Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with advanced sarcomas have a poor prognosis and few treatment options that improve overall survival. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies offer short-lived disease control. We assessed pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, for safety and activity in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma or bone sarcoma. In this two-cohort, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with soft-tissue sarcoma or bone sarcoma from 12 academic centres in the USA that were members of the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration (SARC). Patients with soft-tissue sarcoma had to be aged 18 years or older to enrol; patients with bone sarcoma could enrol if they were aged 12 years or older. Patients had histological evidence of metastatic or surgically unresectable locally advanced sarcoma, had received up to three previous lines of systemic anticancer therapy, had at least one measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and had at least one lesion accessible for biopsy. All patients were treated with 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response. Patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab were included in the safety analysis and patients who progressed or reached at least one scan assessment were included in the activity analysis. Accrual is ongoing in some disease cohorts. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02301039. Between March 13, 2015, and Feb 18, 2016, we enrolled 86 patients, 84 of whom received pembrolizumab (42 in each disease cohort) and 80 of whom were evaluable for response (40 in each disease cohort). Median follow-up was 17·8 months (IQR 12·3–19·3). Seven (18%) of 40 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma had an objective response, including four (40%) of ten patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, two (20%) of ten patients with liposarcoma, and one (10%) of ten patients with synovial sarcoma. No patients with leiomyosarcoma (n=10) had an objective response. Two (5%) of 40 patients with bone sarcoma had an objective response, including one (5%) of 22 patients with osteosarcoma and one (20%) of five patients with chondrosarcoma. None of the 13 patients with Ewing's sarcoma had an objective response. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (six [14%]), decreased lymphocyte count (five [12%]), prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (four [10%]), and decreased platelet count (three [7%]) in the bone sarcoma group, and anaemia, decreased lymphocyte count, and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time in the soft-tissue sarcoma group (three [7%] each). Nine (11%) patients (five [12%] in the bone sarcoma group and four [10%] in the soft-tissue sarcoma group) had treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAEs), five of whom had immune-related SAEs, including two with adrenal insufficiency, two with pneumonitis, and one with nephritis. The primary endpoint of overall response was not met for either cohort. However, pembrolizumab showed encouraging activity in patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma or dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Enrolment to expanded cohorts of those subtypes is ongoing to confirm and characterise the activity of pembrolizumab. Merck, SARC, Sarcoma Foundation of America, QuadW Foundation, Pittsburgh Cure Sarcoma, and Ewan McGregor.

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.

Among patients with leiomyosarcoma, a combination of doxorubicin and trabectedin with prolonged trabectedin maintenance therapy led to longer overall survival than doxorubicin alone (median, 33 vs. 24 months).

For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009–014907–29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7–29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5–54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5–54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6–30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1–20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99–1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

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.

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.

Background Palliative radiotherapy is essential in the management of patients with symptomatic pelvic soft tissue tumors, often providing rapid and efficient symptom relief. No standard treatment recommendations currently exist, yielding large differences in patient management across cancer types and institutions. PallSoft is a national, phase III, non-inferiority study aiming to compare two short-course radiotherapy approaches for these patients. Methods 200 patients will be recruited from 11 institutions over 2–4 years. Patients with either gastrointestinal, urological or gynecological cancers, referred to palliative radiotherapy due to a symptomatic pelvic soft tissue tumor, are eligible for study inclusion. Patients will define their target symptom and be randomly assigned to treatment with either 1 fraction of 8 Gy (Gy) (arm A) or 5 fractions of 5 Gy (arm B). An additional fraction of 8 Gy may be offered to patients in arm A if unsatisfactory symptomatic effect occurs, evaluated according to predefined criteria. The primary objective is to investigate whether the patient-reported target symptom relief in arm A is non-inferior to arm B, assessed on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary objectives are physician-assessed bowel and bladder toxicities and overall survival. Explorative objectives include evaluations of health-related quality of life, general patient satisfaction and health economic aspects. Prognostic models for survival prediction and predictive biomarkers for radiotherapy response will be explored. Statistical analyses using linear regression models and survival analyses will be employed. Discussion We aim to provide evidence of the most optimal palliative radiotherapy regimen for patients with symptomatic pelvic soft tissue tumors, and thereby contribute to establish a standard-of care for these patients. The participation of all radiotherapy units in Norway may ease national implementation of study results. Trial registration Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Palliative Radiotherapy in Symptomatic Pelvic Soft Tissue Tumors, NCT06398314) on May 3rd, 2024. First patient enrollment in February 2025. All hospitals are currently recruiting. Trial sponsor Telemark Hospital Trust.

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 The value of chemotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) remains controversial. Several expert teams consider that chemotherapy provides a survival advantage and should be proposed in high-risk (HR) patients. However, the lack of accuracy in identifying HR patients with conventional risk factors (large, deep, FNCLCC grade 3, extremity STS) is an issue that cannot be neglected. For example, while the FNCLCC grading system is a powerful tool, it has several limitations. CINSARC, a 67-gene signature, has proved to be an additional independent factor for predicting metastatic spread and outperforms histological grade. Regardless of FNCLCC grade, CINSARC stratifies patients into two separate prognostic groups: one with an excellent prognosis (low-risk (LR) CINSARC) and the other with a worse outcome (HR-CINSARC) in terms of metastatic relapse. Here we evaluate the role of chemotherapy in grade 1–2 STS patients with HR-CINSARC and assess the prognostic value of CINSARC in patients treated with standard of care. Methods CHIC is a parallel, randomized, open-label, multicenter study evaluating the effect on metastasis-free survival of adding perioperative chemotherapy to standard of care in patients with grade ½ STS sarcoma defined as HR by CINSARC. In this target selection design, 600 patients will be screened with CINSARC to randomize 250 HR-CINSARC patients between standard of care and standard of care plus chemotherapy (4 cycles of 3 weeks of intravenous chemotherapy with doxorubicin in combination with dacarbazine or ifosfamide according to histologic subtype). LR-CINSARC patients will be treated by standard of care according to the investigator. The primary endpoint is metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, disease-free survival and safety. Furthermore, the prognostic value of CINSARC will be evaluated by comparing LR-CINSARC patients to HR-CINSARC patients randomized in standard of care. Discussion CHIC is a prospective randomized phase III trial designed to comprehensively evaluate the benefit of chemotherapy in HR-CINSARC patients and to prospectively validate the prognostic value of CINSARC in grade ½ STS sarcoma patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04307277 Date of registration: 13 March 2020