression free at 12 weeks, which did not meet the primary endpoint of the study (66%). The exploratory osteosarcoma cohort exceeded previously established phase II trial comparator data benchmark of 12% with a PFR at 12 weeks of 69.55%. Treatment with the combination of pazopanib and topotecan was accompanied by a grade 3 or 4 toxicities in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective trial in refractory metastatic or unresectable STS and osteosarcoma, the combination of pazopanib with topotecan did not meet its primary endpoint of progression-free rate at 12 weeks. The combination of pazopanib with topotecan was associated with a high degree of toxicity.

Pathological response in children and adults with large unresected intermediate-grade or high-grade soft tissue sarcoma receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy with or without pazopanib (ARST1321): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for children and adults with advanced soft tissue sarcoma are poor with traditional therapy. We investigated whether the addition of pazopanib to preoperative chemoradiotherapy would improve pathological near complete response rate compared with chemoradiotherapy alone. METHODS: In this joint Children's Oncology Group and NRG Oncology multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, we enrolled eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged between 2 and <18 years) from 57 hospitals in the USA and Canada with unresected, newly diagnosed trunk or extremity chemotherapy-sensitive soft tissue sarcoma, which were larger than 5 cm in diameter and of intermediate or high grade. Eligible patients had Lansky (if aged ≤16 years) or Karnofsky (if aged >16 years) performance status score of at least 70. Patients received ifosfamide (2·5 g/m2 per dose intravenously on days 1-3 with mesna) and doxorubicin (37·5 mg/m2 per dose intravenously on days 1-2) with 45 Gy preoperative radiotherapy, followed by surgical resection at week 13. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based system, in an unmasked manner, to receive oral pazopanib (if patients <18 years 350 mg/m2 once daily; if patients ≥18 years 600 mg once daily) or not (control group), with pazopanib not given immediately before or after surgery at week 13. The study projected 100 randomly assigned patients were needed to show an improvement in the number of participants with a 90% or higher pathological response at week 13 from 40% to 60%. Analysis was done per protocol. This study has completed accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02180867. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2014, and Oct 1, 2018, 81 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the pazopanib group (n=42) or the control group (n=39). At the planned second interim analysis with 42 evaluable patients and a median follow-up of 0·8 years (IQR 0·3-1·6) in the pazopanib group and 1 year (0·3-1·6) in the control group, the number of patients with a 90% pathological response or higher was 14 (58%) of 24 patients in the pazopanib group and four (22%) of 18 patients in the control group, with a between-group difference in the number of 90% or higher pathological response of 36·1% (83·8% CI 16·5-55·8). On the basis of an interim analysis significance level of 0·081 (overall one-sided significance level of 0·20, power of 0·80, and O'Brien-Fleming-type cumulative error spending function), the 83·8% CI for response difference was between 16·5% and 55·8% and thus excluded 0. The improvement in pathological response rate with the addition of pazopanib crossed the predetermined boundary and enrolment was stopped. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (16 [43%] of 37 patients), neutropenia (15 [41%]), and febrile neutropenia (15 [41%]) in the pazopanib group, and neutropenia (three [9%] of 35 patients) and febrile neutropenia (three [9%]) in the control group. 22 (59%) of 37 patients in the pazopanib group had a pazopanib-related serious adverse event. Paediatric and adult patients had a similar number of grade 3 and 4 toxicity. There were seven deaths (three in the pazopanib group and four in the control group), none of which were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: In this presumed first prospective trial of soft tissue sarcoma spanning nearly the entire age spectrum, adding pazopanib to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved the rate of pathological near complete response, suggesting that this is a highly active and feasible combination in children and adults with advanced soft tissue sarcoma. The comparison of survival outcomes requires longer follow-up. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, St Baldrick's Foundation, Seattle Children's Foundation.

Results of a prospective phase 2 study of pazopanib in patients with surgically unresectable or metastatic chondrosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: This single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of pazopanib in patients with unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma. METHODS: Eligible patients had conventional chondrosarcoma of any grade with measurable tumors that were unresectable or metastatic. Patients with mesenchymal, dedifferentiated, and extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma subtypes and patients who received prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy were excluded. Pazopanib at 800 mg once daily was administered for 28-day cycles. Tumor responses were evaluated by local radiology assessments every 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate (DCR) at week 16 (4 cycles). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The DCR at 16 weeks was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28%-58%), which was superior to the null hypothesis rate of 30%, but the 2-sided P value (exact test) was .09 (1-sided P = .045). One patient had a partial response. The median overall survival was 17.6 months (95% CI, 11.3-35.0 months), and the median progression-free survival was 7.9 months (95% CI, 3.7-12.6 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were infrequent; hypertension (26%) and elevated alanine aminotransferase (9%) were most common. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of positive drug activity for pazopanib in conventional chondrosarcoma.

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.

Phase 1 trial of Vismodegib and Erlotinib combination in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Interplay between the Hedgehog (HH) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways modulating the outcome of their signaling activity have been reported in various cancers including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Therefore, simultaneous targeting of these pathways may be clinically beneficial. This Phase I study combined HH and EGFR inhibition in metastatic PDAC patients. METHODS: Combined effects of HH and EGFR inhibition using Vismodegib and Erlotinib with or without gemcitabine in metastatic solid tumors were assessed by CT. Another cohort of patients with metastatic PDAC was evaluated by FDG-PET and tumor biopsies-derived biomarkers. RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated with the maximum tolerated dose cohort experiencing no grade 4 toxicities though 25% experienced grade 3 adverse effects. Recommended phase II dose of Vismodegib and Erlotinib were each 150 mg daily. No tumor responses were observed although 16 patients achieved stable disease for 2-7 cycles. Paired biopsy analysis before and after first cycle of therapy in PDAC patients showed reduced GLI1 mRNA, phospho-GLI1 and associated HH target genes in all cases. However, only half of the cases showed reduced levels of desmoplasia or changes in fibroblast markers. Most patients had decreased phospho-EGFR levels. CONCLUSIONS: Vismodegib and Erlotinib combination was well-tolerated although overall outcome in patients with metastatic PDAC was not significantly impacted by combination treatment. Biomarker analysis suggests direct targets inhibition without significantly affecting the stromal compartment. These findings conflict with pre-clinical mouse models, and thus warrant further investigation into how upstream inhibition of these pathways is circumvented in PDAC.

Future perspectives and challenges with CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

There are three US FDA-approved CDK4/6 inhibitors: palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). They are all equally effective, so the question becomes how to choose among these agents and how to sequence them. Other areas with active investigation include identifying predictive biomarkers for the selection of patients whom may benefit more from CDK4/6 inhibitors, deciding whether to continue CDK4/6 inhibitors after disease progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors, creating novel treatment combinations and expanding use beyond HR+/HER2- MBC. Here, we review the current use of and potential next directions for CDK4/6 inhibitors in the treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.

Immunotherapy in breast cancer.

The idea of using the immune system to fight cancer is over 100 years old. A new molecular approach led to a better understanding of the immune system. Checkpoint regulation, understanding the roles of Tregs, Th1, and Th2, development of Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells, as well as regulation of dendritic cells and macrophages, are just a few examples of our understating that has also led to the discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and modulators. This led the Nobel Prize committee in 2018, to award Dr. James P. Allison the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4, and Dr. Tasuku Honjo for the discovery of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/PD-1-ligand (PDL-1). Several ICIs are already approved by the regulatory authorities, and many more are currently used in studies of several solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Positive studies have led to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency approval of a number of these compounds, but none to date are approved in breast cancer (BC). Moreover, PD-1/PDL-1, MSI high (and dMMR), and tumor mutational burden are the currently "best" predictive markers for benefit from immunotherapy. BCs have some of these markers positive only in subsets but less frequently expressed than most other solid tumors, for example, malignant melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer. To improve the potential efficacy of ICI in BC, the addition of chemotherapy was one of the strategies. Many early and large clinical trials in all phases are underway in BC. We will discuss the role of immune system in BC editing, and the potential impact of immunotherapy in BC outcomes.

Recent advances and optimal management of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive early-stage breast cancer.

With the introduction of anthracycline-based regimens, 5-year survival rates have significantly improved in patients with early-stage breast cancer. With the addition of trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), improvements in overall survival have been observed among patients with advanced HER2-positive disease. Subsequently, lapatinib, an orally bioavailable small molecule dual HER2- and EGFR/HER1-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor, received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in combination with capecitabine for patients with advanced HER2+ breast cancer. Then, pertuzumab in 2012 and ado-trastuzumab emtansine in 2013 were approved in the US and elsewhere based on evidence showing an improvement in survival outcomes in patients with mostly trastuzumab naïve or trastuzumab-exposed metastatic disease. The FDA also approved 1 year of extended adjuvant neratinib after chemotherapy and a year of trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer on the basis of the ExteNET trial. The clinical benefit demonstrated by those drugs in advanced disease has triggered several adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials testing them in combination with chemotherapy, but also without conventional chemotherapy, using single or dual HER2-targeting drugs. In this article, we review the current data on the therapeutic management of HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting. We also review the data the efficacy and safety of anthracycline-based and nonanthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy regimens combined with trastuzumab, and optimum chemotherapy regimens in small HER2-positive tumors.

Pembrolizumab in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma and bone sarcoma (SARC028): a multicentre, two-cohort, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced sarcomas have a poor prognosis and few treatment options that improve overall survival. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies offer short-lived disease control. We assessed pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, for safety and activity in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma or bone sarcoma. METHODS: In this two-cohort, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with soft-tissue sarcoma or bone sarcoma from 12 academic centres in the USA that were members of the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration (SARC). Patients with soft-tissue sarcoma had to be aged 18 years or older to enrol; patients with bone sarcoma could enrol if they were aged 12 years or older. Patients had histological evidence of metastatic or surgically unresectable locally advanced sarcoma, had received up to three previous lines of systemic anticancer therapy, had at least one measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and had at least one lesion accessible for biopsy. All patients were treated with 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response. Patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab were included in the safety analysis and patients who progressed or reached at least one scan assessment were included in the activity analysis. Accrual is ongoing in some disease cohorts. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02301039. FINDINGS: Between March 13, 2015, and Feb 18, 2016, we enrolled 86 patients, 84 of whom received pembrolizumab (42 in each disease cohort) and 80 of whom were evaluable for response (40 in each disease cohort). Median follow-up was 17·8 months (IQR 12·3-19·3). Seven (18%) of 40 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma had an objective response, including four (40%) of ten patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, two (20%) of ten patients with liposarcoma, and one (10%) of ten patients with synovial sarcoma. No patients with leiomyosarcoma (n=10) had an objective response. Two (5%) of 40 patients with bone sarcoma had an objective response, including one (5%) of 22 patients with osteosarcoma and one (20%) of five patients with chondrosarcoma. None of the 13 patients with Ewing's sarcoma had an objective response. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (six [14%]), decreased lymphocyte count (five [12%]), prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (four [10%]), and decreased platelet count (three [7%]) in the bone sarcoma group, and anaemia, decreased lymphocyte count, and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time in the soft-tissue sarcoma group (three [7%] each). Nine (11%) patients (five [12%] in the bone sarcoma group and four [10%] in the soft-tissue sarcoma group) had treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAEs), five of whom had immune-related SAEs, including two with adrenal insufficiency, two with pneumonitis, and one with nephritis. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint of overall response was not met for either cohort. However, pembrolizumab showed encouraging activity in patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma or dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Enrolment to expanded cohorts of those subtypes is ongoing to confirm and characterise the activity of pembrolizumab. FUNDING: Merck, SARC, Sarcoma Foundation of America, QuadW Foundation, Pittsburgh Cure Sarcoma, and Ewan McGregor.

Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS: We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5-20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6-96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30-60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6-22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2-22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3-4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. FUNDING: Threshold Pharmaceuticals.

A proof-of-concept trial of protein kinase C iota inhibition with auranofin for the paclitaxel-induced acute pain syndrome.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel causes the paclitaxel-induced acute pain (PIAP) syndrome. Based on preclinical data, we hypothesized that the protein kinase C (PKC) iota inhibitor, auranofin (a gold salt used for other pain conditions), palliates this pain. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blinded manner, patients who had suffered this syndrome were assigned a one-time dose of auranofin 6 mg orally on day #2 of the chemotherapy cycle (post-paclitaxel) versus placebo. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory and a pain diary on days 2 through 8 and at the end of the cycle. The primary endpoint was pain scores, as calculated by area under the curve, in response to "Please rate your pain by circling the one number that best describes your pain at its worse in the last 24 hours." RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. For the primary endpoint, mean area under the curve of 55 units (standard deviation 19) and 61 units (standard deviation 22) were observed in auranofin-treated and placebo-exposed patients, respectively (p = 0.44). On day 8 and at the end of the cycle, pain scores in auranofin-treated patients were more favorable, although differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In the dose schedule studied, auranofin did not palliate the PIAP syndrome, but delayed beneficial trends suggest further study for this indication.

S0502: A SWOG Phase III Randomized Study of Imatinib, With or Without Bevacizumab, in Patients With Untreated Metastatic or Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: Despite having significant rationale, S0502 failed to accrue for a number of reasons.Vetting a trial first, with scientific experts and funding agencies, does not guarantee success, especially when dealing with a rare tumor and/or one with an existing highly effective therapy.In the present case, adding an intravenous drug to an oral medication as part of a regimen expected to be continued for many years likely decreased patient (and physician) convenience and, thus, interest in the study. BACKGROUND: Imatinib mesylate, a potent inhibitor of the KIT and PDGFR tyrosine kinases, is highly effective in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, most imatinib-treated tumors eventually become resistant, accounting for a median progression-free survival of 19-23 months. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) correlates with poor prognosis in GIST; bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, is effective in a variety of solid tumors. We postulated combination therapy with imatinib plus bevacizumab would benefit patients with advanced GIST, particularly those reliant on VEGFA-dependent angiogenesis. METHODS: Patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable GIST were eligible for this phase III open-label clinical trial, S0502. At registration, patients were randomly assigned to either imatinib 400 mg (standard) or 800 mg (patients with exon 9 KIT mutations), or imatinib plus bevacizumab, 7.5 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks. Patients were treated to progression, symptomatic deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, treatment delay greater than 4 weeks, or patient choice to withdraw from the study. The primary objective was to determine whether the addition of bevacizumab to imatinib would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line treatment of incurable GIST. RESULTS: S0502 opened on April 15, 2008. As of fall 2009, only 12 patients from at least 178 eligible SWOG centers plus those participating through Cancer Trials Support Unit had been entered in the study. Despite an aggressive promotion scheme involving the other cooperative groups and a major GIST patient advocacy group, accrual remained slow. The trial was closed on October 1, 2009, having accrued only 2% of the 572 patients planned. No scientific conclusions were forthcoming because of the small number of patients entered in the study. Two patients of the 6 in the combination arm reported grade 3 toxicities, 1 with proteinuria and 1 with fatigue, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and anemia. CONCLUSION: No conclusions may be drawn from this trial and, thus, the combination of imatinib plus bevacizumab cannot be recommended for use.

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.

Improve Advance Care Planning: A Brief Report Discussing Goals of Care Interventions to Improve Communication Among Health Care Teams and Patients Maximizing the Use of the Electronic Health Record Tools.

Introduction: A key element of advance care planning (ACP) is the goals of care (GOC) conversation between the provider and the patient. The value of meaningful GOC conversations for the patient, provider, and health care institution is well documented. However, if the GOC documentation is buried in the medical record, not well defined, or poorly documented, that value is squandered. The Improvement Process: Interventions were implemented with oncology physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs). These included education, system reform including improving the ease and consistency of documentation of ACP, and regular feedback. Results: Participants reported increased confidence in communication skills about GOC conversations postworkshops. Data results for the tracked metrics, health care power of attorney, code status, and GOC, all showed improvement. Conclusion: Physicians and NPs recognized the importance of GOC conversations as part of ACP. Considerable progress was made by focusing on GOC conversations, maximizing information technology, participating in coaching, and ongoing data monitoring.

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.

Trimodality Therapy Improves Disease Control in Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma of the Breast.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of trimodality treatment versus monotherapy or dual therapy for radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast (RAASB) after prior breast cancer treatment. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: With Institutional Review Board approval, we identified patients diagnosed with RAASB and abstracted data on disease presentation, treatment, and oncologic outcomes. Trimodality therapy included (i) taxane induction, (ii) concurrent taxane/radiation, and then (iii) surgical resection with wide margins. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (median age 69 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixteen received trimodality therapy and 22 monotherapy/dual therapy. Skin involvement and disease extent were similar in both groups. All trimodality patients required reconstructive procedures for wound closure/coverage, compared with 48% of monotherapy/dual therapy patients (P < 0.001). Twelve of 16 (75%) patients receiving trimodality therapy had a pathologic complete response (pCR). With median follow-up of 5.6 years, none had local recurrence, 1 patient (6%) had distant recurrence, and no patients died. Among 22 patients in the monotherapy/dual therapy group, 10 (45%) had local recurrence, 8 (36%) had distant recurrence, and 7 (32%) died of disease. Trimodality therapy demonstrated significantly better 5-year recurrence-free survival [RFS; 93.8% vs. 42.9%; P = 0.004; HR, 7.6 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.3-44.2)]. Combining all patients with RAASB regardless of treatment, local recurrence was associated with subsequent distant recurrence (HR, 9.0; P = 0.002); distant recurrence developed in 3 of 28 (11%) patients without local recurrence compared with 6 of 10 (60%) with local recurrence. The trimodality group had more surgical complications that required reoperation or prolonged healing. CONCLUSIONS: Trimodality therapy for RAASB was more toxic but is promising, with a high rate of pCR, durable local control, and improved RFS.