Search

Background: In KIT-expressing Ewing sarcoma cell lines, the addition of doxorubicin to imatinib increases apoptosis, compared with imatinib or doxorubicin alone. On the basis of these in vitro data, the authors conducted a phase 1-2 trial of doxorubicin with imatinib in patients with gastrointestinal sarcoma tumors refractory to high-dose imatinib therapy. Methods: Patients with metastatic gastrointestinal sarcoma tumor resistant to imatinib at 400 mg by mouth (p.o.) twice a day were eligible for this multicenter study, and received imatinib (400 mg p.o. every day [q.d.]) concomitantly with doxorubicin 15-20 mg/m2/weekly for 4 cycles (monthly cycles), followed by imatinib (400 mg p.o. q.d.) maintenance in nonprogressive patients. Spiral computed tomography and positron emission tomography with F18-fluorodeoxyglucose were done basally and after 2 months of therapy to evaluate response. An in vitro study assessed the effect of combining imatinib and doxorubicin. Results: Twenty-six patients with progressive gastrointestinal sarcoma tumor were entered in the study. Treatment was well tolerated. Three (14%) of 22 evaluable patients had partial responses per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and 8 (36%) had clinical benefit (partial response or stable disease for >or=6 months). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 100 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 62-138), and median survival was 390 days (95% CI, 264-516). Interestingly, PFS was 211 days (95% CI, 52-370) in patients with wild type (WT) KIT and 82 days (95% CI, 53-111) in non-WT patients (10 mutant, 6 not assessed). A synergistic effect on cell line proliferation and apoptosis was found with imatinib and doxorubicin combination. Conclusions: Low-dose chemobiotherapy combination showed promising activity in heavily pretreated gastrointestinal sarcoma tumor patients, especially in those with WT-KIT genotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Triage is a crucial tool for managing a Multiple Victim Incident (MVI). One particularly problematic issue is the communication of results to the chain of command and control. Favourable data exists to suggest that digital triage can improve some features of analogue triage. Within this context we have witnessed the emergence of the Valkyries Project, which is working to develop strategies to respond to MVIs, and especially cross-border incidents. To that end, an IT platform called "SIGRUN" has been created which distributes, in real time, all the information to optimise MVI management. A full-scale simulation, held on the Spain-Portugal border and featuring contributions from different institutions on both sides of the border, put to the test the role of information digitalisation in this type of incidents., Objective: To evaluate the impact of the synchronous digitalisation of information on the optimal management of Multiple Victim Incidents., Method: Clinical evaluation study carried out on a cross-border simulation between Spain and Portugal. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) was established by means of a modified Delphi by a group of experts. The digital platform "SIGRUN" integrated all the information, relaying it in real time to the chain of command and control. Each country assigned two teams that would carry out digital and analogue triage synchronously. Analogue triage variables were gathered by observers accompanying the first responders. Digital triage times were recorded automatically. Each case was evaluated and classified simultaneously by the two participating teams, to carry out a reliability study in a real time scenario., Results: The total duration of the managing of the incident in the A group of countries involved compared to the B group was 72.5 minutes as opposed to 73 minutes. The total digital assistance triage (AT) time was 37.5 seconds in the digital group, as opposed to 32 minutes in the analogue group. Total evacuation (ET) time was 28 minutes in the digital group compared with 65 minutes in the analogue group. The average differences in total times between the analogue and the digital system, both for primary and secondary evaluation, were statistically significant: p = 0.048 and p = 0.000 respectively. For the "red" category, AT obtained a sensitivity of 100%, also for ET, while with regard to AT safety it obtained a PPV of 61.54% and an NPV of 100%, and for ET it obtained a PPV of 83.33% and an NPV of 100%. For the analogue group, for AT it obtained a sensitivity of 62.50%, for ET, 70%, for AT safety it obtained a PPV of 45.45% and an NPV of 92.31%, while for ET it obtained a PPV of 70% and an NPV of 92.50%. The gap analysis obtained a Kappa index of 0.7674., Conclusion: The triage system using the developed digital tool demonstrated its validity compared to the analogue tool, as a result of which its use is recommended., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Behzadi Koochnai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: This phase II study investigated daily or weekly sapanisertib (a selective dual inhibitor of mTOR complexes 1 and 2) in combination with fulvestrant., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer following progression during/after aromatase inhibitor treatment were randomized to receive fulvestrant 500 mg (28-day treatment cycles), fulvestrant plus sapanisertib 4 mg daily, or fulvestrant plus sapanisertib 30 mg weekly, until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or study completion., Results: Among 141 enrolled patients, baseline characteristics were balanced among treatment arms, including prior cyclin-dependent kinase-4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor treatment in 33% to 35% of patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was 3.5 months in the single-agent fulvestrant arm, compared with 7.2 months for fulvestrant plus sapanisertib daily [HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-1.26] and 5.6 months for fulvestrant plus sapanisertib weekly (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.45). The greatest PFS benefits were seen in patients who had previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and hyperglycemia, all occurring more frequently in the combination therapy arms. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurred more frequently in the two combination therapy arms than with single-agent fulvestrant (32% and 36% vs. 4%, respectively)., Conclusions: Fulvestrant plus sapanisertib daily/weekly resulted in numerically longer PFS in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer, compared with single-agent fulvestrant. The combination was associated with increased toxicity. Further development of sapanisertib using these dosing schedules in this setting is not supported by these data., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Well-differentiated (WDLPS) and dedifferentiated (DDLPS) liposarcoma are characterized by co-amplification of the murine double minute-2 (MDM2) and cyclin-dependent kinase-4 (CDK4) oncogenes. Siremadlin, a p53-MDM2 inhibitor, was combined with ribociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, in patients with locally advanced/metastatic WDLPS or DDLPS who had radiologically progressed on, or despite, prior systemic therapy., Patients and Methods: In this proof-of-concept, phase Ib, dose-escalation study, patients received siremadlin and ribociclib across different regimens until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, and/or treatment discontinuation: Regimen A [4-week cycle: siremadlin once daily (QD) and ribociclib QD (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off)], Regimen B [3-week cycle: siremadlin once every 3 weeks; ribociclib QD (2 weeks on, 1 week off)], and Regimen C [4-week cycle: siremadlin once every 4 weeks; ribociclib QD (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off)]. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of siremadlin plus ribociclib in one or more regimens., Results: As of October 16, 2019 (last patient last visit), 74 patients had enrolled. Median duration of exposure was 13 (range, 1-174) weeks. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 10 patients, most of which were Grade 3/4 hematologic events. The RDE was siremadlin 120 mg every 3 weeks plus ribociclib 200 mg QD (Regimen B). Three patients achieved a partial response, and 38 achieved stable disease. One patient (Regimen C) died as a result of treatment-related hematotoxicity., Conclusions: Siremadlin plus ribociclib demonstrated manageable toxicity and early signs of antitumor activity in patients with advanced WDLPS or DDLPS., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma that is unresponsive to chemotherapy. Cediranib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has shown substantial activity in ASPS in non-randomised studies. The Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma (CASPS) study was designed to discriminate the effect of cediranib from the intrinsically indolent nature of ASPS., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial, we recruited participants from 12 hospitals in the UK (n=7), Spain (n=3), and Australia (n=2). Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older; metastatic ASPS that had progressed in the previous 6 months; had an ECOG performance status of 0-1; life expectancy of more than 12 weeks; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Participants had to have no anti-cancer treatment within 4 weeks before trial entry, with exception of palliative radiotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1), with allocation by use of computer-generated random permuted blocks of six, to either cediranib (30 mg orally, once daily) or matching placebo tablets for 24 weeks. Treatment was supplied in number-coded bottles, masking participants and clinicians to assignment. Participants were unblinded at week 24 or sooner if they had progression defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1); those on placebo crossed over to cediranib and all participants continued on treatment until progression or death. The primary endpoint was percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters between baseline and week 24 or progression if sooner, assessed in the evaluable population (all randomly assigned participants who had a scan at week 24 [or sooner if they progressed] with target marker lesions measured). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01337401; the European Clinical Trials database, number EudraCT2010-021163-33; and the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN63733470 recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between July 15, 2011, and July 29, 2016, of 48 participants recruited, all were randomly assigned to cediranib (n=32) or placebo (n=16). 23 (48%) were female and the median age was 31 years (IQR 27-45). Median follow-up was 34·3 months (IQR 23·7-55·6) at the time of data cutoff for these analyses (April 11, 2018). Four participants in the cediranib group were not evaluable for the primary endpoint (one did not start treatment, and three did not have their scan at 24 weeks). Median percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters for the evaluable population was -8·3% (IQR -26·5 to 5·9) with cediranib versus 13·4% (IQR 1·1 to 21·3) with placebo (one-sided p=0·0010). The most common grade 3 adverse events on (blinded) cediranib were hypertension (six [19%] of 31) and diarrhoea (two [6%]). 15 serious adverse reactions in 12 patients were reported; 12 of these reactions occurred on open-label cediranib, and the most common symptoms were dehydration (n=2), vomiting (n=2), and proteinuria (n=2). One probable treatment-related death (intracranial haemorrhage) occurred 41 days after starting open-label cediranib in a patient who was assigned to placebo in the masked phase., Interpretation: Given the high incidence of metastatic disease and poor long-term prognosis of ASPS, together with the lack of efficacy of conventional chemotherapy, our finding of significant clinical activity with cediranib in this disease is an important step towards the goal of long-term disease control for these young patients. Future clinical trials in ASPS are also likely to involve immune checkpoint inhibitors., Funding: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 Sorafenib is a potent targeted-therapy that blockades angiogenesis and has demonstrated activity against some sarcoma subtypes. Preclinical studies suggested that treatment with sorafenib plus cytotoxic agents could result in additive efficacy. Methods Patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with or without anthracycline pretreatment were included. Patients received oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily starting on Day +2, ifosfamide 2.0 g/m2 iv infusion lasting 4 h on days 1, 2 and 3 with concurrent mesna 400 mg/m 2 every three weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or up to a maximum of 6 cycles of ifosfamide (sorafenib could be continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity). Primary objective was progression-free rate (PFR) at 3 and 6 months; secondary objectives were overall response rate (ORR), Progression-free survival (PFS), Overall survival (OS) and safety. This article reports the phase II part of a phase I/II clinical trial. Results Thirty-five patients were enrolled. PFR at 3 and 6 months was 66% (95% CI 48-81) and 37% (95% CI 22-55). Six patients (17%) achieved partial response and 17 (49%) stable disease. Median PFS was 4.8 months (CI 95% 1.94-6.36) and overall survival 16.2 months (95% CI 8.75-NA). Conclusion Treatment with sorafenib plus ifosfamide achieved a significant clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma resistant to anthracyclines, which warrants a more detailed study in randomized clinical trials.