Search

Tebentafusp, a bispecific immune therapy, is the only drug that demonstrated an overall survival benefit in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a potential prognostic and predictive marker in the phase 3 IMCgp100-202 trial using multiplex PCR-based next-generation sequencing (NGS). In this study (NCT02866149), ctDNA dynamics were assessed using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in 69 MUM patients undergoing tebentafusp treatment. Notably, 61% of patients exhibited detectable ctDNA before treatment initiation, which was associated with shorter overall survival (median 12.9 months versus 40.5 months for patients with undetectable ctDNA; p < 0.001). Patients manifesting a 90% or greater reduction in ctDNA levels at 12 weeks demonstrated markedly prolonged overall survival (median 21.2 months versus 12.9 months; p = 0.02). Our findings highlight the potential of ddPCR-based ctDNA monitoring as an economical, pragmatic and informative approach in MUM management, offering valuable insights into treatment response and prognosis., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) encompass a heterogeneous family of mesenchymal tumors. Previously described clinicopathologic features aimed at distinguishing benign from malignant variants but lacked prognostic value., Methods: This retrospective analysis examined clinicopathologic data from patients who had localized PEComa across French Sarcoma Network centers. The authors analyzed 12 clinicopathologic features in a Cox proportional hazard framework to derive a multivariate prognostic risk model for event-free survival (EFS). They built the PEComa prognostic score (PEC-PRO), in which scores ranged from 0 to 5, based on the coefficients of the multivariate model. Three groups were identified: low risk (score = 0), intermediate risk (score = 1), and high risk (score ≥ 2)., Results: Analyzing 87 patients who had a median 46-month follow-up (interquartile range, 20-74 months), the median EFS was 96.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1 months to not applicable), with 2-year and 5-year EFS rates of 64.7% and 58%, respectively. The median overall survival was unreached, with 2-year and 5-year overall survival rates of 82.3% and 69.3%, respectively. The simplified Folpe classification did not correlate with EFS. Multivariate analysis identified three factors affecting EFS: positive surgical margins (hazard ratio [HR], 5.17; 95% CI, 1.65-16.24; p = .008), necrosis (HR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.16-13.43; p = .030), and male sex (HR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.19-8.27; p = 0.023). Four variables were retained in the prognostic model. Patients with low-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 93.7% (95% CI, 83.8%-100.0%), those with intermediate-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 67.4% (95% CI, 53.9%-80.9%), and those with high-risk PEC-PRO scores had a 2-year EFS rate of 2.3% (95% CI, 0.0%-18.3%)., Conclusions: The PEC-PRO score reliably predicts the risk of postoperative recurrence in patients with localized PEComa. It has the potential to improve follow-up strategies but requires validation in a prospective trial., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Sarcoma is a heterogeneous group of diseases with few treatment options. Immunotherapy has shown little activity in studies including unselected sarcomas, but immune checkpoint blockers have shown activity in specific histotypes. We evaluated the activity of pembrolizumab in rare and ultra-rare sarcomas., Methods: AcSé Pembrolizumab is an ongoing phase 2, basket, multitumour study investigating the activity of pembrolizumab monotherapy in rare cancers. Here, we report the results obtained in patients with selected histotypes of rare sarcomas (incidence of less than one case per 1 000 000 people per year) recruited at 24 French hospitals. Key inclusion criteria were age 15 years or older, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and advanced disease that was untreated and resistant to treatment. Patients were given pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for a maximum of 24 months. The primary endpoint was objective response rate at week 12 using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, assessed by local investigators. The primary endpoint and safety were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The AcSé Pembrolizumab study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03012620., Findings: Between Sept 4, 2017, and Dec 29, 2020, 98 patients were enrolled, of whom 97 received treatment and were included in analyses (median age 51 years [IQR 35-65]; 53 [55%] were male; 44 [45%] were female; no data were collected on race or ethnicity). 34 (35%) patients had chordomas, 14 (14%) had alveolar soft part sarcomas, 12 (12%) had SMARCA4-deficient sarcomas or malignant rhabdoid tumours, eight (8%) had desmoplastic small round cell tumours, six (6%) had epithelioid sarcomas, four (4%) had dendritic cell sarcomas, three (3%) each had clear cell sarcomas, solitary fibrous tumours, and myxoid liposarcomas, and ten (10%) had other ultra-rare histotypes. As of data cutoff (April 11, 2022), median follow-up was 13·1 months (range 0·1-52·8; IQR 4·3-19·7). At week 12, objective response rate was 6·2% (95% CI 2·3-13·0), with no complete responses and six partial responses in the 97 patients. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (eight [8%] of 97), alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase increase (six [6%]), and dyspnoea (five [5%]). 86 serious adverse events were reported in 37 patients. Five deaths due to adverse events were reported, none of which were determined to be related to treatment (two due to disease progression, two due to cancer, and one due to unknown cause)., Interpretation: Our data show the activity and manageable toxicity of pembrolizumab in some rare and ultra-rare sarcoma histotypes, and support the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway as a potential therapeutic target in selected histotypes. The completion of the basket study will provide further evidence regarding the activity and toxicity of pembrolizumab in identified rare types of cancer., Funding: The Ligue contre le cancer, INCa, MSD., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests J-YB received support for the present research from INCa (Institut National du Cancer; French National Cancer Institute), Unicancer, Fondation ARC, and MSD (drug supply) as well as research support from MSD Avenir Foundation for unrelated research. ALC reports personal fees from Pharmamar and Deciphera. CE received consulting fees from BMS, MSD, Novartis, F Star therapeutics, and Merck Serono, as well as grant support from MSD and Merck Serono. CM was principal investigator or investigator of clinical trials for Abbvie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boeringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura,Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix,Biopharma, Medimmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, and Xencor; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Orion; and travel grants from Janssen and AstraZeneca. PBR received consulting fees from Ipsen and travel grants from Pharmamar and Pfizer. MC reported support for attending meetings or travel from Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, MSD, Biogaran, and Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are approved agents in mRCC patients after sunitinib/pazopanib (TKI) failure. However, the optimal sequence, cabozantinib then nivolumab (CN) or nivolumab then cabozantinib (NC), is still unknown. The CABIR study aimed to identify the optimal sequence between CN and NC after frontline VEGFR-TKI. In this multicenter retrospective study, we collected data from mRCC pts receiving CN or NC, after frontline VEGFR-TKI. A propensity score (PrS) was calculated to manage bias selection, and sequence comparisons were carried out with a cox model on a matched sample 1:1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second line to progression in third line (PFS 2-3 ). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival from second line (OS 2 ). Out of 139 included mRCC patients, 38 (27%) and 101 (73%) received CN and NC, respectively. Overlap in PrS allowed 1:1 matching for each CN pts, with characteristics well balanced. For both PFS 2-3 and OS 2 , NC sequence was superior to CN (PFS 2-3 : HR = 0.58 [0.34-0.98], P = .043; OS 2 : 0.66 [0.42-1.05], P = .080). Superior PFS 2-3 was in patients treated between 6 and 18 months with prior VEGFR-TKI (P = .019) and was driven by a higher PFS L3 with cabozantinib when given after nivolumab (P < .001). The CABIR study shows a prolonged PFS of the NC sequence compared to CN in mRCC after first line VEGFR-TKI failure. The data suggest that cabozantinib may be more effective than nivolumab in the third-line setting, possibly related to an ability of cabozantinib to overcome resistance to PD-1 blockade., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: We retrospectively investigated the role of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma., Methods: We selected all patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma, who had received radical surgery between January 2005 and December 2019 at 33 European sarcoma reference centers. The primary objective was to compare the outcome of patients who received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not, in terms of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). To reduce the risk of confounding due to imbalance, a propensity-score matching(PSM) was performed. Finally, subgroups analysis was performed according to tumor site, tumor size (< 50 mm or ≥ 50 mm) and patients predicted 10-years OS according to the nomogram sarculator (two different cutoff-values were applied: ≤ 33% or > 33% and < 60% or ≥ 60%)., Results: 362 patients were analyzed: 149 (41.2%; treated group) received (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy and 213 (58.6%; control group) did not. The median follow-up for the OS endpoint was 5.1 years (95% CI: 4.0-5.5). The OS-HR was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.40-0.83; p-value = 0.003) in the univariate analysis and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.38-1.43; p = 0.367) in the PSM analysis. The DFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57-0.98; p-value = 0.036) in the univariate analysis, and 0.91 (95% CI:0.56-1.48; p-value = 0.7) in the PSM analysis. The DMFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.55-1.02; p-value = 0.065) in univariate analysis and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.53-1.61; p-value = 0.769) in the PSM analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed no heterogeneity of results in strata of tumor site. On the contrary, there was a trend for heterogeneity according to tumor size and patient's risk of death. For all the endpoints analyzed, patients with tumors smaller than 50 mm or at lower risk of death seem to have no benefit from chemotherapy, while patients with larger tumors or at higher risk of death at 10 years seem to derive substantial benefit., Conclusion: This large, retrospective study suggests that patients affected by > 50 mm and/or high-risk primary, localized angiosarcoma could benefit from (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for front-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, progressive disease often occurs and subsequent therapies are needed. ICI rechallenge may be an option, but there is a lack of data regarding efficacy and prognostic factors. We assessed efficacy of ICI rechallenge and factors associated with better outcomes. Patients and Methods . This ambispective multicenter study included 45 mRCC patients rechallenged with nivolumab ± ipilimumab between 2014 and 2020. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR) for ICI rechallenge (ICI-2). Factors associated with ICI-2 progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated with multivariate Cox models., Results: ORR was 51% ( n  = 23) at first ICI therapy (ICI-1) and 16% ( n  = 7) for ICI-2. Median PFS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 9.8-23.5) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.8-9.7), and median overall survival was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 37.8-NR) and 24 months (95% CI, 9.9-NR) for ICI-1 and ICI-2, respectively. Factors associated with poorer ICI-2 PFS were a high number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, use of an intervening treatment between ICI regimens, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at ICI-2 start. Conversely, ICI-1 PFS >6 months was associated with better ICI-2 PFS. In multivariate analysis, there were only statistical trends toward better ICI-2 PFS in patients with ICI-1 PFS >6 months ( p =0.07) and toward poorer ICI-2 PFS in patients who received a treatment between ICI regimens ( p =0.07)., Conclusion: Rechallenge with nivolumab-based ICI has some efficacy in mRCC. We identified various prognostic factors in univariate analysis but only statistical trends in multivariate analysis. Our findings bring new evidence on ICI rechallenge and preliminary but unique data that may help clinicians to select patients who will benefit from this strategy., Competing Interests: Charles Vauchier, Lucia Carril-Ajuria, Thomas Ryckewaert, Zahra Castel-Ajgal, Mostefa Bennamoun, Luca Campedel, Laurence Crouzet, and Jean-François Berdah have nothing to disclose. Edouard Auclin has received honoraria from Sanofi/Genzyme and travel and accommodations expenses from Mundipharma and has other relationships with Lilly Oncology. Philippe Barthélémy has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma and EUSA Pharma, as well as consulting and advisory fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Delphine Borchiellini has received consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, and Roche; and travel and accommodations expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche. Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding from Pfizer; and travel and accommodations expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Elodie Coquan has an immediate family member employed by Sanofi and has received consulting and advisory fees from Ipsen, MSD, and Sanofi; research funding from Janssen; and travel and accommodations expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Christine Chevreau has received consulting and advisory fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, and Pfizer, as well as travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer/Ipsen. Raffaele Ratta has received consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, as well as travel and accommodation expenses from Astellas Pharma and Pfizer. Aude Fléchon has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis, as well as travel and accommodation expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis. Felix Lefort has received travel and accommodation expenses from Ipsen and Roche. Laurence Albiges has received consulting and advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Peloton therapeutics, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and travel and accommodation expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD. Marine Gross-Goupil has received consulting and advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas, Medivation, AstraZeneca, Bayer/Onyx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; and travel and accommodation expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche. Yann-Alexandre Vano has received consulting and advisory fees from Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Constance Thibault has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi; research funding from AstraZeneca; and travel and accommodation expenses from Ipsen, Merck, and Pfizer. Stéphane Oudard has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding from Ipsen and Sanofi; and travel and accommodation expenses from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche., (Copyright © 2022 Charles Vauchier et al.)

The management of oncology patients, especially hospitalized patients, can lead to almost daily discussions regarding therapeutic limitations. Here, we review the history and propose a summary of the texts framing the notion of "withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment" in oncology practice in France. This decision is regulated by the Claeys-Léonetti Law of February 2, 2016 recommending a collegial discussion and its documentation in the medical record. The decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments is the subject of discussion between the patient, his physicians and his family and may take place at any time during his management. The work of intensive-care physicians provides many useful recommendations for acute oncology situations, however articles specific for oncology practice are scarce; this is a topic that oncologists must take up., (Copyright © 2021 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

We reviewed all fully published clinical trials assessing anti-angiogenic agents in sarcoma patients (last issue, January 13, 2020). Anti-angiogenic macromolecules (e.g., bevacizumab or ombrabulin) provide disappointing results. Many multikinase inhibitors have been assessed with non-randomized phase II trials with limited samples and without stratification according to histological subtypes, therefore interpretation of such trials is very challenging. On the contrary, pazopanib, regorafenib, and sorafenib have been assessed using double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase II or phase III trials. Compared to placebo, sorafenib demonstrates activity in desmoid-type fibromatosis patients. Based on results of phase 3 trial, pazopanib had obtained approval for treatment of pretreated non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. Regorafenib is currently assessed in several clinical settings and provides significant improvement of progression-free survival in pre-treated non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma and in advanced pretreated osteosarcoma. Multikinase inhibitors are a breakthrough in sarcoma management. Many trials are ongoing. Nevertheless, predictive factors are still missing., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer GG declared a past co-authorship with one of the authors NP to the handling editor., (Copyright © 2020 Cren, Lebellec, Ryckewaert and Penel.)

Background: Metastatic phyllodes tumors have poor prognosis with median overall survival of 11.5 months. The objective of this study is to identify prognostic factors and the best options for management of metastatic malignant phyllode tumors (MMPTs)., Patients and Methods: A multicentric retrospective study, including cases of MMPT from 10 sarcoma centers, was conducted. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS), and the secondary end-point was the clinical benefit of chemotherapy (CBCT) rate., Results: 51 MMPT patients were included. Median time from diagnosis to metastatic recurrence was 13 months. Management of MMPT consisted in surgery of the metastatic disease for 16 patients (31.3%), radiation therapy of the metastatic disease for 15 patients (31.9%), and chemotherapy for 37 patients (72.5%). Median follow-up was 62.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 31-80 months]. Median OS was 11.5 months (95% CI 7.5-18.7 months). On multivariate analysis, two or more metastatic sites [hazard ratio (HR) 2.81, 95% CI 1.27-6.19; p = 0.01] and surgery of metastasis (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.78; p = 0.01) were independently associated with OS. The CBCT rate was 31.4% and 16.7% for the first and second lines. Polychemotherapy was not superior to single-agent therapy. Alkylating-agent-based chemotherapy, possibly associated with anthracyclines, was associated with a better CBCT rate than anthracyclines alone (p = 0.049)., Conclusions: The results of this study emphasize the impact of the number of metastatic sites on survival of MMPT patients and the leading role of metastasis surgery in MMPT management. If systemic therapy is used, it should include alkylating agents, which are associated with a better clinical benefit.

We summarize here available data about systemic treatments of desmoids tumors, as well in adult patients as pediatric patients. Until 2018, the level of evidence associated with these treatments (NSAI, hormonal therapies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, chemotherapy) was very low, based on retrospective studies or non-randomized phase 2 trials with limited number of cases. In 2018-2019, 2 large randomized trials have been published, including one large superiority phase 3 trial comparing sorafenib to placebo. This trial clearly demonstrates the clinical benefit of sorafenib over placebo (level of evidence IA). To conclude, wait-and-see policy must be the first-line approach, systemic treatment is indicated in case of disease progression. Randomized trials are feasible in this exceptional disease., (Copyright © 2019 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

We review the role of hormonal therapy in the management of different conjunctive tumors. Progestin and aromatase inhibitors seem active in low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma, but larger case-series are needed. There is no evidence to support the use of hormonal therapy as an adjuvant treatment for low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma. We did not find relevant data on the use of hormonal therapy for other uterine sarcomas (e.g., high-grade endometrial sarcoma, undifferentiated uterine sarcoma, and adenosarcoma). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, anti-estrogens and aromatase inhibitor seem active in advanced aggressive angiomyxoma, but larger studies are warranted. The use of aromatase inhibitor in estrogen-receptor-positive uterine leiomyosarcoma requires further clinical investigation. There is no evidence supporting the use of hormonal therapy in desmoid-type fibromatosis. International collaboration efforts are warranted to better explore the role of hormonal therapies in management of estrogen-receptor-positive uterine leiomyosarcoma, low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma, and aggressive angiomyxoma., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: This study aimed at exploring several brain metastatic prognostic scores in patients with renal cell carcinoma., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of 93 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who were diagnosed with brain metastases between October 2005 and July 2016 who received targeted therapy. Potential prognostic factors (RTOG RPA, BS-BM, and a newly developed score CERENAL) were analyzed., Results: A total of 75 patients received targeted therapy. All scores showed prognostic value in progression-free survival after first-line treatment with CERENAL being the sole independent prognostic factor associated with improved duration of first-line treatment. Both RTOG RPA and CERENAL were potential prognosticators for overall survival, whereas only the CERENAL score was associated with prolonged disease-specific survival., Conclusion: Several prognostic scores can be useful to predict survival of patients with brain metastases from renal cancer, especially the newly developed CERENAL score., (Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: We report here a correlation analysis conducted along with a phase II trial assessing bevacizumab in combination with weekly paclitaxel., Methods: Circulating pro/anti-angiogenic factors were assessed on day 1 (D1) and day 8 (D8). The prognostic value for progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated using a Cox model with biomarkers as continuous variables., Results: Among the 51 patients enrolled and treated in this trial, biomarker analysis was performed for 42: 18 in Arm A (single-agent) and 24 in Arm B (combination). With a median follow-up of 46 months, PFS was 5.5 versus 5.7 months, respectively (p = 0.75). According to univariate analysis, factors associated with a poor PFS were as follows: visceral angiosarcoma, de novo angiosarcoma, and high PlGF and low VEGF-C baseline values. In multivariate analysis, de novo angiosarcoma (HR = 2.5; p = 0.024) and baseline VEGF-C value (HR = 0.7; p = 0.003) were significant prognostic factors. We observed a significant increase in circulating PlGF (< 0.001) and a decrease in VEGF (< 0.001) during bevacizumab treatment. An increase in FGF was associated with a poor outcome., Conclusions: De novo angiosarcoma and a low baseline level of VEGF-C were found to be associated with a poor prognosis. Addition of bevacizumab induces major changes in circulating biomarkers (VEGF and PlGF) in a short timeframe without impacting PFS., Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered on EudraCT N° 2009-017020-59 and NCT01303497 (February 24, 2011).

Introduction: The placebo-controlled phase-2 REGOSARC trial demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib in patients with leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma and other non-adipocytic sarcoma but not in liposarcoma. Patients initially allocated to placebo were allowed to receive regorafenib after progression. We report here an updated analysis of the trial including evaluation of regorafenib activity after cross-over., Methods: From June 2013 to December 2014, 139 patients were enrolled in the non-adipocytic sarcoma cohorts. Median follow-up is now 32.4 months. Benefit of regorafenib versus placebo in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from randomisation was estimated by hazard ratio (HR) in Cox models. In the placebo arm, intra-patient benefit of regorafenib after cross-over was evaluated by the growth modulation index (GMI) (GMI was here, for each patient, PFS after cross-over regorafenib divided by PFS with placebo). Furthermore, the activity of delayed (after cross-over) versus early (at study entry) regorafenib was evaluated by comparing PFS after cross-over to regorafenib to PFS after randomisation in the regorafenib arm., Results: PFS benefit of regorafenib as compared to placebo was confirmed with longer follow-up (HR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35-0.71; p < .0001). OS was not statistically significant different (HR = 0.78; 0.54-1.12; p = .18). This finding may partially be explained by the fact that 55/68 patients who progressed on placebo (81%) received cross-over Regorafenib after progression: 59% of them had a GMI ≥ 1.3 (95% CI, 45-71%). Delayed start of regorafenib was associated with a statistically non-significant shorter PFS as compared to early treatment (HR = 1.21; 0.84-1.73; p = .30) without impact on OS., Conclusions: Observed PFS confirms that regorafenib warrants further clinical investigation in refractory non-adipocytic sarcomas., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: There is a strong rationale for treating sarcomas with immunotherapy., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) targeting in combination with metronomic chemotherapy in sarcomas., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study of 4 cohorts of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), including leiomyosarcoma (LMS), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), other sarcomas (others), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). All patients received 50 mg twice daily cyclophosphamide 1 week on and 1 week off and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks., Intervention or Exposure: Pembrolizumab in combination with metronomic cyclophosphamide., Main Outcomes and Measures: There was a dual primary end point, encompassing both the nonprogression and objective responses at 6 months per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1 for LMS, UPS, and others and 6-month nonprogression for GIST. An objective response rate of 20% and/or a 6-month nonprogression rate of 60% were determined as reasonable objectives for treatment with meaningful effect. Correlative studies of immune biomarkers were planned from patient tumor and plasma samples., Results: Between June 2015 and July 2016, 57 patients were included (median [range] age, 59.5 [18.5-84.0] years; 24 women [42%]); 50 patients were assessable for the efficacy end point. Three patients experienced tumor shrinkage, resulting in a partial response in a single solitary fibrous tumor. The 6-month nonprogression rates were 0%, 0%, 14.3% (95% CI, 1.8%-42.8%) for LMS, UPS, and others, respectively, and 11.1% (95% CI, 2.8%-48.3%) for GIST. The most frequent adverse events were grade 1 or 2 fatigue, diarrhea, and anemia. The only patient who experienced partial response was the only one with strong programmed cell death 1 ligand 1-positive staining in immune cell. Strong infiltration by macrophage expressing the inhibitory enzyme indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) was observed in the majority of cases. Moreover, a significant increase in the kynurenine to tryptophan ratio was observed in patient plasma samples during the study treatment., Conclusions and Relevance: We found that PD-1 inhibition has limited activity in selected STS and GIST. This may be explained by an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment resulting from macrophage infiltration and IDO1 pathway activation., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02406781.

Ewing's sarcoma family of tumors (EFTs) is a group of rare and aggressive tumors. Data on EFTs in patients (pts) ≥ 50 years are limited and these pts are often not eligible for clinical trials. Some, but not all, studies have reported inferior outcome for older pts with EFTs. We conducted an IRB-approved retrospective analysis among centers of the French Sarcoma Group on pts diagnosed with EFTs at age ≥50 between 2000 and 2012. Clinical features, treatment modality and outcomes were analyzed. Seventy-seven pts were identified, including 36 females (46.8%) and the median age at diagnosis was 56 years (range: 50-86). The primary tumor was located in soft tissue in 59 pts (76.6%). Fifty-six pts (72.7%) had localized disease, among them 49 (87.5%) received chemotherapy in addition to local therapy. Their estimated 3-yr OS and event-free survival (EFS) rates were respectively 73.3% and 62.2%. Recurrence occurred in 43 pts. The estimated 3-yr OS rate was 37% in pts with metastatic disease at presentation. EFTs in pts ≥50 years are more likely to originate from soft tissue and their outcomes appear to be worse than that of younger pts treated with modern protocols.

Purpose: The outcome of desmoid-type fibromatosis (DTF) is unpredictable. Currently, a wait-and-see approach tends to replace large en bloc resection as the first therapeutic approach. Nevertheless, there are no validated factors to guide the treatment choice., Method: We conducted a prospective study of 771 confirmed cases of DTF. We analysed event-free survival (EFS) based on the occurrence of relapse after surgery, progressive disease during the wait-and-see approach, or change in therapeutic strategy. Identification of prognostic factors was performed using classical methods (log-rank test and Cox model)., Results: Overall, the 2-year EFS was 56%; this value did not differ between patients undergoing an operation and those managed by the wait-and-see approach (53% versus 58%, p = 0.415). In univariate analysis, two prognostic factors significantly influenced the outcome: the nature of diagnostic sampling (p = 0.466) and primary location (p = 0.0001). The 2-year EFS was only 32% after open biopsy. The 2-year EFS was 66% for favourable locations (abdominal wall, intra-abdominal, breast, digestive viscera and lower limb) and 41% for unfavourable locations. Among patients with favourable locations, the 2-year EFS was similar in patients treated by both surgery (70%) and the wait-and-see approach (63%; p = 0.413). Among patients with unfavourable locations, the 2-year EFS was significantly enhanced in patients initially managed with the wait-and-see approach (52%) compared with those who underwent initial surgery (25%; p = 0.001)., Conclusion: The location of DTF is a major prognostic factor for EFS. If these findings are confirmed by independent analysis, personalised management of DTF must consider this easily obtained parameter., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Context: Ifosfamide remains one of the major cytotoxic drugs for sarcoma management. Ifosfamid-related encephalopathy (IRE) is a rare but severe adverse event, without clearly identified risk factors., Method: We have carried out a single-center, retrospective study to assess the occurrence and the risk factors for IRE after the two first cycles of chemotherapy. We have collected the data-describing patients, biological data, tumors characteristics (histology, leptomeningeal metastasis) and ifosfamide administration modalities., Results: From September 2008 to November 2013, we have identified 8 IRE out of 187 patients (4.2% [CI95%: 1.8-8.2]). The median age was 27 (0-78). Histologies were adult soft tissue sarcomas (78 patients), osteosarcoma (48), ewing sarcoma (41) and rhabdomyosarcoma (26). Most of factors were not associated with IRE. Only 8 patients have received aprepitant, none of them experienced IRE. Under univariate analysis, the risk factors for IRE were: PS≥2 (OR=9.52 [CI95%: 2.38-38.80]), albumin≤36g/L (OR=9.79 [CI95%: 1.19-80.26]), leptomeningeal metastasis (OR=13.20 [CI95%: 2.76-63.19]), 4 or 5 successive days of ifosfamide administration (OR=6.00 [CI95%: 1.40-25.60]). Under multivariate analysis, the risk factors for IE were: PS≥2 (OR=16.00 [IC95%: 2.80-67.00]), leptomeningial metastasis (OR=23.56 [IC95%: 2.01-456.80]) and 4 or 5 days of ifosfamide administration (OR=57.45 [IC95%: 1.66-35.00])., Conclusion: Ifosfamide administration must be given with caution in patients with poor performans status. A 4 to 5 days fractioned ifosfamide and leptomeningeal metastasis seems associated with increased risk for IRE, whatever the total administered dose., (Copyright © 2016 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Physical or psychological well-being is an essential component of quality care assessment in palliative unit. This assessment is mainly based on self-assessment (questionnaires or interviews). The aim of this study is to compare the clinical characteristics of patients able to fulfill a questionnaire and those not able to do that., Methods: The clinical characteristics of 166 cancer patients admitted in palliative care unit from December 2006 to February 2008 have been collected. Characteristics of patients able to fulfill a questionnaire (80, 48.2%) have been compared to other patients (86, 51.8%). Moreover, functional independence measure (FIM) had been evaluated by nurses., Results: Median age (60 versus 62) and sex ratio (40/40 versus 42/44) are similar in both groups. Lung primaries are significantly less frequent in patients able to fulfill the questionnaire (4% versus 17%, P=0.005). Patients able to fulfill the questionnaire had had better performance status (Karnofsky Index≤30%: 54% versus 21%, P<0.0001). The total score of FIM (56.0 versus 91.5, P<0.00001) and the median overall survivals (2.3 weeks versus 6.6 weeks, P=0.0001) were significantly lower in the group of patients non able to fulfill the questionnaire., Conclusions: Patients able to fulfill a questionnaire represent only 48.2% of all consecutive admitted patients. These patients are not representative of all patients since they had better performance status, they are less dependent and they display significant better survival. We have to think about new methods to avoid the biases generated by the use of patient-reported outcomes., (Copyright © 2015 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Chordomas, derived from undifferentiated notochordal remnants, represent less than 4% of bone primary tumors. Despite surgery followed by radiotherapy, local and metastatic relapses are frequent. In case of locally advanced or metastatic chordomas, medical treatment is frequently discussed. While chemotherapy is ineffective, it would appear that some molecular targeted therapies, in particular imatinib, could slow down the tumor growth in case-reports, retrospective series, and phase I or II trials. Nineteen publications, between January 1990 and September 2014, have been found describing the activity of these targeted therapies. A systematic analysis of these publications shows that the best objective response with targeted therapies was stabilization in 52 to 69% of chordomas. Given the indolent course of advanced chordoma and because of the absence of randomized trial, the level of evidence to treat chordomas with molecular therapy is low (level III), whatever the drug. Furthermore, we could not draw firm conclusion on the activity of imatinib. Other putative targets have also been described. Therefore, further clinical trials are expected, especially with these targets. Nevertheless, it seems essential, in those future studies, to consider the naturally slow course of the disease., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The benefit or harm of trabectedin discontinuation in patients with non-progressive soft-tissue sarcoma remains unclear. We report the final analysis of a phase 2 trial investigating the clinical benefit of continuation of trabectedin treatment until progression versus interruption of therapy after six treatment cycles in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma., Methods: For this open-label, non-comparative, multicentre, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas, who had previously received doxorubicin-based chemotherapy and were able to receive trabectedin, were enrolled from 14 centres of the French Sarcoma Group. Trabectedin was administered at a dose of 1·5 mg/m(2) through a central venous line as a 24-h continuous infusion every 3 weeks. After the initial six cycles of trabectedin, patients who were free from progressive disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to continuous treatment or therapy interruption. Randomisation was done centrally by a computer-generated system using permuted blocks of four patients, stratified by tumour grade and performance status. Patients allocated to the interruption group were allowed to restart trabectedin in case of progressive disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01303094., Results: In 178 evaluable patients, 91 (51%) patients had not progressed after six cycles. Of these patients, 53 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 27 to the continuation group and 26 to the interruption group. Overall, patients in the two groups received a similar median number of trabectedin cycles (continuation group: 11 cycles [range 6-31+] vs interruption group: 11 [range 6-23+]). After randomisation, progression-free survival at 6 months was 51·9% (95% CI 31·9-68·6) in the continuation group versus 23·1% (9·4-40·3) in the interruption group (p=0·0200). The occurrence of treatment-related grade 3 adverse events (four [16%] of 25 patients in the continuation group vs three [14%] of 21 in the interruption group) and grade 4 adverse events (one [4%] vs none) was similar in both groups. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase increases (one [4%] in the interruption group vs three [14%] in the continuation group), neutropenia (two [8%] vs two [10%]), and intestinal occlusion (one [4%] vs one [5%])., Interpretation: We do not recommend trabectedin discontinuation in patients with advanced, doxorubicin-refractory soft-tissue sarcoma who have not progressed after six cycles of treatment., Funding: The French National Cancer Institute (INCa) and PharmaMar SA., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To assess the additional value of density measurement using contrast-enhancement sequences (Choi assessment) in a real-life cohort of adult soft tissue sarcoma patients treated with trabectedin., Methods: Eligibility criteria included adults (age ⩾18) treated between 01/2007 and 12/2011, with at least two trabectedin cycles after failure or intolerance to doxorubicin/ifosfamide. Baseline and first computed tomography (CT)-scans were centrally reviewed by an experienced radiologist., Results: The retrospective cohort consists of 134 (73 female) patients treated with trabectedin 1.5 mg/m(2) given as a 24-h infusion every 3 weeks. Patients received a median of five trabectedin cycles (range: 2-33) and the main cause of discontinuation was progressive disease (PD) (n = 105, 78.4%). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) assessment was feasible in 128 (95.5%) patients, with Choi assessment performed in 92 (68.7%) patients, generally due to inadequate sequences or exclusive lung metastases. Concordance between both methods was fair (Kappa = 0.290). We identified five patients with false PD (i.e. PD according to RECIST but stable disease/partial response as per Choi). Univariate analysis did not identify any predictive factors for false PD. Median overall survival (OS) of patients with PD as per RECIST but stable disease/partial response (SD/PR) according to Choi was better than for patients with PD according to both RECIST and Choi (14 months versus 8 months; p = 0.052)., Conclusions: Choi assessment may identify patients with false PD who achieved improved efficacy outcomes, suggesting that trabectedin may delay tumour progression even in the case of non-dimensional response. Dual size and tumour density assessment may be more suitable to evaluate responses to trabectedin in sarcoma patients as well as to improve the decision-making strategies for the continuation of trabectedin therapy., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The choice of the activity endpoint is crucial when designing phase II screening trials. This choice is usually guided by convention, but the level of evidence for picking-up one of them is limited., Methods: We have analysed the phase II trials in carcinoma of unknown primary patients (CUP; 48 strata). We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient using weighted linear regression to measure the degree of association between the different available activity endpoints (Best objective response - BORR, best tumour control rate - BTCR, 3- and 6-month progression-free rates, 3- and 6-month PFR and median progression-free survival). We also explored the correlation between these endpoints and OS., Results: All activity endpoints were strongly correlated in CUP studies; all of these endpoints were strongly correlated with OS. The median BORR across the studies was 30%. Positive trials defined by BORR ≥ 30% were associated with statistically longer PFS (4.8 versus 3.7 months, P = 0.013) and OS (10.0 versus 8.0, P = 0.0007)., Discussion: In phase II studies with CUP patients, BORR and the threshold of BORR > 30% for defining promising drug appears adequate.

Carcinomas of unknown primary (CUP) approximately represent 2-3% of all adult cancers. Various clinicopathological subsets of CUP have been identified, which may be treated with tailored approaches. Nevertheless, 80% of CUP do not fall into these subsets. Even when at least 4 prognostic models have been developed and validated in independent patient cohorts, there is no consensus or reliable guidance for estimating the prognosis of these "unfavourable" CUP. Consequently, targeting patients who benefit from palliative chemotherapy is difficult. Thirty-eight phase II trials were published between 1997 and 2011; a systematic analysis of these trials did not allow the recommendation of any of the tested regimens as a standard of care. Currently, there is only one published phase III clinical trial (Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus gemcitabine/irinotecan); without significant difference between both regimens. Thus, with the promise of molecular profiling, we are waiting for a large collaborative clinical trial that validates the concept of targeted treatment in this population of patients with "unfavourable" CUP., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)