Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in alveolar soft-part sarcoma: results from a retrospective worldwide registry

BACKGROUND

Conventional cytotoxic drugs are not effective in alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS). Immune checkpoint (programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1) inhibitors (ICIs) are promising drugs in ASPS. A worldwide registry explored the efficacy of ICI in ASPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from adult patients diagnosed with ASPS and treated with ICI for advanced disease in expert sarcoma centers from Europe, Australia and North America were retrospectively collected, including demographics and data related to treatments and outcome.

RESULTS

Seventy-six ASPS patients, with a median age at diagnosis of 25 years (range 3-61 years), were registered. All patients received ICI for metastatic disease. Immunotherapy regimens consisted of monotherapy in 38 patients (50%) and combination in 38 (50%) (23 with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor). Among the 68 assessable patients, there were 3 complete responses and 34 partial responses, translating into an overall response rate of 54.4%. After a median follow-up of 36 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 32-40 months] since the start of immunotherapy, 45 (59%) patients have progressed on ICI, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 16.3 months (95% CI 8-25 months). Receiving ICI in first line (P = 0.042) and achieving an objective response (P = 0.043) correlated with a better PFS. Median estimated overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation has not been reached. The 12-month and 24-month OS rates were 94% and 81%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This registry constitutes the largest available series of ASPS treated with ICI. Our results suggest that the ICI treatment provides long-lasting disease control and prolonged OS in patients with advanced ASPS, an ultra-rare entity with limited active therapeutic options.

Oncologist use and perception of large panel next-generation tumor sequencing

BACKGROUND

Genomic profiling is increasingly incorporated into oncology research and the clinical care of cancer patients. We sought to determine physician perception and use of enterprise-scale clinical sequencing at our center, including whether testing changed management and the reasoning behind this decision-making.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All physicians who consented patients to MSK-IMPACT, a next-generation hybridization capture assay, in tumor types where molecular profiling is not routinely performed were asked to complete a questionnaire for each patient. Physician determination of genomic 'actionability' was compared to an expertly curated knowledgebase of somatic variants. Reported management decisions were compared to chart review.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 146 physicians pertaining to 1932 patients diagnosed with 1 of 49 cancer types. Physicians indicated that sequencing altered management in 21% (331/1593) of patients in need of a treatment change. Among those in whom treatment was not altered, physicians indicated the presence of an actionable alteration in 55% (805/1474), however, only 45% (362/805) of these cases had a genomic variant annotated as actionable by expert curators. Further evaluation of these patients revealed that 66% (291/443) had a variant in a gene associated with biologic but not clinical evidence of actionability or a variant of unknown significance in a gene with at least one known actionable alteration. Of the cases annotated as actionable by experts, physicians identified an actionable alteration in 81% (362/445). In total, 13% (245/1932) of patients were enrolled to a genomically matched trial.

CONCLUSION

Although physician and expert assessment differed, clinicians demonstrate substantial awareness of the genes associated with potential actionability and report using this knowledge to inform management in one in five patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT01775072.