Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with metastatic sarcoma have limited treatment options. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4, respectively. We investigated the activity and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic sarcoma. We did a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 study that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older and had central pathology confirmation of sarcoma with at least one measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, evidence of metastatic, locally advanced or unresectable disease, an ECOG performance status of 0–1, and received at least one previous line of systemic therapy. Patients were assigned to treatment in an unblinded manner, as this trial was conducted as two independent, non-comparative phase 2 trials. Enrolled patients were assigned (1:1) via a dynamic allocation algorithm to intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Thereafter, all patients received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma achieving a confirmed objective response. Analysis was per protocol. This study is ongoing although enrolment is closed. It is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500797. Between Aug 13, 2015, and March 17, 2016, 96 patients from 15 sites in the USA underwent central pathology review for eligibility and 85 eligible patients, including planned over-enrolment, were allocated to receive either nivolumab monotherapy (43 patients) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (42 patients). The primary endpoint analysis was done according to protocol specifications in the first 76 eligible patients (38 patients per group). The number of confirmed responses was two (5% [92% CI 1–16] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab group and six (16% [7–30] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (four [10%] patients), decreased lymphocyte count (three [7%]), and dehydration, increased lipase, pain, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, secondary benign neoplasm, and urinary tract obstruction (two [5%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab group and anaemia (eight [19%] patients), hypotension (four [10%] patients), and pain and urinary tract infection (three [7%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (19%) of 42 patients receiving monotherapy and 11 (26%) of 42 patients receiving combination therapy, and included anaemia, anorexia, dehydration, decreased platelet count, diarrhoea, fatigue, fever, increased creatinine, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, hyponatraemia, pain, pleural effusion, and pruritus. There were no treatment-related deaths. Nivolumab alone does not warrant further study in an unselected sarcoma population given the limited efficacy. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab demonstrated promising efficacy in certain sarcoma subtypes, with a manageable safety profile comparable to current available treatment options. The combination therapy met its predefined primary study endpoint; further evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a randomised study is warranted. Alliance Clinical Trials in Oncology, National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival.

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.

Ewing's sarcoma, a highly malignant tumor of children, adolescents, and young adults, often responds to local excision plus a now-standard four-drug regimen of chemotherapy. This study shows that standard chemotherapy alternating with courses of ifosfamide plus etoposide significantly improves survival in patients with nonmetastatic disease at the time of diagnosis, but not in those with metastatic disease. Ewing's sarcoma is a highly malignant tumor of bone that occurs in children, adolescents, and young adults. When treated with local control measures only (surgery or radiation therapy), the disease has an extremely high fatality rate. 1 The use of adjuvant chemotherapy, which began in the early 1970s, resulted in a marked improvement in the outcome. Since the first Intergroup Ewing's Sarcoma Study demonstrated improved outcomes with the inclusion of doxorubicin, nearly every chemotherapy protocol for Ewing's sarcoma has been based on four drugs: doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dactinomycin. 2 – 4 In the early 1980s, treatment with ifosfamide, with or without etoposide, . . .

Regorafenib has proven activity in patients with pretreated gastrointestinal stromal tumours and colorectal and hepatocellular carcinoma. We designed REGOBONE to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma and other bone sarcomas. This trial comprised four parallel independent cohorts: osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and chordoma. In this Article, we report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. In this non-comparative, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, patients aged 10 years or older with histologically confirmed osteosarcoma whose disease had progressed after treatment with one to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral regorafenib (160 mg/day, for 21 of 28 days) or matching placebo. Patients in both groups also received best supportive care. Randomisation was done using a web-based system and was stratified (permuted block) by age at inclusion (<18 vs ≥18 years old). Investigators and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Patients in the placebo group, after centrally confirmed progressive disease, could cross over to receive regorafenib. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without disease progression at 8 weeks. Analyses were done by modified intention to treat (ie, patients without any major entry criteria violation who initiated masked study drug treatment were included). All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389244, and the results presented here are the final analysis of the osteosarcoma cohort (others cohorts are ongoing). Between Oct 10, 2014, and April 4, 2017, 43 adult patients were enrolled from 13 French comprehensive cancer centres. All patients received at least one dose of assigned treatment and were evaluable for safety; five patients were excluded for major protocol violations (two in the placebo group and three in the regorafenib group), leaving 38 patients who were evaluable for efficacy (12 in the placebo group and 26 in the regorafenib group). 17 of 26 patients (65%; one-sided 95% CI 47%) in the regorafenib group were non-progressive at 8 weeks compared with no patients in the placebo group. Ten patients in the placebo group crossed over to receive open-label regorafenib after centrally confirmed disease progression. 13 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (24%) of 29 patients in the regorafenib group versus none of 14 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events during the double-blind period of treatment included hypertension (in seven [24%] of 29 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hand–foot skin reaction (three [10%] vs none), fatigue (three [10%] vs one [3%]), hypophosphataemia (three [10%] vs none), and chest pain (three [10%] vs none). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Regorafenib demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity in adult patients with recurrent, progressive, metastatic osteosarcoma after failure of conventional chemotherapy, with a positive effect on delaying disease progression. Regorafenib should be further evaluated in the setting of advanced disease as well as potentially earlier in the disease course for patients at high risk of relapse. Regorafenib might have an important therapeutic role as an agent complementary to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy in the therapeutic armamentarium against osteosarcoma. Bayer HealthCare.

Background Whether current postoperative surveillance regimes result in improved overall survival (OS) of patients with extremity sarcomas is unknown. Questions/purposes We hypothesized that a less intensive followup protocol would not be inferior to the conventional followup protocol in terms of OS. We (1) assessed OS of patients to determine if less intensive followup regimens led to worsened survival and asked (2) whether chest radiograph followup group was inferior to CT scan followup group in detecting pulmonary metastasis; and (3) whether less frequent (6-monthly) followup interval was inferior to more frequent (3-monthly) followup in detecting pulmonary metastasis and local recurrence. Methods A prospective randomized single-center noninferiority trial was conducted between January 2006 and June 2010. On the basis of 3-year survival of 60% with intensive, more frequent followup, 500 nonmetastatic patients were randomized to demonstrate noninferiority by a margin (delta) of 10% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36). The primary end point was OS at 3 years. The secondary objective was to compare disease-free survival (DFS) (time to recurrence) at 3 years. At minimum followup of 30 months (median, 42 months; range, 30–81 months), 178 deaths were documented. Results Three-year OS and DFS for all patients was 67% and 52%, respectively. Three-year OS was 67% and 66% in chest radiography and CT groups, respectively (HR, 0.9; upper 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.13). DFS rate was 54% and 49% in chest radiography and CT groups, respectively (HR, 0.82; upper 90% CI, 0.97). Three-year OS was 64% and 69% in 6-monthly and 3-monthly groups, respectively (HR, 1.2; upper 90% CI, 1.47). DFS was 51% and 52% in 6-monthly and 3-monthly groups, respectively (HR, 1.01; upper 90% CI, 1.2). Almost 90% of local recurrences were identified by patients themselves. Conclusions Inexpensive imaging detects the vast majority of recurrent disease in patients with sarcoma without deleterious effects on eventual outcomes. Patient education regarding self-examination will detect most instances of local recurrence although this was not directly assessed in this study. Although less frequent visits adequately detected metastasis and local recurrence, this trial could not conclusively demonstrate noninferiority in OS for a 6-monthly interval of followup visits against 3-monthly visits. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Based on preclinical data for the antitumour effect of zoledronate in osteosarcoma, we assessed whether zoledronate combined with chemotherapy and surgery improved event-free survival in children and adults with osteosarcoma. In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial (OS2006), patients aged between 5 years and 50 years with newly diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma were randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy with or without ten zoledronate intravenous infusions (four preoperative and six postoperative). Adults older than 25 years received 4 mg zoledronate per infusion, patients aged 18–25 years received 0·05 mg/kg for the first two infusions and 4 mg for the remaining eight infusions, and younger patients received 0·05 mg/kg per infusion. Chemotherapy comprised high-dose methotrexate based chemotherapy in patients younger than 18 years, and doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in adults older than 25 years; patients aged 18–25 years were treated with either regime at the discretion of the treating centre. Balanced randomisation between the two groups was done centrally with online randomisation software, based on a minimisation algorithm taking into account centre, age, combined with chemotherapy regimen, and risk group (resectable primary and no metastasis vs other). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment, but the endpoint adjudication committee members who reviewed suspected early progressions were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, estimated from the randomisation to the time of first failure (local or distant relapse, progression, death) or to the last follow-up visit for the patients in first complete remission, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded patients found not to have a malignant tumour after central review. Three interim analyses were planned. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00470223. Between April 23, 2007, and March 11, 2014, 318 patients, median age 15·5 years (range 5·8–50·9), were enrolled from 40 French centres; of whom 158 were assigned to the control group (chemotherapy alone) and 160 to the zoledronate group, including 55 (17%) patients with definite metastases. The trial was stopped for futility after the second interim analysis. With a median follow-up of 3·9 years (IQR 2·7–5·1), 125 events occurred (55 in the control group and 70 in the with zoledronate group). Event-free survival at 3 years for all 315 randomly assigned patients was 60·3% (95% CI 64·5–65·9); 3-year event-free survival was 63·4% (55·2–70·9) for the control group and 57·1% (48·8–65·0) for the zoledronate group. The risk of failure was not reduced and was even marginally higher in the zoledronate group than in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·36 [95% CI 0·95–1·96]; p=0·094). No major increase in severe toxic effects of grade 3 or higher associated with zoledronate, barring expected hypocalcaemia (45 [29%] of 153 participants in the zoledronate group vs ten [6%] of 155 participants in the control group; p<0·0001) and hypophosphataemia (61 [40%] of 151 in the zoledronate group vs 26 [17%] of 156 in the control group; p<0·0001). No significant difference in orthopaedic complications was noted between the two groups (27 in the control group and 29 in the zoledronate group). Two treatment-related deaths were reported (one from cardiomyopathy in the control group and one from multiorgan failure in the zoledronate group before the first zoledronate infusion). From the results observed in this study, we do not recommend zoledronate in osteosarcoma patients. Further biological studies are required to understand the discordance between the results of OS2006 trial and preclinical data. French National Cancer Institute (INCa), Novartis, Chugai, Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Fédération Enfants et Santé, Société Française des Cancers et Leucémies de l'Enfant.

Imatinib is approved worldwide for use in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). We aimed to assess dose dependency of response and progression-free survival with imatinib for metastatic GIST. 946 patients were randomly allocated imatinib 400 mg either once or twice a day. Those assigned the once a day regimen who had progression were offered the option of crossover. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. At median follow-up of 760 days (IQR 644–859), 263 (56%) of 473 patients allocated imatinib once a day had progressed compared with 235 (50%) of 473 who were assigned treatment twice a day (estimated hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·69–0·98]; p=0·026). Side-effects arose in 465/470 (99%) patients allocated the once daily regimen compared with 468/472 (99%) assigned treatment twice a day. By comparison with the group treated once a day, more dose reductions (77 [16%] vs 282 [60%]) and treatment interruptions (189 [40%] vs 302 [64%]) were recorded in patients allocated the twice daily regimen, but treatment in both arms was fairly well tolerated. 52 (5%) patients achieved a complete response, 442 (47%) a partial response, and 300 (32%) stable disease, with no difference between groups. Median time to best response was 107 days (IQR 58–172). If response induction is the only aim of treatment, a daily dose of 400 mg of imatinib is sufficient; however, a dose of 400 mg twice a day achieves significantly longer progression-free survival.

IntroductionFollowing the treatment of patients with soft tissue sarcomas (STS) that are not metastatic at presentation, the high risk for local and systemic disease recurrence necessitates post-treatment surveillance. Systemic recurrence is most often detected in the lungs. The most appropriate surveillance frequency and modality remain unknown and, as such, clinical practice is highly varied. We plan to assess the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will evaluate the effect on overall 5-year survival of two different surveillance frequencies and imaging modalities in patients with STS who undergo surgical excision with curative intent.Methods and analysisThe Surveillance After Extremity Tumor Surgery trial will be a multi-centre 2×2 factorial RCT. Patients with non-metastatic primary Grade II or III STS treated with excision will be allocated to one of four treatment arms1: chest radiograph (CXR) every 3 months for 2 years2; CXR every 6 months for 2 years3; chest CT every 3 months for 2 years or4 chest CT every 6 months for 2 years. The primary outcome of the pilot study is the feasibility of a definitive RCT based on a combination of feasibility endpoints. Secondary outcomes for the pilot study include the primary outcome of the definitive trial (overall survival), patient-reported outcomes on anxiety, satisfaction and quality of life, local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, treatment-related complications and net healthcare costs related to surveillance.Ethics and disseminationThis trial received provisional ethics approval from the McMaster/Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board on 7 August 2019 (Project number 7562). Final ethics approval will be obtained prior to commencing patient recruitment. Once feasibility has been established and the definitive protocol is finalised, the study will transition to the definitive study.Trial registration NCT03944798; Pre-results.

Bone sarcomas are rare cancers which often present with metastatic disease and are still associated with poor survival rates. Studies in the last decade have identified that exosomes, a type of extracellular vesicle released by cells, play an important role in tumour progression and dissemination. Through the transfer of their cargo (RNAs, proteins, and lipids) across cells, they are involved in cellular cross-talk and can induce changes in cellular behaviour. Exosomes have been shown to be important in metastasis organotropism, induction of angiogenesis and vascular permeability, the education of cells towards a pro-metastatic phenotype or the interaction between stromal and tumour cells. Due to the importance exosomes have in disease progression and the high incidence of metastasis in bone sarcomas, recent studies have evaluated the implications of these extracellular vesicles in bone sarcomas. In this review, we discuss the studies that evaluate the role of exosomes in osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, and preliminary data on chondrosarcoma.