Search

Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz,1 Jordi Bruix,2 George D Demetri,3 Axel Grothey,4 Marisca Marian,5 Jennifer Bartsch,6 Dawn Odom6 1Interdisciplinary Tumor Center, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany; 2Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Group, Hospital Clinic. IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, CIBERehd, Barcelona, Spain; 3Ludwig Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 4Gastrointestinal Cancer Research, West Cancer Center, OneOncology, Germantown, TN, USA; 5Oncology, Pharmaceuticals Division of Bayer AG, Basel, Switzerland; 6Department of Biostatistics, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USACorrespondence: Ralf-Dieter HofheinzInterdisciplinary Tumor Center, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer Ufer 1-3, Mannheim, 68167, GermanyTel +49 621 383 2855Fax +49 621 383 2488Email ralf.hofheinz@umm.dePurpose: The efficacy and safety of regorafenib have been demonstrated in phase 3 trials for multiple tumor types, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) (CORRECT [NCT01103323]; CONCUR [NCT01584830]), advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) (GRID [NCT01271712]), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (RESORCE [NCT01774344]). The objective of this post hoc exploratory analysis was to explore the impact of regorafenib on delaying health-related quality of life (HRQOL) deterioration across these tumor types.Patients and Methods: HRQOL data (assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires) were pooled for all trials to determine time until definitive deterioration (TUDD), defined as the patient’s first minimal clinically important deterioration in HRQOL score from baseline that does not resolve, using stratified Kaplan–Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for relevant trial, cancer type, and baseline covariates. Additional analyses based on cancer type were conducted by pooling mCRC trials (CORRECT and CONCUR) and pooling the two mCRC trials with the HCC trial (RESORCE).Results: A total of 1699 patients with HRQOL data were pooled across the four trials. The results showed that regorafenib significantly delayed TUDD compared with placebo across all three tumor types. Median time to deterioration across the five scales ranged from 16.3 to 24.1 weeks for regorafenib and 8.6 to 12.1 weeks for placebo. The results from the individual studies, the pooled mCRC trials, and the pooled mCRC and HCC trials were similar to the overall pooled results.Conclusion: A pooled analysis of four phase 3 trials demonstrated that regorafenib delayed a clinically relevant exploratory endpoint, defined as TUDD, compared with placebo across three different tumor types (mCRC, GIST, and HCC), which supports a novel benefit of the impact of regorafenib with respect to patients with these three types of cancers by allowing initial declines in HRQOL to resolve and patients the opportunity to continue treatment.Keywords: gastrointestinal cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatocellular cancer, quality of life, regorafenib

Background: Until now, only imatinib and sunitinib have proven clinical benefit in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), but almost all metastatic GIST eventually develop resistance to these agents, resulting in fatal disease progression. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic or unresectable GIST progressing after failure of at least imatinib and sunitinib.Methods: We did this phase 3 trial at 57 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with histologically confirmed, metastatic or unresectable GIST, with failure of at least previous imatinib and sunitinib were randomised in a 2:1 ratio (by computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system; preallocated block design (block size 12); stratified by treatment line and geographical region) to receive either oral regorafenib 160 mg daily or placebo, plus best supportive care in both groups, for the first 3 weeks of each 4 week cycle. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). At disease progression, patients assigned placebo could crossover to open-label regorafenib. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01271712.Results: From Jan 4, to Aug 18, 2011, 240 patients were screened and 199 were randomised to receive regorafenib (n=133) or matching placebo (n=66). Data cutoff was Jan 26, 2012. Median PFS per independent blinded central review was 4·8 months (IQR 1·4-9·2) for regorafenib and 0·9 months (0·9-1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·19-0·39; p<0·0001). After progression, 56 patients (85%) assigned placebo crossed over to regorafenib. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 130 (98%) patients assigned regorafenib and 45 (68%) patients assigned placebo. The most common regorafenib-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were hypertension (31 of 132, 23%), hand-foot skin reaction (26 of 132, 20%), and diarrhoea (seven of 132, 5%).Interpretation: The results of this study show that oral regorafenib can provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients with metastatic GIST after progression on standard treatments. As far as we are aware, this is the first clinical trial to show benefit from a kinase inhibitor in this highly refractory population of patients.Funding: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF)-associated (MiT) tumors are a family of rare malignancies, including alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), clear cell sarcoma (CCS), and translocation-associated renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) that have dysregulated expression of oncogenic MITF family proteins. The MET receptor tyrosine kinase gene is transcriptionally activated by MITF family proteins, making MET a potential therapeutic target for MiT tumors. This study assessed the activity of tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective MET inhibitor, in patients with MiT-associated tumors.Methods: This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial enrolled patients with advanced MiT tumors. Patients initially received tivantinib 120 mg orally twice daily, then 360 mg twice daily per protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival, pharmacokinetics, and correlative studies.Results: A total of 47 patients (median age, 25 years; range, 11-73 years) with ASPS (n = 27), CCS (n = 11), tRCC (n = 6), or other tumor types (n = 3) were enrolled. Common grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events included anemia (4%) and neutropenia (4%). Three patients (6.4%) experienced 4 treatment-related serious adverse events (grade 3 febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and deep vein thrombosis, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia). Best response was partial response in 1 CCS patient (2%) and stable disease in 28 patients (60%). Median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (overall), 5.5 months (ASPS), and 1.9 months (CCS and tRCC). Baseline MET expression was strongly or focally positive in tumor samples from 14 of 19 patients (74%).Conclusions: Tivantinib was safe and tolerable in patients with MiT tumors, but antitumor activity was modest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the safety, tolerability, and clinical outcomes of an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen designed to incorporate a non-cross-resistant agent (paclitaxel, T) with a maximally dose-intensified regimen of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in conjunction with hematopoietic growth factor support (recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor; G-CSF; Filgrastim). A secondary aim was to assess if a higher dose (10 mcg/kg/day) of G-CSF is more efficacious than the conventional dose (5 mcg/kg/day) in this setting.Patients and Methods: Female patients with early-stage, node-positive invasive breast cancer were eligible for this multicenter, cooperative group feasibility trial that was designed as the pilot study for a larger randomized clinical trial. The protocol treatment comprised five cycles of dose-intensified AC (75 and 2000 mg/m(2)/cycle, respectively, intravenously every three weeks) with G-CSF support, followed by an additional four cycles of T (175 mg/m(2) by 3h intravenous infusion, every three weeks). Patients were randomized to receive one of two dose levels of G-CSF (5 vs. 10 mcg/kg/day) during AC chemotherapy. Data on both short-term toxicity and long-term survival were collected.Results: One hundred and seventy two node-positive patients with operable primary breast cancer were accrued to this trial between February 1993 and April 1994. 130 of the 172 patients (76%) completed all protocol-specified therapy. Of the 42 early study withdrawals, 23 were due to unacceptable acute treatment-related toxicity. No differences in toxicities or clinical outcomes were noted between the two different dose levels of G-CSF support. At 6.8 years median follow-up, relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates for all patients are 70% and 78%, respectively. Ten patients developed second malignancies during follow-up, including three cases with a hematologic malignancy (2% incidence).Conclusion: The delivery of dose-intensified AC followed by T was feasible in this large-scale pilot trial, although significant acute toxicities were commonly encountered. The data confirmed the acceptable tolerability of T after aggressive myelotoxic therapy in the adjuvant setting, leading to a larger randomized clinical trial comparing three dose levels of doxorubicin in AC with or without the addition of T (CALGB 9344). Supportive care using twice the conventional dose of G-CSF did not significantly improve the tolerability or change the toxicities of this regimen, and the occurrence of secondary malignancies is consistent with the emerging risk profile of dose-intensive regimens with growth factor support. With long-term follow-up, the clinical outcomes remain relatively favorable and correlate with such expected prognostic factors as the number of involved nodes and hormone receptor status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Imatinib mesylate is considered the standard first-line systemic treatment for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Results from recent research have expanded the knowledge of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in management of GIST. In the setting of unresectable and metastatic GIST, long-term follow-up of the B2222 study showed that imatinib 400 and 600 mg/d produced objective responses in 68% of patients and clinical benefit in 84%; it also extended median survival from 19 months in historical controls to 57 months. The MetaGIST analysis in two large phase 3 trials consisting of more than 1600 patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GIST showed that imatinib 800 mg/d compared with the standard 400-mg/d dose conferred a progression-free survival advantage in patients with KIT exon 9 mutations but not in other subpopulations. The higher starting dose does not significantly improve overall survival. The BFR14 trial demonstrated that interrupting imatinib is associated with a high risk of rapid disease progression. For patients with imatinib-intolerant or imatinib-resistant GIST, sunitinib or a variety of investigational agents, including the next-generation kinase inhibitor nilotinib, may be viable options for achieving disease control. In the setting of primary localized GIST, function-sparing surgical resection is the standard treatment approach, but some patients may be at substantial risk of disease recurrence and metastasis depending on tumor size, mitotic count, and possibly other factors. Initial results from ACOSOG Z9001 indicate that adjuvant imatinib for 1 year prolongs recurrence-free survival following surgical resection of larger (at least 3 cm) KIT-expressing GIST. Other ongoing studies are further exploring the role of imatinib in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy. Recent updates to clinical practice guidelines and recommendations now incorporate some of these new findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No effective therapeutic options for patients with unresectable imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumour are available. We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, international trial to assess tolerability and anticancer efficacy of sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour who were resistant to or intolerant of previous treatment with imatinib.Methods: Blinded sunitinib or placebo was given orally once daily at a 50-mg starting dose in 6-week cycles with 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off treatment. The primary endpoint was time to tumour progression. Intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol analyses were done. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00075218.Findings: 312 patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive sunitinib (n=207) or placebo (n=105); the trial was unblinded early when a planned interim analysis showed significantly longer time to tumour progression with sunitinib. Median time to tumour progression was 27.3 weeks (95% CI 16.0-32.1) in patients receiving sunitinib and 6.4 weeks (4.4-10.0) in those on placebo (hazard ratio 0.33; p<0.0001). Therapy was reasonably well tolerated; the most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, diarrhoea, skin discolouration, and nausea.Interpretation: We noted significant clinical benefit, including disease control and superior survival, with sunitinib compared with placebo in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after failure and discontinuation of imatinab. Tolerability was acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Troglitazone, a potent activator of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma, induces tumor differentiation in human liposarcomas and causes regression of tumors that are derived from human colon cancer cells in nude mice. We therefore assessed the efficacy of troglitazone in the treatment of metastatic colon cancer in humans.Methods: Twenty-five patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with oral troglitazone. Patients were followed up for evidence of toxicity, tumor response, and survival.Results: The treatment was well tolerated: no grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were observed. However, no objective tumor responses were noted, and all 25 patients had progressive disease as their best response to therapy. The median progression-free survival time was only 1.6 months, and the median survival time was 3.9 months.Discussion: Troglitazone is not an active agent for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have suggested that trabectedin (ecteinascidin-743) could have antitumour activity in soft-tissue sarcoma. We aimed to study the usefulness of trabectedin in the treatment of patients with myxoid liposarcomas, a subtype of liposarcoma that is associated with specific chromosomal translocations t(12;16)(q13;p11) or t(12;22)(q13;q12) that result in the formation of DDIT3-FUS or DDIT3-EWSR1 fusion proteins.Methods: 51 patients with advanced pretreated myxoid liposarcoma who started treatment with trabectedin between April 4, 2001, and Sept 18, 2006 at five institutions in a compassionate-use programme were analysed retrospectively. Centralised radiological and pathological reviews were done for most patients. Trabectedin was given either as a 24-h continuous infusion or as a 3-h infusion, every 21 days, at 1.1-1.5 mg(2). 558 courses of trabectedin were given in total, with a median of ten courses for each patient (range 1-23). The primary endpoints were response rate and progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoint was overall survival.Findings: According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), after a median follow-up of 14.0 months (IQR 8.7-20.0), two patients had complete responses (CR) and 24 patients had partial responses (PR); the overall response was 51% (95% CI 36-65). Five patients had early progressive disease. In 17 of the 23 patients who achieved PR or CR as defined by RECIST and who had centralised radiological review, tissue-density changes, consisting of a decrease in tumour density on CT scan or a decrease in contrast enhancement on MRI (or both), preceded tumour shrinkage. Median progression-free survival was 14.0 months (13.1-21.0), and progression-free survival at 6 months was 88% (79-95).Interpretation: Trabectedin was associated with antitumour activity in this series of patients with myxoid liposarcoma. The noted patterns of tumour response were such that tissue density changes occurred before tumour shrinkage in several patients. In some patients, tissue-density changes only were seen. Long-lasting tumour control was noted in responsive patients. The compassionate-use programme is still ongoing. This analysis has resulted in the initiation of two prospective studies to assess the role of trabectedin in the treatment of patients with myxoid liposarcoma in preoperative and metastatic settings. Furthermore, the selective mechanism of action for trabectedin in this translocation-related sarcoma is being studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, which is approved by both US and European Commission regulatory agencies for clinical use, extends survival of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumours, but concerns have arisen about its cardiac safety. We therefore assessed the cardiovascular risk associated with sunitinib in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all cardiovascular events in 75 patients with imatinib-resistant, metastatic, gastrointestinal stromal tumours who had been enrolled in a phase I/II trial investigating the efficacy of sunitinib. The composite cardiovascular endpoint was cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure. We also examined sunitinib's effects on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and blood pressure. We investigated potential mechanisms of sunitinib-associated cardiac effects by studies in isolated rat cardiomyocytes and in mice.Findings: Eight of 75 (11%) patients given repeating cycles of sunitinib in the phase I/II trial had a cardiovascular event, with congestive heart failure recorded in six of 75 (8%). Ten of 36 (28%) patients treated at the approved sunitinib dose had absolute LVEF reductions in ejection fraction (EF) of at least 10%, and seven of 36 (19%) had LVEF reductions of 15 EF% or more. Sunitinib induced increases in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and 35 of 75 (47%) individuals developed hypertension (>150/100 mm Hg). Congestive heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction generally responded to sunitinib being withheld and institution of medical management. Sunitinib caused mitochondrial injury and cardiomyocyte apoptosis in mice and in cultured rat cardiomyocytes.Interpretation: Left ventricular dysfunction might be due, in part, to direct cardiomyocyte toxicity, exacerbated by hypertension. Patients treated with sunitinib should be closely monitored for hypertension and LVEF reduction, especially those with a history of coronary artery disease or cardiac risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in anticancer therapies have provided crucial benefits for millions of patients who are living long and fulfilling lives. Although these successes should be celebrated, there is certainly room to continue improving cancer care. Increased long-term survival presents additional challenges for determining whether new therapies further extend patients' lives through clinical trials, commonly known as the gold standard endpoint of overall survival (OS). As a result, an increasing reliance is observed on earlier efficacy endpoints, which may or may not correlate with OS, to continue the timely pace of translating innovation into novel therapies available for patients. Even when not powered as an efficacy endpoint, OS remains a critical indication of safety for regulatory decisions and is a key aspect of the FDA's Project Endpoint. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of earlier endpoints, many registrational clinical trials lack adequate planning, collection, and analysis of OS data, which complicates interpretation of a net clinical benefit or harm. This article shares best practices, proposes novel statistical methodologies, and provides detailed recommendations to improve the rigor of using OS data to inform benefit-risk assessments, including incorporating the following in clinical trials intending to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of cancer therapy: prospective collection of OS data, establishment of fit-for-purpose definitions of OS detriment, and prespecification of analysis plans for using OS data to evaluate for potential harm. These improvements hold promise to help regulators, patients, and providers better understand the benefits and risks of novel therapies., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: While cytotoxic chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), clinical outcomes remain suboptimal. Our prior study showed lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin is well tolerated with promising clinical activity in STS. We designed this phase 1b trial to optimize dosing as the basis for a randomized trial in leiomyosarcoma and to further explore the safety profile and efficacy signal., Patients and Methods: Patients had advanced/metastatic STS and no prior anthracycline/lurbinectedin/trabectedin. Escalation followed a 3 + 3 design with 3-week cycles: lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 day 1) and two doxorubicin levels (DL1, 25 mg/m2 day 1; DL2, 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8). The primary objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose for subsequent randomized trials., Results: Ten patients were enrolled in a 6-month period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were grade (G) 2 fatigue and nausea, and G2 cytopenias with no febrile neutropenia events. There were two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at DL2 [day 8 (G2 alanine aminotransferase [ALT]/aspartate aminotransferase increase, G3 neutropenia)], and one DLT in DL1 (G3 ALT increase). These were reversible and all patients continued the study. DL1 was chosen for further study. At the time of data cutoff, the estimated median progression-free survival is 16.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-ND]. The objective response rate was 60% (6/10 confirmed partial responses)., Conclusions: In this phase 1b study, the recommended dose is lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 in combination with doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The study combination was well tolerated and demonstrated intriguing clinical activity., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) showed acceptable safety and promising efficacy in a phase 1 trial (NCT03132922). The aim of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy of afami-cel for the treatment of patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing advanced synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma., Methods: SPEARHEAD-1 was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial done across 23 sites in Canada, the USA, and Europe. The trial included three cohorts, of which the main investigational cohort (cohort 1) is reported here. Cohort 1 included patients with HLA-A*02, aged 16-75 years, with metastatic or unresectable synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma (confirmed by cytogenetics) expressing MAGE-A4, and who had received at least one previous line of anthracycline-containing or ifosfamide-containing chemotherapy. Patients received a single intravenous dose of afami-cel (transduced dose range 1·0 × 10 9 -10·0 × 10 9 T cells) after lymphodepletion. The primary endpoint was overall response rate in cohort 1, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received afami-cel). Adverse events, including those of special interest (cytokine release syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and neurotoxicity), were monitored and are reported for the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04044768; recruitment is closed and follow-up is ongoing for cohorts 1 and 2, and recruitment is open for cohort 3., Findings: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 27, 2021, 52 patients with cytogenetically confirmed synovial sarcoma (n=44) and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (n=8) were enrolled and received afami-cel in cohort 1. Patients were heavily pre-treated (median three [IQR two to four] previous lines of systemic therapy). Median follow-up time was 32·6 months (IQR 29·4-36·1). Overall response rate was 37% (19 of 52; 95% CI 24-51) overall, 39% (17 of 44; 24-55) for patients with synovial sarcoma, and 25% (two of eight; 3-65) for patients with myxoid round cell liposarcoma. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 37 (71%) of 52 of patients (one grade 3 event). Cytopenias were the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events (lymphopenia in 50 [96%], neutropenia 44 [85%], leukopenia 42 [81%] of 52 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred., Interpretation: Afami-cel treatment resulted in durable responses in heavily pre-treated patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing synovial sarcoma. This study shows that T-cell receptor therapy can be used to effectively target solid tumours and provides rationale to expand this approach to other solid malignancies., Funding: Adaptimmune., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EC reports participation in an advisory board for Adaptimmune; and research support paid to their institution for clinical trial activities from Adaptimmune, Novartis, Tracon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Bayer, Amgen, and Mirati. J-YB reports grants paid to institution from Netsarc+ and Euracan; and research support and honoraria from Adaptimmune and GSK. FT reports research support paid to institution for clinical trial activities from Adaptimmune, Achilles Therapeutics, T-knife Therapeutics, GSK, Immunocore, and Instil Bio; consulting fees from T-knife Therapeutics; speaker fees from Kite and Royal Marsden Hospital Cell Therapy Preceptorship; travel or meeting support from Kite; advisory board fees from Immatics, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), GSK, Janssen, Leucid, and Scenic Biotech; institutional advisory board fees from Pfizer; and is an unpaid panel member with Sarcoma UK, Cancer Research UK New Agents Committee, and the Medical Research Council Developmental pathway funding scheme. MA reports institutional support from Exelixis; consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Aadi; and honoraria from Regeneron, Deciphera, and Bayer. EF reports honoraria from Novartis, Alexion, Astellas, GSK, Gilead, and Sanofi; and travel or meeting support from Novartis, Alexion, Gilead, Sanofi, MSD, and Neovii. SJS reports consulting fees from Ceridwen Oncology; honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim; travel or meeting support from Adaptimmune; and participated on advisory or data safety monitoring boards for GSK and Inhibrx. ARAR reports support from Adaptimmune, AbbVie, Amgen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Iterion Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therpaeutics, MedImmune, Merck, Neoleuki Therapeutics, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Symphogen; honoraria from Medison; and participated on advisory or data safety monitoring boards for Adaptimmune, Bayer, GSK, Inhibrx, and Medison. SMS reports institutional support from Adaptimmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Rain Oncology, Shanghai Pharma, and TRACON; royalties or licenses from UpToDate; participated on an advisory or data safety monitoring board for Bioatla; and is an unpaid National Comprehensive Cancer Network Soft Tissue Sarcoma committee member. CMVM reports institutional support from Adaptimmune; consulting fees from Deciphera; honoraria from Bayer; travel or meeting support from PharmaMar; and participation on advisory or data safety monitoring boards for PharmaMar, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. MJW reports consulting fees from Adaptimmune, Deciphera, Aadi, Epizyme, and PharmaEssentia. JG reports support from Adaptimmune for this study. VM reports consulting fees from Roche, Bayer, Pieris, BMS, Janssen, Basilea, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Nanobiotix; and institutional support from AbbVie, AceaBio, Adaptimmune, ADC Therapeutics, Aduro, Agenus, Amcure, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, BioInvent International, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, e-Therapeutics, Exelisis, Forma Therapeutics, Genmab, GSK, Harpoon, Hutchison, Immutep, Incyte, Inovio, Iovance, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Loxo, MedSir, Menarini, Merck, Merus, Millenium, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pricipia, PsiOxus, Puma, Regeneron, Rigontec, Roche, Sanofi, Sierra Oncology, Synthon, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Transgene, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Upsher-Smith. LH, TW, JB, AS, LF, EVW, EN, DW, RW, J-MN, SR, and EE are employees of, and have stock options in, Adaptimmune. SB, CM, and CL were employees of Adaptimmune at the time of the study. VLK reports institutional support from Adaptimmune, Deciphera, Plexxikon, Advenchen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and TRACON; consulting fees from Epizyme; and honoraria from Deciphera. WDT reports institutional support from Adaptimmune; consulting and travel fees from Eli Lilly; consulting fees from C4 Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Adcendo, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Kowa, Servier, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Epizyme, Cogent, Medpacto, Foghorn Therapeutics, Amgen, AmMax Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim, BioAtla, Inhibrx, PharmaEssentia, Avacta, Ipsen, Sonata, Curadev, Nuvation Bio, and Abbisko; has patents pending for companion diagnostics with Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY, USA); is on advisory boards of Innova Therapeutics and the Osteosarcoma Institute; is on the advisory board and holds stock in Certis Oncology Solutions; and is a co-founder and has stock in Atropos Therapeutics. JAC reports consulting fees from Adaptimmune and Deciphera; and honoraria from Adaptimmune. BAVT reports a research grant from Polaris; royalties or licenses from Accuronix Therapeutics; consulting fees from Bayer, Deciphera, GIST Expert Interview Project, Daiichi Sankyo, EcoR1, Advenchen, Putnam, Salarius Pharmaceuticals, Boxer Capital, Acuta Capital Partners, Aadi, Race Oncology, Hinge Bio, Kronos Bio, and Sonata Therapeutics; honoraria from Total Health Conference and Iterion Therapeutics; travel or meeting support from Adaptimmune, Kronos Bio, Advenchen Laboratories, and Polaris; has a patent with Accuronix Therapeutics; participated in advisory boards for Apexigen, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Bayer, PTC Therapeutics, Aadi Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, Agenus, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Exp, Advenchen, EcoR1 Capital, Curis, and Inhibrx; and is a board member for Polaris. GDD reports institutional support from Adaptimmune, Bayer, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Daiichi-Sankyo; is a co-founder and scientific advisory board member with minor equity holding in IDRx; is a consultant or scientific advisory board member with minor equity holding in G1 Therapeutics, Caris Life Sciences, Erasca Pharmaceuticals, RELAY Therapeutics, Bessor Pharmaceuticals, CellCarta, Ikena Oncology, Kojin Therapeutics, Aadi Biosciences, Acrivon Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, Tessellate Bio, and Boundless Bio; and is a scientific consultant for EMD-Serono/Merck KGaA, WCG/Arsenal Capital, Rain Therapeutics, and Minghui Pharmaceuticals. SPD'A reports institutional support from Adaptimmune for this study; grants, contracts, consulting fees, and honoraria from EMD Serono, Amgen, Nektar, Immune Design, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Merck, Adaptimmune, Immunocore, Pfizer, Servier, Rain Therapeutics, GI Innovations, and Aadi Biosciences; travel support from Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, and Nektar; participation on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Nektar, Adaptimmune, and Merck; and a leadership or fiduciary role at the Connective Tissue Oncology Society in 2023–24. SA reports institutional support from Adaptimmune for this study; and institutional support from TRACON Pharma, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Cogent Biosciences, InhibRx, Rain Therapeutics, Trillium Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Salarius Pharmaceuticals, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Monopar Therapeutics, C4 Therapeutics, Noxopharm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Shanghai Pharma, and PharmaMar. KNG reports participation in advisory boards for Adaptimmune, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Deciphera. MD reports consultancy fees and advisory board fees from Deciphera, Aadi Bioscience, and Daiichi Sankyo. BAW reports consultancy fees from Springworks, Deciphera, Epizyme, Adcendo, Polaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AADi, research funding from Exelixis, and travel support from Agenus. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Larotrectinib, a first-in-class, highly selective tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in adult and pediatric patients with various solid tumors harboring NTRK gene fusions. This subset analysis focuses on the efficacy and safety of larotrectinib in an expanded cohort of adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas., Methods: Patients (≥18 years old) with sarcomas harboring NTRK gene fusions were identified from three clinical trials. Patients received larotrectinib 100 mg orally twice daily. Response was investigator-assessed per RECIST v1.1. Data cutoff was July 20, 2021., Results: At the data cutoff, 36 adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas had initiated larotrectinib therapy: two (6%) patients had bone sarcomas, four (11%) had gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and 30 (83%) had soft tissue sarcomas. All patients were evaluable for response and demonstrated an objective response rate of 58% (95% confidence interval, 41-74). Patients responded well to larotrectinib regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were mostly grade 1/2. Grade 3 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 15 (42%) patients. There were no grade 4 TEAEs. Two grade 5 TEAEs were reported, neither of which were considered related to larotrectinib. Four (11%) patients permanently discontinued treatment due to TEAEs., Conclusions: Larotrectinib demonstrated robust and durable responses, extended survival benefit, and a favorable safety profile in adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas with longer follow-up. These results continue to demonstrate that testing for NTRK gene fusions should be incorporated into the clinical management of adult patients with various types of sarcomas., Plain Language Summary: Tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusion proteins result from translocations involving the NTRK gene and cause cancer in a range of tumor types. Larotrectinib is an agent that specifically targets TRK fusion proteins and is approved for the treatment of patients with TRK fusion cancer. This study looked at how well larotrectinib worked in adult patients with sarcomas caused by TRK fusion proteins. Over half of patients had a durable response to larotrectinib, with no unexpected side effects. These results show that larotrectinib is safe and effective in adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Most gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) express constitutively activated mutant isoforms of KIT or kinase platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) that are potential therapeutic targets for imatinib mesylate. The relationship between mutations in these kinases and clinical response to imatinib was examined in a group of patients with advanced GIST., Patients and Methods: GISTs from 127 patients enrolled onto a phase II clinical study of imatinib were examined for mutations of KIT or PDGFRA . Mutation types were correlated with clinical outcome., Results: Activating mutations of KIT or PDGFRA were found in 112 (88.2%) and six (4.7%) GISTs, respectively. Most KIT mutations involved exon 9 (n = 23) or exon 11 (n = 85). All KIT mutant isoforms, but only a subset of PDGFRA mutant isoforms, were sensitive to imatinib, in vitro. In patients with GISTs harboring exon 11 KIT mutations, the partial response rate (PR) was 83.5%, whereas patients with tumors containing an exon 9 KIT mutation or no detectable mutation of KIT or PDGFRA had PR rates of 47.8% ( P = .0006) and 0.0% ( P < .0001), respectively. Patients whose tumors contained exon 11 KIT mutations had a longer event-free and overall survival than those whose tumors expressed either exon 9 KIT mutations or had no detectable kinase mutation., Conclusion: Activating mutations of KIT or PDGFRA are found in the vast majority of GISTs, and the mutational status of these oncoproteins is predictive of clinical response to imatinib. PDGFRA mutations can explain response and sensitivity to imatinib in some GISTs lacking KIT mutations.