Thierry Alcindor

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.

Results of an International Randomized Phase III Trial of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitor Ridaforolimus Versus Placebo to Control Metastatic Sarcomas in Patients After Benefit From Prior Chemotherapy

PURPOSE Aberrant mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling is common in sarcomas and other malignancies. Drug resistance and toxicities often limit benefits of systemic chemotherapy used to treat metastatic sarcomas. This large randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluated the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus to assess maintenance of disease control in advanced sarcomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic soft tissue or bone sarcomas who achieved objective response or stable disease with prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive ridaforolimus 40 mg or placebo once per day for 5 days every week. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), best target lesion response, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS A total of 711 patients were enrolled, and 702 received blinded study drug. Ridaforolimus treatment led to a modest, although significant, improvement in PFS per independent review compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P = .001; median PFS, 17.7 v 14.6 weeks). Ridaforolimus induced a mean 1.3% decrease in target lesion size versus a 10.3% increase with placebo (P < .001). Median OS with ridaforolimus was 90.6 weeks versus 85.3 weeks with placebo (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.12; P = .46). Adverse events (AEs) more common with ridaforolimus included stomatitis, infections, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, noninfectious pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and rash. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were more common with ridaforolimus than placebo (64.1% v 25.6%). CONCLUSION Ridaforolimus delayed tumor progression to a small statistically significant degree in patients with metastatic sarcoma who experienced benefit with prior chemotherapy. Toxicities were observed with ridaforolimus, as expected with mTOR inhibition. These data provide a foundation on which to further improve control of sarcomas.

Perioperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) for locally advanced esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma: a multicenter phase II trial

BACKGROUND Although perioperative chemotherapy for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (ADC) improves survival, the overall poor prognosis suggests that further refinement of treatment is required. Docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (DCF) is effective for metastatic ADC of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract; we thus sought to investigate the efficacy of this regimen in patients with resectable disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with resectable ADC of the upper GI tract received DCF [docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m(2) I.V. day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) I.V. day 1, 5-FU 750 mg/m(2) continuous infusion for 120 h, every 3 weeks] for three cycles before and after resection. Primary end point was complete resection; secondary end points were response, toxicity, surgical morbidity, and overall survival. RESULTS Forty-three patients with ADC of the esophagus (11), gastroesophageal junction (25), or stomach (7) started treatment and 86% completed all preoperative cycles with grade 3-4 toxicity arising in 47%. Metabolic response to chemotherapy (reduction in maximal standard uptake value >35%) was achieved in 25/33 (76%) patients. Surgery was carried out in 41/43 and complete resection was achieved in all 41 patients with pathologic complete response in 4/41. Postoperative chemotherapy was started in 29 patients and completed in 24. Three-year overall survival was 60%. CONCLUSION Perioperative DCF is a tolerable and highly effective regimen for the treatment of esophagogastric ADC.

Regorafenib for the Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer (INTEGRATE): A Multinational Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial

PURPOSE We evaluated the activity of regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted an international (Australia and New Zealand, South Korea, and Canada) randomized phase II trial in which patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio and stratified by lines of prior chemotherapy for advanced disease (one v two) and region. Eligible patients received best supportive care plus regorafenib 160 mg or matching placebo orally on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events occurred. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Final analysis included data to December 31, 2014. RESULTS A total of 152 patients were randomly assigned from November 7, 2012, to February 25, 2014, yielding 147 evaluable patients (regorafenib, n = 97; placebo, n = 50). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median PFS significantly differed between groups (regorafenib, 2.6 months; 95% CI, 1.8 to 3.1 and placebo, 0.9 months; 95% CI, 0.9 to 0.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.59; P < .001). The effect was greater in South Korea than in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada combined (HR, 0.12 v 0.61; interaction P < .001) but consistent across age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, primary site, lines of chemotherapy, peritoneal metastasis presence, number of metastatic sites, and plasma vascular endothelial growth factor A. A survival trend in favor of regorafenib was seen (median, 5.8 months; 95% CI, 4.4 to 6.8 v 4.5 months; 95% CI, 3.4 to 5.2; HR, 0.74; P = .147). Twenty-nine patients assigned to placebo received open-label regorafenib after disease progression. Regorafenib toxicity was similar to that previously reported. CONCLUSION In this phase II trial, regorafenib was effective in prolonging PFS in refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Regional differences were found, but regorafenib was effective in both regional groups. A phase III trial is planned.

PICASSO III: A Phase III, Placebo-Controlled Study of Doxorubicin With or Without Palifosfamide in Patients With Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Purpose Palifosfamide is the active metabolite of ifosfamide and does not require prodrug activation, thereby avoiding the generation of toxic metabolites. The PICASSO III trial compared doxorubicin plus palifosfamide with doxorubicin plus placebo in patients who had received no prior systemic therapy for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 intravenously day 1 plus palifosfamide 150 mg/m2/d intravenously days 1 to 3 or doxorubicin plus placebo once every 21 days for up to six cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review. Results In all, 447 patients were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin plus palifosfamide (n = 226) or doxorubicin plus placebo (n = 221). Median PFS was 6.0 months for doxorubicin plus palifosfamide and 5.2 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.08; P = .19). Median overall survival was 15.9 months for doxorubicin plus palifosfamide and 16.9 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.39; P = .74). There was a higher incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events in the doxorubicin plus palifosfamide arm (63.6% v 50.9%) including a higher rate of febrile neutropenia (21.4% v 12.6%). Conclusion No significant difference in PFS was observed in patients receiving doxorubicin plus palifosfamide compared with those receiving doxorubicin plus placebo. The observed median PFS and overall survival in this large, international study can serve as a benchmark for future studies of doxorubicin in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

What is the optimal management of dysphagia in metastatic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND The palliation of dysphagia in metastatic esophageal cancer remains a challenge, and the optimal approach for this difficult clinical scenario is not clear. We therefore sought to define and determine the efficacy of various treatment options used at our institution for this condition. METHODS We reviewed a prospective database for all patients managed in an esophageal cancer referral centre over a 5-year period. All patients receiving palliation of malignant dysphagia were reviewed for demographics, palliative treatment modalities, complications, and dysphagia scores (0 = none to 4 = complete). The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine significance (p < 0.05). RESULTS During 2004-2009, 63 patients with inoperable esophageal cancer were treated for palliation of dysphagia. The primary treatment was radiotherapy in 79% (brachytherapy in 18 of 50; external-beam in 10 of 50; both types in 22 of 50), and stenting in 21%. Mean wait time from diagnosis to treatment was 22 days in the stent group and 54 days in the radiotherapy group (p = 0.003). Mean duration of treatment was 1 day in the stent group and 40 days in the radiotherapy group (p = 0.001). In patients treated initially by stenting, dysphagia improved within 2 weeks of treatment in 85% of patients (dysphagia score of 0 or 1). However, 20% of patients presented with recurrence of dysphagia at 10 weeks of treatment. In the radiotherapy group, the onset of palliation was slower, with only 50% of patients palliated at 2 weeks (dysphagia score of 0 or 1). However, long-term palliation was more satisfactory, with 90% of patients remaining palliated after 10 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS In inoperable esophageal cancer at our centre, radiation treatment provided durable long-term relief, but came at a high price of a long wait time for initiation of treatment and a long lag time between initiation of treatment and relief of symptoms. On the other hand, endoluminal stenting provided more rapid and effective early relief from symptoms, but was affected by recurrence of dysphagia in the long-term. It is now time for a prospective randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of combined-modality treatment with both endoluminal stenting and radiation therapy compared with either treatment alone.

Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): An international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5-20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6-96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30-60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088. FINDINGS Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6-22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2-22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3-4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]). INTERPRETATION The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. FUNDING Threshold Pharmaceuticals.

Next-generation biobanking of metastases to enable multidimensional molecular profiling in personalized medicine

Great advances in analytical technology coupled with accelerated new drug development and growing understanding of biological challenges, such as tumor heterogeneity, have required a change in the focus for biobanking. Most current banks contain samples of primary tumors, but linking molecular signatures to therapeutic questions requires serial biopsies in the setting of metastatic disease, next-generation of biobanking. Furthermore, an integration of multidimensional analysis of various molecular components, that is, RNA, DNA, methylome, microRNAome and post-translational modifications of the proteome, is necessary for a comprehensive view of a tumor’s biology. While data using such biopsies are now regularly presented, the preanalytical variables in tissue procurement and processing in multicenter studies are seldom detailed and therefore are difficult to duplicate or standardize across sites and across studies. In the context of a biopsy-driven clinical trial, we generated a detailed protocol that includes morphological evaluation and isolation of high-quality nucleic acids from small needle core biopsies obtained from liver metastases. The protocol supports stable shipping of samples to a central laboratory, where biopsies are subsequently embedded in support media. Designated pathologists must evaluate all biopsies for tumor content and macrodissection can be performed if necessary to meet our criteria of >60% neoplastic cells and <20% necrosis for genomic isolation. We validated our protocol in 40 patients who participated in a biopsy-driven study of therapeutic resistance in metastatic colorectal cancer. To ensure that our protocol was compatible with multiplex discovery platforms and that no component of the processing interfered with downstream enzymatic reactions, we performed array comparative genomic hybridization, methylation profiling, microRNA profiling, splicing variant analysis and gene expression profiling using genomic material isolated from liver biopsy cores. Our standard operating procedures for next-generation biobanking can be applied widely in multiple settings, including multicentered and international biopsy-driven trials.

Quality of life in patients with K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: the CO.20 phase 3 randomized trial.

The CO.20 trial randomized patients with K‐RAS wild‐type, chemotherapy‐refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer to receive cetuximab (CET) plus brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or CET plus placebo (CET/placebo).

Response of refractory Ewing sarcoma to pazopanib

A 24-year-old female with no particular past medical history sought medical attention for sudden onset of tingling and numbness in her right upper limb. A paravertebral mass was seen by magnetic resonance imaging (Mri) along the cervical spine (C1–C7 levels) with no other site of disease after evaluation by computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PeT.) A biopsy only retrieved normal neural tissue, so she underwent surgery which resulted in incomplete resection. Comprehensive pathologic work-up revealed ewing sarcoma. The residual disease, which infiltrated the epidural canal and the adjacent cord, was deemed unresectable. The patient received a full course of chemotherapy, consisting in alternating cycles of vincristine/ doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide/ etoposide, for a total of 14 cycles. After a cumulative dose of 375 mg/m2 of doxorubicin, this drug was changed to dactinomycin. radiotherapy was concomitantly administered for a period of 5 weeks. A complete remission by CT and PeT imaging was achieved at the end of therapy. One year later, on routine imaging studies, the patient was found to have one biopsy-proven metastatic focus in the lungs and another one in the T4 vertebra. despite aggressive treatment with stereotactic therapy and resumption of chemotherapy, her disease progressed in the form of pleural infiltration and bulky pulmonary metastases. She received the following regimens: topotecan/ cyclophosphamide, irinotecan/temozolomide, ifosfamide/etoposide, and temsirolimus on a clinical trial. After 6 weeks of treatment with temsirolimus, she was very symptomatic with dyspnea at rest from metastatic disease progression, weight loss and a Karnofsky score of 70. On the basis of biological plausibility of activity, and the existing indication for other sarcoma types, with verbal informed consent, the patient was given a prescription for pazopanib (800 mg orally daily). no side effect was observed, but in only 2 weeks, her condition had significantly improved with only persistence of mild dyspnea on exertion, and restoration of her performance status to 90. After 4 weeks of treatment, a chest CT showed very significant decrease of the intrathoracic burden of disease, qualifying for partial response according to reCiST criteria. Treatment was continued. At the 12th week of treatment, the patient complained of tenderness on the scalp and recurrent dyspnea. Her serum ldH level that had normalized with increasing pazopanib. A subcutaneous mass was seen in the scalp, suspicious for metastasis. A chest CT at that point showed disease progression in the form of new lesions and regrowth of older ones.