Search

BackgroundDesmoid tumors are rare, locally aggressive, highly recurrent soft-tissue tumors without approved treatments.MethodsWe conducted a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of nirogacestat in adults with progressing desmoid tumors according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive the oral γ-secretase inhibitor nirogacestat (150 mg) or placebo twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival.ResultsFrom May 2019 through August 2020, a total of 70 patients were assigned to receive nirogacestat and 72 to receive placebo. Nirogacestat had a significant progression-free survival benefit over placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.55; P

PurposeAntitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents.MethodsSEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461).ResultsTwo hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001).ConclusionPatients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

Background: Desmoid tumors can cause morbidity due to local invasion, potentially being fatal when fast growth compromises vital structures. In this context, a timely treatment response is required. This study aims to compare the activity of sorafenib and anthracycline‐containing regimens during the first year of treatment. Methods: The authors conducted a multi‐institutional retrospective analysis of desmoid tumor patients treated with either sorafenib or an anthracycline‐containing regimen over 1 year. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). The secondary end points were time to response (TTR), progression‐free survival (PFS), and adverse events. Results: From 2005 to 2022, 80 patients received sorafenib and 51 received an anthracycline‐containing regimen with similar baseline characteristics. The 1‐year ORR was 37% for anthracycline and 13% for sorafenib (p =.016). Median best response was –9% (range, –73 to 51) for anthracycline and –4% (range, –69 to 126) for sorafenib. Median TTR was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4–7.8) for anthracycline and 8.7 months (95% CI, 6.3–11.1) for sorafenib (p =.2). One‐year PFS was 73% (95% CI, 60–86) for anthracycline and 59% (95% CI, 47–71) for sorafenib (p =.3). Common grade 1–2 adverse events for sorafenib were hand‐foot syndrome (40%), diarrhea (25%), and fatigue (22%); for anthracycline, they were nausea (31%), fatigue (16%), and rash (14%). Grade 3 events were higher in the anthracycline group, 27% versus 14% (p <.05). Conclusion: Anthracycline‐based therapy provided a greater 1‐year response rate than sorafenib but was associated with a higher rate of serious adverse events. Higher‐risk desmoid tumors, which need a more timely response, might benefit from anthracycline‐based therapies, whereas average‐risk tumors could benefit from sorafenib. This article reports a multi‐institutional retrospective comparison of the activity between sorafenib and anthracycline‐based chemotherapies for desmoid tumors. It shows that anthracycline‐based chemotherapies can produce a greater proportion of responses in the first year of treatment at the expense of greater toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A man in his 70s with a history of fatigue, abdominal pain, and a palpable abdominal mass was found to have a peritoneal desmoid tumour. One year after diagnosis, he was prescribed sorafenib to limit tumour growth. Two months later, he developed dyspnoea on exertion and lower extremity weakness and was reported to have supine hypertension and orthostatic hypotension. On formal autonomic testing, he was noted to have severely impaired sympathetic responses and marked orthostatic hypotension without appropriate chronotropic response. A decision to hold sorafenib was made, and treatment was started with graduated compression stockings, liberal fluid and sodium intake, and midodrine. The patient had a modest and gradual improvement in his symptoms. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of orthostatic hypotension related to sorafenib or any vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]