Regorafenib in patients with relapsed advanced or metastatic chordoma: results of a non-comparative, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase II study

BACKGROUND

REGOBONE multicohort study explored the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with advanced bone sarcomas; this report details the cohort of patients with relapsed advanced or metastatic chordoma.

METHODS

Patients with relapsed chordoma progressing despite 0-2 prior lines of systemic therapy, were randomised (2 : 1) to receive regorafenib (160 mg/day, 21/28 days) or placebo. Patients on placebo could cross over to receive regorafenib after centrally-confirmed progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free rate at 6 months (PFR-6) (by RECIST 1.1). With one-sided α of 0.05, and 80% power, at least 10/24 progression-free patients at 6 months (PFR-6) were needed for success.

RESULTS

From March 2016 to February 2020, 27 patients were enrolled. A total of 23 patients were assessable for efficacy: 7 on placebo, 16 on regorafenib, 16 were men, median age was 66 (32-85) years. At 6 months, in the regorafenib arm, 1 patient was not assessable, 6/14 were non-progressive (PFR-6: 42.9%; one-sided 95% CI = 20.6) 3/14 discontinued regorafenib due to toxicity; and in the placebo arm, 2/5 patients were non-progressive (PFR-6: 40.0%; one-sided 95% CI = 7.6), 2 were non-assessable. Median progression-free survival was 8.2 months (95% CI 4.5-12.9 months) on regorafenib and 10.1 months (95% CI 0.8 months-non evaluable [NE]) on placebo. Median overall survival rates were 28.3 months (95% CI 14.8 months-NE) on regorafenib but not reached in placebo arm. Four placebo patients crossed over to receive regorafenib after centrally-confirmed progression. The most common grade ≥3 regorafenib-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (22%), hypertension (22%), pain (22%), and diarrhoea (17%), with no toxic death.

CONCLUSION

This study failed to show any signal of benefit for regorafenib in patients with advanced/metastatic recurrent chordoma.

OS3.4 Karnofsky and WHO performance scores of brain tumour patients may limit inclusion in protocols though they depend on clinician status

BACKGROUND

Inclusion criteria for oncological protocols often use the Karnofsky performance score (KPS) >=70 or the WHO performance score (PS) 0–2 as a cut-off value. Inclusion of neuro-oncology patients may be hampered, when general condition is preserved, while performance is decreased due to physical handicap. The goal of this study is to compare the KPS and PS assessments according to the status of the clinician.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted through ANOCEF and EANO networks. Clinicians evaluated KPS and PS in 6 clinical situations concerning neuro oncology patients (from youngest and fittest to oldest, crippled with comorbidities).

RESULTS

The rate of PS <70 or PS> 2 increased significantly from case 1 to 6.

Sex or nationality of the clinicians had no impact when adjusting on clinician characteristics. Conversely, speciality (residents/general practitioner vs neurosurgeons vs neurologists vs oncologists), impacted KPS or PS evaluations (p<.0001 and p=0.0046, respectively). Residents or general practitioner estimate KPS much lower than the others specialities. Neurosurgeons estimate PS more severely. Clinicians who were not used to including patients in clinical trials proposed lower KPS scores (p = 0.0008). This tendancy was not shown on PS. Eldest physicians significantly rated more severely than the youngest (p = 0.0459 and p <.0001 for KPS and PS, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, age and speciality were correlated with KPS and PS rating even if adjusted on cases.

Discordant decision for protocol inclusion (i:e: (KPS) >=70 vs PS 0–2) showed little discrepancy in case 1 (2.3%), while discrepancy increased to respectively 16, 46, 39, 33 and 43% for cases 2 to 6: in nearly all cases, the KPS would have denied access to a trial, while WHO Ps would have allowed

CONCLUSION

Rating of KP and PS is subjective in neuro oncology patients: influenced by speciality, age and inclusion habit (for KPS) of clinicians, PS 0–2 allows usually more inclusion than KPS>=70 in more severely disabled patients. A Neuro oncology specific KPS and/or PS definition is warranted to allow more widely inclusion of patients with exclusive neurologic handicap.