Search

Combination treatment with BRAF (BRAFi) plus MEK inhibitors (MEKi) has demonstrated survival benefit in patients with advanced melanoma harboring activating BRAF mutations. Previous preclinical studies suggested that an intermittent dosing of these drugs could delay the emergence of resistance. Contrary to expectations, the first published phase 2 randomized study comparing continuous versus intermittent schedule of dabrafenib (BRAFi) plus trametinib (MEKi) demonstrated a detrimental effect of the “on−off” schedule. Here we report confirmatory data from the Phase II randomized open-label clinical trial comparing the antitumoral activity of the standard schedule versus an intermittent combination of vemurafenib (BRAFi) plus cobimetinib (MEKi) in advanced BRAF mutant melanoma patients (NCT02583516). The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of progression free survival (PFS) improvement. Our results show that the antitumor activity of the experimental intermittent schedule of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib is not superior to the standard continuous schedule. Detection of BRAF mutation in cell free tumor DNA has prognostic value for survival and its dynamics has an excellent correlation with clinical response, but not with progression. NGS analysis demonstrated de novo mutations in resistant cases., Whether intermittent strategies of delivering drugs can improve cancer patients survival is still unclear. Here, the authors reports the results of a randomized phase II clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two dosing regimens (continuous and intermittent) of vemurafenib and cobimetinib combination as first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic advanced melanoma with BRAFV600 mutation

PURPOSE Antitumor 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. METHODS SEAL 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 ). RESULTS Two 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). CONCLUSION Patients 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.

The aim of this study was to identify an easily reliable prognostic score that selects the subset of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) patients with a higher benefit with trabectedin in terms of time to progression and overall survival. A retrospective series of 357 patients with ASTS treated with trabectedin as second- or further-line in 19 centers across Spain was analyzed. First, it was confirmed that patients with high growth modulation index (GMI &gt, 1.33) were associated with the better clinical outcome. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with a GMI &gt, 1.33. Thus, GEISTRA score was based on metastasis free-interval (MFI ≤ 9.7 months), Karnofsky &lt, 80%, Non L-sarcomas and better response in the previous systemic line. The median GMI was 0.82 (0–69), with 198 patients (55%) with a GMI &lt, 1, 41 (11.5%) with a GMI 1–1.33 and 118 (33.1%) with a GMI &gt, 1.33. The lowest GEISTRA score showed a median of time-to-progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) of 5.7 and 19.5 months, respectively, whereas it was 1.8 and 3.1 months for TTP and OS, respectively, for the GEISTRA 4 score. This prognostic tool can contribute to better selecting candidates for trabectedin treatment in ASTS.

IntroductionOn March 11th, COVID-19 was categorized as a pandemic. Risk factors for poor outcome in COVID-19 disease include personal history of cancer. The purpose of this research is to explore what do cancer patients know about COVID-19 and their perception of infection risk.MethodsA pilot questionnaire was initiated in hospitalized cancer patients at a large academic medical center to explore fears and other issues related with COVID-19 disease and cancer patients. A stratified analysis by age, sex, marital status, educational background, number of previous systemic treatments received and hospitalization cause was carried out. χ² test, Fisher’s exact test, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Kendall rank correlation coefficient were performed when indicated on each category.Results33 patients were included. 66.7% of patients were male and 33.3% female, with a median age of 57 years old. Natural origin hypothesis of novel coronavirus and high educational levels (tau-c = 0.260, p = 0.040) had a positive moderate correlation. Young cancer patients are more afraid of a SARS-CoV-2 infection than elderly people (p=0.034). Thinking there are differences in COVID-19 symptoms due to cancer treatments had a positive moderate correlation with the number of treatments received (tau-b = 0.342, p = 0.005).ConclusionCancer patients need more information about coronavirus and how can affect them. Some of them are not aware of how can cancer increase their risk of infection. However, they agree with measures that hospitals have implemented and don’t feel they affect the quality of care they receive when admitted.

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.

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.

Summary Background Systemic adjuvant treatment might mitigate the high risk of disease recurrence in patients with resected stage IIC–III melanoma. The BRIM8 study evaluated adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with resected, BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. Methods BRIM8 was a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study that enrolled 498 adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed stage IIC–IIIA–IIIB (cohort 1) or stage IIIC (cohort 2) BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma that was fully resected. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice or web response system to receive twice-daily adjuvant oral vemurafenib 960 mg tablets or matching placebo for 52 weeks (13 × 28-day cycles). Randomisation was done by permuted blocks (block size 6) and was stratified by pathological stage and region in cohort 1 and by region in cohort 2. The investigators, patients, and sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated separately in each cohort. Hierarchical analysis of cohort 2 before cohort 1 was prespecified. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01667419. Findings The study enrolled 184 patients in cohort 2 (93 were assigned to vemurafenib and 91 to placebo) and 314 patients in cohort 1 (157 were assigned to vemurafenib and 157 to placebo). At the time of data cutoff (April 17, 2017), median study follow-up was 33·5 months (IQR 25·9–41·6) in cohort 2 and 30·8 months (25·5–40·7) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (patients with stage IIIC disease), median disease-free survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 18·6–26·5) in the vemurafenib group versus 15·4 months (11·1–35·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·54–1·18; log-rank p=0·026). In cohort 1 (patients with stage IIC–IIIA–IIIB disease) median disease-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable) in the vemurafenib group versus 36·9 months (21·4–not estimable) in the placebo group (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37–0·78]; log-rank p=0·0010); however, the result was not significant because of the prespecified hierarchical prerequisite for the primary disease-free survival analysis of cohort 2 to show a significant disease-free survival benefit. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 141 (57%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 37 (15%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the vemurafenib group were keratoacanthoma (24 [10%] of 247 patients), arthralgia (17 [7%]), squamous cell carcinoma (17 [7%]), rash (14 [6%]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (14 [6%]), although all keratoacanthoma events and most squamous cell carcinoma events were by default graded as grade 3. In the placebo group, grade 3–4 adverse events did not exceed 2% for any of the reported terms. Serious adverse events were reported in 40 (16%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 25 (10%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse event was basal cell carcinoma, which was reported in eight (3%) patients in each group. One patient in the vemurafenib group of cohort 2 died 2 months after admission to hospital for grade 3 hypertension; however, this death was not considered to be related to the study drug. Interpretation The primary endpoint of disease-free survival was not met in cohort 2, and therefore the analysis of cohort 1 showing a numerical benefit in disease-free survival with vemurafenib versus placebo in patients with resected stage IIC–IIIA–IIIB BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma must be considered exploratory only. 1 year of adjuvant vemurafenib was well tolerated, but might not be an optimal treatment regimen in this patient population. Funding F Hoffman–La Roche Ltd.

[Background] Patients with relapsed unresectable osteosarcoma represents an unmet need, so active and safe systemic treatments are required. Fas cell surface death receptor and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways are implicated in progressing osteosarcoma, and we had preclinical and clinical experience with a scheme that targets both pathways. Therefore, we designed a phase II trial with gemcitabine plus rapamycin, to determine the efficacy and safety, in this subset of patients., [Patients and methods] A multicenter, single-arm phase II trial was sponsored by the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma. Osteosarcoma patients, relapsed or progressing after standard chemotherapy and unsuitable for metastasectomy received gemcitabine and rapamycin p.o. 5 mg/day except for the same day of gemcitabine administration, and the day before. The main end point was 4-month progression-free survival rate (PFSR), with the assumption that rates higher than 40% would be considered as an active regimen. Translational research aimed to correlate biomarkers with the clinical outcome., [Results] Thirty-five patients were enrolled and received at least one cycle. PFSR at 4 months was 44%, and after central radiologic assessment, 2 partial responses and 14 stabilizations (48.5%) were reported from 33 assessable patients. The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were: neutropenia (37%), thrombocytopenia (20%), anemia (23%), and fatigue (15%); however, only three patients had febrile neutropenia. Positive protein expression of RRM1 significantly correlated with worse PFS and overall survival, while positivity of P-ERK1/2 was correlated with significant better overall survival., [Conclusion] Gemcitabine plus sirolimus exhibits satisfactory antitumor activity and safety in this osteosarcoma population, exceeding the prespecified 40% of 4-month PFSR. The significant correlation of biomarkers with clinical outcome encourages further prospective investigation., This work was funded by the Ministry of Health, Social Policy and Equality of Spain, through a public competitive call (project reference EC11-444) and by the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma (GEIS), which sponsored the trial (no grant numbers apply).