Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in High-Grade Myxoid Liposarcoma: Results of the Expanded Cohort of a Randomized Trial From Italian (ISG), Spanish (GEIS), French (FSG), and Polish Sarcoma Groups (PSG)

PURPOSE

A randomized trial was conducted to compare neoadjuvant standard (S) anthracycline + ifosfamide (AI) regimen with histology-tailored (HT) regimen in selected localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The results of the trial demonstrated the superiority of S in all STS histologies except for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS) where S and HT appeared to be equivalent. To further evaluate the noninferiority of HT compared with S, the HG-MLPS cohort was expanded.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients had localized high-grade (cellular component >5%; size ≥5 cm; deeply seated) MLPS of extremities or trunk wall. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was overall survival (OS). The trial used a noninferiority Bayesian design, wherein HT would be considered not inferior to S if the posterior probability of the true hazard ratio (HR) being >1.25 was <5%.

RESULTS

From May 2011 to June 2020, 101 patients with HG-MLPS were randomly assigned, 45 to the HT arm and 56 to the S arm. The median follow-up was 66 months (IQR, 37-89). Median size was 107 mm (IQR, 84-143), 106 mm (IQR, 75-135) in the HT arm and 108 mm (IQR, 86-150) in the S arm. At 60 months, the DFS and OS probabilities were 0.86 and 0.73 (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.46]; log-rank P = .26 for DFS) and 0.88 and 0.90 (HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.37 to 3.93]; log-rank P = .77 for OS) in the HT and S arms, respectively. The posterior probability of HR being >1.25 for DFS met the Bayesian monitoring cutoff of <5% (4.93%). This result confirmed the noninferiority of trabectedin to AI suggested in the original study cohort.

CONCLUSION

Trabectedin may be an alternative to standard AI in HG-MLPS of the extremities or trunk when neoadjuvant treatment is a consideration.

CINSARC in high-risk soft tissue sarcoma patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Results from the ISG-STS 1001 study

BACKGROUND

The Complexity INdex in SARComas (CINSARC) is a transcriptional signature derived from the expression of 67 genes involved in mitosis control and chromosome integrity. This study aims to assess CINSARC value of in an independent series of high-risk patients with localized soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with preoperative chemotherapy within a prospective, randomized, phase III study (ISG-STS 1001).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with available pre-treatment samples, treated with 3 cycles of either standard (ST) preoperative or histotype-tailored (HT) chemotherapy, were scored according to CINSARC (low-risk, C1; high-risk, C2). The 10-year overall survival probability (pr-OS) according to SARCULATOR was calculated, and patients were classified accordingly (low-risk, Sarc-LR, 10-year pr-OS>60%; high-risk, Sarc-HR, 10-year pr-OS<60%). Survival functions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients were included, 30 C1 and 56 C2, 49 Sarc-LR and 37 Sarc-HR. A low level of agreement between CINSARC and SARCULATOR was observed (Cohen's Kappa = 0.174). The 5-year relapse-free survival in C1 and C2 were 0.57 and 0.55 (p = 0.481); 5-year metastases-free survival 0.63 and 0.64 (p = 0.740); 5-year OS 0.80 and 0.72 (p = 0.460). The 5-year OS in C1 treated with ST and HT chemotherapy was 0.84 and 0.76 (p = 0.251) respectively; in C2 treated it was 0.72 and 0.70 (p = 0.349). The 5-year OS in Sarc-LR treated with S and HT chemotherapy was 0.80 and 0.82 (p = 0.502) respectively; in Sarc-HR it was 0.70 and 0.61 (p = 0.233).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results, although constrained by the small size of the series, suggest that CINSARC has weak prognostic power in high-risk, localized STS treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Phase II trial of palbociclib in advanced sarcoma overexpressing CDK4 gene excluding dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD LPS): A study from the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma (GEIS)

11511

Background: CDK4/6 inhibitors showed a favorable progression-free survival (PFS) in DD LPS, a sarcoma bearing 12q 13-15 amplicon that implies CDK4 amplification. The median PFS was 4 and 7 months (m) for palbociclib and abemaciclib, respectively. Preclinical experiments in 10 sarcoma cell lines and 6 PDX models, including only one DD LPS, showed higher efficacy of anti-CDK4 in cases with high expression of CDK4 and low expression of p16. This rationale supported the design of a phase II trial exploring palbociclib in a wide range of sarcomas, excluding DD LPS. Methods: Progressing pretreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma, excluding DD LPS, or osteosarcoma adult patients (pts), whose tumors overexpressed CDK4 and underexpressed CDKN2A mRNA in a baseline mandatory biopsy, were enrolled. CDK4 and CDKN2A expression were assessed by qRT-PCR, using an external control as reference (Universal human reference RNA; Agilent Technologies). The primary endpoint was 6-m PFS rate. Minimax Simon’s two-stage with type 1 and 2 errors of 10%, and null and alternative hypothesis of H0 15%, H1 40%, 6-month PFS rates were specified. The study will warrant further investigation if 6 or more pts had a PFS > 6 m from 21 evaluable pts. Palbociclib was administered orally at 125 mg/ day 21 out of 28 days. Pre-screening intended to increase the probability of positive profile in the baseline biopsy. Results: A total of 214 pts with 236 CDK4/ CDKN2A determinations were assessed for enrolment; 141 for prescreening, in archive tumor sample, and 95 for screening, in a baseline biopsy. There were 38/141 (27%) and 28/95 (29%) pts with favorable mRNA profile from pre and screening, respectively. Twenty-two pts were enrolled with a median of previous systemic lines of 3 (1-5). There were 9 different sarcoma subtypes, including 2 osteosarcomas. With a median FU of 10 m (0.4-23.3), the median PFS was 4.2 m (95% CI 0.9-7.4), while the 6- and 12-m PFS rates were 30% (95% CI 9-51) and 18% (95% CI 12-48) respectively. From 19 evaluable pts (1 early death by COVID, 1 withdrew consent and for 1 it was too early to be assessed) 11 had stable disease (58%) and 8 progressed (42%) as the best response. Patients with CDK4 expression above the median value had significantly longer mPFS in the univariate analysis: 5.9 m (95% CI 1.4-10.4) vs 1.9 m (95% CI 0.6-3.2), p = 0.046; and longer OS: 15.5 m (95% CI 6.8-24.3) vs 10.6 m (95% CI 0-23.2), p = 0.047, respectively. The probability to find a positive profile in the screening was 29%, but this proportion increased up to 41% if in pre-screening had been positive. Conclusions: Palbociclib showed to be effective in a wide variety of sarcoma subtypes, other than DD LPS, selected by CDK4/CDKN2A biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT03242382.

Real-world study on characteristics of advanced melanoma patients with sustained complete response (CR) after elective 1st line anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD1) monotherapy discontinuation

e21529

Background: Previous reports proved the feasibility of immunotherapy (IT) discontinuation in advanced melanoma (MEL) patients (pts) in case of CR. We aimed to investigate clinical characteristics of pts with sustained CR after elective discontinuation of the 1st line anti-PD1 monotherapy in the real world setting. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Eligible pts ≥ 18 years with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic primary cutaneous (PC) or unknown primary (UP) MEL with at least one measurable lesion per RECIST version 1.1 at baseline, treated with nivolumab (NIVO) o pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) monotherapy with no previous IT were included. All pts achieved CR to the treatment confirmed by computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET-CT) and had at least one imaging study in the follow-up (FU). IT discontinuation was at the discretion of the treating physician. Pts with CR who stopped IT due to toxicity grade (G) 3 and/or 4 were excluded. Information regarding baseline characteristics, survival and immune related adverse events (irAEs) was obtained from patients´ charts. Data cut-off was February 10th 2022. Results: 36 pts treated in 12 hospitals in Spain between October 8th 2015 and October 27th 2021 were identified. Mean age was 66.8 years and mean BMI was 27.4. Twenty eight (77.8%) pts were males and 35 (97.2%) had ECOG PS 0-1. PC melanoma was observed in 33 (91.7%) pts, UP in 3 (8.3%). 35 pts (97.2%) had metastatic disease, with 11 (30.6%) pts with ≥3 metastatic sites. There were 21 (58.4%) pts with stage M1a-M1b disease; only 3 (8.3%) had liver and 2 (5.6%) had brain metastases. Baseline LDH was within normal limits in 28 (77.8%) pts and 31 (86.1%) pts had baseline neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio ≤3. Treatment received: PEMBRO 21 (58.3%), NIVO 15 (41.7%) pts. CR to treatment was confirmed by PET-CT in 27 (75.0%) pts. Median duration of anti-PD1 IT was 23.5 months (range 1.3 - 50.5) and median time to CR was 12.0 months (range 2.2 - 50.2). With the median FU time off treatment of 24.1 months (95% CI 19.4 – 28.8), median progression free survival (PFS) after IT discontinuation has not been reached: estimated PFS at 1 and 2 years were 94.1% and 89.2%, respectively. Estimated overall survival from start of IT at 3 and 4 years were 97.2% and 93.5%, respectively. irAEs G 1-2 were observed in 30 (83.3%) pts and the most common were: vitiligo 8 (22.2%), pruritis 4 (11.1%), other skin toxicity 8 (22.2%), hypothyroidism 5 (13.9%), pneumonitis 3 (8.3%), colitis 5 (13.9%), hepatitis 3 (8.3%), arthralgia 5 (13.9%) and nephritis 3 (8.3%). Conclusions: Our study confirms sustained CR after elective 1st line anti-PD1 monotherapy discontinuation in a cohort of advanced PC and UP MEL pts with favorable established prognostic factors for MEL at baseline. Frequency of irAEs was concordant with previous reports on IT.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk soft tissue sarcomas: Results of the expanded cohort of myxoid liposarcoma of the randomized clinical trial from the Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG), the Spanish Sarcoma Group (GEIS), the French Sarcoma Group (FSG), and the Polish Sarcoma Group (PSG)

11508

Background: An ISG, GEIS, FSG and PSG randomized trial on 3 cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicine+ifosfamide (EI) versus a histology-tailored (HT) regimen in selected localized high-risk STS showed some superiority of EI in all histologies with the exception of Myxoid Liposarcoma (MLPS) where EI and HT regimens seemed equivalent (J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:2178-86). This MLPS cohort was expanded with the aim to assess the non-inferiority of the HT regimen compared to EI. Methods: This was a multicenter European randomized trial comparing EI versus a HT regimen. Patients (pts) had localized high-risk (grade = 3; size >5 cm; deeply seated) undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, synovial sarcoma or MLPS of extremities or trunk wall. Primary end-point was Disease Free Survival (DFS). Secondary end-point was Overall Survival (OS). The MLPS cohort was expanded after the results of the 3rd interim analysis (Lancet Oncol 2017; 18:812-22) in order to reject the hypothesis that HT regimen trabectedin is associated with a HR of relapse = 1.25 with a non-inferiority design. To this aim, a Bayesian monitoring approach was used until the probability that the true HR is higher than 1.25 was greater than 80% or smaller than 5%. Results: From May 2011 to June 2020, 101 pts affected by high-risk MLPS were randomized, 56 to EI and 45 to HT regimen. The median follow-up was 66 months (IQ range 37-89). Median size was 107 mm (IQ range 84-143), 108 mm (IQ range 86-150) in the EI and 106 mm (IQ range75-135) in the HT arm. The DFS and OS probabilities at 60 months were 0.86 and 0.73 (HR:0.60; 95%CI: 0.24-1.46; log rank p = 0.26 for DFS) and 0.88 and 0.90 (HR:1.20; 95%CI:0.37-3.93; log rank p = 0.77 for OS), in the HT and EI arm, respectively. 5-yr observed and Sarculator-predicted OS were 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97) and 0.80 in all patients (p = 0.020), 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00) and 0.79 in the EI arm (p = 0.049) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-1.00) and 0.81 in the HT arm (p = 0.204) respectively. Conclusions: In the expanded cohort of MLPS, the HT neoadjuvant therapy trabectedin was not inferior to EI. While survival in both arms was better than predicted by Sarculator, it is left to understand whether this patient population, who had on average a lower Sarculator-predicted risk of death compared with the rest of the trial population, may benefit from a neoadjuvant therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01710176.

GEIS 39: Phase II trial of nabpaclitaxel for the treatment of patient with multiply relapsed/refractory desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT) and Ewing sarcoma (EwS)

11529

Background: Nab-paclitaxel (albumin-bound paclitaxel) has shown preclinical activity against pediatric solid tumors. Preclinical data in EwS PDX models suggested high activity of nab-paclitaxel in tumors expressing high-levels of SPARC. Tumoral SPARC facilitates the accumulation of albumin in the tumor and increases the effectiveness of albumin-bound paclitaxel. Nab-paclitaxel utilizes albumin to deliver paclitaxel via caveolin-mediated endocytosis which is expressed in the EwS cells surface. We hypothesized that SPARC can be a predictive biomarker for nab-paclitaxel in EwS and DSRCT that could potentially be relevant for a better design of clinical trials and personalized treatments using nab-paclitaxel. Methods: Main endpoint of GEIS-39 was the overall response rate (ORR) assessed by RECIST 1.1 criteria with centralized pathology and imaging review. Secondary objectives included safety according to the CTCAE 4.0 criteria. Patients aged ≥ 6 months and ≤ 40 years, with relapsed/refractory DSRCT were eligible after having received at least one previous poly-chemotherapy line; EwS must have received at least two standard chemotherapy lines. Prior taxane therapy was accepted. Central pathology review selected for tumors with > Grade 3 (intense and diffuse) expression of SPARC by immunohistochemistry to be eligible. Nab-paclitaxel was administered as follows: age ≥ 21 and ≤ 40 years: 125 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15 in cycles of 28 days; age ≥ 6 months and ≤ 20 years: 240 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15 in cycles of 28 days. A 30% ORR was anticipated with a sample size of 25 patients needed to test the hypothesis. Stopping rule was set at 1 response within the first 16 treated pts. If 5 or more successes were observed in 25 pts, the results of the trial will warrant further investigation. Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled from June 2017 until October 2019, 11 DSRCT and 18 EwS. Median age was 32 years (range 14-69), and 5 females and 24 males were included, having received a median of 3 previous systemic treatment lines. Patients received a median of 3 cycles of nab-paclitaxel (range 1-17). In the EwS cohort an ORR of 33.3% (all partial responses, median duration 2 months) and 16.7% of stabilizations were achieved. No objective responses were observed among DSRCT pts, but 27.3% of pts achieved a stabilization. Overall, median progression free survival was 2.8 months and median overall survival 12.1 months, with no significant differences between DSRCT and EwS cohorts. Most common grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia (20.7%) and diarrhea (10.3%). Conclusions: Single agent nab-paclitaxel in biomarker selected EwS patients, but not in DSRCT, provided clinically meaningful activity that deserves further development. Nab-paclitaxel had a manageable adverse event profile. Clinical trial information: 2016-002464-14.

Results of phase II randomized study of intermittent versus continuous schedule of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma

9528

Background: Combination of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib is approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. Although patients initially respond to treatment, resistance emerges before 18 months in most cases. One of the key pre-clinical observations that supported an intermittent schedule was that resistant tumors suffer a fitness deficit in the absence of the drug, so modulation of the drug pressure through an intermittent dosing could delay the emergence of resistance. Methods: GEM1501 is a randomized phase 2 study comparing the activity of the combination of vemurafenib 960 mg every 12 h/d plus cobimetinib 60 mg/d in a standard (arm A) versus intermittent schedule (arm B). Arm A: four-week (w) cycles of daily vemurafenib for 4w plus cobimetinib for 3w-on and 1w-off-treatment. Arm B: first three cycles according to the standard schedule, followed by 6w-cycle with 2w-off vemurafenib & 3w-off cobimetinib. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) and secondary were objective response (OR) and treatment-related adverse events (TAEs). Results: 70 treatment-naïve patients were included. Results in arms A and B: median PFS 16.2 (95%CI 9.5, 24.1) vs 6.9 months (95%CI 5.2, 9.3) (p = 0.079); OR in 25 (71.4%) (8 complete -23%-) vs 21 (60%) patients (5 complete -14%-); G3-4 TAEs 42.8% vs 40.0%, respectively. Analysis of BRAFV600 mutation in tumoral cell free DNA (cfDNA) was performed in serial plasma samples in 41 patients. Twenty-one (51%) patients had detectable BRAFV600 mutation in pretreatment cfDNA (preBRAF+). Significant differences in PFS were found according to preBRAF V600: 8.2 months (95%CI 5.2, 13.6) in preBRAF+ vs non-reached (NR) (95%CI 2.8, NR) in preBRAF- (p = 0.017). In arm A, median PFS was 13.3 months (95% CI 4.6, NR) in preBRAF+ vs NR (95% CI 2.3, NR) in preBRAF-. In arm B, median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI 0.3-8.3) in preBRAF+ vs NR (95%CI 2.8, NR) in preBRAF- (p = 0.003). BRAFV600 mutation became undetectable in cfDNA after treatment initiation in all preBRAF+ patients. Different kinetic of BRAFV600 mutation in cfDNA was found according to treatment arm. At progression, BRAFV600 reappeared in cfDNA in all (5/5) cases treated in arm B, but only in 50% (3/6) of cases in arm A. NGS analysis of cfDNA at progression suggested different resistance mechanisms. Conclusions: The results of this study do not support the use of an intermittent schedule of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in advanced melanoma. BRAFV600 detection in pretreatment cfDNA is a prognostic factor of poor survival that it is independent of treatment schedule, although most striking differences favoring continuous arm vs intermittent arm were found in patients with detectable BRAFV600 mutation on pretreatment cfDNA. Further research is required to determine the clinical value of the analysis of resistance mechanisms in cfDNA. Clinical trial information: 2014-005277-36.

Immune contexture in high-risk soft tissue sarcomas (STS): A planned analysis of the ISG-STS-1001 randomized trial

11572

Background: The characteristics of immune contexture and its prognostic and predictive value in STS is left to be understood. This planned analysis of the ISG-STS-1001 trial, which compared neoadjuvant anthracycline + ifosfamide (AI) vs a histology-tailored (HT) chemotherapy (ChT), was aimed at characterizing the immune contexture after neoadjuvant ChT and investigating any association with the risk of recurrence. Methods: Patients registered in the ISG-STS-1001 study (ID: NCT01710176) were included if they had tumor tissue available for Tissue MicroArray (TMA), which was performed in the area of the surgical specimen with the highest lymphocyte infiltrate. The following markers were analyzed with IHC and measured quantitatively: CD3, CD8, PD1, GranzymeB, Foxp3, CD20, CD163, and PDL1. The T-Distributed Stochastic Neighboring Entities (t-SNE) analysis was used to account for the co-expression of IHC markers in each tumor. The prognostic value of each marker for disease-free survival (DFS) was assessed. Results: This analysis was conducted in 256 of 435 study patients. AI and HT neoadjuvant ChT did not result in any different distribution of immune contexture. Conversely, differences were observed between ‘complex’ karyotype STS (ck-STS: LMS, MPNST, UPS, MFS, pleomorphic liposarcoma, and pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma) and ‘simple’ karyotype STS (sk-STS: MLPS and SS). Ck-STS were enriched in both CD3+ and CD8+ cells compared to sk-STS. These cells displayed an heterogeneous distribution and were dispersed inside the tumor nest, keeping direct contact with sarcoma cells. Ck-STS also displayed an enrichment in Granzyme B+, and CD163+ cells. PDL1+ cells were occasionally identified and were more frequent in ck-STS, suggesting an immune-related expression. Most STS were negative for CD20+ cells, however, when present these cells were highly represented and organized in tertiary lymphoid-like structure. The t-SNE generated plot clustered tumors, the ‘cold’ mainly including sk-STS and the ‘hot’ mainly composed by ck-STS. In the ‘hot’ group, a cluster of tumors displayed an immune infiltrate enriched with a high number of CD3, CD8, GranzymeB, PD-1, and PDL-1+ cells. When the prognostic value of the immune markers was investigated, the presence of CD20+ cells was the only independent prognostic factor for DFS (HR=0.68, 95%CI 0.52-0.91) in a histology-stratified estimate adjusting for tumor size in cm (HR=1.07, 95%CI 1.03-1.12) and patient age (HR=1.0, 95%CI 0.97-1.02). Conclusions: Immune contexture differed across sarcoma histologies after neoadjuvant ChT, rather than across the two study arms, with ck-STS being marked by a rich immune contexture. While a CD20+ infiltrate was found to be an independent prognostic factor for a better outcome, further analyses are in progress on the prognosis of patients with the richest immune contexture. Clinical trial information: NCT01710176.

The prognostic value of CINSARC in a randomised trial comparing histotype-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas (ISG-STS 1001)

e23531

Background: The Complexity INdex in SARComas (CINSARC) is a gene expression signature related to mitosis and chromosome integrity that stratifies risk for recurrence of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients. The aim of this study was to validate the prognostic value of CINSARC in patients enrolled in a randomised trial that compared histotype-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy with standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk STS (ISG-STS 1001). Methods: CINSARC is 67-gene-expression-based signature that has been previously tested in retrospective series. The ISG-STS 1001 was a phase 3 RCT comparing histotype-tailored and anthracycline-based chemotherapy in localised, high-risk STS of the extremities or trunk wall, with one of five histological STS subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Outcome variables were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and tumour response according to RECIST v1.1. Results: CINSARC was assessed in pre-treatment biopsies of 87 in 435 patients participating in the study. Thirty and 57 patients segregated in the lower (C1) and higher (C2) CINSARC risk group, respectively. Incidence of local recurrences (LR) and distant metastasis (DM) did not differ between C1 and C2 CINSARC groups [2 (6.6%) and 11 (19.3%) patients had a LR, respectively, and 10 (33.3%) and 14 (24.5%) patients had DM, respectively, P = 0.800]. Consistently, we did not observe statistically significant differences for DFS and OS between patients in the CINSARC C1 and C2 groups (log-rank test, P = 0.522 and P = 0.480, respectively). RECIST tumour response was analysed in a subset of patients (N = 39), showing that a RECIST SD was more likely in C1 (N = 12/14, 85.6%) compared to C2 (N = 18/25, 72%) group, while both RECIST PD and PR were more commonly detected in C2 [3/25 (12%) and 4/25 (16%), respectively] compared to C1 [0/14 (0%) and 1/14 (7.1%), respectively] group. Conclusions: In high-risk STS patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy within a RCT, CINSARC did not correlate with different DFS and OS. While this may well be due to a failure of this gene signature in this patient population, an alternative hypothesis is that preoperative chemotherapy may improve the prognosis of higher-risk patients. Clinical trial information: NCT01710176 .

Prognostic role of % changes in longest tumor diameter (LTD) in localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial

11558

Background: We investigated the prognostic relevance of % change in LTD in patients (pts) with localized high-risk STS treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a phase 3 randomized trial (NCT01710176), aimed at comparing 3 cycles of a neoadjuvant histology-tailored (HT) over 3 cycles of standard anthracycline + ifosfamide chemotherapy (S). Methods: Pts with localized high-risk STS of extremities or trunk wall, and a diagnosis of myxoid liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma were randomly assigned to receive 3 cycles of S or HT. Pts affected by myxofibrosarcoma, pleomorphic liposarcoma, pleomorphic rhabomyosarcoma unclassified spindle cell sarcoma were prospectively registered and treated by S. Change of LTD was assessed comparing baseline dimension with that measured after 3 cycles of S or HT, before surgery. Only pts treated with neodjuvant chemotherapy alone were selected for the analysis. We first investigated Overall Survival (OS) from surgery of the groups identified by “any % reduction”, “no-change” or “increase” in LTD by Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests. Then we searched for cutoffs able to separate prognosis among pts with a LTD reduction applying the change-point method proposed by Contal - O’Quigley. Results: Of 325 pts who entered the study and evaluable for response, 181 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (92 S and 89 HT group respectively) and were analyzed, while 144 received concurrent chemo-radiotherapy and were excluded. In the whole population, % changes in LTD were significantly associated (log rank p = 0.032) to OS. “Any % reduction in LTD (101/181pts) displayed a better prognosis compared to “no-change” (28/181 pts) or “any % increase” (52/181). The change-point analysis was applied to all, S and HT groups separately; a cutoff of = / > 18.75% decrease in LTD was the optimal predictor of outcome for the S group (p = 0.031), while no size cut-off could be identified for the HT group. Conclusions: In our study, % change in LTD of pts treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for localized high-risk STS correlated with OS. However, a % decrease in LTD cut-off able to predict the best outcome could be identified only for pts treated in the S group, while no differences in outcome were found by any % LTD change in the HT group. Interestingly, the LTD cut-off identified in the S group was lower than the one selected to define a response by RECIST ( = / > 18.75% decrease in LTD vs = / > 30%). Clinical trial information: NCT01710176 .

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in High-Risk Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Final Results of a Randomized Trial From Italian (ISG), Spanish (GEIS), French (FSG), and Polish (PSG) Sarcoma Groups

PURPOSE

To determine whether the administration of histology-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HT) was superior to the administration of standard anthracycline plus ifosfamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy (A+I) in high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of an extremity or the trunk wall.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Patients had localized high-risk STS (grade 3; size, ≥ 5 cm) of an extremity or trunk wall, belonging to one of the following five histologic subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS); leiomyosarcoma (LMS), synovial sarcoma (SS), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three cycles of A+I or HT. The HT regimens were as follows: trabectedin in HG-MLPS; gemcitabine plus dacarbazine in LMS; high-dose prolonged-infusion ifosfamide in SS; etoposide plus ifosfamide in MPNST; and gemcitabine plus docetaxel in UPS. Primary and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01710176).

RESULTS

Between May 2011 and May 2016, 287 patients (UPS: n = 97 [33.8%]; HG-MLPS: n = 65 [22.6%]; SS: n = 70 [24.4%]; MPNST: n = 27 [9.4%]; and LMS: n = 28 [9.8%]) were randomly assigned to either A+I or HT. At the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 52 months, the projected DFS and OS probabilities were 0.55 and 0.47 (log-rank P = .323) and 0.76 and 0.66 (log-rank P = .018) at 60 months in the A+I arm and HT arm, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were observed.

CONCLUSION

In a population of patients with localized high-risk STS, HT was not associated with a better DFS or OS, suggesting that A+I should remain the regimen to choose whenever neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used in patients with high-risk STS.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk soft tissue sarcomas: Final results of a randomized clinical trial from the Italian Sarcoma Group, the Spanish Sarcoma Group (GEIS), the French Sarcoma Group (FSG), and the Polish Sarcoma Group (PSG)

11000

Background: A ISG randomized trial on 5 cycles of adjuvant epirubicin+ifosfamide (EI) versus no chemotherapy suggested an OS benefit in localized high-risk STS (JCO 2001;19:1238). A subsequent trial showed no difference between 3 vs 5 cycles of the same neoadjuvant regimen (JCO 2012;30:850). The aim of this trial was to compare 3 cycles of EI versus a histology-tailored (HT) neoadjuvant regimen in selected localized high-risk STS. Methods: This is a multicenter European randomized trial comparing EI versus a HT regimen: gemcitabine+docetaxel in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS); trabectedin in high-grade myxoid liposarcoma; high-dose prolonged-infusion ifosfamide in synovial sarcoma (SS); etoposide+ifosfamide in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST); gemcitabine+dacarbazine in leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Patients had localized high-risk (grade = 3; size ≥5 cm) STS of extremities or trunk wall. Primary end-point was Disease Free Survival (DFS). The final analysis was planned after the observation of 130 events. This allows an 80% power to detect a significant difference at the 5% 2-sided level, if the true HR is 0.6 in favor of EI, as shown by the interim analysis (Lancet Oncol 2017;18:812-822). Results: From May 2011 to May 2016, 287 patients were randomized (97 = UPS; 65 = myxoid liposarcoma; 70 = SS; 27 = MPNST; 28 = LMS). The median follow-up was 51.75 months for the alive patients (IQ 28.03) The DFS and OS probability at 60 months were 0.48 and 0.55 (HR:1.232; 95%CI: 0.875-1.733; log rank p=0.323) and 0.66 and 0.76 (HR:1.766; 95%CI:1.101-2.831; log rank p=0.018), in the HT and EI arm, respectively. Conclusions: The final analysis shows a non-statistically significant DFS difference in favor of EI over HT chemotherapy with a larger and statistically significant OS difference. The outcome of patients on EI overlapped previous ISG trials. EI should remain the regimen of choice when neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used in high-risk localized STS. However this trial cannot be used as a formal proof of efficacy of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy per se. EUDRACT 2010 – 023484 – 17. Funding source: Eurosarc FP7 278472. Clinical trial information: NCT01710176.

Predictive role of FAS for trabectedin in second lines of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS): A Spanish group for research on sarcoma (GEIS) study

11071

Background: There are currently several second-line options for the treatment of ASTS as gemcitabine combinations, trabectedin, pazopanib, eribulin or olaratumab plus doxorubicin in cases where anthracyclins are still possible. There is an unmet need for predictive biomarkers which hinders the rational selection of the best sequence in second line. We already published the prognostic value of FAS in first line of ASTS while this study analyzes its predictive role in different second line schemes. Methods: Most relevant selection criteria for this study were having received trabectedin in 2nd line or beyond for ASTS, progressive disease after at least one previous line for ASTS and signed CI. A TMA was set up for FAS staining (Cell Signaling) with blocks from diagnostic time. Two expert blinded pathologists reviewed and classified the cases as negative, weak or strong. Kaplan–Meier estimations were used for time-to-event variables and the log-rank test was used to compare groups. Results: A series of 198 patients accomplished selection criteria. Metastases at diagnosis occurred in 46 (24%) and median time to metastases was 18.8 months (CI 16,3; 21.3). Previous line to trabectedin consisted of gemcitabine combination 83 (42%), Doxorubicin-based 65 (33%) and others 50 (25%). Median PFS for previous and trabectedin lines were 3.5 (2.8-4.2) and 3.4 (2.8-4) months respectively. FAS positive entailed significantly better PFS for the previous trabectedin line: 4.1 (1.5-6.7) vs 3.0 (2.5-3.5) months, p = 0.01 whereas FAS positive was related with worse PFS for the trabectedin line 2.5 (2.2-2.8) vs 3.7 (2.7-4.8) months, p = 0.028. These results were more notorious for L-sarcoma cases: 7.0 (3.6-10.5) vs 4.3 (1.9-6.6) months, p = 0.017 in previous line and 2.4 (2.2-2.6) vs 6.5 (3.8-9.3) months, p < 0.001 in trabectedin. From trabectedin administration, FAS+ had significantly worse OS especially in L-sarcomas: 11.9 (5.2-18.7) vs 21.7 (12.7-30.8) months, p = 0.002. Conclusions: FAS showed predictive value in PFS and OS for trabectedin administration in ASTS. The different prognostic role of FAS across distinct lines and its relevance in L-sarcomas deserve further attention.

Long-term experience with oral fluoropyrimidines and oxaliplatin-based long-course chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer patients

e15159

Background: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) previous to surgery (S), both as short-course RT (SCRT) and as long-course RT with 5-FU-based chemotherapy (LCRCT), is used in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), with consistent benefits in the local relapse (LR) risk. However, survival benefits have been elusive to find, especially with the use of total mesorectal excision (TME). Concerns about over-treating patients (pts) and long-term side effects have also cast more doubts in a blanket approach of treating all pts with neoadjuvant RT, especially with LCRCT. Methods: Retrospective review of cT3-T4 and/or N+ rectal cancer pts (1999-2014) treated with LCRCT and oral 5-FU and oxaliplatin (65% of pts), followed by TME and 5-FU-based CT. Clinical, radiological and pathological prognostic factors for LR, distant metastases (DM), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) are shown. Results: 203 pts. 98.5% proceeded to S; TME done in 89.7%. Downstaging rate: 70.4% (mainly N staging); pathological complete responses: 14.9%. LR and DM rate was 8.3% and 27%. TNM pathological data (ypTN) were better prognostic factors than tumour regression grades. Prognostic factors (multivariate): circumferential margin (CRM) and perineural invasion. No benefit seen with the addition of oxaliplatin. Compliance to adjuvant CT was poor; < 50% received the full dose. 5- and 10-year DFS and OS: 71.4% and 54.9% and 75.4% and 62.4%. Elderly pts had a worse OS, due to higher unexpected toxicity and lower treatment compliance. Mucinous tumours showed a poor response to LCRCT. Prognostic factors (multivariate) for OS and DFS: older age, CRM invasion, an unsuccessful TME and a heavy lymph node burden. Conclusions: The identification of pts with a low risk of LR where RT could be avoided is based on the premise of an exquisite imaging staging and a surgical team specialized in TME. A free CRM and a successful TME are pivotal for success. Clinical lymph node staging is problematic. The role of adjuvant CT remains undefined, and compliance rates are poor. Neoadjuvant CT is an option, especially if there is a high risk of DM. Better tolerated options, such as SCRT, should be used in elderly or frail pts.

Histotype-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas (ISG-STS 1001): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

Previous trials from our group suggested an overall survival benefit with five cycles of adjuvant full-dose epirubicin plus ifosfamide in localised high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities or trunk wall, and no difference in overall survival benefit between three cycles versus five cycles of the same neoadjuvant regimen. We aimed to show the superiority of the neoadjuvant administration of histotype-tailored regimen to standard chemotherapy.

METHODS

For this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial, patients were enrolled from 32 hospitals in Italy, Spain, France, and Poland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with localised, high-risk (high malignancy grade, 5 cm or longer in diameter, and deeply located according to the investing fascia), soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities or trunk wall and belonging to one of five histological subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three cycles of full-dose standard chemotherapy (epirubicin 60 mg/m² per day [short infusion, days 1 and 2] plus ifosfamide 3 g/m² per day [days 1, 2, and 3], repeated every 21 days) or histotype-tailored chemotherapy: for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, trabectedin 1·3 mg/m² via 24-h continuous infusion, repeated every 21 days; for leiomyosarcoma, gemcitabine 1800 mg/m² on day 1 intravenously over 180 min plus dacarbazine 500 mg/m² on day 1 intravenously over 20 min, repeated every 14 days; for synovial sarcoma, high-dose ifosfamide 14 g/m², given over 14 days via an external infusion pump, every 28 days; for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, intravenous etoposide 150 mg/m² per day (days 1, 2, and 3) plus intravenous ifosfamide 3 g/m² per day (days 1, 2, and 3), repeated every 21 days; and for undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, gemcitabine 900 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 intravenously over 90 min plus docetaxel 75 mg/m² on day 8 intravenously over 1 h, repeated every 21 days. Randomisation was stratified by administration of preoperative radiotherapy and by country of enrolment. Computer-generated random lists were prepared by use of permuted balanced blocks of size 4 and 6 in random sequence. An internet-based randomisation system ensured concealment of the treatment assignment until the patient had been registered into the system. No masking of treatment assignments was done. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The primary and safety analyses were planned in the intention-to-treat population. We did yearly futility analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01710176, and with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials, number EUDRACT 2010-023484-17, and is closed to patient entry.

FINDINGS

Between May 19, 2011, and May 13, 2016, 287 patients were randomly assigned to a group (145 to standard chemotherapy and 142 to histotype-tailored chemotherapy), all of whom, except one patient assigned to standard chemotherapy, were included in the efficacy analysis (97 [34%] with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma; 64 [22%] with high-grade myxoid liposarcoma; 70 [24%] with synovial sarcoma; 27 [9%] with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour; and 28 [10%] with leiomyosarcoma). At the third futility analysis, with a median follow-up of 12·3 months (IQR 2·75-28·20), the projected disease-free survival at 46 months was 62% (95% CI 48-77) in the standard chemotherapy group and 38% (22-55) in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (stratified log-rank p=0·004; hazard ratio 2·00, 95% CI 1·22-3·26; p=0·006). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the standard chemotherapy group (n=125) were neutropenia (107 [86%]), anaemia (24 [19%]), and thrombocytopenia (21 [17%]); the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (n=114) was neutropenia (30 [26%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported in both groups. In agreement with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, the study was closed to patient entry after the third futility analysis.

INTERPRETATION

In a population of patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma, we did not show any benefit of a neoadjuvant histotype-tailored chemotherapy regimen over the standard chemotherapy regimen. The benefit seen with the standard chemotherapy regimen suggests that this benefit might be the added value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy itself in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma.

FUNDING

European Union grant (Eurosarc FP7 278472).

Management of advanced pancreatic cancer with gemcitabine plus erlotinib: efficacy and safety results in clinical practice

CONTEXT

The combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib is a standard first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We reviewed our single centre experience to assess its efficacy and toxicity in clinical practice.

METHODS

Clinical records of patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who were treated with the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Univariate survival analysis and multivariate analysis were carried out to indentify independent predictors factors of overall survival.

RESULTS

Our series included 55 patients. Overall disease control rate was 47%: 5% of patients presented complete response, 20% partial response and 22% stable disease. Median overall survival was 8.3 months). Cox regression analysis indicated that performance status and locally advanced versus metastatic disease were independent factors of overall survival. Patients who developed acne-like rash toxicity, related to erlotinib administration, presented a higher survival than those patients who did not develop this toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib doublet is active in our series of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. This study provides efficacy and safety results similar to those of the pivotal phase III clinical trial that tested the same combination.