Explore the vast range of titles available.

A non-randomised, phase 2 study showed activity and tolerability of eribulin in advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. In this phase 3 study, we aimed to compare overall survival in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma who received eribulin with that in patients who received dacarbazine (an active control). We did this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study across 110 study sites in 22 countries. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with intermediate-grade or high-grade advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma who had received at least two previous systemic regimens for advanced disease (including an anthracycline). Using an interactive voice and web response system, an independent statistician randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive eribulin mesilate (1·4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850 mg/m2, 1000 mg/m2, or 1200 mg/m2 [dose dependent on centre and clinician] intravenously on day 1) every 21 days until disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by disease type, geographical region, and number of previous regimens for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma and in blocks of six. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327885, and is closed to recruitment, but treatment and follow-up continue. Between March 10, 2011 and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned patients to eribulin (n=228) or dacarbazine (n=224). Overall survival was significantly improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to dacarbazine (median 13·5 months [95% CI 10·9–15·6] vs 11·5 months [9·6–13·0]; hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·62–0·95]; p=0·0169). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 224 (99%) of 226 patients who received eribulin and 218 (97%) of 224 who received dacarbazine. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common in patients who received eribulin (152 [67%]) than in those who received dacarbazine (126 [56%]), as were deaths (10 [4%] vs 3 [1%]); one death (in the eribulin group) was considered treatment-related by the investigators. Overall survival was improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to an active control, suggesting that eribulin could be a treatment option for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. Eisai.

Metastatic leiomyosarcomas have a poor prognosis, and currently doxorubicin alone is used as the standard first-line treatment. Doxorubicin combined with trabectedin has shown promising results in phase 1 and 2 studies. We aimed to identify and compare the progression-free survival of patients with metastatic or unresectable uterine or soft tissue leiomyosarcoma treated with doxorubicin and trabectedin combined as first-line therapy versus doxorubicin alone in a phase 3 trial. LMS-04 was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority phase 3 trial, which included patients from 20 centres of the French Sarcoma Group (anticancer centers or hospitals with an oncological unit) in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and had metastatic or relapsed unresectable leiomyosarcomas that had not previously been treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by means of an interactive web response system (permuted blocks of different sizes from two to six), to receive either intravenous doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2) once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles or of intravenous doxorubicin (60 mg/m2) plus intravenous trabectedin (1·1 mg/m2) once every 3 weeks up to six cycles followed by maintenance with trabectedin alone. Surgery for residual disease was allowed in both groups after six cycles of treatment. Randomisation was stratified by tumour location (uterine vs soft tissue) and disease (locally advanced vs metastatic). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review and according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria. Efficacy analyses were performed on all randomly assigned patients, based on the intention-to-treat principle. The safety population included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one cycle of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02997358, and is closed to enrolment. Between Jan 18, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 150 patients were enrolled (67 with uterine leiomyosarcomas and 83 with soft tissue leiomyosarcomas) and included in the intention-to-treat population: 76 in the doxorubicin alone group and 74 in the doxorubicin plus trabectedin group. The median duration of follow-up was 36·9 months (IQR 30·0–43·2) in the doxorubicine group and 38·8 months (32·7–44·2) in the doxorubicin plus trabectedin group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with doxorubicin plus trabectedin versus doxorubicin alone (12·2 months [95% CI 10·1–15·6] vs 6·2 months [4·1–7·1]; adjusted hazard ratio 0·41 [95% CI 0·29–0·58]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (ten [13%] of 75 patients in the doxorubicin alone group vs 59 [80%] in the doxorubicin plus trabectedin group), anaemia (four [5%] vs 23 [31%]), thrombocytopenia (0 vs 35 [47%]), and febrile neutropenia (seven [9%] vs 21 [28%]). Nine (12%) patients in the doxorubicin alone group and 15 (201%) patients in the doxorubicin plus trabectedin group has serious adverse events. There was only one treatment-related death, reported in the doxorubicin alone group (cardiac failure). Doxorubicin plus trabectedin in first-line therapy was found to significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with metastatic or unresectable leiomyosarcomas compared with doxorubicin alone, despite a higher but manageable toxicity, and could be considered an option for the first-line treatment of metastatic leiomyosarcomas. PharmaMar.

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

Eribulin inhibits microtubule dynamics via a mechanism distinct from that of other tubulin-targeting drugs, inducing cell-cycle arrest and tumour regression in preclinical models. We assessed the activity and safety of eribulin in four strata of patients with different types of soft-tissue sarcoma. In this non-randomised multicentre phase 2 study, patients were included if they had progressive or high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma and had received no more than one previous combination chemotherapy or up to two single drugs for advanced disease. They were stratified by the type of soft-tissue sarcoma they had. Eribulin was given intravenously at a concentration of 1·4 mg/m2 over 2–5 min at days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks to primarily assess progression-free survival at 12 weeks (RECIST 1.0), which we evaluated in all patients who started treatment. Safety analyses were done in all patients who started treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00413192. Of 128 patients included, 37 had adipocytic sarcoma, 40 had leiomyosarcoma, 19 had synovial sarcoma, and 32 had other sarcomas. 12 (31·6%) of 38 patients with leiomyosarcoma evaluable for the primary endpoint, 15 (46·9%) of 32 patients with adipocytic sarcoma, four (21·1%) of 19 with synovial sarcoma, and five (19·2%) of 26 in other sarcomas were progression-free at 12 weeks. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (66 [52%] of 127 patients evaluable for safety), leucopenia (44 [35%]), anaemia (nine [7%]), fatigue (nine [7%]), febrile neutropenia (eight [6%]), abnormal alanine aminotransferase concentrations (six [5%]), mucositis (four [3%]), and sensory neuropathy (four [3%]). Eribulin deserves further study in this setting, based on progression-free survival at 12 weeks in leiomyosarcoma and adipocytic sarcoma. Eisai Limited, Hatfield, UK.

Background This subgroup analysis of a phase 3 study compares outcomes for eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma. Methods Patients ≥18 years old with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma, ECOG PS ≤2, and ≥2 prior treatment regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 and day 8) or dacarbazine (either 850, 1000, or 1200 mg/m² intravenously) every 21 days until disease progression. The primary end point was OS; additional end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results 309 Patients with leiomyosarcoma were included (eribulin, n  = 157; dacarbazine, n  = 152). Median age was 57 years; 42% of patients had uterine disease and 57% had nonuterine disease. Median OS was 12.7 versus 13.0 months for eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93 [95% CI 0.71–1.20]; P  = 0.57). Median PFS (2.2 vs 2.6 months, HR = 1.07 [95% CI 0.84–1.38]; P  = 0.58) and ORR (5% vs 7%) were similar between eribulin- and dacarbazine-treated patients. Grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 69% of patients receiving eribulin and 59% of patients receiving dacarbazine. Conclusions Efficacy of eribulin in patients with leiomyosarcoma was comparable to that of dacarbazine. Both agents had manageable safety profiles.

Background: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare tumours for which treatment options are limited in the advanced setting. Histone deacetylase inhibitors have shown activity in preclinical models of STS. Methods: We conducted a single-arm, open-label, multicentre phase II study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of panobinostat given orally, 40 mg thrice weekly in patients with advanced pretreated STS. The primary endpoint was the 3-month progression-free rate. Results: Forty-seven STS patients were enrolled between January 2010 and December 2010. Median age was 59 (range 21–79) years, 22 (47%) patients were males. Panobinostat dose was lowered to 20 mg thrice weekly after nine patients were enrolled, based on the recommendation of an independent safety committee. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, fatigue, lymphopenia and anaemia. Forty-five patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Among them, nine patients (20%, 95% CI (10–35%)) were progression-free at 3 months. No partial response was seen, but 17 patients (36%) had stable disease (SD) as their best response. Six patients were progression-free at 6 months. Conclusion: Panobinostat was poorly tolerated at 40 mg thrice a week. Efficacy in unselected advanced STS was limited, although some patients had prolonged SD.

Purpose MK-2206 is an oral, highly selective inhibitor of AKT. The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and anti-tumor activity of MK-2206 was evaluated in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Patients received a single oral dose of MK-2206 according to an every other day (QOD) dosing schedule or a once weekly (QW) dosing schedule in repeating 28-day treatment cycles, with a 7-day rest after only the first cycle. The dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during Cycle 1. Full PK sampling was performed during Cycle 1. Results Twenty-four patients were treated at 45 mg ( n  = 3) or 60 mg ( n  = 9) QOD or at 135 mg ( n  = 3) or 200 mg ( n  = 9) QW. One patient experienced a DLT at 60 mg QOD, and three patients experienced DLTs at 200 mg QW. No DLTs were observed at 45 mg QOD or at 135 mg QW. The DLTs included mucosal inflammation, hyponatremia, face edema, erythema multiforme, and hyperglycemia. Common adverse events related to MK-2206 included rash, an elevated insulin c-peptide level, stomatitis, pyrexia, eosinophilia, leukopenia, and hyperglycemia. PK differences in MK-2206 exposure were observed between Japanese patients and non-Japanese patients. The higher exposure in Japanese patients was likely caused by the relatively lower weight of Japanese patients versus non-Japanese patients. No tumor responses were observed, but six patients exhibited stable disease lasting longer than 4 months. Conclusions MK-2206 has an acceptable safety profile in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors and warrants further investigation.

We aimed to evaluate the effect of prior chemotherapies on the outcomes of patients with liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma treated with trabectedin as a 24-h infusion every 3 weeks. Data from 129 patients who received trabectedin as second-line treatment following failure with an anthracycline/ifosfamide and those who had received at least two lines of prior chemotherapy were analyzed. Forty seven patients received one prior regimen (group A) and 82 patients received at least two lines of chemotherapy (group B). A favorable trend in median time to progression (4.4 vs 3.0 months), progression-free survival (4.4 vs 2.6 months) and overall survival (17.4 vs 13.3 months) was found in group A. A trend toward higher overall response rate (6.4 vs 4.9%) and disease control rate (34.0 vs 26.8%) also favored group A. Both groups had equivalent safety profiles. All efficacy outcomes were better in patients who received trabectedin as second-line treatment compared with patients with more extensive prior therapy.

Summary Multidrug chemotherapy increases responses in advanced soft tissues sarcoma. Can a 20% increase of relative dose intensity of the MAID regimen, more improve responses? From 1994 to 1997, 162 patients were randomized in a phase III study to the conventional drug combination (6 cycles of MAID: 60, 7,500, 900 mg/m 2 for doxorubicin, ifosfamide and dacarbazine respectively), or at doses 20–33% higher per cycle (5 cycles of intensified MAID for similar cumulative doses) with systematic G-CSF. Primary endpoint was response rate; secondary were toxicity, event-free and overall survival. The objective response rate in assessable patients was 38% with intensified MAID and 35% with MAID ( p  = 0.72). Event-free and overall survivals were similar in both arms. Only grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia and anemia were significantly higher in intensified arm. Treatment with intensified MAID did not improve response rate neither survival and cannot be recommended for advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

HMGA1 is a structural epigenetic chromatin factor that has been associated with tumor progression and drug resistance. Here, we reported the prognostic/predictive value of HMGA1 for trabectedin in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) and the effect of inhibiting HMGA1 or the mTOR downstream pathway in trabectedin activity. The prognostic/predictive value of HMGA1 expression was assessed in a cohort of 301 STS patients at mRNA (n = 133) and protein level (n = 272), by HTG EdgeSeq transcriptomics and immunohistochemistry, respectively. The effect of HMGA1 silencing on trabectedin activity and gene expression profiling was measured in leiomyosarcoma cells. The effect of combining mTOR inhibitors with trabectedin was assessed on cell viability in vitro studies, whereas in vivo studies tested the activity of this combination. HMGA1 mRNA and protein expression were significantly associated with worse progression-free survival of trabectedin and worse overall survival in STS. HMGA1 silencing sensitized leiomyosarcoma cells for trabectedin treatment, reducing the spheroid area and increasing cell death. The downregulation of HGMA1 significantly decreased the enrichment of some specific gene sets, including the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. The inhibition of mTOR, sensitized leiomyosarcoma cultures for trabectedin treatment, increasing cell death. In in vivo studies, the combination of rapamycin with trabectedin downregulated HMGA1 expression and stabilized tumor growth of 3-methylcholantrene-induced sarcoma-like models. HMGA1 is an adverse prognostic factor for trabectedin treatment in advanced STS. HMGA1 silencing increases trabectedin efficacy, in part by modulating the mTOR signaling pathway. Trabectedin plus mTOR inhibitors are active in preclinical models of sarcoma, downregulating HMGA1 expression levels and stabilizing tumor growth.