Peter Hohenberger

Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has single-agent activity in patients with advanced non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma. We investigated the effect of pazopanib on progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. METHODS This phase 3 study was done in 72 institutions, across 13 countries. Patients with angiogenesis inhibitor-naive, metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, progressing despite previous standard chemotherapy, were randomly assigned by an interactive voice randomisation system in a 2:1 ratio in permuted blocks (with block sizes of six) to receive either pazopanib 800 mg once daily or placebo, with no subsequent cross-over. Patients, investigators who gave the treatment, those assessing outcomes, and those who did the analysis were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753688. FINDINGS 372 patients were registered and 369 were randomly assigned to receive pazopanib (n=246) or placebo (n=123). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·7-4·8) for pazopanib compared with 1·6 months (0·9-1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·31, 95% CI 0·24-0·40; p<0·0001). Overall survival was 12·5 months (10·6-14·8) with pazopanib versus 10·7 months (8·7-12·8) with placebo (HR 0·86, 0·67-1·11; p=0·25). The most common adverse events were fatigue (60 in the placebo group [49%] vs 155 in the pazopanib group [65%]), diarrhoea (20 [16%] vs 138 [58%]), nausea (34 [28%] vs 129 [54%]), weight loss (25 [20%] vs 115 [48%]), and hypertension (8 [7%] vs 99 [41%]). The median relative dose intensity was 100% for placebo and 96% for pazopanib. INTERPRETATION Pazopanib is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after previous chemotherapy. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumour

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours are the most common mesenchymal neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract and are highly resistant to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Such tumours usually have activating mutations in either KIT (75-80%) or PDGFRA (5-10%), two closely related receptor tyrosine kinases. These mutations lead to ligand-independent activation and signal transduction mediated by constitutively activated KIT or PDGFRA. Targeting these activated proteins with imatinib mesylate, a small-molecule kinase inhibitor, has proven useful in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours and is now being tested as an adjuvant or neoadjuvant. However, resistance to imatinib is a growing problem and other targeted therapeutics such as sunitinib are available. The important interplay between the molecular genetics of gastrontestinal stromal tumour and responses to targeted therapeutics serves as a model for the study of targeted therapies in other solid tumours.

One vs Three Years of Adjuvant Imatinib for Operable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor A Randomized Trial

CONTEXT Adjuvant imatinib administered for 12 months after surgery has improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with operable gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) compared with placebo. OBJECTIVE To investigate the role of imatinib administration duration as adjuvant treatment of patients who have a high estimated risk for GIST recurrence after surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Patients with KIT-positive GIST removed at surgery were entered between February 2004 and September 2008 to this randomized, open-label phase 3 study conducted in 24 hospitals in Finland, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. The risk of GIST recurrence was estimated using the modified National Institutes of Health Consensus Criteria. INTERVENTION Imatinib, 400 mg per day, orally for either 12 months or 36 months, started within 12 weeks of surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was RFS; the secondary end points included overall survival and treatment safety. RESULTS Two hundred patients were allocated to each group. The median follow-up time after randomization was 54 months in December 2010. Diagnosis of GIST was confirmed in 382 of 397 patients (96%) in the intention-to-treat population at a central pathology review. KIT or PDGFRA mutation was detected in 333 of 366 tumors (91%) available for testing. Patients assigned for 36 months of imatinib had longer RFS compared with those assigned for 12 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.65; P < .001; 5-year RFS, 65.6% vs 47.9%, respectively) and longer overall survival (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.89; P = .02; 5-year survival, 92.0% vs 81.7%). Imatinib was generally well tolerated, but 12.6% and 25.8% of patients assigned to the 12- and 36-month groups, respectively, discontinued imatinib for a reason other than GIST recurrence. CONCLUSION Compared with 12 months of adjuvant imatinib, 36 months of imatinib improved RFS and overall survival of GIST patients with a high risk of GIST recurrence. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00116935.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

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.

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with regional hyperthermia for localised high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised phase 3 multicentre study

BACKGROUND The optimum treatment for high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults is unclear. Regional hyperthermia concentrates the action of chemotherapy within the heated tumour region. Phase 2 studies have shown that chemotherapy with regional hyperthermia improves local control compared with chemotherapy alone. We designed a parallel-group randomised controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of regional hyperthermia with chemotherapy. METHODS Patients were recruited to the trial between July 21, 1997, and November 30, 2006, at nine centres in Europe and North America. Patients with localised high-risk STS (> or = 5 cm, Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer [FNCLCC] grade 2 or 3, deep to the fascia) were randomly assigned to receive either neo-adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of etoposide, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin (EIA) alone, or combined with regional hyperthermia (EIA plus regional hyperthermia) in addition to local therapy. Local progression-free survival (LPFS) was the primary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT 00003052. FINDINGS 341 patients were enrolled, with 169 randomly assigned to EIA plus regional hyperthermia and 172 to EIA alone. All patients were included in the analysis of the primary endpoint, and 332 patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy were included in the safety analysis. After a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR 20-67), 132 patients had local progression (56 EIA plus regional hyperthermia vs 76 EIA). Patients were more likely to experience local progression or death in the EIA-alone group compared with the EIA plus regional hyperthermia group (relative hazard [RH] 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.83; p=0.003), with an absolute difference in LPFS at 2 years of 15% (95% CI 6-26; 76% EIA plus regional hyperthermia vs 61% EIA). For disease-free survival the relative hazard was 0.70 (95% CI 0.54-0.92, p=0.011) for EIA plus regional hyperthermia compared with EIA alone. The treatment response rate in the group that received regional hyperthermia was 28.8%, compared with 12.7% in the group who received chemotherapy alone (p=0.002). In a pre-specified per-protocol analysis of patients who completed EIA plus regional hyperthermia induction therapy compared with those who completed EIA alone, overall survival was better in the combined therapy group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.98, p=0.038). Leucopenia (grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in the EIA plus regional hyperthermia group compared with the EIA-alone group (128 of 165 vs 106 of 167, p=0.005). Hyperthermia-related adverse events were pain, bolus pressure, and skin burn, which were mild to moderate in 66 (40.5%), 43 (26.4%), and 29 patients (17.8%), and severe in seven (4.3%), eight (4.9%), and one patient (0.6%), respectively. Two deaths were attributable to treatment in the combined treatment group, and one death was attributable to treatment in the EIA-alone group. INTERPRETATION To our knowledge, this is the first randomised phase 3 trial to show that regional hyperthermia increases the benefit of chemotherapy. Adding regional hyperthermia to chemotherapy is a new effective treatment strategy for patients with high-risk STS, including STS with an abdominal or retroperitoneal location. FUNDING Deutsche Krebshilfe, Helmholtz Association (HGF), European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology (ESHO), and US National Institute of Health (NIH).

Resection of the liver for colorectal carcinoma metastases. A multi-institutional study of long-term survivors.

In this review of a collected series of patients undergoing hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, 100 patients were found to have survived greater than five years from the time of resection. Of these 100 long-term survivors, 71 remain disease-free through the last follow-up, 19 recurred prior to five years, and ten recurred after five years. Patient characteristics that may have contributed to survival were examined. Procedures performed included five trisegmentectomies, 32 lobectomies, 16 left lateral segmentectomies, and 45 wedge resections. The margin of resection was recorded in 27 patients, one of whom had a positive margin, nine of whom had a less than or equal to 1-cm margin, and 17 of whom had a greater than 1-cm margin. Eighty-one patients had a solitary metastasis to the liver, 11 patients had two metastases, one patient had three metastases, and four patients had four metastases. Thirty patients had Stage C primary carcinoma, 40 had Stage B primary carcinoma, and one had Stage A primarycarcinoma. The disease-free interval from the time of colon resection to the time of liver resection was less than one year in 65 patients, and greater than one year in 34 patients. Three patients had bilobar metastases. Four of the patients had extrahepatic disease resected simultaneously with the liver resection. Though several contraindications to hepatic resection have been proposed in the past, five-year survival has been found in patients with extrahepatic disease resected simultaneously, patients with bilobar metastases, patients with multiple metastases, and patients with positive margins. Five-year disease-free survivors are also present in each of these subsets. It is concluded that five-year survival is possible in the presence of reported contraindications to resection, and therefore that the decision to resect the liver must be individualized.

Polyclonal Evolution of Multiple Secondary KIT Mutations in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors under Treatment with Imatinib Mesylate

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are characterized by a strong KIT receptor activation most often resulting from KIT mutations. In a smaller subgroup of tumors without KIT mutations, analogous activating mutations are found in the platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRα) gene. Both PDGFRα and KIT receptors are targets of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib (Glivec) which has improved the treatment of advanced GISTs significantly. However, a subgroup of tumors show a secondary progress under therapy with imatinib after initial response. One possible mechanism of secondary resistance is the development of newly acquired KIT mutations. In the present study, we evaluated the frequency of such secondary KIT mutations in a series of GIST patients in which tumor tissue was resected under treatment. We examined one to seven different tumor areas in 32 cases (total of 104 samples) and found up to four newly acquired KIT mutations in 14 patients (43.8%). These were always located in exons encoding the first or second tyrosine kinase domain (exon 13, 14, or 17). Mutations were found only in a subset of samples analyzed from each case whereas others retained the wild-type sequence in the same region. There was never more than one new mutation in the same sample. Consistent with a secondary clonal evolution, the primary mutation was always detectable in all samples from each tumor. According to our results, the identification of newly acquired KIT mutations in addition to the primary mutation is dependent on the number of tissue samples analyzed and has high implications for further therapeutic strategies.

Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Effective targeted treatment is unavailable for most sarcomas and doxorubicin and ifosfamide-which have been used to treat soft-tissue sarcoma for more than 30 years-still have an important role. Whether doxorubicin alone or the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide should be used routinely is still controversial. We assessed whether dose intensification of doxorubicin with ifosfamide improves survival of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma compared with doxorubicin alone. METHODS We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial (EORTC 62012) at 38 hospitals in ten countries. We included patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma, age 18-60 years with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. They were randomly assigned (1:1) by the minimisation method to either doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2) by intravenous bolus on day 1 or 72 h continuous intravenous infusion) or intensified doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2); 25 mg/m(2) per day, days 1-3) plus ifosfamide (10 g/m(2) over 4 days with mesna and pegfilgrastim) as first-line treatment. Randomisation was stratified by centre, performance status (0 vs 1), age (<50 vs ≥50 years), presence of liver metastases, and histopathological grade (2 vs 3). Patients were treated every 3 weeks till progression or unacceptable toxic effects for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00061984. FINDINGS Between April 30, 2003, and May 25, 2010, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin and 227 to receive doxorubicin and ifosfamide. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 31-77) in the doxorubicin only group and 59 months (36-72) in the combination group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median overall survival 12·8 months [95·5% CI 10·5-14·3] in the doxorubicin group vs 14·3 months [12·5-16·5] in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·83 [95·5% CI 0·67-1·03]; stratified log-rank test p=0·076). Median progression-free survival was significantly higher for the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group (7·4 months [95% CI 6·6-8·3]) than for the doxorubicin group (4·6 months [2·9-5·6]; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·60-0·90], stratified log-rank test p=0·003). More patients in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group than in the doxorubicin group had an overall response (60 [26%] of 227 patients vs 31 [14%] of 228; p<0·0006). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxic effects-which were all more common with doxorubicin and ifosfamide than with doxorubicin alone-were leucopenia (97 [43%] of 224 patients vs 40 [18%] of 223 patients), neutropenia (93 [42%] vs 83 [37%]), febrile neutropenia (103 (46%) vs 30 [13%]), anaemia (78 [35%] vs 10 [5%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [33%]) vs one [<1%]). INTERPRETATION Our results do not support the use of intensified doxorubicin and ifosfamide for palliation of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma unless the specific goal is tumour shrinkage. These findings should help individualise the care of patients with this disease. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, EORTC Charitable Trust, UK NHS, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Amgen.

Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori and University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Instituto Portugues de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, EPE, Lisbon, Portugal; University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Oncological Orthopedics, Musculoskeletal Tissue Bank, IFO, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; Klinikum Stuttgart-Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany; Institut Curie, Paris, France; NORDIX, Athens, Greece; Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Vienna General Hospital (AKH), Medizinische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria; Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio-CIBERONC, Seville, Spain; Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, Aviano; Ospedale Regionale di Treviso “S.Maria di Cà Foncello”, Treviso, Italy; Integrated Unit ICO Hospitalet, HUB, Barcelona, Spain; Sarcoma Unit, University College London Hospitals, London, UK; Skane University Hospital-Lund, Lund, Sweden; N. N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russian Federation; Institute of Scientific Hospital Care (IRCCS), Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome; Pediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan; Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna; Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi Firenze, Florence, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium; Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy; Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam and Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Turku University Hospital (Turun Yliopistollinen Keskussairaala), Turlu, Finland; Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Mannheim University Medical Center, Mannheim; Department of Medicine III, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany; Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUCH), Helsinki, Finland; Royal Marsden Hospital, London; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen; Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; University Hospital Motol, Prague; Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France; Maria Skłodowska Curie Institute, Oncology Centre, Warsaw, Poland; Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Ichilov), Tel Aviv, Israel; Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Azienda Ospedaliera, Universitaria, Policlinico S Orsola-Malpighi Università di Bologna, Bologna; Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Cita della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy; Fundacio de Gestio Sanitaria de L’hospital de la SANTA CREU I Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Helios Klinikum Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany; YCRC Department of Clinical Oncology, Weston Park Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK; Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Finland; Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Oncology of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Netherlands Cancer Institute Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University College Hospital, London, UK; Gerhard-Domagk-Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany; Oslo University Hospital, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Centre Leon Bernard and UCBL1, Lyon, France

Initial and late resistance to imatinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal. tumors are predicted by different prognostic factors: A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Italian Sarcoma Group-Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group study

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to identify factors predicting initial and late resistance of GI stromal tumor (GIST) patients to imatinib and to document the dose-response relationship in the prognostic subgroups. This study is based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Italian Sarcoma Group-Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group randomized trial comparing two doses of imatinib in advanced disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS Initial resistance was defined as progression within 3 months of randomization, and late resistance was defined as progression beyond 3 months. Investigated cofactors include imatinib dose, age, sex, performance status, original disease site, site and size of lesions at trial entry, and baseline hematologic and biologic parameters. RESULTS Initial resistance was recorded for 116 (12%) of 934 assessable patients and was independently predicted by the presence of lung and absence of liver metastases, low hemoglobin level, and high granulocyte count. Among 818 patients who were alive and progression free at 3 months, 347 subsequent progressions were recorded, and late resistance was independently predicted by high baseline granulocyte count, primary tumor outside of the stomach, large tumor size, and low initial imatinib dose. The impact of initial dose on late resistance was mainly significant in patients with a high baseline granulocyte count (> 5.10(9)/L) and in patients with tumors of GI origin outside of the stomach and small intestine. CONCLUSION Our study identifies patients for whom initial and/or long-term treatment needs to be improved and patients who require a high initial dose. Correlation of these results with immunohistochemistry and molecular parameters may further help to understand the biologic mechanisms of resistance.