Search

Genomic profiling has improved our understanding of the pathogenesis of different cancers and led to the development of several targeted therapies, especially in epithelial tumors. In this review, we focus on the clinical utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to inform therapeutics in soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The role of NGS is still controversial in patients with sarcoma, given the low mutational burden and the lack of recurrent targetable alterations in most of the sarcoma histotypes. The clinical impact of genomic profiling in STS has not been investigated prospectively. A limited number of retrospective, mainly single-institution, studies have addressed this issue using various NGS technologies and platforms and a variety of criteria to define a genomic alteration as actionable. Despite the detailed reports on the different gene mutations, fusions, or amplifications that were detected, data on the use and efficacy of targeted treatment are very scarce at present. With the exception of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), these targeted therapies are administered either through off-label prescription of an approved drug or enrollment in a matched clinical trial. Based mainly on anecdotal reports, the outcome of targeted therapies in the different STS histotypes is discussed. Prospective studies are warranted to assess whether genomic profiling improves the management of STS patients.

MRP-1 is implicated in multidrug resistance and was described as prognostic in high-risk patients with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) in a previous study. The current research aimed to validate MRP-1 prognostic/predictive value in localized sarcomas treated with anthracyclines plus ifosfamide within the ISG-1001 phase III study. In addition, the inhibitory activity on MRP-1 was investigated in preclinical studies to identify new combinations able to increase the efficacy of standard chemotherapy in STS. MRP-1 expression was assessed by IHC in tissue microarrays from patients with STS and tested for correlation with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). In vitro studies tested the efficacy of MRP-1 inhibitors (nilotinib, ripretinib, selumetinib, and avapritinib) in sarcoma cell lines. The effect of combinations of the most active MRP-1 inhibitors and chemotherapy was measured on the basis of apoptosis. MRP-1 was evaluable in 231 of 264 cases who entered the study. MRP-1 expression (strong intensity) was independently associated with worse DFS [HR, 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-2.83; P = 0.016], in the multivariate analysis, with a trend for a worse OS (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.97-3.25; P = 0.062). In vitro studies showed that the addition of MRP-1 inhibitors (nilotinib or avapritinib) to doxorubicin plus palifosfamide, significantly increased cell death in SK-UT-1 and CP0024 cell lines. MRP-1 is an adverse predictive factor in localized high-risk patients with STS treated with neoadjuvant anthracyclines plus ifosfamide followed by surgery. In vitro findings support the clinical assessment of the combination of chemotherapy and MRP-1 inhibitors as a promising strategy to overcome the drug ceiling effect for chemotherapy., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Predictive biomarkers of trabectedin represent an unmet need in advanced soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). DNA damage repair (DDR) genes, involved in homologous recombination or nucleotide excision repair, had been previously described as biomarkers of trabectedin resistance or sensitivity, respectively. The majority of these studies only focused on specific factors (ERCC1, ERCC5, and BRCA1) and did not evaluate several other DDR-related genes that could have a relevant role for trabectedin efficacy. In this retrospective translational study, 118 genes involved in DDR were evaluated to determine, by transcriptomics, a predictive gene signature of trabectedin efficacy. A six-gene predictive signature of trabectedin efficacy was built in a series of 139 tumor samples from patients with advanced STS. Patients in the high-risk gene signature group showed a significantly worse progression-free survival compared with patients in the low-risk group (2.1 vs 6.0 months, respectively). Differential gene expression analysis defined new potential predictive biomarkers of trabectedin sensitivity (PARP3 and CCNH) or resistance (DNAJB11 and PARP1). Our study identified a new gene signature that significantly predicts patients with higher probability to respond to treatment with trabectedin. Targeting some genes of this signature emerges as a potential strategy to enhance trabectedin efficacy., (© 2021 The Authors. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

Background: Sarcomas exhibit low expression of factors related to immune response, which could explain the modest activity of PD-1 inhibitors. A potential strategy to convert a cold into an inflamed microenvironment lies on a combination therapy. As tumor angiogenesis promotes immunosuppression, we designed a phase Ib/II trial to test the double inhibition of angiogenesis (sunitinib) and PD-1/PD-L1 axis (nivolumab)., Methods: This single-arm, phase Ib/II trial enrolled adult patients with selected subtypes of sarcoma. Phase Ib established two dose levels: level 0 with sunitinib 37.5 mg daily from day 1, plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously on day 15, and then every 2 weeks; and level -1 with sunitinib 37.5 mg on the first 14 days (induction) and then 25 mg per day plus nivolumab on the same schedule. The primary endpoint was to determine the recommended dose for phase II (phase I) and the 6-month progression-free survival rate, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 (phase II)., Results: From May 2017 to April 2019, 68 patients were enrolled: 16 in phase Ib and 52 in phase II. The recommended dose of sunitinib for phase II was 37.5 mg as induction and then 25 mg in combination with nivolumab. After a median follow-up of 17 months (4-26), the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 48% (95% CI 41% to 55%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events included transaminitis (17.3%) and neutropenia (11.5%)., Conclusions: Sunitinib plus nivolumab is an active scheme with manageable toxicity in the treatment of selected patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with almost half of patients free of progression at 6 months. Trial registration number NCT03277924., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JM-B reports research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work; honoraria for advisory board participation and expert testimony from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer and Eisai; and research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. NH reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from PharmaMar, personal fees from Lilly, and grants from Eisai and Novartis, outside the submitted work, and research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. GG reports grants and personal fees from PharmaMar, grants from Novartis, and personal fees from Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer and Eisai, outside the submitted work. AR reports grants and personal fees from PharmaMar, personal fees from Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca and Tesaro, grants and personal fees from Roche, and grants from Eisai, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, Lilly and PharmaMar, and grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EdA reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, BMS and PharmaMar, and personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work. ML-A declares institutional research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. DSM reports institutional research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work, and travel support from PharmaMar, Eisai, Celgene, Bayer and Pfizer. JAL-M reports honoraria for advisory board participation and travel support from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer, Eisai, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Roche, Celgene, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Chobani. All other authors declare no relevant relationship to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in collision between patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and those with cancer on different fronts. Patients with cancer have been impacted by deferral, modification, and even cessation of therapy. Adaptive measures to minimize hospital exposure, following the precautionary principle, have been proposed for cancer care during COVID-19 era. We present here a consensus on prioritizing recommendations across the continuum of sarcoma patient care., Material and Methods: A total of 125 recommendations were proposed in soft-tissue, bone, and visceral sarcoma care. Recommendations were assigned as higher or lower priority if they cannot or can be postponed at least 2-3 months, respectively. The consensus level for each recommendation was classified as "strongly recommended" (SR) if more than 90% of experts agreed, "recommended" (R) if 75%-90% of experts agreed and "no consensus" (NC) if fewer than 75% agreed. Sarcoma experts from 11 countries within the Sarcoma European-Latin American Network (SELNET) consortium participated, including countries in the Americas and Europe. The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of clinical benefit scale was applied to systemic-treatment recommendations to support prioritization., Results: There were 80 SRs, 35 Rs, and 10 NCs among the 125 recommendations issued and completed by 31 multidisciplinary sarcoma experts. The consensus was higher among the 75 higher-priority recommendations (85%, 12%, and 3% for SR, R, and NC, respectively) than in the 50 lower-priority recommendations (32%, 52%, and 16% for SR, R, and NC, respectively)., Conclusion: The consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high-level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a tool for sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID-19 outbreak., Implications for Practice: The Sarcoma European-Latin American Network (SELNET) consensus on sarcoma prioritization care during the COVID-19 era issued 125 pragmatical recommendations distributed as higher or lower priority to protect critical decisions on sarcoma care during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary team from 11 countries reached consensus on 115 recommendations. The consensus was lower among lower-priority recommendations, which shows reticence to postpone actions even in indolent tumors. The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit scale was applied as support for prioritizing systemic treatment. Consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a practice tool for guidance in the decisions of sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID-19 outbreak., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Reference centers (RCs) are a key point for improving the survival of patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). The aim of this study was to evaluate selected items in the management of patients with STS, comparing results between RC and local hospitals (LHs)., Materials and Methods: Diagnostic and therapeutic data from patients diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2011 were collected. Correlation with outcome was performed., Results: A total of 622 sarcomas were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 40 months. Imaging of primary tumor preoperatively (yes vs. no) correlated with a higher probability of free surgical margins (77.4% versus 53.7%; p = .006). The provenance of the biopsy (RC vs. LH) significantly affected relapse-free survival (RFS; 3-year RFS 66% vs. 46%, respectively; p = .019). Likewise, 3-year RFS was significantly worse in cases with infiltrated (55.6%) or unknown (43.4%) microscopic surgical margins compared with free margins (63.6%; p < .001). Patients managed by RCs had a better 3-year overall survival compared with those managed by LHs (82% vs. 70.4%, respectively; p = .003). Perioperative chemotherapy in high-risk STS, more frequently administered in RCs than in LHs, resulted in significantly better 3-year RFS (66% vs. 44%; p = .011). In addition, patients with stage IV disease treated in RCs survived significantly longer compared with those in LHs (30.4 months vs. 18.5 months; p = .036)., Conclusion: Our series indicate that selected quality-of-care items were accomplished better by RCs over LHs, all with significant prognostic value in patients with STS. Early referral to an RC should be mandatory if the aim is to improve the survival of patients with STS., Implications for Practice: This prospective study in patients diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma shows the prognostic impact of reference centers in the management of these patients. The magnitude of this impact encompasses all steps of the process, from the initial management (performing diagnostic biopsy) to the advanced disease setting. This is the first prospective evidence showing improvement in outcomes of patients with metastatic disease when they are managed in centers with expertise. This study provides extra data supporting referral of patients with sarcoma to reference centers., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Background: Oncogenic KIT/PDGFRA signaling inhibition with imatinib achieves disease control in most patients with advanced/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), but resistance eventually develops after 20-24 months. Notably, a small subset of these patients obtain durable benefit from imatinib therapy., Methods: We analyzed clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients with metastatic GIST treated with continuous daily dosing of frontline imatinib in a cohort of patients benefiting for ≥5 years. A control group was obtained from the national Spanish Group for Sarcoma Research database and used as comparator., Results: Sixty-four imatinib long-term responders (LTRs) and 70 control cases were identified. Compared with controls, LTRs at baseline had better performance status (PS) 0-1 (100% vs. 81%), lower mitotic count (median, 8 vs. 15), and tumor burden (number of metastases, 3 vs. 7). KIT exon 11 was the only region found mutated in LTRs. LTRs achieved 34% complete responses and a median progression-free survival of 11 years, compared with 4% and 2 years, respectively, in the control cohort. Prognostic factors that independently predicted long-term benefit with imatinib were PS, number of metastases prior to imatinib, and response to imatinib. Fifteen LTR patients developed new side effects attributable to imatinib after ≥5 years of continuous treatment. No resistance mutations were found in metastatic samples from three patients progressing on imatinib., Conclusion: GISTs in LTRs are a distinctive entity with less aggressive behavior and marked sensitivity to KIT inhibition. Patients reaching 5 or more years on imatinib have a higher chance of remaining progression free over time., Implications for Practice: This work demonstrates that clinical and inherent tumor characteristics define a subset of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with increased likelihood to achieve durable response to first-line imatinib therapy. Patients reaching ≥5 years on imatinib have a greater chance of remaining progression free over time, although the disease is unlikely to be cured. Imatinib is well tolerated for >5 years, and emergent toxicities are overall manageable. Resistance to imatinib emerging in patients with GISTs after long-term imatinib treatment does not involve polyclonal expansion of KIT secondary mutations., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Purpose: Nilotinib plus doxorubicin showed to be synergistic regarding apoptosis in several sarcoma cell lines. A phase I/II trial was thus designed to explore the feasibility of nilotinib as coadjuvant of doxorubicin by inhibiting MRP-1/P-gp efflux activity. The phase I part of the study is presented here. Patients and Methods: Nilotinib 400 mg/12 hours was administered in fixed dose from day 1 to 6, and doxorubicin on day 5 of each cycle. Three dose escalation levels for doxorubicin at 60, 65, and 75 mg/m 2 were planned. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks for a total of 4 cycles. Eligible subtypes were retroperitoneal liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and unresectable/metastatic high-grade chondrosarcoma. Results: Thirteen patients were enrolled: 7 chondrosarcoma, 4 liposarcoma, and 2 leiomyosarcoma. In 46 cycles administered, the most relevant grade 3/4 adverse effects per patient were neutropenia 54%, febrile neutropenia 15%, and asthenia 8%. No cardiac toxicity was observed. Only one dose-limiting toxicity (febrile neutropenia) was reported in the third dose level. With regard to efficacy, 1 partial response (1 liposarcoma), 9 stable diseases (5 chondrosarcoma, 2 liposarcoma, 1 leiomyosarcoma), and 3 progressive diseases (2 chondrosarcoma and 1 leiomyosarcoma) were present. ABCB1 and ABCC1 RNA expression levels decreased by 58.47-fold and 1.47-fold, respectively, on day 5 of the cycle. Conclusions: Combination of MRP-1/P-gp inhibitor, nilotinib, as coadjuvant with doxorubicin is feasible; it appears not to add substantial toxicity compared with doxorubicin alone. Pharmacodynamic study supports this concept. The recommended dose for the phase II part for doxorubicin was 75 mg/m 2 Clin Cancer Res; 24(21); 5239-49. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients., Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources., Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) represents a paradigm for clinically effective targeted inhibition of oncogenic driver mutations in cancer. Five drugs are currently positioned as the standard of care for the treatment of advanced or metastatic GIST patients. This is the result of continuous, deep understanding of KIT and PDGFRA GIST oncogenic drivers as well as the resistance mechanisms associated to tumor progression. However, the complexity of GIST molecular heterogeneity is an evolving field, and critical questions remain open. Specifically, the clinical benefit of approved and/or investigated targeted agents is strikingly modest at advanced stages of the disease when compared with the activity of first-line imatinib. Ripretinib is a novel switch-pocket inhibitor with broad activity against KIT and PDGFRA oncoproteins and has recently demonstrated antitumoral activity across phase I to phase III clinical trials. Therefore, ripretinib has emerged as a new standard of care for advanced, multi-resistant GIST patients. Based on this data, the Food and Drug Administration has granted in 2020 the approval of ripretinib for GIST patients after progression to imatinib, sunitinib and regorafenib. This, in turn, constitutes a major breakthrough in sarcoma drug development, as there have not been new treatment approvals in GIST for nearly a decade. Herein, we provide a critical review on the preclinical and clinical development of ripretinib in GIST. Furthermore, we seek to assess the biological and clinical impact of this new standard of care on the course of the disease, aiming to provide an insight on future treatments strategies for the next coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) constitute a heterogeneous group of rare solid tumors associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The evaluation and treatment of STS require a multidisciplinary team with extensive experience in the management of these types of tumors. National and international clinical practice guidelines for STS do not always provide answers to a great many situations that specialists have to contend with in their everyday practice. This consensus provides a series of specific recommendations based on available scientific evidence and the experience of a group of experts to assist in decision-making by all the specialists involved in the management of STS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]