Explore the vast range of titles available.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare tumours arising in mesenchymal tissues and can occur almost anywhere in the body. Their rarity, and the heterogeneity of subtype and location, means that developing evidence-based guidelines is complicated by the limitations of the data available. This makes it more important that STS are managed by expert multidisciplinary teams, to ensure consistent and optimal treatment, recruitment to clinical trials, and the ongoing accumulation of further data and knowledge. The development of appropriate guidance, by an experienced panel referring to the evidence available, is therefore a useful foundation on which to build progress in the field. These guidelines are an update of the previous versions published in 2010 and 2016 [1, 2]. The original guidelines were drawn up by a panel of UK sarcoma specialists convened under the auspices of the British Sarcoma Group (BSG) and were intended to provide a framework for the multidisciplinary care of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. This iteration of the guidance, as well as updating the general multidisciplinary management of soft tissue sarcoma, includes specific sections relating to the management of sarcomas at defined anatomical sites: gynaecological sarcomas, retroperitoneal sarcomas, breast sarcomas, and skin sarcomas. These are generally managed collaboratively by site specific multidisciplinary teams linked to the regional sarcoma specialist team, as stipulated in the recently published sarcoma service specification [3]. In the UK, any patient with a suspected soft tissue sarcoma should be referred to a specialist regional soft tissues sarcoma service, to be managed by a specialist sarcoma multidisciplinary team. Once the diagnosis has been confirmed using appropriate imaging and a tissue biopsy, the main modality of management is usually surgical excision performed by a specialist surgeon, combined with pre- or post-operative radiotherapy for tumours at higher risk for local recurrence. Systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) may be utilised in cases where the histological subtype is considered more sensitive to systemic treatment. Regular follow-up is recommended to assess local control, development of metastatic disease, and any late effects of treatment.

Survival outcomes for adolescent and young adult patients with soft tissue sarcomas lag behind those of children diagnosed with histologically similar tumours. To help understand these differences in outcomes, we discuss the following issues with regard to the management of these patients with soft tissue sarcomas: delays in diagnosis, trial availability and participation, aspects of the organisation of care (with an emphasis on age-specific needs), national centralisation of sarcoma care, international consortia, and factors related to tumour biology. Improved understanding of the causes of the survival gap between adolescents and young adults with sarcomas will help drive new initiatives to improve final health outcomes in these populations. In this Review, we specifically focus on embryonal and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and adult soft tissue sarcomas diagnosed in adolescents and young adults, and discuss the age-specific needs of these patients.

Key Points Soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) is a rare disease that encompasses over 50 separate histological subtypes with varying sensitivity to systemic treatment Chemotherapy has been based on historical experience but there is now increasing evidence for treatment with chemotherapy in large phase II and III trials While ifosfamide and doxorubicin remain important treatment options in STS, therapy is increasingly tailored towards different histological subtypes Clinical trials remain a challenge due to the rarity and heterogeneity of STS and international collaboration is critical to achieve high quality clinical trials stratified by histological subtype Targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy will become increasingly important as we further define the molecular basis of sarcomagenesis Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) are a rare and heterogeneous group of tumours, with a wide range of differing behaviours and underlying molecular pathologies. Recent advances in molecular pathogenesis, novel targeted therapies, changes in clinical trial design and increased international collaboration have led to the development of histology-driven therapy. The authors of this Review describe the current gold standard treatment for specific STS subtypes and outline the future promising therapies in the pipeline. Soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) is a rare and heterogeneous group of tumours that comprise approximately 1% of all adult cancers, and encompass over 50 different subtypes. These tumours exhibit a wide range of differing behaviours and underlying molecular pathologies, and can arise anywhere in the body. Surgical resection is critical to the management of locoregional disease. In the locally advanced or metastatic disease settings, systemic therapy has an important role in the multidisciplinary management of sarcoma. Cytotoxic therapy that usually consists of doxorubicin and ifosfamide has been the mainstay of treatment for many years. However recent advances in molecular pathogenesis, the development of novel targeted therapies, changes in clinical trial design and increased international collaboration have led to the development of histology-driven therapy. Furthermore, genomic profiling has highlighted that some STS are driven by translocation, mutation or amplification and others have more complex and chaotic karyotypes. In this Review, we aim to describe the current gold standard treatment for specific STS subtypes as well as outline future promising therapies in the pipeline.

Pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has single-agent activity in patients with advanced non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma. We investigated the effect of pazopanib on progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. This phase 3 study was done in 72 institutions, across 13 countries. Patients with angiogenesis inhibitor-naive, metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, progressing despite previous standard chemotherapy, were randomly assigned by an interactive voice randomisation system in a 2:1 ratio in permuted blocks (with block sizes of six) to receive either pazopanib 800 mg once daily or placebo, with no subsequent cross-over. Patients, investigators who gave the treatment, those assessing outcomes, and those who did the analysis were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753688. 372 patients were registered and 369 were randomly assigned to receive pazopanib (n=246) or placebo (n=123). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·7–4·8) for pazopanib compared with 1·6 months (0·9–1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·31, 95% CI 0·24–0·40; p<0·0001). Overall survival was 12·5 months (10·6–14·8) with pazopanib versus 10·7 months (8·7–12·8) with placebo (HR 0·86, 0·67–1·11; p=0·25). The most common adverse events were fatigue (60 in the placebo group [49%] vs 155 in the pazopanib group [65%]), diarrhoea (20 [16%] vs 138 [58%]), nausea (34 [28%] vs 129 [54%]), weight loss (25 [20%] vs 115 [48%]), and hypertension (8 [7%] vs 99 [41%]). The median relative dose intensity was 100% for placebo and 96% for pazopanib. Pazopanib is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after previous chemotherapy. GlaxoSmithKline.

Effective targeted treatment is unavailable for most sarcomas and doxorubicin and ifosfamide—which have been used to treat soft-tissue sarcoma for more than 30 years—still have an important role. Whether doxorubicin alone or the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide should be used routinely is still controversial. We assessed whether dose intensification of doxorubicin with ifosfamide improves survival of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma compared with doxorubicin alone. We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial (EORTC 62012) at 38 hospitals in ten countries. We included patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma, age 18–60 years with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. They were randomly assigned (1:1) by the minimisation method to either doxorubicin (75 mg/m2 by intravenous bolus on day 1 or 72 h continuous intravenous infusion) or intensified doxorubicin (75 mg/m2; 25 mg/m2 per day, days 1–3) plus ifosfamide (10 g/m2 over 4 days with mesna and pegfilgrastim) as first-line treatment. Randomisation was stratified by centre, performance status (0 vs 1), age (<50 vs ≥50 years), presence of liver metastases, and histopathological grade (2 vs 3). Patients were treated every 3 weeks till progression or unacceptable toxic effects for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00061984. Between April 30, 2003, and May 25, 2010, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin and 227 to receive doxorubicin and ifosfamide. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 31–77) in the doxorubicin only group and 59 months (36–72) in the combination group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median overall survival 12·8 months [95·5% CI 10·5–14·3] in the doxorubicin group vs 14·3 months [12·5–16·5] in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·83 [95·5% CI 0·67–1·03]; stratified log-rank test p=0·076). Median progression-free survival was significantly higher for the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group (7·4 months [95% CI 6·6–8·3]) than for the doxorubicin group (4·6 months [2·9–5·6]; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·60–0·90], stratified log-rank test p=0·003). More patients in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group than in the doxorubicin group had an overall response (60 [26%] of 227 patients vs 31 [14%] of 228; p<0·0006). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxic effects—which were all more common with doxorubicin and ifosfamide than with doxorubicin alone—were leucopenia (97 [43%] of 224 patients vs 40 [18%] of 223 patients), neutropenia (93 [42%] vs 83 [37%]), febrile neutropenia (103 (46%) vs 30 [13%]), anaemia (78 [35%] vs 10 [5%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [33%]) vs one [<1%]). Our results do not support the use of intensified doxorubicin and ifosfamide for palliation of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma unless the specific goal is tumour shrinkage. These findings should help individualise the care of patients with this disease. Cancer Research UK, EORTC Charitable Trust, UK NHS, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Amgen.

Previous studies have suggested that trabectedin (ecteinascidin-743) could have antitumour activity in soft-tissue sarcoma. We aimed to study the usefulness of trabectedin in the treatment of patients with myxoid liposarcomas, a subtype of liposarcoma that is associated with specific chromosomal translocations t(12;16)(q13;p11) or t(12;22)(q13;q12) that result in the formation of DDIT3-FUS or DDIT3-EWSR1 fusion proteins. 51 patients with advanced pretreated myxoid liposarcoma who started treatment with trabectedin between April 4, 2001, and Sept 18, 2006 at five institutions in a compassionate-use programme were analysed retrospectively. Centralised radiological and pathological reviews were done for most patients. Trabectedin was given either as a 24-h continuous infusion or as a 3-h infusion, every 21 days, at 1·1–1·5 mg 2. 558 courses of trabectedin were given in total, with a median of ten courses for each patient (range 1–23). The primary endpoints were response rate and progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), after a median follow-up of 14·0 months (IQR 8·7–20·0), two patients had complete responses (CR) and 24 patients had partial responses (PR); the overall response was 51% (95% CI 36–65). Five patients had early progressive disease. In 17 of the 23 patients who achieved PR or CR as defined by RECIST and who had centralised radiological review, tissue-density changes, consisting of a decrease in tumour density on CT scan or a decrease in contrast enhancement on MRI (or both), preceded tumour shrinkage. Median progression-free survival was 14·0 months (13·1–21·0), and progression-free survival at 6 months was 88% (79–95). Trabectedin was associated with antitumour activity in this series of patients with myxoid liposarcoma. The noted patterns of tumour response were such that tissue density changes occurred before tumour shrinkage in several patients. In some patients, tissue-density changes only were seen. Long-lasting tumour control was noted in responsive patients. The compassionate-use programme is still ongoing. This analysis has resulted in the initiation of two prospective studies to assess the role of trabectedin in the treatment of patients with myxoid liposarcoma in preoperative and metastatic settings. Furthermore, the selective mechanism of action for trabectedin in this translocation-related sarcoma is being studied.

Soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is a rare cancer type that when locally advanced or metastatic, is predominantly treated with palliative chemotherapy with the aim of improving both quantity and quality of life. Given modest survival data after commencing first line chemotherapy, this study examines (i) what constitutes health related quality of life (HRQoL), (ii) whether the most commonly used HRQoL assessment tool measures this and (iii) to what extent HRQoL, and its components, change during and after treatment. Mixed-methods longitudinal study of 66 sarcoma patients living with STS (42 commencing chemotherapy, 24 under surveillance after completing chemotherapy) involving serial EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires and nested-qualitative semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample of participants. EORTC QLQ-C30 score change from baseline to primary evaluation point was examined using a paired t-test. Interviews were analysed using the framework approach before both datasets were integrated. Five main factors, including control of pain, were identified by study participants as important components of HRQoL; these are examined within the EORTC QLQ-C30. However, others e.g. independence loss and common causes of anxiety, are not. Whilst social and psychological domains are addressed by the EORTC QLQ-C30, the quantitative change over time did reflect qualitative descriptions of decline. The mean overall EORTC QLQ-C30 HRQoL score deteriorated from baseline (60.4) to the primary evaluation point (50.2) [change of -10.2, t-test: -2.70, p = 0.01] for those receiving chemotherapy; this was in concordance with patients' qualitative accounts. Baseline overall HRQoL scores were higher in the surveillance group suggesting a correlation with chemotherapy response and longer-term improvement in HRQoL. The evidence from both HRQoL scores and qualitative accounts indicated that the presence and control of physical symptoms were particularly important in maintaining HRQoL. Whilst fatigue deteriorated on chemotherapy (baseline 41.7 to 52.8; change of +11.1, t-test +2.51, p<0.05), pain (baseline 41.5 to 32.1; change -9.4, t-test -2.06 p<0.05) and sleep disturbance (43.1 to 28.5; change -14.6, t-test -3.05, p<0.05) both improved. A key finding was that the EORTC QLQ-C30 assesses some but not all of the patient-reported components of HRQoL in sarcoma patients highlighting the need for either STS specific modules within the EORTC QLQ-C30 or a completely new STS specific HRQoL tool. First line palliative chemotherapy improves specific symptoms known to be prevalent and to influence HRQoL in this patient group which in some patients may translate to sustained improvement in HRQoL: further exploration and validation of these findings in larger prospective studies are warranted.

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

No effective therapeutic options for patients with unresectable imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumour are available. We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, international trial to assess tolerability and anticancer efficacy of sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour who were resistant to or intolerant of previous treatment with imatinib. Blinded sunitinib or placebo was given orally once daily at a 50-mg starting dose in 6-week cycles with 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off treatment. The primary endpoint was time to tumour progression. Intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol analyses were done. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00075218. 312 patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive sunitinib (n=207) or placebo (n=105); the trial was unblinded early when a planned interim analysis showed significantly longer time to tumour progression with sunitinib. Median time to tumour progression was 27·3 weeks (95% CI 16·0–32·1) in patients receiving sunitinib and 6·4 weeks (4·4–10·0) in those on placebo (hazard ratio 0·33; p<0·0001). Therapy was reasonably well tolerated; the most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, diarrhoea, skin discolouration, and nausea. We noted significant clinical benefit, including disease control and superior survival, with sunitinib compared with placebo in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after failure and discontinuation of imatinab. Tolerability was acceptable.

Alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma that is unresponsive to chemotherapy. Cediranib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has shown substantial activity in ASPS in non-randomised studies. The Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma (CASPS) study was designed to discriminate the effect of cediranib from the intrinsically indolent nature of ASPS. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial, we recruited participants from 12 hospitals in the UK (n=7), Spain (n=3), and Australia (n=2). Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older; metastatic ASPS that had progressed in the previous 6 months; had an ECOG performance status of 0–1; life expectancy of more than 12 weeks; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Participants had to have no anti-cancer treatment within 4 weeks before trial entry, with exception of palliative radiotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1), with allocation by use of computer-generated random permuted blocks of six, to either cediranib (30 mg orally, once daily) or matching placebo tablets for 24 weeks. Treatment was supplied in number-coded bottles, masking participants and clinicians to assignment. Participants were unblinded at week 24 or sooner if they had progression defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1); those on placebo crossed over to cediranib and all participants continued on treatment until progression or death. The primary endpoint was percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters between baseline and week 24 or progression if sooner, assessed in the evaluable population (all randomly assigned participants who had a scan at week 24 [or sooner if they progressed] with target marker lesions measured). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01337401; the European Clinical Trials database, number EudraCT2010-021163-33; and the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN63733470 recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. Between July 15, 2011, and July 29, 2016, of 48 participants recruited, all were randomly assigned to cediranib (n=32) or placebo (n=16). 23 (48%) were female and the median age was 31 years (IQR 27–45). Median follow-up was 34·3 months (IQR 23·7–55·6) at the time of data cutoff for these analyses (April 11, 2018). Four participants in the cediranib group were not evaluable for the primary endpoint (one did not start treatment, and three did not have their scan at 24 weeks). Median percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters for the evaluable population was −8·3% (IQR −26·5 to 5·9) with cediranib versus 13·4% (IQR 1·1 to 21·3) with placebo (one-sided p=0·0010). The most common grade 3 adverse events on (blinded) cediranib were hypertension (six [19%] of 31) and diarrhoea (two [6%]). 15 serious adverse reactions in 12 patients were reported; 12 of these reactions occurred on open-label cediranib, and the most common symptoms were dehydration (n=2), vomiting (n=2), and proteinuria (n=2). One probable treatment-related death (intracranial haemorrhage) occurred 41 days after starting open-label cediranib in a patient who was assigned to placebo in the masked phase. Given the high incidence of metastatic disease and poor long-term prognosis of ASPS, together with the lack of efficacy of conventional chemotherapy, our finding of significant clinical activity with cediranib in this disease is an important step towards the goal of long-term disease control for these young patients. Future clinical trials in ASPS are also likely to involve immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.