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]

IMPORTANCE: Men with metastatic prostate cancer who have a poor response to initial androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), as reflected by a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level higher than 4.0 ng/mL after 7 months of ADT, have a poor prognosis, based on historical controls. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of abiraterone acetate with prednisone in these high-risk patients with a suboptimal response to hormonal induction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 2 single-arm study was conducted through the National Clinical Trials Network-Southwest Oncology Group. Eligible patients had metastatic prostate cancer and a PSA level higher than 4.0 ng/mL between 6 and 12 months after starting ADT. The PSA level could be rising or falling at the time of enrollment, but had to be higher than 4.0 ng/mL. No previous chemotherapy or secondary hormonal therapies were allowed, except in patients receiving a standard, first-generation antiandrogen agent with a falling PSA level at the time of enrollment; this therapy was continued in this cohort. Abiraterone acetate, 1000 mg, once daily with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily was administered to all participants. A total of 41 men were enrolled between the trials activation on August 9, 2011, and closure on August 1, 2013. Data analysis was conducted from March 21 to November 29, 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Abiraterone acetate, 1000 mg, once daily by mouth with prednisone, 5 mg, by mouth twice daily. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was a PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL or lower within 12 months of starting abiraterone acetate plus prednisone. A partial response (PR) was a secondary end point, defined as a PSA level reduction to lower than 4.0 ng/mL but higher than 0.2 ng/mL. RESULTS: Of the 41 men enrolled, 1 did not receive any protocol treatment and was excluded from analysis. The median (range) age of the 40 participants was 66 (39-85) years. Five (13%) patients achieved a PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL or lower (95% CI, 4%-27%). Thirteen (33%) additional patients achieved a partial response, with a reduction in the PSA level to lower than 4.0 ng/mL but higher than 0.2 ng/mL. Sixteen (40%) patients had no PSA response and 6 (15%) were not assessable and assumed to be nonresponders. The median progression-free survival was 17.5 months (95% CI, 8.6-25.0 months) and the median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 15.7-25.8 months). There was 1 incident each of grade 4 adverse events of alanine aminotransferase level elevation and rectal hemorrhage. Eleven patients reported grade 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study did not reach its prescribed level of 6 PSA responses of 0.2 ng/mL or lower, although 5 responses were observed. The overall survival and progression-free survival rates observed in this trial are encouraging compared with historical controls. The therapy was generally well tolerated, without any clear signal of any unexpected adverse effects.

Metastatic and unresectable medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is often difficult to treat as it is relatively unresponsive to radiation and conventional chemotherapy. This emphasizes the importance of the development of targeted therapies for advanced MTC. Vandetanib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of symptomatic or progressive MTC in patients with advanced disease in April 2011. This therapy proved to be a breakthrough in the management of MTC. We review the efficacy and safety of this novel treatment and other treatments that are being evaluated in this disease.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) represents an aggressive form of thyroid malignancy. Some may occur spontaneously or can be associated with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia syndromes, or Familial Medullary Thyroid Cancer syndrome. In these patients, the protooncogene RET (rearranged during transfection) is mutated. In patients who have unresectable or metastatic disease, the long term prognosis is poor. New treatments for this disease have focused on the use of targeted agents that inhibit the receptor tyrosine kinase of RET. One of these treatments, Vandetanib (Caprelsa, Astra Zeneca), recently has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with progressive locally advanced and/or metastatic disease. This review highlights the studies that led to the drug's approval, and discusses on the potential financial costs of treatment and side effects of this therapy. The main clinical studies evaluating Vandetanib for the treatment of other solid tumors will also be reviewed.

Vandetanib (ZD6474) became the first systemic agent to be approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced medullary thyroid cancer. It was a proof of principle, because it is an orally bioavailable medication that targets the growth factors felt to be important in the pathogenesis of this disease, ie, the rearranged during transfection proto-oncogene and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. It was tested initially in two Phase II studies at doses of 100 mg and 300 mg daily. Although activity was seen at both doses, the higher dose was chosen for a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II study. This trial, which accrued more than 300 patients, showed a statistically significant benefit for the group taking vandetanib compared with those taking placebo medication. Progression-free survival for the vandetanib arm has not been reached, compared with 19 months for the placebo arm. The main toxicity appears to be diarrhea, although some patients experienced significant side effects, including torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, it is now necessary for practitioners to enroll in a Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy before being allowed to prescribe this medication, to reduce the risk of serious side effects occurring.

IntroductionThyroid cancer is a rare disease with an incidence of around 37,000 cases per year. However, its incidence is rising faster than many other cancers and for men this disease ranks highest overall in the rate of increase (2.4% annual increase) in cancer deaths. As the number of radioactive iodine-resistant thyroid cancers increases, the need for newer treatments has become more important. Axitinib is one of many new small molecule inhibitors of growth factor receptors that have shown promise in the treatment of many cancers. It targets the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3.AimsThe goal of this article is to review the published evidence for the use of axitinib in the treatment of thyroid cancer and define its therapeutic potential.Evidence reviewThe major evidence of axitinib activity has appeared in meeting report abstracts. One phase II study has been published. This included patients with any histological type of thyroid cancer that was not amenable to treatment with radioactive iodine.Clinical potentialTo date, in phase II clinical studies axitinib has demonstrated antitumor activity in advanced refractory thyroid cancer. As a monotherapy it resulted in a 30% response rate with another 38% of patients having stable disease. Axitinib appears to have a good tolerability profile, with hypertension being the most common grade 3 or greater side effect.

IntroductionThyroid cancer is a rare disease with an incidence of around 37,000 cases per year. However, its incidence is rising faster than many other cancers and for men this disease ranks highest overall in the rate of increase (2.4% annual increase) in cancer deaths. As the number of radioactive iodine-resistant thyroid cancers increases, the need for newer treatments has become more important. Axitinib is one of many new small molecule inhibitors of growth factor receptors that have shown promise in the treatment of many cancers. It targets the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3.AimsThe goal of this article is to review the published evidence for the use of axitinib in the treatment of thyroid cancer and define its therapeutic potential.Evidence reviewThe major evidence of axitinib activity has appeared in meeting report abstracts. One phase II study has been published. This included patients with any histological type of thyroid cancer that was not amenable to treatment with radioactive iodine.Clinical potentialTo date, in phase II clinical studies axitinib has demonstrated antitumor activity in advanced refractory thyroid cancer. As a monotherapy it resulted in a 30% response rate with another 38% of patients having stable disease. Axitinib appears to have a good tolerability profile, with hypertension being the most common grade 3 or greater side effect.

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]