MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) has negative prognostic significance in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in relation to the MYC partner gene, according to a retrospective study.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The negative prognostic effect of MYC-R was largely limited to patients with MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit status and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner within 24 months following diagnosis.

“The primary objective of the study was to validate the prognostic relevance of [MYC–single hit] and [MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit] status within the context of the MYC translocation partner (MYC-IG v. MYC-non-IG) in patients with DLBCL morphology,” wrote Andreas Rosenwald, MD, of the University of Würzburg (Germany) and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers identified 5,117 patients who all received R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or R-CHOP–like immunochemotherapy, 2,383 of whom were evaluable for MYC-R and had complete clinical data. The cohort consisted of patients enrolled in various population-based registries and prospective clinical studies throughout North America and Europe.

The team used fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to identify MYC-R, in addition to BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations if MYC-R was detected. Subsequently, these data were correlated with clinical endpoints.

After analysis, the researchers found that MYC-R was detected in 11% of patients. The presence of MYC-R was associated with significantly reduced survival, particularly within the initial 24 months following diagnosis.

Adverse prognostic implications were largely apparent in patients with accompanying rearrangement of BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations (MYC–double-hit/MYC–triple hit status) and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.6; P less than .001).

“These data suggest that little justification exists for altering initial therapeutic approaches in patients with DLBCL whose tumors carry an MYC translocation alone [MYC single hit],” they wrote. “However, for [MYC double hit/MYC triple hit] DLBCL, the major negative prognostic impact and 2-year effect support the practice of optimizing first-line treatment approaches to achieve maximum complete response rates because salvage treatment at relapse is not effective.”

Dr. Rosenwald and colleagues suggested that, in the future, diagnostic approaches should be implemented to detect patients in this high-risk group and that risk-modified treatment strategies should be further developed.

The study was supported by unrestricted grants to the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium from several pharmaceutical companies and Bloodwise. Dr. Rosenwald reported having no conflicts of interest, but several coauthors reported relationships with industry.

SOURCE: : Rosenwald A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00743.

MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) has negative prognostic significance in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in relation to the MYC partner gene, according to a retrospective study.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The negative prognostic effect of MYC-R was largely limited to patients with MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit status and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner within 24 months following diagnosis.

“The primary objective of the study was to validate the prognostic relevance of [MYC–single hit] and [MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit] status within the context of the MYC translocation partner (MYC-IG v. MYC-non-IG) in patients with DLBCL morphology,” wrote Andreas Rosenwald, MD, of the University of Würzburg (Germany) and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers identified 5,117 patients who all received R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or R-CHOP–like immunochemotherapy, 2,383 of whom were evaluable for MYC-R and had complete clinical data. The cohort consisted of patients enrolled in various population-based registries and prospective clinical studies throughout North America and Europe.

The team used fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to identify MYC-R, in addition to BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations if MYC-R was detected. Subsequently, these data were correlated with clinical endpoints.

After analysis, the researchers found that MYC-R was detected in 11% of patients. The presence of MYC-R was associated with significantly reduced survival, particularly within the initial 24 months following diagnosis.

Adverse prognostic implications were largely apparent in patients with accompanying rearrangement of BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations (MYC–double-hit/MYC–triple hit status) and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.6; P less than .001).

“These data suggest that little justification exists for altering initial therapeutic approaches in patients with DLBCL whose tumors carry an MYC translocation alone [MYC single hit],” they wrote. “However, for [MYC double hit/MYC triple hit] DLBCL, the major negative prognostic impact and 2-year effect support the practice of optimizing first-line treatment approaches to achieve maximum complete response rates because salvage treatment at relapse is not effective.”

Dr. Rosenwald and colleagues suggested that, in the future, diagnostic approaches should be implemented to detect patients in this high-risk group and that risk-modified treatment strategies should be further developed.

The study was supported by unrestricted grants to the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium from several pharmaceutical companies and Bloodwise. Dr. Rosenwald reported having no conflicts of interest, but several coauthors reported relationships with industry.

SOURCE: : Rosenwald A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00743.

MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) has negative prognostic significance in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in relation to the MYC partner gene, according to a retrospective study.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The negative prognostic effect of MYC-R was largely limited to patients with MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit status and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner within 24 months following diagnosis.

“The primary objective of the study was to validate the prognostic relevance of [MYC–single hit] and [MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit] status within the context of the MYC translocation partner (MYC-IG v. MYC-non-IG) in patients with DLBCL morphology,” wrote Andreas Rosenwald, MD, of the University of Würzburg (Germany) and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers identified 5,117 patients who all received R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or R-CHOP–like immunochemotherapy, 2,383 of whom were evaluable for MYC-R and had complete clinical data. The cohort consisted of patients enrolled in various population-based registries and prospective clinical studies throughout North America and Europe.

The team used fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to identify MYC-R, in addition to BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations if MYC-R was detected. Subsequently, these data were correlated with clinical endpoints.

After analysis, the researchers found that MYC-R was detected in 11% of patients. The presence of MYC-R was associated with significantly reduced survival, particularly within the initial 24 months following diagnosis.

Adverse prognostic implications were largely apparent in patients with accompanying rearrangement of BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations (MYC–double-hit/MYC–triple hit status) and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.6; P less than .001).

“These data suggest that little justification exists for altering initial therapeutic approaches in patients with DLBCL whose tumors carry an MYC translocation alone [MYC single hit],” they wrote. “However, for [MYC double hit/MYC triple hit] DLBCL, the major negative prognostic impact and 2-year effect support the practice of optimizing first-line treatment approaches to achieve maximum complete response rates because salvage treatment at relapse is not effective.”

Dr. Rosenwald and colleagues suggested that, in the future, diagnostic approaches should be implemented to detect patients in this high-risk group and that risk-modified treatment strategies should be further developed.

The study was supported by unrestricted grants to the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium from several pharmaceutical companies and Bloodwise. Dr. Rosenwald reported having no conflicts of interest, but several coauthors reported relationships with industry.

SOURCE: : Rosenwald A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00743.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Sarcoidosis  

Histologic examination of the shave biopsy showed focal parakeratosis, irregular epidermal hyperplasia, and multiple noncaseating naked granulomas with occasional multinucleated giant cells in the dermis (Figure, A). The granulomas were surrounded by mild lymphocytic infiltration with rare eosinophils (Figure, B). Periodic acid-Schiff and Fite stains were negative for organisms, and polariscopic examination was negative; these findings confirmed the diagnosis of cutaneous sarcoidosis. Topical or intralesional steroids were recommended, but our patient declined treatment given that the lesions were asymptomatic.  

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem granulomatous disease of unknown etiology that affects the skin in approximately 25% of patients.¹ Cutaneous lesions manifest in 2 forms: specific and nonspecific. Noncaseating granulomas are considered specific. Nonspecific lesions include erythema nodosum, calcinosis cutis, Sweet syndrome, and nail clubbing. The most common sites of specific sarcoidosis lesions include the face, lips, neck, upper trunk, and extremities. Few cases have reported cutaneous sarcoidosis involving the genitalia; most reports describe vulvar cutaneous sarcoidosis.^2-4 Although there have been reports of sarcoidosis involving the epididymis and testes, which presented as scrotal masses, cutaneous scrotal involvement with the skin as the primary site of involvement is rare.^5,6 McLaughlin et al⁵ reported an extensive, pruritic, and eczematous eruption of the scrotum with associated edema and tenderness. Wei et al⁶ reported cutaneous sarcoidosis in the form of multiple indurated papules involving the penis and scrotum, similar to our case.  

Comparing our patient to the case reported by Wei et al,⁶ both patients had Fitzpatrick skin type V or VI and systemic involvement including pulmonary disease. However, Wei et al⁶ did not clearly mention if the cutaneous manifestations preceded the diagnosis of systemic sarcoidosis or if they were present at the time of the diagnosis. Our patient developed cutaneous lesions 4 years after being diagnosed with systemic sarcoidosis from hilar lymphadenopathy. In addition to the scrotal lesions, he also had a lesion of lupus pernio presenting as a violaceous to brown plaque on the tip of the nose. Although both patients denied pruritus, the other patient's lesions were painful.⁶ Wei et al⁶ mentioned that treatment with topical, intralesional, and systemic steroids failed, and the patient's lesions continued to progress. Generally, topical and intralesional steroids are considered mainstay treatment of cutaneous sarcoidosis despite insufficient data to support their efficacy.⁷  

The differential diagnosis of papules on the scrotum can be broad. Our provisional diagnoses for this particular morphology of small, flesh-colored, shiny, polygonal, flat-topped papules included condyloma acuminatum; lichen planus; idiopathic scrotal calcinosis; steatocystoma multiplex; and sarcoidosis (although uncommon for the site), given the history of pulmonary involvement. We considered a diagnosis of condyloma acuminatum, but the lesions were too shiny and smooth. On histology, condyloma acuminatum shows a hyperkeratotic and parakeratotic stratum corneum, an exophytic growth with marked acanthosis, and superficially located koilocytes. Morphologically, our patient's lesions resembled genital lichen planus. However, Wickham striae were absent, and our patient's lesions were asymptomatic while lesions of lichen planus usually are pruritic. Histologically, lichen planus is characterized by hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, sawtooth rete ridges, and lichenoid interface inflammation. Idiopathic scrotal calcinosis also could be included in the differential; however, the lesions would look whiter and firmer than those of our patient, and biopsy will clearly show calcium deposition. Steatocystoma multiplex is another condition that can affect the scrotum, along with the trunk, axillae, extremities, and neck. However, the lesions are expected to discharge oily material if squeezed and have a characteristic corrugated eosinophilic cuticle lining a cyst histologically.  

Although it is undetermined if the risk for systemic involvement increases in patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis, evaluation for probable systemic involvement is necessary.¹ Because cutaneous sarcoidosis generally can precede any systemic involvement, it would be reasonable to consider skin biopsies in patients who present with atypical wartlike lesions on the scrotum and penis to rule out sarcoidosis. 

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Sarcoidosis  

Histologic examination of the shave biopsy showed focal parakeratosis, irregular epidermal hyperplasia, and multiple noncaseating naked granulomas with occasional multinucleated giant cells in the dermis (Figure, A). The granulomas were surrounded by mild lymphocytic infiltration with rare eosinophils (Figure, B). Periodic acid-Schiff and Fite stains were negative for organisms, and polariscopic examination was negative; these findings confirmed the diagnosis of cutaneous sarcoidosis. Topical or intralesional steroids were recommended, but our patient declined treatment given that the lesions were asymptomatic.  

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem granulomatous disease of unknown etiology that affects the skin in approximately 25% of patients.¹ Cutaneous lesions manifest in 2 forms: specific and nonspecific. Noncaseating granulomas are considered specific. Nonspecific lesions include erythema nodosum, calcinosis cutis, Sweet syndrome, and nail clubbing. The most common sites of specific sarcoidosis lesions include the face, lips, neck, upper trunk, and extremities. Few cases have reported cutaneous sarcoidosis involving the genitalia; most reports describe vulvar cutaneous sarcoidosis.^2-4 Although there have been reports of sarcoidosis involving the epididymis and testes, which presented as scrotal masses, cutaneous scrotal involvement with the skin as the primary site of involvement is rare.^5,6 McLaughlin et al⁵ reported an extensive, pruritic, and eczematous eruption of the scrotum with associated edema and tenderness. Wei et al⁶ reported cutaneous sarcoidosis in the form of multiple indurated papules involving the penis and scrotum, similar to our case.  

Comparing our patient to the case reported by Wei et al,⁶ both patients had Fitzpatrick skin type V or VI and systemic involvement including pulmonary disease. However, Wei et al⁶ did not clearly mention if the cutaneous manifestations preceded the diagnosis of systemic sarcoidosis or if they were present at the time of the diagnosis. Our patient developed cutaneous lesions 4 years after being diagnosed with systemic sarcoidosis from hilar lymphadenopathy. In addition to the scrotal lesions, he also had a lesion of lupus pernio presenting as a violaceous to brown plaque on the tip of the nose. Although both patients denied pruritus, the other patient's lesions were painful.⁶ Wei et al⁶ mentioned that treatment with topical, intralesional, and systemic steroids failed, and the patient's lesions continued to progress. Generally, topical and intralesional steroids are considered mainstay treatment of cutaneous sarcoidosis despite insufficient data to support their efficacy.⁷  

The differential diagnosis of papules on the scrotum can be broad. Our provisional diagnoses for this particular morphology of small, flesh-colored, shiny, polygonal, flat-topped papules included condyloma acuminatum; lichen planus; idiopathic scrotal calcinosis; steatocystoma multiplex; and sarcoidosis (although uncommon for the site), given the history of pulmonary involvement. We considered a diagnosis of condyloma acuminatum, but the lesions were too shiny and smooth. On histology, condyloma acuminatum shows a hyperkeratotic and parakeratotic stratum corneum, an exophytic growth with marked acanthosis, and superficially located koilocytes. Morphologically, our patient's lesions resembled genital lichen planus. However, Wickham striae were absent, and our patient's lesions were asymptomatic while lesions of lichen planus usually are pruritic. Histologically, lichen planus is characterized by hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, sawtooth rete ridges, and lichenoid interface inflammation. Idiopathic scrotal calcinosis also could be included in the differential; however, the lesions would look whiter and firmer than those of our patient, and biopsy will clearly show calcium deposition. Steatocystoma multiplex is another condition that can affect the scrotum, along with the trunk, axillae, extremities, and neck. However, the lesions are expected to discharge oily material if squeezed and have a characteristic corrugated eosinophilic cuticle lining a cyst histologically.  

Although it is undetermined if the risk for systemic involvement increases in patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis, evaluation for probable systemic involvement is necessary.¹ Because cutaneous sarcoidosis generally can precede any systemic involvement, it would be reasonable to consider skin biopsies in patients who present with atypical wartlike lesions on the scrotum and penis to rule out sarcoidosis. 

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Sarcoidosis  

Histologic examination of the shave biopsy showed focal parakeratosis, irregular epidermal hyperplasia, and multiple noncaseating naked granulomas with occasional multinucleated giant cells in the dermis (Figure, A). The granulomas were surrounded by mild lymphocytic infiltration with rare eosinophils (Figure, B). Periodic acid-Schiff and Fite stains were negative for organisms, and polariscopic examination was negative; these findings confirmed the diagnosis of cutaneous sarcoidosis. Topical or intralesional steroids were recommended, but our patient declined treatment given that the lesions were asymptomatic.  

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem granulomatous disease of unknown etiology that affects the skin in approximately 25% of patients.¹ Cutaneous lesions manifest in 2 forms: specific and nonspecific. Noncaseating granulomas are considered specific. Nonspecific lesions include erythema nodosum, calcinosis cutis, Sweet syndrome, and nail clubbing. The most common sites of specific sarcoidosis lesions include the face, lips, neck, upper trunk, and extremities. Few cases have reported cutaneous sarcoidosis involving the genitalia; most reports describe vulvar cutaneous sarcoidosis.^2-4 Although there have been reports of sarcoidosis involving the epididymis and testes, which presented as scrotal masses, cutaneous scrotal involvement with the skin as the primary site of involvement is rare.^5,6 McLaughlin et al⁵ reported an extensive, pruritic, and eczematous eruption of the scrotum with associated edema and tenderness. Wei et al⁶ reported cutaneous sarcoidosis in the form of multiple indurated papules involving the penis and scrotum, similar to our case.  

Comparing our patient to the case reported by Wei et al,⁶ both patients had Fitzpatrick skin type V or VI and systemic involvement including pulmonary disease. However, Wei et al⁶ did not clearly mention if the cutaneous manifestations preceded the diagnosis of systemic sarcoidosis or if they were present at the time of the diagnosis. Our patient developed cutaneous lesions 4 years after being diagnosed with systemic sarcoidosis from hilar lymphadenopathy. In addition to the scrotal lesions, he also had a lesion of lupus pernio presenting as a violaceous to brown plaque on the tip of the nose. Although both patients denied pruritus, the other patient's lesions were painful.⁶ Wei et al⁶ mentioned that treatment with topical, intralesional, and systemic steroids failed, and the patient's lesions continued to progress. Generally, topical and intralesional steroids are considered mainstay treatment of cutaneous sarcoidosis despite insufficient data to support their efficacy.⁷  

The differential diagnosis of papules on the scrotum can be broad. Our provisional diagnoses for this particular morphology of small, flesh-colored, shiny, polygonal, flat-topped papules included condyloma acuminatum; lichen planus; idiopathic scrotal calcinosis; steatocystoma multiplex; and sarcoidosis (although uncommon for the site), given the history of pulmonary involvement. We considered a diagnosis of condyloma acuminatum, but the lesions were too shiny and smooth. On histology, condyloma acuminatum shows a hyperkeratotic and parakeratotic stratum corneum, an exophytic growth with marked acanthosis, and superficially located koilocytes. Morphologically, our patient's lesions resembled genital lichen planus. However, Wickham striae were absent, and our patient's lesions were asymptomatic while lesions of lichen planus usually are pruritic. Histologically, lichen planus is characterized by hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, sawtooth rete ridges, and lichenoid interface inflammation. Idiopathic scrotal calcinosis also could be included in the differential; however, the lesions would look whiter and firmer than those of our patient, and biopsy will clearly show calcium deposition. Steatocystoma multiplex is another condition that can affect the scrotum, along with the trunk, axillae, extremities, and neck. However, the lesions are expected to discharge oily material if squeezed and have a characteristic corrugated eosinophilic cuticle lining a cyst histologically.  

Although it is undetermined if the risk for systemic involvement increases in patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis, evaluation for probable systemic involvement is necessary.¹ Because cutaneous sarcoidosis generally can precede any systemic involvement, it would be reasonable to consider skin biopsies in patients who present with atypical wartlike lesions on the scrotum and penis to rule out sarcoidosis. 

Not every physician coming out of medical school wants to go down the path of conducting clinical research. But for those who do, the decision is a rewarding one that can make a real difference in patients’ lives.

I took a nontraditional route to get to my current role as the director of clinical research and education at the largest gastroenterology practice in the United States. I had a business degree coming out of college and worked for years in the business world prior to going to medical school. After graduation, I got an offer to join the pharmaceutical industry in medical affairs. There, I focused on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), where my role was to share high-level scientific data and liaise with IBD disease state experts. Part of the role was working internally with clinical operations and externally with sites conducting research throughout the United States. In the next 6 years, I had the opportunity to observe how research was run in both the academic and community practice settings, noting those characteristics that allowed some to succeed and far more to stagnate or fail.

In 2014, I joined Texas Digestive Disease Consultants with the goal to ramp up the practice’s clinical research arm and create a department expressly for that purpose. To date, the department has become incredibly successful and ultimately sustainable. If you’re considering joining a practice based on its clinical research program or starting one in your current practice, here is what I’ve learned along the way:

Know the benefit to patients

You have to decide to conduct clinical research because of its benefit to the patient, not because you see it as an alternative revenue stream. It will never be sustainable if viewed as a profit center. Clinical research offers therapeutic advancements that will not be available to most for the next 5-10 years. Additionally, patients do not need insurance in order to participate in a study. The sponsor covers all study visits, procedures, and therapeutics.

Know the value to the practice

Having a clinical trials program brings both direct and indirect enterprise value to the practice. It may come in the form of referrals from other practices that don’t have the same capabilities. Patients may view your practice differently, knowing that it has the added value of research. There is a halo effect from having clinical trials capabilities in how you are viewed by patients and other physicians in the community.

Get the right people in place

First, you will need an enthusiastic primary investigator who can take a bit of time from practice to conduct clinical trials. But just as importantly, you need a knowledgeable clinical research coordinator. Without an effective coordinator, the program is doomed. A good coordinator should be well rounded in all aspects of research (e.g., regulatory, patient recruitment, quality assurance, contracts, budgets, running labs, conducting patient visits) and able to deal with the day-to-day intricacies of running clinical trials, which will allow a doctor to take care of the existing practice. They should also be versed in the requisite equipment (e.g., locking refrigerator, freezer, and ambient cabinet, temperature monitoring devices, EKG machine, and centrifuge) necessary to run a clinical study.

Know how to recruit patients

The database at Texas Digestive Disease Consultants/GI Alliance (TDDC/GIA) is vast, which makes identification of patients who may qualify for a trial an easier task. Many practices will have an electronic medical record that will aid in identification, but if that is not the case at your practice, there are a number of ways you can go about this. First, talk to physicians in your practice and in other practices – internists, family physicians, and other gastroenterologists come to mind – about what you can offer. Send a letter or an email out to physicians in the community with the inclusion/exclusion criteria for your study, and always direct them to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ for additional information. Patient advocacy organizations are another good source of referrals for clinical trials. And of course, pharmaceutical companies have recruitment services that they use and can help steer patients your way.

Understand the ethics

There are numerous ethical and legal considerations when it comes to running clinical trials. The principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Human Subject Protection (HSP) guide the conduct of clinical trials in the United States. Understanding the concepts and regulations around caring for patients in trials is not only “good practice,” it’s a necessity. There are free Good Clinical Practice training courses available, which are required every few years for everyone conducting clinical research. These courses are quite lengthy (3-6 hours), but provide a great overview of the Food and Drug Administration regulations, ethical considerations, and other advice on successfully operating a clinical trials program. Again, a capable clinical research coordinator will help guide you here.

Adopt standard operating procedures

Every clinical trials sponsor will require standard operating procedures for such facets of research as informed consent, reporting requirements, and safety monitoring. Here again, a seasoned clinical trials coordinator can put you on the right path. You may choose to purchase standardized templates or work with another group that already has them and would be willing to share.

Be smart about spending

While this may depend on the scale you want to grow your research, at TDDC/GIA we knew we wanted to build a sustainable program. We invested a lot of time and money into our infrastructure, as well as adopting a robust Clinical Trials Management System (CTMS). A CTMS system will provide the ability to measure productivity, finances, schedule patient visits, and pay patient stipends. Some systems even automate the regulatory process (E-Regulatory) or source process (E-source), which can cut down on the paper burden on a site.

Seek mentors

Look for someone to emulate who is already established in operating a clinical research program in private practice. Reach out to the practices or physicians that are already doing this work and doing it well. For physicians who are just starting out or still in training, look for opportunities to publish or be involved with the clinical trials program at your institution.

Contacts in the pharmaceutical industry are very important to getting a new program off the ground. Ask the pharma sales representatives who visit your clinic to put you in touch with their medical science liaison (MSL). The MSL can get you information about the clinical trials their company is currently running and those they have in the pipeline.
 

Dr. Chris Fourment, director of clinical research and education, Texas Digestive Disease Consultants/GI Alliance.

Not every physician coming out of medical school wants to go down the path of conducting clinical research. But for those who do, the decision is a rewarding one that can make a real difference in patients’ lives.

I took a nontraditional route to get to my current role as the director of clinical research and education at the largest gastroenterology practice in the United States. I had a business degree coming out of college and worked for years in the business world prior to going to medical school. After graduation, I got an offer to join the pharmaceutical industry in medical affairs. There, I focused on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), where my role was to share high-level scientific data and liaise with IBD disease state experts. Part of the role was working internally with clinical operations and externally with sites conducting research throughout the United States. In the next 6 years, I had the opportunity to observe how research was run in both the academic and community practice settings, noting those characteristics that allowed some to succeed and far more to stagnate or fail.

In 2014, I joined Texas Digestive Disease Consultants with the goal to ramp up the practice’s clinical research arm and create a department expressly for that purpose. To date, the department has become incredibly successful and ultimately sustainable. If you’re considering joining a practice based on its clinical research program or starting one in your current practice, here is what I’ve learned along the way:

Know the benefit to patients

You have to decide to conduct clinical research because of its benefit to the patient, not because you see it as an alternative revenue stream. It will never be sustainable if viewed as a profit center. Clinical research offers therapeutic advancements that will not be available to most for the next 5-10 years. Additionally, patients do not need insurance in order to participate in a study. The sponsor covers all study visits, procedures, and therapeutics.

Know the value to the practice

Having a clinical trials program brings both direct and indirect enterprise value to the practice. It may come in the form of referrals from other practices that don’t have the same capabilities. Patients may view your practice differently, knowing that it has the added value of research. There is a halo effect from having clinical trials capabilities in how you are viewed by patients and other physicians in the community.

Get the right people in place

First, you will need an enthusiastic primary investigator who can take a bit of time from practice to conduct clinical trials. But just as importantly, you need a knowledgeable clinical research coordinator. Without an effective coordinator, the program is doomed. A good coordinator should be well rounded in all aspects of research (e.g., regulatory, patient recruitment, quality assurance, contracts, budgets, running labs, conducting patient visits) and able to deal with the day-to-day intricacies of running clinical trials, which will allow a doctor to take care of the existing practice. They should also be versed in the requisite equipment (e.g., locking refrigerator, freezer, and ambient cabinet, temperature monitoring devices, EKG machine, and centrifuge) necessary to run a clinical study.

Know how to recruit patients

The database at Texas Digestive Disease Consultants/GI Alliance (TDDC/GIA) is vast, which makes identification of patients who may qualify for a trial an easier task. Many practices will have an electronic medical record that will aid in identification, but if that is not the case at your practice, there are a number of ways you can go about this. First, talk to physicians in your practice and in other practices – internists, family physicians, and other gastroenterologists come to mind – about what you can offer. Send a letter or an email out to physicians in the community with the inclusion/exclusion criteria for your study, and always direct them to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ for additional information. Patient advocacy organizations are another good source of referrals for clinical trials. And of course, pharmaceutical companies have recruitment services that they use and can help steer patients your way.

Understand the ethics

There are numerous ethical and legal considerations when it comes to running clinical trials. The principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Human Subject Protection (HSP) guide the conduct of clinical trials in the United States. Understanding the concepts and regulations around caring for patients in trials is not only “good practice,” it’s a necessity. There are free Good Clinical Practice training courses available, which are required every few years for everyone conducting clinical research. These courses are quite lengthy (3-6 hours), but provide a great overview of the Food and Drug Administration regulations, ethical considerations, and other advice on successfully operating a clinical trials program. Again, a capable clinical research coordinator will help guide you here.

Adopt standard operating procedures

Every clinical trials sponsor will require standard operating procedures for such facets of research as informed consent, reporting requirements, and safety monitoring. Here again, a seasoned clinical trials coordinator can put you on the right path. You may choose to purchase standardized templates or work with another group that already has them and would be willing to share.

Be smart about spending

While this may depend on the scale you want to grow your research, at TDDC/GIA we knew we wanted to build a sustainable program. We invested a lot of time and money into our infrastructure, as well as adopting a robust Clinical Trials Management System (CTMS). A CTMS system will provide the ability to measure productivity, finances, schedule patient visits, and pay patient stipends. Some systems even automate the regulatory process (E-Regulatory) or source process (E-source), which can cut down on the paper burden on a site.

Seek mentors

Look for someone to emulate who is already established in operating a clinical research program in private practice. Reach out to the practices or physicians that are already doing this work and doing it well. For physicians who are just starting out or still in training, look for opportunities to publish or be involved with the clinical trials program at your institution.

Contacts in the pharmaceutical industry are very important to getting a new program off the ground. Ask the pharma sales representatives who visit your clinic to put you in touch with their medical science liaison (MSL). The MSL can get you information about the clinical trials their company is currently running and those they have in the pipeline.
 

Dr. Chris Fourment, director of clinical research and education, Texas Digestive Disease Consultants/GI Alliance.

Not every physician coming out of medical school wants to go down the path of conducting clinical research. But for those who do, the decision is a rewarding one that can make a real difference in patients’ lives.

I took a nontraditional route to get to my current role as the director of clinical research and education at the largest gastroenterology practice in the United States. I had a business degree coming out of college and worked for years in the business world prior to going to medical school. After graduation, I got an offer to join the pharmaceutical industry in medical affairs. There, I focused on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), where my role was to share high-level scientific data and liaise with IBD disease state experts. Part of the role was working internally with clinical operations and externally with sites conducting research throughout the United States. In the next 6 years, I had the opportunity to observe how research was run in both the academic and community practice settings, noting those characteristics that allowed some to succeed and far more to stagnate or fail.

In 2014, I joined Texas Digestive Disease Consultants with the goal to ramp up the practice’s clinical research arm and create a department expressly for that purpose. To date, the department has become incredibly successful and ultimately sustainable. If you’re considering joining a practice based on its clinical research program or starting one in your current practice, here is what I’ve learned along the way:

Know the benefit to patients

You have to decide to conduct clinical research because of its benefit to the patient, not because you see it as an alternative revenue stream. It will never be sustainable if viewed as a profit center. Clinical research offers therapeutic advancements that will not be available to most for the next 5-10 years. Additionally, patients do not need insurance in order to participate in a study. The sponsor covers all study visits, procedures, and therapeutics.

Know the value to the practice

Having a clinical trials program brings both direct and indirect enterprise value to the practice. It may come in the form of referrals from other practices that don’t have the same capabilities. Patients may view your practice differently, knowing that it has the added value of research. There is a halo effect from having clinical trials capabilities in how you are viewed by patients and other physicians in the community.

Get the right people in place

First, you will need an enthusiastic primary investigator who can take a bit of time from practice to conduct clinical trials. But just as importantly, you need a knowledgeable clinical research coordinator. Without an effective coordinator, the program is doomed. A good coordinator should be well rounded in all aspects of research (e.g., regulatory, patient recruitment, quality assurance, contracts, budgets, running labs, conducting patient visits) and able to deal with the day-to-day intricacies of running clinical trials, which will allow a doctor to take care of the existing practice. They should also be versed in the requisite equipment (e.g., locking refrigerator, freezer, and ambient cabinet, temperature monitoring devices, EKG machine, and centrifuge) necessary to run a clinical study.

Know how to recruit patients

The database at Texas Digestive Disease Consultants/GI Alliance (TDDC/GIA) is vast, which makes identification of patients who may qualify for a trial an easier task. Many practices will have an electronic medical record that will aid in identification, but if that is not the case at your practice, there are a number of ways you can go about this. First, talk to physicians in your practice and in other practices – internists, family physicians, and other gastroenterologists come to mind – about what you can offer. Send a letter or an email out to physicians in the community with the inclusion/exclusion criteria for your study, and always direct them to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ for additional information. Patient advocacy organizations are another good source of referrals for clinical trials. And of course, pharmaceutical companies have recruitment services that they use and can help steer patients your way.

Understand the ethics

There are numerous ethical and legal considerations when it comes to running clinical trials. The principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Human Subject Protection (HSP) guide the conduct of clinical trials in the United States. Understanding the concepts and regulations around caring for patients in trials is not only “good practice,” it’s a necessity. There are free Good Clinical Practice training courses available, which are required every few years for everyone conducting clinical research. These courses are quite lengthy (3-6 hours), but provide a great overview of the Food and Drug Administration regulations, ethical considerations, and other advice on successfully operating a clinical trials program. Again, a capable clinical research coordinator will help guide you here.

Adopt standard operating procedures

Every clinical trials sponsor will require standard operating procedures for such facets of research as informed consent, reporting requirements, and safety monitoring. Here again, a seasoned clinical trials coordinator can put you on the right path. You may choose to purchase standardized templates or work with another group that already has them and would be willing to share.

Be smart about spending

While this may depend on the scale you want to grow your research, at TDDC/GIA we knew we wanted to build a sustainable program. We invested a lot of time and money into our infrastructure, as well as adopting a robust Clinical Trials Management System (CTMS). A CTMS system will provide the ability to measure productivity, finances, schedule patient visits, and pay patient stipends. Some systems even automate the regulatory process (E-Regulatory) or source process (E-source), which can cut down on the paper burden on a site.

Seek mentors

Look for someone to emulate who is already established in operating a clinical research program in private practice. Reach out to the practices or physicians that are already doing this work and doing it well. For physicians who are just starting out or still in training, look for opportunities to publish or be involved with the clinical trials program at your institution.

Contacts in the pharmaceutical industry are very important to getting a new program off the ground. Ask the pharma sales representatives who visit your clinic to put you in touch with their medical science liaison (MSL). The MSL can get you information about the clinical trials their company is currently running and those they have in the pipeline.
 

Dr. Chris Fourment, director of clinical research and education, Texas Digestive Disease Consultants/GI Alliance.

Pretransplant induction therapy with subcutaneous bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) deepened responses in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an interim analysis of a phase 3 study.

Overall, the regimen was well tolerated, with a minimal number of patients discontinuing treatment because of treatment-emergent adverse events.

The ongoing, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study is designed to compare two transplant-conditioning regimens – intravenous busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan – in patients who received VRD induction and consolidation, wrote Laura Rosiñol, MD, PhD, of the August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues. The findings were published in Blood.

The PETHEMA/GEM2012 study included 458 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Study patients were previously untreated and aged younger than 65 years.

All patients received VRD induction, which consisted of subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle; lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21; and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4 and 9-12 at 4-week intervals for six cycles. Posttransplant consolidation consisted of two cycles of VRD.

The researchers conducted a grouped-response analysis of three different treatment phases: induction, transplant, and consolidation.

After analysis, the researchers found that responses deepened over the duration of treatment. In patients who started the sixth induction cycle, the response rates were 55.6%, 63.8%, 68.3%, and 70.4% after cycles 3, 4, 5, and post induction, respectively.

After six cycles of induction, the complete response rate was 33.4%, with a rate of undetectable minimal residual disease of 28.8%, which further increased at transplant (42.1%), and consolidation (45.2%).

With respect to safety, the most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (12.9%) and infection (9.2%). The rate of grade 2 or higher peripheral neuropathy throughout induction was 17.0%, with lower rates of grade 3 (3.7%) and 4 (0.2%) toxicities.

“The regimen [used in the present study] has the highest lenalidomide and dexamethasone dose intensity per cycle and a lower bortezomib dose intensity per cycle than the 21-day regimens, which may offer high activity with low levels of toxicity, thereby enabling delivery of all planned induction cycles,” the researchers wrote, adding that “these results confirm that VRD is an effective pretransplant induction regimen and may be considered a new standard of care.”

The study was supported by Celgene, Janssen, Pierre Fabré, and the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The authors reported financial affiliations with Celgene, Janssen, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Rosiñol L et al. Blood. 2019 Sep 4. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000241.

Pretransplant induction therapy with subcutaneous bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) deepened responses in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an interim analysis of a phase 3 study.

Overall, the regimen was well tolerated, with a minimal number of patients discontinuing treatment because of treatment-emergent adverse events.

The ongoing, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study is designed to compare two transplant-conditioning regimens – intravenous busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan – in patients who received VRD induction and consolidation, wrote Laura Rosiñol, MD, PhD, of the August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues. The findings were published in Blood.

The PETHEMA/GEM2012 study included 458 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Study patients were previously untreated and aged younger than 65 years.

All patients received VRD induction, which consisted of subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle; lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21; and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4 and 9-12 at 4-week intervals for six cycles. Posttransplant consolidation consisted of two cycles of VRD.

The researchers conducted a grouped-response analysis of three different treatment phases: induction, transplant, and consolidation.

After analysis, the researchers found that responses deepened over the duration of treatment. In patients who started the sixth induction cycle, the response rates were 55.6%, 63.8%, 68.3%, and 70.4% after cycles 3, 4, 5, and post induction, respectively.

After six cycles of induction, the complete response rate was 33.4%, with a rate of undetectable minimal residual disease of 28.8%, which further increased at transplant (42.1%), and consolidation (45.2%).

With respect to safety, the most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (12.9%) and infection (9.2%). The rate of grade 2 or higher peripheral neuropathy throughout induction was 17.0%, with lower rates of grade 3 (3.7%) and 4 (0.2%) toxicities.

“The regimen [used in the present study] has the highest lenalidomide and dexamethasone dose intensity per cycle and a lower bortezomib dose intensity per cycle than the 21-day regimens, which may offer high activity with low levels of toxicity, thereby enabling delivery of all planned induction cycles,” the researchers wrote, adding that “these results confirm that VRD is an effective pretransplant induction regimen and may be considered a new standard of care.”

The study was supported by Celgene, Janssen, Pierre Fabré, and the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The authors reported financial affiliations with Celgene, Janssen, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Rosiñol L et al. Blood. 2019 Sep 4. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000241.

Pretransplant induction therapy with subcutaneous bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) deepened responses in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an interim analysis of a phase 3 study.

Overall, the regimen was well tolerated, with a minimal number of patients discontinuing treatment because of treatment-emergent adverse events.

The ongoing, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study is designed to compare two transplant-conditioning regimens – intravenous busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan – in patients who received VRD induction and consolidation, wrote Laura Rosiñol, MD, PhD, of the August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues. The findings were published in Blood.

The PETHEMA/GEM2012 study included 458 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Study patients were previously untreated and aged younger than 65 years.

All patients received VRD induction, which consisted of subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle; lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21; and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4 and 9-12 at 4-week intervals for six cycles. Posttransplant consolidation consisted of two cycles of VRD.

The researchers conducted a grouped-response analysis of three different treatment phases: induction, transplant, and consolidation.

After analysis, the researchers found that responses deepened over the duration of treatment. In patients who started the sixth induction cycle, the response rates were 55.6%, 63.8%, 68.3%, and 70.4% after cycles 3, 4, 5, and post induction, respectively.

After six cycles of induction, the complete response rate was 33.4%, with a rate of undetectable minimal residual disease of 28.8%, which further increased at transplant (42.1%), and consolidation (45.2%).

With respect to safety, the most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (12.9%) and infection (9.2%). The rate of grade 2 or higher peripheral neuropathy throughout induction was 17.0%, with lower rates of grade 3 (3.7%) and 4 (0.2%) toxicities.

“The regimen [used in the present study] has the highest lenalidomide and dexamethasone dose intensity per cycle and a lower bortezomib dose intensity per cycle than the 21-day regimens, which may offer high activity with low levels of toxicity, thereby enabling delivery of all planned induction cycles,” the researchers wrote, adding that “these results confirm that VRD is an effective pretransplant induction regimen and may be considered a new standard of care.”

The study was supported by Celgene, Janssen, Pierre Fabré, and the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The authors reported financial affiliations with Celgene, Janssen, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Rosiñol L et al. Blood. 2019 Sep 4. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000241.

Behind Olaratumab's Phase 3 Disappointment

ANNOUNCE, the phase 3 trial designed to confirm the clinical benefit of olaratumab in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS), failed to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) in all STS histologies and the leiomyosarcoma population. The previous phase 1b/2 signal-finding study of olaratumab had achieved an unprecedented improvement in OS, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awarded olaratumab accelerated approval in October 2016. By December 2018, olaratumab received additional accelerated, conditional, and full approvals in more than 40 countries worldwide. William D. Tap, MD, chief of the Sarcoma Medical Oncology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, presented the phase 3 results and provided some explanations for the findings during the plenary session at ASCO.

ANNOUNCE (NCT02451943), which was designed and enrolled prior to olaratumab receiving accelerated approval, opened in September 2015 and completed accrual 10 months later in July 2016. Investigators randomized and treated 509 patients with advanced STS not amenable to curative therapy, 258 patients in the olaratumab-doxorubicin arm and 251 in the placebo-doxorubicin arm. Most patients (46%) had leiomyosarcoma, followed by liposarcoma (18%), pleomorphic sarcoma (13%), and 24% of the patient population had 26 unique histologies. Three-quarters of the patients had no prior systemic therapy.

Results

As of the data cutoff on December 5, 2018, there were no survival differences in the intention-to-treat population, in the total STS population nor in the leiomyosarcoma subpopulation, with olaratumab-doxorubicin compared to placebo-doxorubicin. For the total STS population, median OS with olaratumab- doxorubicin was 20.4 months and with placebo-doxorubicin 19.7 months. “This is the highest survival rate described to date in any phase 3 sarcoma study,” Dr. Tap said. “It is of particular interest as ANNOUNCE did not mandate treatment in the first line.” In the leiomyosarcoma population, median OS was 21.6 months with olaratumab and 21.9 months with placebo. The secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and disease control rate did not favor olaratumab either.

Investigators are examining the relationship between PDGFRα expression and OS in ANNOUNCE. PDGFRα-positive tumors tended to do worse with olaratumab than PDGFRα-negative tumors. The investigators noticed a 6-month difference in OS between these populations favoring PDGFRα-negative tumors. Additional biomarker analyses are ongoing.

A large and concerted effort is underway, Dr. Tap said, to understand the results of the ANNOUNCE study alone and in context with the phase 1b/2 study. “There are no noted discrepancies in study conduct or data integrity which could explain these findings or the differences between the two studies.”

Possible explanations

The designs of the phase 1b/2 and phase 3 studies had some important differences. The phase 1b/2 study was a small, open-label, US-centric study (10 sites) that did not include a placebo or subtype- specified analyses. Its primary endpoint was PFS, it did not have a loading dose of olaratumab, and it specified the timing of dexrazoxane administration after 300 mg/m2 of doxorubicin.

ANNOUNCE, on the other hand, was a large (n=509), international (110 study sites), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that had outcomes evaluated in STS and leiomyosarcoma. Its primary endpoint was OS, it had a loading dose of olaratumab of 20 mg/kg, and there was no restriction as to the timing of dexrazoxane administration.

Dr. Tap pointed out that in ANNOUNCE it was difficult to predict or control for factors that may have had an unanticipated influence on outcomes, such as albumin levels as a surrogate for disease burden and behavior of PDGFRα status. It is possible, he said, that olaratumab has no activity in STS and that the phase 1b/2 results were due to, among other things, the small sample size, numerous represented histologies with disparate clinical behavior, and the effect of subtype-specific therapies on overall survival, given subsequently or even by chance. On the other hand, it is also possible, he said, that olaratumab has some activity in STS, with outcomes being affected by the heterogeneity of the study populations, differences in trial design, and the performance of the ANNOUNCE control arm. Whatever the case, he said, accelerated approval allowed patients to have access to a potentially life-prolonging drug with little added toxicity.

Discussion

In the expert discussion following the presentation, Jaap Verweij, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, congratulated the investigators for performing the study at an unprecedented pace. He commented that lumping STS subtypes together is problematic, as different histological subtypes behave as though they are different diseases. Small numbers of each tumor subtype and subtypes with slow tumor growth can impact trial outcomes. In the phase 1b/2 and phase 3 trials, 26 different subtypes were represented in each study. Dr. Verweij pointed out this could have made a big difference in the phase 1b/2 study, in which there were only 66 patients in each arm.

It is striking to note, he said, that without exception, phase 2 randomized studies in STS involving doxorubicin consistently overestimated and wrongly predicted PFS in the subsequent phase 3 studies. And the situation is similar for OS. The results of the ANNOUNCE study are no exception, he added. “Taken together, these studies indicate that phase 2 studies in soft tissue sarcomas, certainly those involving additions of drugs to doxorubicin, even if randomized, should be interpreted with great caution,” he said.

SOURCE: Tap WD, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr LBA3)

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.

Dr. Tap reported research funding from Lilly and Dr. Verweij had nothing to report related to this study. Abstract coauthors disclosed numerous financial relationships, including consulting/advisory roles and/or research funding from Lilly, and several were employed by Lilly.

Addition of Temozolomide May Improve Outcomes in RMS

Investigators from the European Pediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) found that the addition of temozolomide (T) to vincristine and irinotecan (VI) may improve outcomes in adults and children with relapsed or refractory rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). Principal investigator of the study, Anne Sophie Defachelles, MD, pediatric oncologist at the Centre Oscar Lambret in Lille, France, presented the results on behalf of the EpSSG.

The international, randomized (1:1), open-label, phase 2 trial (VIT-0910; NCT01355445) was conducted at 37 centers in 5 countries. Patients ages 6 months to 50 years with RMS were eligible. They could not have had prior irinotecan or temozolomide. A 2015 protocol amendment limited enrollment to patients at relapse and increased the enrollment goal by 40 patients. After the 2015 amendment, patients with refractory disease were no longer eligible.

From January 2012 to April 2018, investigators enrolled 120 patients, 60 on each arm. Two patients in the VI arm were not treated. Patients were a median age of 10.5 years in the VI arm and 12 years in the VIT arm, 92% (VI) and 87% (VIT) had relapsed disease, 8% (VI) and 13% (VIT) had refractory disease, and 55% (VI) and 68% (VIT) had metastatic disease at study entry.

Results

Patients achieved an OR rate of 44% (VIT) and 31% (VI) for the whole population, one-sided P value <.0001. The adjusted odds ratio for the whole population was 0.50, P=.09. PFS was 4.7 months (VIT) and 3.2 months (VI), “a nearly significant reduction in the risk of progression,” Dr. Defachelles noted. Median OS was 15.0 months (VIT) and 10.3 months (VI), which amounted to “a large and significant reduction in the risk of death,” she said. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.55, P=.006.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more frequent in the VIT arm, with hematologic toxicity the most frequent (81% for VIT, 59% for VI), followed by gastrointestinal adverse events. “VIT was significantly more toxic than VI,” Dr. Defachelles observed, “but the toxicity was manageable.”

“VIT is now the standard treatment in Europe for relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma and will be the control arm in the multiarm, multistage RMS study for relapsed patients,” she said.

SOURCE: Defachelles AS, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 10000)

The study was sponsored by Centre Oscar Lambret and SFCE (Société Française de Lutte contre les Cancers et Lucémies de l’Enfant et de l’Adolescent) served as collaborator.

Drs. Defachelles and Wagner had no relationships to disclose. A few coauthors had advisory/consulting or speaker roles for various commercial interests, including two for Merck (temozolomide).

Pazopanib Increases Pathologic Necrosis Rates in STS

Pazopanib added to a regimen of preoperative chemoradiation in non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS) significantly increased the rate of near-complete pathologic response in both children and adults with intermediate or high-risk disease. Pazopanib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, works in multiple signaling pathways involved in tumorigenesis— VEGFR-1, -2, -3, PDGFRα/β, and c-kit. A phase 3 study demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced STS patients and was the basis for its approval in the US and elsewhere for treatment of this patient population. Preclinical data suggest synergy between pazopanib and cytotoxic chemotherapy, forming the rationale for the current trial with neoadjuvant pazopanib added to chemoradiation.

According to the investigators, the trial (ARST1321) is the first ever collaborative study codeveloped, written, and conducted by pediatric (Children’s Oncology Group) and adult (NRG Oncology) cancer cooperative groups (NCT02180867). Aaron R. Weiss, MD, of the Maine Medical Center in Portland and study cochair, presented the data for the chemotherapy arms at ASCO. The primary objectives of the study were to determine the feasibility of preoperative chemoradiation with or without pazopanib and to compare the rates of complete pathologic response in patients receiving radiation or chemoradiation with or without pazopanib. Pathologic necrosis rates of 90% or better have been found to be predictive of outcome in STS.

Results

As of the June 30, 2018, cutoff, 81 patients were enrolled on the chemotherapy arms: 42 in the pazopanib plus chemoradiation arm and 39 in the chemoradiation-only arm. Sixty-one percent of all patients were 18 years or older, and the median age was 20.3 years. Most patients (73%) did not have metastatic disease, and the major histologies represented were synovial sarcoma (49%) and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (25%).

At week 13, patients in the pazopanib arm showed significant improvement, with 14 (58%) of those evaluated having pathologic necrosis of at least 90%, compared with 4 (22%) in the chemoradiation-only arm (P=.02). The study was closed to further accrual.

Eighteen patients were not evaluable for pathologic response and 21 were pending pathologic evaluation at week 13. Radiographic response rates were not statistically significant on either arm. No complete responses (CR) were achieved in the pazopanib arm, but 14 patients (52%) achieved a partial response (PR) and 12 (44%) had stable disease (SD). In the chemoradiation-only arm, 2 patients (8%) achieved a CR, 12 (50%) a PR, and 8 (33%) SD. Fifteen patients in each arm were not evaluated for radiographic response.

The pazopanib arm experienced more febrile neutropenia and myelotoxicity during induction and continuation phases than the chemoradiation-only arm. In general, investigators indicated pazopanib combined with chemoradiation was well tolerated and no unexpected toxicities arose during the trial.

In the post-presentation discussion, Dr. Raphael E. Pollock, MD, PhD, of The Ohio State University, called it a tremendous challenge to interdigitate primary local therapies in systemic approaches, particularly in the neoadjuvant context. He pointed out that in an earlier study, a 95% to 100% necrosis level was needed to achieve a significant positive impact on outcomes and perhaps a subsequent prospective trial could determine the best level. He questioned whether the availability of only 60% of patient responses could affect the conclusions and whether the high number of toxicities (73.8% grade 3/4 with pazopanib) might be too high to consider the treatment for most patients, given the intensity of the regimen.

SOURCE: Weiss AR, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11002)

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Drs. Weiss and Pollock had no relationships with commercial interests to disclose. A few investigators disclosed advisory, consulting, or research roles with pharmaceutical companies, including one who received institutional research funding from Novartis (pazopanib).

Gemcitabine Plus Pazopanib a Potential Alternative in STS

In a phase 2 study of gemcitabine with pazopanib (G+P) or gemcitabine with docetaxel (G+D), investigators concluded the combination with pazopanib can be considered an alternative to that with docetaxel in select patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). They reported similar progression-free survival (PFS) and rate of toxicity for the two regimens. Neeta Somaiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, presented the findings of the investigator-initiated effort (NCT01593748) at ASCO.

The investigators enrolled 90 patients, 45 in each arm. Patients were a mean age of 56 years, and there was no difference in age or gender distribution between the arms. Patients with leiomyosarcoma (31% overall) or prior pelvic radiation (11% overall) were similar between the arms. The overall response rate using RECIST 1.1 criteria was partial response (PR) in 8 of 44 evaluable patients (18%) in the G+D arm and 5 of 43 evaluable patients (12%) in the G+P arm. Stable disease (SD) was observed in 21 patients (48%) in the G+D arm and 24 patients (56%) in the G+P arm. This amounted to a clinical benefit rate (PR + SD) of 66% and 68% for the G+D and G+P arms, respectively (Fisher’s exact test, P>.99). The median PFS was 4.1 months on both arms and the difference in median overall survival— 15.9 months in the G+D arm and 12.4 months in the G+P arm—was not statistically significant.

Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 19.9% of patients on G+D and 20.6% on G+P. Serious AEs occurred in 33% (G+D) and 22% (G+P). Dose reductions were necessary in 80% of patients on G+P and doses were held in 93%. Dr. Somaiah explained that this may have been because the starting dose of gemcitabine and pazopanib (1000 mg/m² of gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and 800 mg of pazopanib) was “probably higher than what we should have started at.” The rate of doses held was also higher in the pazopanib arm (93%) compared with the docetaxel arm (58%). This was likely because pazopanib was a daily dosing, so if there was a toxicity it was more likely to be held than docetaxel, she observed. Grade 3 or higher toxicities occurring in 5% or more of patients in either arm consisted generally of cytopenias and fatigue. The G+P arm experienced a high amount of neutropenia, most likely because this arm did not receive granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) support, as opposed to the G+D arm.

Dr. Somaiah pointed out that the 12% response rate for the G+P combination is similar to what has been previously presented and higher than single-agent gemcitabine or pazopanib, but not higher than the G+D combination. The PFS of 4.1 months was less than anticipated, she added, but it was similar on both arms. The investigators believe the G+P combination warrants further exploration.

SOURCE: Somaiah N, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11008)

The study was sponsored by the Medical University of South Carolina, with Novartis as collaborator.

Dr. Somaiah disclosed Advisory Board roles for Blueprint, Deciphera, and Bayer. Abstract coauthors disclosed advisory/consulting roles or research funding from various commercial interests, including Novartis (pazopanib) and Pfizer (gemcitabine).

rEECur Trial Finding Optimal Chemotherapy Regimen for Ewing Sarcoma

Interim results of the first and largest randomized trial in patients with refractory or recurrent Ewing sarcoma (ES), the rEECur trial, are guiding the way to finding the optimal chemotherapy regimen to treat the disease. Until now, there has been little prospective evidence and no randomized data to guide treatment choices in relapsed or refractory patients, and hence no real standard of care, according to the presentation at ASCO. Several molecularly targeted therapies are emerging, and they require a standardized chemotherapy backbone against which they can be tested.

Results

Two hundred twenty patients 4 years or older and younger than 50 years with recurrent or refractory histologically confirmed ES of bone or soft tissue were randomized to receive GD (n=72) or TC, IT, or IFOS (n=148). Sixty-two GD patients and 123 TC/IT/IFOS patients were included in the primary outcome analysis. Patients were predominantly male (70%), with a median age of 19 years (range, 4 to 49). About two-thirds (67.3%) were post-pubertal. Most patients (85%) were primary refractory or experienced their first disease recurrence, and 89% had measurable disease.

Investigators assessed the primary outcome of objective response after 4 cycles of therapy and found 11% of patients treated with GD responded compared to 24% in the other 3 arms combined. When they subjected the data to Bayesian analysis, there was a 25% chance that the response rate in the GD arm was better than the response in Arm A, a 2% chance that it was better than Arm B, and a 3% chance that it was better than Arm C. Because this study was still blinded at the time of the presentation, investigators didn’t know which regimen constituted which arm. The probability that response favored GD, however, was low.

The investigators observed no surprising safety findings. Eighty-five percent of all patients experienced at least 1 adverse event. Most frequent grade 3‐5 events consisted of pneumonitis (50%, 60%), neutropenic fever (17%, 25%), and diarrhea (0, 12%) in GD and the combined 3 arms, respectively. Grade 3 events in the GD arm were lower than in the other 3 arms combined. There was 1 toxic death attributed to neutropenic sepsis in 1 of the 3 blinded arms.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was approximately 5 months. Bayesian analysis suggested there was a low probability that GD was more effective than the other 3 arms: a 22% chance that GD was better than Arm A, a 3% chance that it was better than Arm B, and a 7% chance that it was better than Arm C. Bayesian analysis also suggested there was a probability that OS favored GD. Because the trial directs only the first 4 or 6 cycles of treatment and the patients receive more treatment after trial-directed therapy, investigators were not fully able to interpret this.

Data suggested GD is a less effective regimen than the other 3 regimens both by objective response rate and PFS, so GD has been dropped from the study. Investigators already had more than 75 evaluable patients in each of the 3 arms for the second interim analysis to take place. In a discussion following the presentation, Jayesh Desai, FRACP, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, called this study a potentially practice-changing trial at this early stage, noting that the GD combination will be de-prioritized in practice based on these results.

SOURCE: McCabe MG, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11007)

The rEECur trial is sponsored by the University of Birmingham (UK) and received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under a grant agreement.

Dr. McCabe disclosed no conflicts of interest. Other authors disclosed consulting, advisory roles, or research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Lilly (gemcitabine) and Pfizer (irinotecan). Dr. Desai disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding from Lilly.

Abemaciclib Meets Primary Endpoint in Phase 2 Trial of DDLS

The newer and more potent CDK4 inhibitor, abemaciclib, met its primary endpoint in the investigator-initiated, single-center, single-arm, phase 2 trial in patients with advanced progressive dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS). Twenty-two patients (76%) achieved progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks for a median PFS of 30 weeks. A subset of patients experienced prolonged clinical benefit, remaining on study with stable disease for over 900 days. The study (NCT02846987) was conducted at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York and Mark A. Dickson, MD, presented the results at ASCO.

Results

Thirty patients, 29 evaluable, with metastatic or recurrent DDLS were enrolled and treated with abemaciclib 200 mg orally twice daily between August 2016 and October 2018. Data cutoff for the presentation was the first week of May 2019. Patients were a median of 62 years, 60% were male, and half had no prior systemic treatment. Prior systemic treatments for those previously treated included doxorubicin, olaratumab, gemcitabine, docetaxel, ifosfamide, eribulin, and trabectedin. For 87%, the primary tumor was in their abdomen or retroperitoneum.

Toxicity was as expected with this class of agent, according to the investigators. The most common grades 2 and 3 toxicities, respectively, possibly related to the study drug, occurring in more than 1 patient included anemia (70%, 37%), thrombocytopenia (13%, 13%), neutropenia (43%, 17%), and lymphocyte count decreased (23%, 23%). Very few of these adverse events were grade 4—none for anemia, and 3% each for thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and lymphocyte count decreased. Diarrhea of grades 2 and 3 occurred in 27% and 7% of patients, respectively, and was managed well with loperamide.

In addition to reaching the primary endpoint of 15 patients or more achieving PFS at 12 weeks, 1 patient had a confirmed partial response (PR) and another an unconfirmed PR. At data cutoff, 11 patients remained on study with stable disease or PR. The investigators conducted correlative studies that indicated all patients had CDK4 and MDM2 amplification with no loss of retinoblastoma tumor suppressor. They observed an inverse correlation between CDK4 amplification and PFS—the higher the level of CDK4 amplification, the shorter the PFS. They also found additional genomic alterations, including JUN, GLI1, ARID1A, TERT, and ATRX. TERT amplification was also associated with shorter PFS. Based on these findings, the investigators believe a phase 3 study of abemaciclib in DDLS is warranted.

Winette van der Graaf, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, in the discussion following the presentation, concurred that it is certainly time for a multicenter phase 3 study of CDK4 inhibitors in DDLS, and a strong international collaboration is key to conducting such studies, particularly in rare cancers. On a critical note, Dr. van der Graaf expressed concern that no patient-reported outcomes were measured after 120 patients, including those in previous studies, were treated on palbociclib and abemaciclib. Given that the toxicities of the CDK4 inhibitors are quite different, she recommended including patient-reported outcomes in future studies using validated health-related quality-of-life instruments.

SOURCE: Dickson MA, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11004)

The study was sponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with the study collaborator, Eli Lilly and Company.

Dr. Dickson disclosed research funding from Lilly, the company that provided the study drug. Dr. van der Graaf had no relevant relationships to disclose. Abstract coauthors had consulting/advisory roles or research funding from various companies, including Lilly.

nab-Sirolimus Provides Benefits in Advanced Malignant PEComa

In a prospective phase 2 study of nab-sirolimus in advanced malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), the mTOR inhibitor achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 42% with an acceptable safety profile, despite using relatively high doses of nab-sirolimus compared to other mTOR inhibitors. Activation of the mTOR pathway is common in PEComa, and earlier case reports had indicated substantial clinical benefit with mTOR inhibitor treatment. nab-Sirolimus (ABI-009) is a novel intravenous mTOR inhibitor consisting of nanoparticles of albumin-bound sirolimus. It has significantly higher anti-tumor activity than oral mTOR inhibitors and greater mTOR target suppression at an equal dose. Andrew J. Wagner, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented the findings of AMPECT (NCT02494570)—Advanced Malignant PEComa Trial—at ASCO.

Results

The drug was well tolerated, with toxicities similar to those of oral mTOR inhibitors. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring in 25% or more of patients were mostly grade 1 or 2 toxicities. Hematologic TRAEs included anemia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (32%) of any grade. Nonhematologic events of any grade included stomatitis/ mucositis (74%), dermatitis/rash (65%), fatigue (59%), nausea (47%), and diarrhea (38%), among others. A few grade 3 events occurred on study, most notably stomatitis/mucositis (18%). Severe adverse events (SAEs) were also uncommon, occurring in 7 of 34 patients (21%). Pneumonitis is common in orally administered mTOR inhibitors; 6 patients (18%) treated with nab-sirolimus had grade 1 or 2 pneumonitis.

Of the 31 evaluable patients, 13 (42%) had an objective response, all of which were partial responses (PR). Eleven (35%) had stable disease and 7 (23%) had progressive disease. The disease control rate, consisting of PR and stable disease, was 77%. The median duration of response had not been reached as of the data cutoff on May 10, 2019. At that time, it was 6.2 months (range, 1.5 to 27.7+). The median time to response was 1.4 months and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.4 months. The PFS rate at 6 months was 61%. Three patients had received treatment for over a year and another 3 patients for more than 2 years.

Correlation with biomarkers

Of the 25 patients who had tissue suitable for next-generation sequencing, 9 had TSC2 mutations, 5 had TSC1 mutations, and 11 had neither mutation. Strikingly, 9 of 9 patients with TSC2 mutations developed a PR, while only 1 with a TSC1 mutation responded. One patient with no TSC1/2 mutation also responded and 2 patients with unknown mutational status responded. The investigators also analyzed pS6 status by immunohistochemistry—pS6 is a marker of mTOR hyperactivity. Twenty- five patient samples were available for analysis. Eight of 8 patients who were negative for pS6 staining did not have a response, while 10 of 17 (59%) who were pS6-positive had a PR.

In the discussion that followed, Winette van der Graaf, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, noted that this study showed that biomarkers can be used for patient selection, although TSC2 mutations are not uniquely linked with response. She indicated a comparator with sirolimus would have been of great interest.

SOURCE: Wagner AJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11005).

The study was sponsored by Aadi Bioscience, Inc., and funded in part by a grant from the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD).

Disclosures relevant to this presentation include contininstitutional research funding from Aadi Bioscience for Dr. Wagner and a few other abstract coauthors. Several coauthors are employed by Aadi Bioscience and have stock or other ownership interests. Dr. van der Graaf had nothing to disclose.

Cabozantinib Achieves Disease Control in GIST

The phase 2 EORTC 1317 trial, known as CaboGIST (NCT02216578), met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) cabozantinib. Twenty-four (58.5%) of the 41 patients in the primary study population, and 30 (60%) of the entire 50-patient population, were progression-free at 12 weeks. The study needed 21 patients to be progression- free for cabozantinib to warrant further exploration in GIST patients.

This investigator-initiated study had as its primary objective assessment of the safety and activity of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic GIST who had progressed on imatinib and sunitinib. The patients could not have been exposed to other KIT- or PDGFR-directed TKIs, such as regorafenib. Secondary objectives included the assessment of cabozantinib in different mutational subtypes of GIST. Patients received cabozantinib tablets once daily until they experienced no further clinical benefit or became intolerant to the drug or chose to discontinue therapy. Fifty patients started treatment between February 2017 and August 2018. All were evaluable for the primary endpoint, and one-third of patients contininstitutional cabozantinib treatment as of the database cutoff in January 2019.

Results

Patients were a median age of 63 years. Virtually all patients (92%) had prior surgery and only 8% had prior radiotherapy. The daily cabozantinib dose was a median 47.2 mg and duration of treatment was a median 20.4 weeks. No patient discontinued treatment due to toxicity, but 88% discontinued due to disease progression.

Safety signals were the same as for other indications in which cabozantinib is used. Almost all patients (94%) had at least 1 treatment-related adverse event of grades 1‐4, including diarrhea (74%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (58%), fatigue (46%), and hypertension (46%), which are typical of treatment with cabozantinib. Hematologic toxicities in this trial were clinically irrelevant, according to the investigators, consisting of small numbers of grades 2‐3 anemia, lymphopenia, white blood cell count abnormality, and neutropenia. Biochemical abnormalities included grades 3 and 4 hypophosphatemia, increased grades 3 and 4 gamma-glutamyl transferase, grade 3 hyponatremia, and grade 3 hypokalemia, in 8% or more of patients.

Overall survival was a median 14.4 months, with 16 patients still on treatment at the time of data cutoff. Twenty- four patients were progression-free at week 12, satisfying the study decision rule for clinical benefit. Median duration of PFS was 6.0 months. Seven patients (14%) achieved a confirmed partial response (PR) and 33 (66%) achieved stable disease (SD). Nine patients had progressive disease as their best response, 3 of whom had some clinical benefit. Forty patients (80%) experienced a clinical benefit of disease control (PR + SD).

An analysis of the relationship of genotype, duration, and RECIST response showed objective responses in patients with primary exon 11 mutations, with exon 9 mutations, and with exon 17 mutations, and in 2 patients without any known mutational information at the time of the presentation. Patients with stable disease were spread across all mutational subsets in the trial. The investigators suggested the definitive role of MET and AXL inhibition in GIST be assessed further in future clinical trials.

SOURCE: Schöffski P, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11006).

The study was sponsored by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

Presenting author, Patrick Schöffski, MD, of KU Leuven and Leuven Cancer Institute in Belgium, disclosed institutional relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies for consulting and research funding, including research funding from Exelixis, the developer of cabozantinib. No other abstract coauthor disclosed a relationship with Exelixis.

Larotectinib Effective in TRK Fusion Cancers

Pediatric patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusions involving NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 genes had a high response rate with durable responses and a favorable safety profile when treated with larotrectinib, according to a presentation at ASCO. In this pediatric subset of children and adolescents from the SCOUT and NAVIGATE studies, the overall response rate (ORR) was 94%, with a 35% complete response (CR), 59% partial response (PR), and 6% stable disease as of the data cutoff at the end of July 2018.

Investigators enrolled 38 children and adolescents younger than 18 years from the SCOUT (NCT02637687) and NAVIGATE (NCT02576431) studies of larotrectinib who had non-central nervous system (CNS) TRK fusion cancers. Not all patients had the recommended phase 2 dose, Dr. van Tilburg pointed out, but most did. Hence, 29 of the 38 patients received the 100 mg/m² twice-daily, phase 2 dose until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were young, with a median age of 2.3 years (range, 0.1 to 14.0 years). Almost two-thirds (61%) had prior surgery, 11% had prior radiotherapy, and 68% had prior systemic therapy. For 12 patients, larotrectinib was their first systemic therapy. The predominant tumor types were infantile fibrosarcoma (47%) and other soft tissue sarcoma (42%). And 47% of patients had NTRK3 fusions with ETV6, most of which were infantile fibrosarcoma.

Efficacy

Thirty-four patients were evaluable, and 32 had a reduction in tumor size, for an ORR of 94%, CR of 35%, and PR of 59%. Two patients with infantile fibrosarcoma had pathologic CRs—after treatment, no fibroid tissue in the tumors could be found. Median time to response was 1.8 months, median duration of treatment was 10.24 months, and 33 of 38 patients (87%) remained on treatment or underwent surgery with curative intent. As of the data cutoff of July 30, 2018, the secondary endpoints were not yet reached. However, 84% of responders were estimated to have a response duration of a year or more, and progression-free and overall survival looked very promising, according to Dr. van Tilburg.

Adverse events were primarily grades 1 and 2. The grades 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were quite few and consisted of increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased neutrophil count, and nausea. Longer follow-up of the patient safety profile is required, particularly since NTRK has multiple roles in neurodevelopment. The investigators recommended that routine testing for NTRK gene fusions in pediatric patients with cancer be conducted in appropriate clinical contexts.

In a discussion after the presentation, Daniel Alexander Morgenstern, MB BChir, PhD, of Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK, said that in many ways, the NTRK inhibitors have become the new poster child for precision oncology in pediatrics because of “these really spectacular results” with larotrectinib [and entrectinib]. One of the questions he raised regarding larotrectinib was the issue of CNS penetration, since patients with CNS cancer were not enrolled in the trial and preclinical data suggest limited CNS penetration for larotrectinib.

SOURCE: van Tilburg CM, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 10010).

The studies were funded by Loxo Oncology, Inc., and Bayer AG.

Disclosures relevant to this presentation include consulting or advisory roles for Bayer for Drs. van Tilburg and Morgenstern. A few coauthors also had consulting/advisory roles or research funding from various companies, including Loxo and Bayer.

Behind Olaratumab's Phase 3 Disappointment

ANNOUNCE, the phase 3 trial designed to confirm the clinical benefit of olaratumab in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS), failed to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) in all STS histologies and the leiomyosarcoma population. The previous phase 1b/2 signal-finding study of olaratumab had achieved an unprecedented improvement in OS, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awarded olaratumab accelerated approval in October 2016. By December 2018, olaratumab received additional accelerated, conditional, and full approvals in more than 40 countries worldwide. William D. Tap, MD, chief of the Sarcoma Medical Oncology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, presented the phase 3 results and provided some explanations for the findings during the plenary session at ASCO.

ANNOUNCE (NCT02451943), which was designed and enrolled prior to olaratumab receiving accelerated approval, opened in September 2015 and completed accrual 10 months later in July 2016. Investigators randomized and treated 509 patients with advanced STS not amenable to curative therapy, 258 patients in the olaratumab-doxorubicin arm and 251 in the placebo-doxorubicin arm. Most patients (46%) had leiomyosarcoma, followed by liposarcoma (18%), pleomorphic sarcoma (13%), and 24% of the patient population had 26 unique histologies. Three-quarters of the patients had no prior systemic therapy.

Results

As of the data cutoff on December 5, 2018, there were no survival differences in the intention-to-treat population, in the total STS population nor in the leiomyosarcoma subpopulation, with olaratumab-doxorubicin compared to placebo-doxorubicin. For the total STS population, median OS with olaratumab- doxorubicin was 20.4 months and with placebo-doxorubicin 19.7 months. “This is the highest survival rate described to date in any phase 3 sarcoma study,” Dr. Tap said. “It is of particular interest as ANNOUNCE did not mandate treatment in the first line.” In the leiomyosarcoma population, median OS was 21.6 months with olaratumab and 21.9 months with placebo. The secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and disease control rate did not favor olaratumab either.

Investigators are examining the relationship between PDGFRα expression and OS in ANNOUNCE. PDGFRα-positive tumors tended to do worse with olaratumab than PDGFRα-negative tumors. The investigators noticed a 6-month difference in OS between these populations favoring PDGFRα-negative tumors. Additional biomarker analyses are ongoing.

A large and concerted effort is underway, Dr. Tap said, to understand the results of the ANNOUNCE study alone and in context with the phase 1b/2 study. “There are no noted discrepancies in study conduct or data integrity which could explain these findings or the differences between the two studies.”

Possible explanations

The designs of the phase 1b/2 and phase 3 studies had some important differences. The phase 1b/2 study was a small, open-label, US-centric study (10 sites) that did not include a placebo or subtype- specified analyses. Its primary endpoint was PFS, it did not have a loading dose of olaratumab, and it specified the timing of dexrazoxane administration after 300 mg/m2 of doxorubicin.

ANNOUNCE, on the other hand, was a large (n=509), international (110 study sites), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that had outcomes evaluated in STS and leiomyosarcoma. Its primary endpoint was OS, it had a loading dose of olaratumab of 20 mg/kg, and there was no restriction as to the timing of dexrazoxane administration.

Dr. Tap pointed out that in ANNOUNCE it was difficult to predict or control for factors that may have had an unanticipated influence on outcomes, such as albumin levels as a surrogate for disease burden and behavior of PDGFRα status. It is possible, he said, that olaratumab has no activity in STS and that the phase 1b/2 results were due to, among other things, the small sample size, numerous represented histologies with disparate clinical behavior, and the effect of subtype-specific therapies on overall survival, given subsequently or even by chance. On the other hand, it is also possible, he said, that olaratumab has some activity in STS, with outcomes being affected by the heterogeneity of the study populations, differences in trial design, and the performance of the ANNOUNCE control arm. Whatever the case, he said, accelerated approval allowed patients to have access to a potentially life-prolonging drug with little added toxicity.

Discussion

In the expert discussion following the presentation, Jaap Verweij, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, congratulated the investigators for performing the study at an unprecedented pace. He commented that lumping STS subtypes together is problematic, as different histological subtypes behave as though they are different diseases. Small numbers of each tumor subtype and subtypes with slow tumor growth can impact trial outcomes. In the phase 1b/2 and phase 3 trials, 26 different subtypes were represented in each study. Dr. Verweij pointed out this could have made a big difference in the phase 1b/2 study, in which there were only 66 patients in each arm.

It is striking to note, he said, that without exception, phase 2 randomized studies in STS involving doxorubicin consistently overestimated and wrongly predicted PFS in the subsequent phase 3 studies. And the situation is similar for OS. The results of the ANNOUNCE study are no exception, he added. “Taken together, these studies indicate that phase 2 studies in soft tissue sarcomas, certainly those involving additions of drugs to doxorubicin, even if randomized, should be interpreted with great caution,” he said.

SOURCE: Tap WD, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr LBA3)

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.

Dr. Tap reported research funding from Lilly and Dr. Verweij had nothing to report related to this study. Abstract coauthors disclosed numerous financial relationships, including consulting/advisory roles and/or research funding from Lilly, and several were employed by Lilly.

Addition of Temozolomide May Improve Outcomes in RMS

Investigators from the European Pediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) found that the addition of temozolomide (T) to vincristine and irinotecan (VI) may improve outcomes in adults and children with relapsed or refractory rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). Principal investigator of the study, Anne Sophie Defachelles, MD, pediatric oncologist at the Centre Oscar Lambret in Lille, France, presented the results on behalf of the EpSSG.

The international, randomized (1:1), open-label, phase 2 trial (VIT-0910; NCT01355445) was conducted at 37 centers in 5 countries. Patients ages 6 months to 50 years with RMS were eligible. They could not have had prior irinotecan or temozolomide. A 2015 protocol amendment limited enrollment to patients at relapse and increased the enrollment goal by 40 patients. After the 2015 amendment, patients with refractory disease were no longer eligible.

From January 2012 to April 2018, investigators enrolled 120 patients, 60 on each arm. Two patients in the VI arm were not treated. Patients were a median age of 10.5 years in the VI arm and 12 years in the VIT arm, 92% (VI) and 87% (VIT) had relapsed disease, 8% (VI) and 13% (VIT) had refractory disease, and 55% (VI) and 68% (VIT) had metastatic disease at study entry.

Results

Patients achieved an OR rate of 44% (VIT) and 31% (VI) for the whole population, one-sided P value <.0001. The adjusted odds ratio for the whole population was 0.50, P=.09. PFS was 4.7 months (VIT) and 3.2 months (VI), “a nearly significant reduction in the risk of progression,” Dr. Defachelles noted. Median OS was 15.0 months (VIT) and 10.3 months (VI), which amounted to “a large and significant reduction in the risk of death,” she said. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.55, P=.006.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more frequent in the VIT arm, with hematologic toxicity the most frequent (81% for VIT, 59% for VI), followed by gastrointestinal adverse events. “VIT was significantly more toxic than VI,” Dr. Defachelles observed, “but the toxicity was manageable.”

“VIT is now the standard treatment in Europe for relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma and will be the control arm in the multiarm, multistage RMS study for relapsed patients,” she said.

SOURCE: Defachelles AS, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 10000)

The study was sponsored by Centre Oscar Lambret and SFCE (Société Française de Lutte contre les Cancers et Lucémies de l’Enfant et de l’Adolescent) served as collaborator.

Drs. Defachelles and Wagner had no relationships to disclose. A few coauthors had advisory/consulting or speaker roles for various commercial interests, including two for Merck (temozolomide).

Pazopanib Increases Pathologic Necrosis Rates in STS

Pazopanib added to a regimen of preoperative chemoradiation in non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS) significantly increased the rate of near-complete pathologic response in both children and adults with intermediate or high-risk disease. Pazopanib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, works in multiple signaling pathways involved in tumorigenesis— VEGFR-1, -2, -3, PDGFRα/β, and c-kit. A phase 3 study demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced STS patients and was the basis for its approval in the US and elsewhere for treatment of this patient population. Preclinical data suggest synergy between pazopanib and cytotoxic chemotherapy, forming the rationale for the current trial with neoadjuvant pazopanib added to chemoradiation.

According to the investigators, the trial (ARST1321) is the first ever collaborative study codeveloped, written, and conducted by pediatric (Children’s Oncology Group) and adult (NRG Oncology) cancer cooperative groups (NCT02180867). Aaron R. Weiss, MD, of the Maine Medical Center in Portland and study cochair, presented the data for the chemotherapy arms at ASCO. The primary objectives of the study were to determine the feasibility of preoperative chemoradiation with or without pazopanib and to compare the rates of complete pathologic response in patients receiving radiation or chemoradiation with or without pazopanib. Pathologic necrosis rates of 90% or better have been found to be predictive of outcome in STS.

Results

As of the June 30, 2018, cutoff, 81 patients were enrolled on the chemotherapy arms: 42 in the pazopanib plus chemoradiation arm and 39 in the chemoradiation-only arm. Sixty-one percent of all patients were 18 years or older, and the median age was 20.3 years. Most patients (73%) did not have metastatic disease, and the major histologies represented were synovial sarcoma (49%) and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (25%).

At week 13, patients in the pazopanib arm showed significant improvement, with 14 (58%) of those evaluated having pathologic necrosis of at least 90%, compared with 4 (22%) in the chemoradiation-only arm (P=.02). The study was closed to further accrual.

Eighteen patients were not evaluable for pathologic response and 21 were pending pathologic evaluation at week 13. Radiographic response rates were not statistically significant on either arm. No complete responses (CR) were achieved in the pazopanib arm, but 14 patients (52%) achieved a partial response (PR) and 12 (44%) had stable disease (SD). In the chemoradiation-only arm, 2 patients (8%) achieved a CR, 12 (50%) a PR, and 8 (33%) SD. Fifteen patients in each arm were not evaluated for radiographic response.

The pazopanib arm experienced more febrile neutropenia and myelotoxicity during induction and continuation phases than the chemoradiation-only arm. In general, investigators indicated pazopanib combined with chemoradiation was well tolerated and no unexpected toxicities arose during the trial.

In the post-presentation discussion, Dr. Raphael E. Pollock, MD, PhD, of The Ohio State University, called it a tremendous challenge to interdigitate primary local therapies in systemic approaches, particularly in the neoadjuvant context. He pointed out that in an earlier study, a 95% to 100% necrosis level was needed to achieve a significant positive impact on outcomes and perhaps a subsequent prospective trial could determine the best level. He questioned whether the availability of only 60% of patient responses could affect the conclusions and whether the high number of toxicities (73.8% grade 3/4 with pazopanib) might be too high to consider the treatment for most patients, given the intensity of the regimen.

SOURCE: Weiss AR, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11002)

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Drs. Weiss and Pollock had no relationships with commercial interests to disclose. A few investigators disclosed advisory, consulting, or research roles with pharmaceutical companies, including one who received institutional research funding from Novartis (pazopanib).

Gemcitabine Plus Pazopanib a Potential Alternative in STS

In a phase 2 study of gemcitabine with pazopanib (G+P) or gemcitabine with docetaxel (G+D), investigators concluded the combination with pazopanib can be considered an alternative to that with docetaxel in select patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). They reported similar progression-free survival (PFS) and rate of toxicity for the two regimens. Neeta Somaiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, presented the findings of the investigator-initiated effort (NCT01593748) at ASCO.

The investigators enrolled 90 patients, 45 in each arm. Patients were a mean age of 56 years, and there was no difference in age or gender distribution between the arms. Patients with leiomyosarcoma (31% overall) or prior pelvic radiation (11% overall) were similar between the arms. The overall response rate using RECIST 1.1 criteria was partial response (PR) in 8 of 44 evaluable patients (18%) in the G+D arm and 5 of 43 evaluable patients (12%) in the G+P arm. Stable disease (SD) was observed in 21 patients (48%) in the G+D arm and 24 patients (56%) in the G+P arm. This amounted to a clinical benefit rate (PR + SD) of 66% and 68% for the G+D and G+P arms, respectively (Fisher’s exact test, P>.99). The median PFS was 4.1 months on both arms and the difference in median overall survival— 15.9 months in the G+D arm and 12.4 months in the G+P arm—was not statistically significant.

Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 19.9% of patients on G+D and 20.6% on G+P. Serious AEs occurred in 33% (G+D) and 22% (G+P). Dose reductions were necessary in 80% of patients on G+P and doses were held in 93%. Dr. Somaiah explained that this may have been because the starting dose of gemcitabine and pazopanib (1000 mg/m² of gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and 800 mg of pazopanib) was “probably higher than what we should have started at.” The rate of doses held was also higher in the pazopanib arm (93%) compared with the docetaxel arm (58%). This was likely because pazopanib was a daily dosing, so if there was a toxicity it was more likely to be held than docetaxel, she observed. Grade 3 or higher toxicities occurring in 5% or more of patients in either arm consisted generally of cytopenias and fatigue. The G+P arm experienced a high amount of neutropenia, most likely because this arm did not receive granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) support, as opposed to the G+D arm.

Dr. Somaiah pointed out that the 12% response rate for the G+P combination is similar to what has been previously presented and higher than single-agent gemcitabine or pazopanib, but not higher than the G+D combination. The PFS of 4.1 months was less than anticipated, she added, but it was similar on both arms. The investigators believe the G+P combination warrants further exploration.

SOURCE: Somaiah N, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11008)

The study was sponsored by the Medical University of South Carolina, with Novartis as collaborator.

Dr. Somaiah disclosed Advisory Board roles for Blueprint, Deciphera, and Bayer. Abstract coauthors disclosed advisory/consulting roles or research funding from various commercial interests, including Novartis (pazopanib) and Pfizer (gemcitabine).

rEECur Trial Finding Optimal Chemotherapy Regimen for Ewing Sarcoma

Interim results of the first and largest randomized trial in patients with refractory or recurrent Ewing sarcoma (ES), the rEECur trial, are guiding the way to finding the optimal chemotherapy regimen to treat the disease. Until now, there has been little prospective evidence and no randomized data to guide treatment choices in relapsed or refractory patients, and hence no real standard of care, according to the presentation at ASCO. Several molecularly targeted therapies are emerging, and they require a standardized chemotherapy backbone against which they can be tested.

Results

Two hundred twenty patients 4 years or older and younger than 50 years with recurrent or refractory histologically confirmed ES of bone or soft tissue were randomized to receive GD (n=72) or TC, IT, or IFOS (n=148). Sixty-two GD patients and 123 TC/IT/IFOS patients were included in the primary outcome analysis. Patients were predominantly male (70%), with a median age of 19 years (range, 4 to 49). About two-thirds (67.3%) were post-pubertal. Most patients (85%) were primary refractory or experienced their first disease recurrence, and 89% had measurable disease.

Investigators assessed the primary outcome of objective response after 4 cycles of therapy and found 11% of patients treated with GD responded compared to 24% in the other 3 arms combined. When they subjected the data to Bayesian analysis, there was a 25% chance that the response rate in the GD arm was better than the response in Arm A, a 2% chance that it was better than Arm B, and a 3% chance that it was better than Arm C. Because this study was still blinded at the time of the presentation, investigators didn’t know which regimen constituted which arm. The probability that response favored GD, however, was low.

The investigators observed no surprising safety findings. Eighty-five percent of all patients experienced at least 1 adverse event. Most frequent grade 3‐5 events consisted of pneumonitis (50%, 60%), neutropenic fever (17%, 25%), and diarrhea (0, 12%) in GD and the combined 3 arms, respectively. Grade 3 events in the GD arm were lower than in the other 3 arms combined. There was 1 toxic death attributed to neutropenic sepsis in 1 of the 3 blinded arms.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was approximately 5 months. Bayesian analysis suggested there was a low probability that GD was more effective than the other 3 arms: a 22% chance that GD was better than Arm A, a 3% chance that it was better than Arm B, and a 7% chance that it was better than Arm C. Bayesian analysis also suggested there was a probability that OS favored GD. Because the trial directs only the first 4 or 6 cycles of treatment and the patients receive more treatment after trial-directed therapy, investigators were not fully able to interpret this.

Data suggested GD is a less effective regimen than the other 3 regimens both by objective response rate and PFS, so GD has been dropped from the study. Investigators already had more than 75 evaluable patients in each of the 3 arms for the second interim analysis to take place. In a discussion following the presentation, Jayesh Desai, FRACP, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, called this study a potentially practice-changing trial at this early stage, noting that the GD combination will be de-prioritized in practice based on these results.

SOURCE: McCabe MG, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11007)

The rEECur trial is sponsored by the University of Birmingham (UK) and received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under a grant agreement.

Dr. McCabe disclosed no conflicts of interest. Other authors disclosed consulting, advisory roles, or research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Lilly (gemcitabine) and Pfizer (irinotecan). Dr. Desai disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding from Lilly.

Abemaciclib Meets Primary Endpoint in Phase 2 Trial of DDLS

The newer and more potent CDK4 inhibitor, abemaciclib, met its primary endpoint in the investigator-initiated, single-center, single-arm, phase 2 trial in patients with advanced progressive dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS). Twenty-two patients (76%) achieved progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks for a median PFS of 30 weeks. A subset of patients experienced prolonged clinical benefit, remaining on study with stable disease for over 900 days. The study (NCT02846987) was conducted at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York and Mark A. Dickson, MD, presented the results at ASCO.

Results

Thirty patients, 29 evaluable, with metastatic or recurrent DDLS were enrolled and treated with abemaciclib 200 mg orally twice daily between August 2016 and October 2018. Data cutoff for the presentation was the first week of May 2019. Patients were a median of 62 years, 60% were male, and half had no prior systemic treatment. Prior systemic treatments for those previously treated included doxorubicin, olaratumab, gemcitabine, docetaxel, ifosfamide, eribulin, and trabectedin. For 87%, the primary tumor was in their abdomen or retroperitoneum.

Toxicity was as expected with this class of agent, according to the investigators. The most common grades 2 and 3 toxicities, respectively, possibly related to the study drug, occurring in more than 1 patient included anemia (70%, 37%), thrombocytopenia (13%, 13%), neutropenia (43%, 17%), and lymphocyte count decreased (23%, 23%). Very few of these adverse events were grade 4—none for anemia, and 3% each for thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and lymphocyte count decreased. Diarrhea of grades 2 and 3 occurred in 27% and 7% of patients, respectively, and was managed well with loperamide.

In addition to reaching the primary endpoint of 15 patients or more achieving PFS at 12 weeks, 1 patient had a confirmed partial response (PR) and another an unconfirmed PR. At data cutoff, 11 patients remained on study with stable disease or PR. The investigators conducted correlative studies that indicated all patients had CDK4 and MDM2 amplification with no loss of retinoblastoma tumor suppressor. They observed an inverse correlation between CDK4 amplification and PFS—the higher the level of CDK4 amplification, the shorter the PFS. They also found additional genomic alterations, including JUN, GLI1, ARID1A, TERT, and ATRX. TERT amplification was also associated with shorter PFS. Based on these findings, the investigators believe a phase 3 study of abemaciclib in DDLS is warranted.

Winette van der Graaf, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, in the discussion following the presentation, concurred that it is certainly time for a multicenter phase 3 study of CDK4 inhibitors in DDLS, and a strong international collaboration is key to conducting such studies, particularly in rare cancers. On a critical note, Dr. van der Graaf expressed concern that no patient-reported outcomes were measured after 120 patients, including those in previous studies, were treated on palbociclib and abemaciclib. Given that the toxicities of the CDK4 inhibitors are quite different, she recommended including patient-reported outcomes in future studies using validated health-related quality-of-life instruments.

SOURCE: Dickson MA, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11004)

The study was sponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with the study collaborator, Eli Lilly and Company.

Dr. Dickson disclosed research funding from Lilly, the company that provided the study drug. Dr. van der Graaf had no relevant relationships to disclose. Abstract coauthors had consulting/advisory roles or research funding from various companies, including Lilly.

nab-Sirolimus Provides Benefits in Advanced Malignant PEComa

In a prospective phase 2 study of nab-sirolimus in advanced malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), the mTOR inhibitor achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 42% with an acceptable safety profile, despite using relatively high doses of nab-sirolimus compared to other mTOR inhibitors. Activation of the mTOR pathway is common in PEComa, and earlier case reports had indicated substantial clinical benefit with mTOR inhibitor treatment. nab-Sirolimus (ABI-009) is a novel intravenous mTOR inhibitor consisting of nanoparticles of albumin-bound sirolimus. It has significantly higher anti-tumor activity than oral mTOR inhibitors and greater mTOR target suppression at an equal dose. Andrew J. Wagner, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented the findings of AMPECT (NCT02494570)—Advanced Malignant PEComa Trial—at ASCO.

Results

The drug was well tolerated, with toxicities similar to those of oral mTOR inhibitors. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring in 25% or more of patients were mostly grade 1 or 2 toxicities. Hematologic TRAEs included anemia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (32%) of any grade. Nonhematologic events of any grade included stomatitis/ mucositis (74%), dermatitis/rash (65%), fatigue (59%), nausea (47%), and diarrhea (38%), among others. A few grade 3 events occurred on study, most notably stomatitis/mucositis (18%). Severe adverse events (SAEs) were also uncommon, occurring in 7 of 34 patients (21%). Pneumonitis is common in orally administered mTOR inhibitors; 6 patients (18%) treated with nab-sirolimus had grade 1 or 2 pneumonitis.

Of the 31 evaluable patients, 13 (42%) had an objective response, all of which were partial responses (PR). Eleven (35%) had stable disease and 7 (23%) had progressive disease. The disease control rate, consisting of PR and stable disease, was 77%. The median duration of response had not been reached as of the data cutoff on May 10, 2019. At that time, it was 6.2 months (range, 1.5 to 27.7+). The median time to response was 1.4 months and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.4 months. The PFS rate at 6 months was 61%. Three patients had received treatment for over a year and another 3 patients for more than 2 years.

Correlation with biomarkers

Of the 25 patients who had tissue suitable for next-generation sequencing, 9 had TSC2 mutations, 5 had TSC1 mutations, and 11 had neither mutation. Strikingly, 9 of 9 patients with TSC2 mutations developed a PR, while only 1 with a TSC1 mutation responded. One patient with no TSC1/2 mutation also responded and 2 patients with unknown mutational status responded. The investigators also analyzed pS6 status by immunohistochemistry—pS6 is a marker of mTOR hyperactivity. Twenty- five patient samples were available for analysis. Eight of 8 patients who were negative for pS6 staining did not have a response, while 10 of 17 (59%) who were pS6-positive had a PR.

In the discussion that followed, Winette van der Graaf, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, noted that this study showed that biomarkers can be used for patient selection, although TSC2 mutations are not uniquely linked with response. She indicated a comparator with sirolimus would have been of great interest.

SOURCE: Wagner AJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11005).

The study was sponsored by Aadi Bioscience, Inc., and funded in part by a grant from the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD).

Disclosures relevant to this presentation include contininstitutional research funding from Aadi Bioscience for Dr. Wagner and a few other abstract coauthors. Several coauthors are employed by Aadi Bioscience and have stock or other ownership interests. Dr. van der Graaf had nothing to disclose.

Cabozantinib Achieves Disease Control in GIST

The phase 2 EORTC 1317 trial, known as CaboGIST (NCT02216578), met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) cabozantinib. Twenty-four (58.5%) of the 41 patients in the primary study population, and 30 (60%) of the entire 50-patient population, were progression-free at 12 weeks. The study needed 21 patients to be progression- free for cabozantinib to warrant further exploration in GIST patients.

This investigator-initiated study had as its primary objective assessment of the safety and activity of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic GIST who had progressed on imatinib and sunitinib. The patients could not have been exposed to other KIT- or PDGFR-directed TKIs, such as regorafenib. Secondary objectives included the assessment of cabozantinib in different mutational subtypes of GIST. Patients received cabozantinib tablets once daily until they experienced no further clinical benefit or became intolerant to the drug or chose to discontinue therapy. Fifty patients started treatment between February 2017 and August 2018. All were evaluable for the primary endpoint, and one-third of patients contininstitutional cabozantinib treatment as of the database cutoff in January 2019.

Results

Patients were a median age of 63 years. Virtually all patients (92%) had prior surgery and only 8% had prior radiotherapy. The daily cabozantinib dose was a median 47.2 mg and duration of treatment was a median 20.4 weeks. No patient discontinued treatment due to toxicity, but 88% discontinued due to disease progression.

Safety signals were the same as for other indications in which cabozantinib is used. Almost all patients (94%) had at least 1 treatment-related adverse event of grades 1‐4, including diarrhea (74%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (58%), fatigue (46%), and hypertension (46%), which are typical of treatment with cabozantinib. Hematologic toxicities in this trial were clinically irrelevant, according to the investigators, consisting of small numbers of grades 2‐3 anemia, lymphopenia, white blood cell count abnormality, and neutropenia. Biochemical abnormalities included grades 3 and 4 hypophosphatemia, increased grades 3 and 4 gamma-glutamyl transferase, grade 3 hyponatremia, and grade 3 hypokalemia, in 8% or more of patients.

Overall survival was a median 14.4 months, with 16 patients still on treatment at the time of data cutoff. Twenty- four patients were progression-free at week 12, satisfying the study decision rule for clinical benefit. Median duration of PFS was 6.0 months. Seven patients (14%) achieved a confirmed partial response (PR) and 33 (66%) achieved stable disease (SD). Nine patients had progressive disease as their best response, 3 of whom had some clinical benefit. Forty patients (80%) experienced a clinical benefit of disease control (PR + SD).

An analysis of the relationship of genotype, duration, and RECIST response showed objective responses in patients with primary exon 11 mutations, with exon 9 mutations, and with exon 17 mutations, and in 2 patients without any known mutational information at the time of the presentation. Patients with stable disease were spread across all mutational subsets in the trial. The investigators suggested the definitive role of MET and AXL inhibition in GIST be assessed further in future clinical trials.

SOURCE: Schöffski P, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11006).

The study was sponsored by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

Presenting author, Patrick Schöffski, MD, of KU Leuven and Leuven Cancer Institute in Belgium, disclosed institutional relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies for consulting and research funding, including research funding from Exelixis, the developer of cabozantinib. No other abstract coauthor disclosed a relationship with Exelixis.

Larotectinib Effective in TRK Fusion Cancers

Pediatric patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusions involving NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 genes had a high response rate with durable responses and a favorable safety profile when treated with larotrectinib, according to a presentation at ASCO. In this pediatric subset of children and adolescents from the SCOUT and NAVIGATE studies, the overall response rate (ORR) was 94%, with a 35% complete response (CR), 59% partial response (PR), and 6% stable disease as of the data cutoff at the end of July 2018.

Investigators enrolled 38 children and adolescents younger than 18 years from the SCOUT (NCT02637687) and NAVIGATE (NCT02576431) studies of larotrectinib who had non-central nervous system (CNS) TRK fusion cancers. Not all patients had the recommended phase 2 dose, Dr. van Tilburg pointed out, but most did. Hence, 29 of the 38 patients received the 100 mg/m² twice-daily, phase 2 dose until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were young, with a median age of 2.3 years (range, 0.1 to 14.0 years). Almost two-thirds (61%) had prior surgery, 11% had prior radiotherapy, and 68% had prior systemic therapy. For 12 patients, larotrectinib was their first systemic therapy. The predominant tumor types were infantile fibrosarcoma (47%) and other soft tissue sarcoma (42%). And 47% of patients had NTRK3 fusions with ETV6, most of which were infantile fibrosarcoma.

Efficacy

Thirty-four patients were evaluable, and 32 had a reduction in tumor size, for an ORR of 94%, CR of 35%, and PR of 59%. Two patients with infantile fibrosarcoma had pathologic CRs—after treatment, no fibroid tissue in the tumors could be found. Median time to response was 1.8 months, median duration of treatment was 10.24 months, and 33 of 38 patients (87%) remained on treatment or underwent surgery with curative intent. As of the data cutoff of July 30, 2018, the secondary endpoints were not yet reached. However, 84% of responders were estimated to have a response duration of a year or more, and progression-free and overall survival looked very promising, according to Dr. van Tilburg.

Adverse events were primarily grades 1 and 2. The grades 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were quite few and consisted of increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased neutrophil count, and nausea. Longer follow-up of the patient safety profile is required, particularly since NTRK has multiple roles in neurodevelopment. The investigators recommended that routine testing for NTRK gene fusions in pediatric patients with cancer be conducted in appropriate clinical contexts.

In a discussion after the presentation, Daniel Alexander Morgenstern, MB BChir, PhD, of Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK, said that in many ways, the NTRK inhibitors have become the new poster child for precision oncology in pediatrics because of “these really spectacular results” with larotrectinib [and entrectinib]. One of the questions he raised regarding larotrectinib was the issue of CNS penetration, since patients with CNS cancer were not enrolled in the trial and preclinical data suggest limited CNS penetration for larotrectinib.

SOURCE: van Tilburg CM, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 10010).

The studies were funded by Loxo Oncology, Inc., and Bayer AG.

Disclosures relevant to this presentation include consulting or advisory roles for Bayer for Drs. van Tilburg and Morgenstern. A few coauthors also had consulting/advisory roles or research funding from various companies, including Loxo and Bayer.

Behind Olaratumab's Phase 3 Disappointment

ANNOUNCE, the phase 3 trial designed to confirm the clinical benefit of olaratumab in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS), failed to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) in all STS histologies and the leiomyosarcoma population. The previous phase 1b/2 signal-finding study of olaratumab had achieved an unprecedented improvement in OS, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awarded olaratumab accelerated approval in October 2016. By December 2018, olaratumab received additional accelerated, conditional, and full approvals in more than 40 countries worldwide. William D. Tap, MD, chief of the Sarcoma Medical Oncology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, presented the phase 3 results and provided some explanations for the findings during the plenary session at ASCO.

ANNOUNCE (NCT02451943), which was designed and enrolled prior to olaratumab receiving accelerated approval, opened in September 2015 and completed accrual 10 months later in July 2016. Investigators randomized and treated 509 patients with advanced STS not amenable to curative therapy, 258 patients in the olaratumab-doxorubicin arm and 251 in the placebo-doxorubicin arm. Most patients (46%) had leiomyosarcoma, followed by liposarcoma (18%), pleomorphic sarcoma (13%), and 24% of the patient population had 26 unique histologies. Three-quarters of the patients had no prior systemic therapy.

Results

As of the data cutoff on December 5, 2018, there were no survival differences in the intention-to-treat population, in the total STS population nor in the leiomyosarcoma subpopulation, with olaratumab-doxorubicin compared to placebo-doxorubicin. For the total STS population, median OS with olaratumab- doxorubicin was 20.4 months and with placebo-doxorubicin 19.7 months. “This is the highest survival rate described to date in any phase 3 sarcoma study,” Dr. Tap said. “It is of particular interest as ANNOUNCE did not mandate treatment in the first line.” In the leiomyosarcoma population, median OS was 21.6 months with olaratumab and 21.9 months with placebo. The secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and disease control rate did not favor olaratumab either.

Investigators are examining the relationship between PDGFRα expression and OS in ANNOUNCE. PDGFRα-positive tumors tended to do worse with olaratumab than PDGFRα-negative tumors. The investigators noticed a 6-month difference in OS between these populations favoring PDGFRα-negative tumors. Additional biomarker analyses are ongoing.

A large and concerted effort is underway, Dr. Tap said, to understand the results of the ANNOUNCE study alone and in context with the phase 1b/2 study. “There are no noted discrepancies in study conduct or data integrity which could explain these findings or the differences between the two studies.”

Possible explanations

The designs of the phase 1b/2 and phase 3 studies had some important differences. The phase 1b/2 study was a small, open-label, US-centric study (10 sites) that did not include a placebo or subtype- specified analyses. Its primary endpoint was PFS, it did not have a loading dose of olaratumab, and it specified the timing of dexrazoxane administration after 300 mg/m2 of doxorubicin.

ANNOUNCE, on the other hand, was a large (n=509), international (110 study sites), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that had outcomes evaluated in STS and leiomyosarcoma. Its primary endpoint was OS, it had a loading dose of olaratumab of 20 mg/kg, and there was no restriction as to the timing of dexrazoxane administration.

Dr. Tap pointed out that in ANNOUNCE it was difficult to predict or control for factors that may have had an unanticipated influence on outcomes, such as albumin levels as a surrogate for disease burden and behavior of PDGFRα status. It is possible, he said, that olaratumab has no activity in STS and that the phase 1b/2 results were due to, among other things, the small sample size, numerous represented histologies with disparate clinical behavior, and the effect of subtype-specific therapies on overall survival, given subsequently or even by chance. On the other hand, it is also possible, he said, that olaratumab has some activity in STS, with outcomes being affected by the heterogeneity of the study populations, differences in trial design, and the performance of the ANNOUNCE control arm. Whatever the case, he said, accelerated approval allowed patients to have access to a potentially life-prolonging drug with little added toxicity.

Discussion

In the expert discussion following the presentation, Jaap Verweij, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, congratulated the investigators for performing the study at an unprecedented pace. He commented that lumping STS subtypes together is problematic, as different histological subtypes behave as though they are different diseases. Small numbers of each tumor subtype and subtypes with slow tumor growth can impact trial outcomes. In the phase 1b/2 and phase 3 trials, 26 different subtypes were represented in each study. Dr. Verweij pointed out this could have made a big difference in the phase 1b/2 study, in which there were only 66 patients in each arm.

It is striking to note, he said, that without exception, phase 2 randomized studies in STS involving doxorubicin consistently overestimated and wrongly predicted PFS in the subsequent phase 3 studies. And the situation is similar for OS. The results of the ANNOUNCE study are no exception, he added. “Taken together, these studies indicate that phase 2 studies in soft tissue sarcomas, certainly those involving additions of drugs to doxorubicin, even if randomized, should be interpreted with great caution,” he said.

SOURCE: Tap WD, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr LBA3)

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.

Dr. Tap reported research funding from Lilly and Dr. Verweij had nothing to report related to this study. Abstract coauthors disclosed numerous financial relationships, including consulting/advisory roles and/or research funding from Lilly, and several were employed by Lilly.

Addition of Temozolomide May Improve Outcomes in RMS

Investigators from the European Pediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) found that the addition of temozolomide (T) to vincristine and irinotecan (VI) may improve outcomes in adults and children with relapsed or refractory rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). Principal investigator of the study, Anne Sophie Defachelles, MD, pediatric oncologist at the Centre Oscar Lambret in Lille, France, presented the results on behalf of the EpSSG.

The international, randomized (1:1), open-label, phase 2 trial (VIT-0910; NCT01355445) was conducted at 37 centers in 5 countries. Patients ages 6 months to 50 years with RMS were eligible. They could not have had prior irinotecan or temozolomide. A 2015 protocol amendment limited enrollment to patients at relapse and increased the enrollment goal by 40 patients. After the 2015 amendment, patients with refractory disease were no longer eligible.

From January 2012 to April 2018, investigators enrolled 120 patients, 60 on each arm. Two patients in the VI arm were not treated. Patients were a median age of 10.5 years in the VI arm and 12 years in the VIT arm, 92% (VI) and 87% (VIT) had relapsed disease, 8% (VI) and 13% (VIT) had refractory disease, and 55% (VI) and 68% (VIT) had metastatic disease at study entry.

Results

Patients achieved an OR rate of 44% (VIT) and 31% (VI) for the whole population, one-sided P value <.0001. The adjusted odds ratio for the whole population was 0.50, P=.09. PFS was 4.7 months (VIT) and 3.2 months (VI), “a nearly significant reduction in the risk of progression,” Dr. Defachelles noted. Median OS was 15.0 months (VIT) and 10.3 months (VI), which amounted to “a large and significant reduction in the risk of death,” she said. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.55, P=.006.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more frequent in the VIT arm, with hematologic toxicity the most frequent (81% for VIT, 59% for VI), followed by gastrointestinal adverse events. “VIT was significantly more toxic than VI,” Dr. Defachelles observed, “but the toxicity was manageable.”

“VIT is now the standard treatment in Europe for relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma and will be the control arm in the multiarm, multistage RMS study for relapsed patients,” she said.

SOURCE: Defachelles AS, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 10000)

The study was sponsored by Centre Oscar Lambret and SFCE (Société Française de Lutte contre les Cancers et Lucémies de l’Enfant et de l’Adolescent) served as collaborator.

Drs. Defachelles and Wagner had no relationships to disclose. A few coauthors had advisory/consulting or speaker roles for various commercial interests, including two for Merck (temozolomide).

Pazopanib Increases Pathologic Necrosis Rates in STS

Pazopanib added to a regimen of preoperative chemoradiation in non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS) significantly increased the rate of near-complete pathologic response in both children and adults with intermediate or high-risk disease. Pazopanib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, works in multiple signaling pathways involved in tumorigenesis— VEGFR-1, -2, -3, PDGFRα/β, and c-kit. A phase 3 study demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced STS patients and was the basis for its approval in the US and elsewhere for treatment of this patient population. Preclinical data suggest synergy between pazopanib and cytotoxic chemotherapy, forming the rationale for the current trial with neoadjuvant pazopanib added to chemoradiation.

According to the investigators, the trial (ARST1321) is the first ever collaborative study codeveloped, written, and conducted by pediatric (Children’s Oncology Group) and adult (NRG Oncology) cancer cooperative groups (NCT02180867). Aaron R. Weiss, MD, of the Maine Medical Center in Portland and study cochair, presented the data for the chemotherapy arms at ASCO. The primary objectives of the study were to determine the feasibility of preoperative chemoradiation with or without pazopanib and to compare the rates of complete pathologic response in patients receiving radiation or chemoradiation with or without pazopanib. Pathologic necrosis rates of 90% or better have been found to be predictive of outcome in STS.

Results

As of the June 30, 2018, cutoff, 81 patients were enrolled on the chemotherapy arms: 42 in the pazopanib plus chemoradiation arm and 39 in the chemoradiation-only arm. Sixty-one percent of all patients were 18 years or older, and the median age was 20.3 years. Most patients (73%) did not have metastatic disease, and the major histologies represented were synovial sarcoma (49%) and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (25%).

At week 13, patients in the pazopanib arm showed significant improvement, with 14 (58%) of those evaluated having pathologic necrosis of at least 90%, compared with 4 (22%) in the chemoradiation-only arm (P=.02). The study was closed to further accrual.

Eighteen patients were not evaluable for pathologic response and 21 were pending pathologic evaluation at week 13. Radiographic response rates were not statistically significant on either arm. No complete responses (CR) were achieved in the pazopanib arm, but 14 patients (52%) achieved a partial response (PR) and 12 (44%) had stable disease (SD). In the chemoradiation-only arm, 2 patients (8%) achieved a CR, 12 (50%) a PR, and 8 (33%) SD. Fifteen patients in each arm were not evaluated for radiographic response.

The pazopanib arm experienced more febrile neutropenia and myelotoxicity during induction and continuation phases than the chemoradiation-only arm. In general, investigators indicated pazopanib combined with chemoradiation was well tolerated and no unexpected toxicities arose during the trial.

In the post-presentation discussion, Dr. Raphael E. Pollock, MD, PhD, of The Ohio State University, called it a tremendous challenge to interdigitate primary local therapies in systemic approaches, particularly in the neoadjuvant context. He pointed out that in an earlier study, a 95% to 100% necrosis level was needed to achieve a significant positive impact on outcomes and perhaps a subsequent prospective trial could determine the best level. He questioned whether the availability of only 60% of patient responses could affect the conclusions and whether the high number of toxicities (73.8% grade 3/4 with pazopanib) might be too high to consider the treatment for most patients, given the intensity of the regimen.

SOURCE: Weiss AR, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11002)

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Drs. Weiss and Pollock had no relationships with commercial interests to disclose. A few investigators disclosed advisory, consulting, or research roles with pharmaceutical companies, including one who received institutional research funding from Novartis (pazopanib).

Gemcitabine Plus Pazopanib a Potential Alternative in STS

In a phase 2 study of gemcitabine with pazopanib (G+P) or gemcitabine with docetaxel (G+D), investigators concluded the combination with pazopanib can be considered an alternative to that with docetaxel in select patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). They reported similar progression-free survival (PFS) and rate of toxicity for the two regimens. Neeta Somaiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, presented the findings of the investigator-initiated effort (NCT01593748) at ASCO.

The investigators enrolled 90 patients, 45 in each arm. Patients were a mean age of 56 years, and there was no difference in age or gender distribution between the arms. Patients with leiomyosarcoma (31% overall) or prior pelvic radiation (11% overall) were similar between the arms. The overall response rate using RECIST 1.1 criteria was partial response (PR) in 8 of 44 evaluable patients (18%) in the G+D arm and 5 of 43 evaluable patients (12%) in the G+P arm. Stable disease (SD) was observed in 21 patients (48%) in the G+D arm and 24 patients (56%) in the G+P arm. This amounted to a clinical benefit rate (PR + SD) of 66% and 68% for the G+D and G+P arms, respectively (Fisher’s exact test, P>.99). The median PFS was 4.1 months on both arms and the difference in median overall survival— 15.9 months in the G+D arm and 12.4 months in the G+P arm—was not statistically significant.

Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 19.9% of patients on G+D and 20.6% on G+P. Serious AEs occurred in 33% (G+D) and 22% (G+P). Dose reductions were necessary in 80% of patients on G+P and doses were held in 93%. Dr. Somaiah explained that this may have been because the starting dose of gemcitabine and pazopanib (1000 mg/m² of gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and 800 mg of pazopanib) was “probably higher than what we should have started at.” The rate of doses held was also higher in the pazopanib arm (93%) compared with the docetaxel arm (58%). This was likely because pazopanib was a daily dosing, so if there was a toxicity it was more likely to be held than docetaxel, she observed. Grade 3 or higher toxicities occurring in 5% or more of patients in either arm consisted generally of cytopenias and fatigue. The G+P arm experienced a high amount of neutropenia, most likely because this arm did not receive granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) support, as opposed to the G+D arm.

Dr. Somaiah pointed out that the 12% response rate for the G+P combination is similar to what has been previously presented and higher than single-agent gemcitabine or pazopanib, but not higher than the G+D combination. The PFS of 4.1 months was less than anticipated, she added, but it was similar on both arms. The investigators believe the G+P combination warrants further exploration.

SOURCE: Somaiah N, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11008)

The study was sponsored by the Medical University of South Carolina, with Novartis as collaborator.

Dr. Somaiah disclosed Advisory Board roles for Blueprint, Deciphera, and Bayer. Abstract coauthors disclosed advisory/consulting roles or research funding from various commercial interests, including Novartis (pazopanib) and Pfizer (gemcitabine).

rEECur Trial Finding Optimal Chemotherapy Regimen for Ewing Sarcoma

Interim results of the first and largest randomized trial in patients with refractory or recurrent Ewing sarcoma (ES), the rEECur trial, are guiding the way to finding the optimal chemotherapy regimen to treat the disease. Until now, there has been little prospective evidence and no randomized data to guide treatment choices in relapsed or refractory patients, and hence no real standard of care, according to the presentation at ASCO. Several molecularly targeted therapies are emerging, and they require a standardized chemotherapy backbone against which they can be tested.

Results

Two hundred twenty patients 4 years or older and younger than 50 years with recurrent or refractory histologically confirmed ES of bone or soft tissue were randomized to receive GD (n=72) or TC, IT, or IFOS (n=148). Sixty-two GD patients and 123 TC/IT/IFOS patients were included in the primary outcome analysis. Patients were predominantly male (70%), with a median age of 19 years (range, 4 to 49). About two-thirds (67.3%) were post-pubertal. Most patients (85%) were primary refractory or experienced their first disease recurrence, and 89% had measurable disease.

Investigators assessed the primary outcome of objective response after 4 cycles of therapy and found 11% of patients treated with GD responded compared to 24% in the other 3 arms combined. When they subjected the data to Bayesian analysis, there was a 25% chance that the response rate in the GD arm was better than the response in Arm A, a 2% chance that it was better than Arm B, and a 3% chance that it was better than Arm C. Because this study was still blinded at the time of the presentation, investigators didn’t know which regimen constituted which arm. The probability that response favored GD, however, was low.

The investigators observed no surprising safety findings. Eighty-five percent of all patients experienced at least 1 adverse event. Most frequent grade 3‐5 events consisted of pneumonitis (50%, 60%), neutropenic fever (17%, 25%), and diarrhea (0, 12%) in GD and the combined 3 arms, respectively. Grade 3 events in the GD arm were lower than in the other 3 arms combined. There was 1 toxic death attributed to neutropenic sepsis in 1 of the 3 blinded arms.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was approximately 5 months. Bayesian analysis suggested there was a low probability that GD was more effective than the other 3 arms: a 22% chance that GD was better than Arm A, a 3% chance that it was better than Arm B, and a 7% chance that it was better than Arm C. Bayesian analysis also suggested there was a probability that OS favored GD. Because the trial directs only the first 4 or 6 cycles of treatment and the patients receive more treatment after trial-directed therapy, investigators were not fully able to interpret this.

Data suggested GD is a less effective regimen than the other 3 regimens both by objective response rate and PFS, so GD has been dropped from the study. Investigators already had more than 75 evaluable patients in each of the 3 arms for the second interim analysis to take place. In a discussion following the presentation, Jayesh Desai, FRACP, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, called this study a potentially practice-changing trial at this early stage, noting that the GD combination will be de-prioritized in practice based on these results.

SOURCE: McCabe MG, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11007)

The rEECur trial is sponsored by the University of Birmingham (UK) and received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under a grant agreement.

Dr. McCabe disclosed no conflicts of interest. Other authors disclosed consulting, advisory roles, or research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Lilly (gemcitabine) and Pfizer (irinotecan). Dr. Desai disclosed a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding from Lilly.

Abemaciclib Meets Primary Endpoint in Phase 2 Trial of DDLS

The newer and more potent CDK4 inhibitor, abemaciclib, met its primary endpoint in the investigator-initiated, single-center, single-arm, phase 2 trial in patients with advanced progressive dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS). Twenty-two patients (76%) achieved progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks for a median PFS of 30 weeks. A subset of patients experienced prolonged clinical benefit, remaining on study with stable disease for over 900 days. The study (NCT02846987) was conducted at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York and Mark A. Dickson, MD, presented the results at ASCO.

Results

Thirty patients, 29 evaluable, with metastatic or recurrent DDLS were enrolled and treated with abemaciclib 200 mg orally twice daily between August 2016 and October 2018. Data cutoff for the presentation was the first week of May 2019. Patients were a median of 62 years, 60% were male, and half had no prior systemic treatment. Prior systemic treatments for those previously treated included doxorubicin, olaratumab, gemcitabine, docetaxel, ifosfamide, eribulin, and trabectedin. For 87%, the primary tumor was in their abdomen or retroperitoneum.

Toxicity was as expected with this class of agent, according to the investigators. The most common grades 2 and 3 toxicities, respectively, possibly related to the study drug, occurring in more than 1 patient included anemia (70%, 37%), thrombocytopenia (13%, 13%), neutropenia (43%, 17%), and lymphocyte count decreased (23%, 23%). Very few of these adverse events were grade 4—none for anemia, and 3% each for thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and lymphocyte count decreased. Diarrhea of grades 2 and 3 occurred in 27% and 7% of patients, respectively, and was managed well with loperamide.

In addition to reaching the primary endpoint of 15 patients or more achieving PFS at 12 weeks, 1 patient had a confirmed partial response (PR) and another an unconfirmed PR. At data cutoff, 11 patients remained on study with stable disease or PR. The investigators conducted correlative studies that indicated all patients had CDK4 and MDM2 amplification with no loss of retinoblastoma tumor suppressor. They observed an inverse correlation between CDK4 amplification and PFS—the higher the level of CDK4 amplification, the shorter the PFS. They also found additional genomic alterations, including JUN, GLI1, ARID1A, TERT, and ATRX. TERT amplification was also associated with shorter PFS. Based on these findings, the investigators believe a phase 3 study of abemaciclib in DDLS is warranted.

Winette van der Graaf, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, in the discussion following the presentation, concurred that it is certainly time for a multicenter phase 3 study of CDK4 inhibitors in DDLS, and a strong international collaboration is key to conducting such studies, particularly in rare cancers. On a critical note, Dr. van der Graaf expressed concern that no patient-reported outcomes were measured after 120 patients, including those in previous studies, were treated on palbociclib and abemaciclib. Given that the toxicities of the CDK4 inhibitors are quite different, she recommended including patient-reported outcomes in future studies using validated health-related quality-of-life instruments.

SOURCE: Dickson MA, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11004)

The study was sponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with the study collaborator, Eli Lilly and Company.

Dr. Dickson disclosed research funding from Lilly, the company that provided the study drug. Dr. van der Graaf had no relevant relationships to disclose. Abstract coauthors had consulting/advisory roles or research funding from various companies, including Lilly.

nab-Sirolimus Provides Benefits in Advanced Malignant PEComa

In a prospective phase 2 study of nab-sirolimus in advanced malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), the mTOR inhibitor achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 42% with an acceptable safety profile, despite using relatively high doses of nab-sirolimus compared to other mTOR inhibitors. Activation of the mTOR pathway is common in PEComa, and earlier case reports had indicated substantial clinical benefit with mTOR inhibitor treatment. nab-Sirolimus (ABI-009) is a novel intravenous mTOR inhibitor consisting of nanoparticles of albumin-bound sirolimus. It has significantly higher anti-tumor activity than oral mTOR inhibitors and greater mTOR target suppression at an equal dose. Andrew J. Wagner, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented the findings of AMPECT (NCT02494570)—Advanced Malignant PEComa Trial—at ASCO.

Results

The drug was well tolerated, with toxicities similar to those of oral mTOR inhibitors. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring in 25% or more of patients were mostly grade 1 or 2 toxicities. Hematologic TRAEs included anemia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (32%) of any grade. Nonhematologic events of any grade included stomatitis/ mucositis (74%), dermatitis/rash (65%), fatigue (59%), nausea (47%), and diarrhea (38%), among others. A few grade 3 events occurred on study, most notably stomatitis/mucositis (18%). Severe adverse events (SAEs) were also uncommon, occurring in 7 of 34 patients (21%). Pneumonitis is common in orally administered mTOR inhibitors; 6 patients (18%) treated with nab-sirolimus had grade 1 or 2 pneumonitis.

Of the 31 evaluable patients, 13 (42%) had an objective response, all of which were partial responses (PR). Eleven (35%) had stable disease and 7 (23%) had progressive disease. The disease control rate, consisting of PR and stable disease, was 77%. The median duration of response had not been reached as of the data cutoff on May 10, 2019. At that time, it was 6.2 months (range, 1.5 to 27.7+). The median time to response was 1.4 months and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.4 months. The PFS rate at 6 months was 61%. Three patients had received treatment for over a year and another 3 patients for more than 2 years.

Correlation with biomarkers

Of the 25 patients who had tissue suitable for next-generation sequencing, 9 had TSC2 mutations, 5 had TSC1 mutations, and 11 had neither mutation. Strikingly, 9 of 9 patients with TSC2 mutations developed a PR, while only 1 with a TSC1 mutation responded. One patient with no TSC1/2 mutation also responded and 2 patients with unknown mutational status responded. The investigators also analyzed pS6 status by immunohistochemistry—pS6 is a marker of mTOR hyperactivity. Twenty- five patient samples were available for analysis. Eight of 8 patients who were negative for pS6 staining did not have a response, while 10 of 17 (59%) who were pS6-positive had a PR.

In the discussion that followed, Winette van der Graaf, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, noted that this study showed that biomarkers can be used for patient selection, although TSC2 mutations are not uniquely linked with response. She indicated a comparator with sirolimus would have been of great interest.

SOURCE: Wagner AJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11005).

The study was sponsored by Aadi Bioscience, Inc., and funded in part by a grant from the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD).

Disclosures relevant to this presentation include contininstitutional research funding from Aadi Bioscience for Dr. Wagner and a few other abstract coauthors. Several coauthors are employed by Aadi Bioscience and have stock or other ownership interests. Dr. van der Graaf had nothing to disclose.

Cabozantinib Achieves Disease Control in GIST

The phase 2 EORTC 1317 trial, known as CaboGIST (NCT02216578), met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) cabozantinib. Twenty-four (58.5%) of the 41 patients in the primary study population, and 30 (60%) of the entire 50-patient population, were progression-free at 12 weeks. The study needed 21 patients to be progression- free for cabozantinib to warrant further exploration in GIST patients.

This investigator-initiated study had as its primary objective assessment of the safety and activity of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic GIST who had progressed on imatinib and sunitinib. The patients could not have been exposed to other KIT- or PDGFR-directed TKIs, such as regorafenib. Secondary objectives included the assessment of cabozantinib in different mutational subtypes of GIST. Patients received cabozantinib tablets once daily until they experienced no further clinical benefit or became intolerant to the drug or chose to discontinue therapy. Fifty patients started treatment between February 2017 and August 2018. All were evaluable for the primary endpoint, and one-third of patients contininstitutional cabozantinib treatment as of the database cutoff in January 2019.

Results

Patients were a median age of 63 years. Virtually all patients (92%) had prior surgery and only 8% had prior radiotherapy. The daily cabozantinib dose was a median 47.2 mg and duration of treatment was a median 20.4 weeks. No patient discontinued treatment due to toxicity, but 88% discontinued due to disease progression.

Safety signals were the same as for other indications in which cabozantinib is used. Almost all patients (94%) had at least 1 treatment-related adverse event of grades 1‐4, including diarrhea (74%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (58%), fatigue (46%), and hypertension (46%), which are typical of treatment with cabozantinib. Hematologic toxicities in this trial were clinically irrelevant, according to the investigators, consisting of small numbers of grades 2‐3 anemia, lymphopenia, white blood cell count abnormality, and neutropenia. Biochemical abnormalities included grades 3 and 4 hypophosphatemia, increased grades 3 and 4 gamma-glutamyl transferase, grade 3 hyponatremia, and grade 3 hypokalemia, in 8% or more of patients.

Overall survival was a median 14.4 months, with 16 patients still on treatment at the time of data cutoff. Twenty- four patients were progression-free at week 12, satisfying the study decision rule for clinical benefit. Median duration of PFS was 6.0 months. Seven patients (14%) achieved a confirmed partial response (PR) and 33 (66%) achieved stable disease (SD). Nine patients had progressive disease as their best response, 3 of whom had some clinical benefit. Forty patients (80%) experienced a clinical benefit of disease control (PR + SD).

An analysis of the relationship of genotype, duration, and RECIST response showed objective responses in patients with primary exon 11 mutations, with exon 9 mutations, and with exon 17 mutations, and in 2 patients without any known mutational information at the time of the presentation. Patients with stable disease were spread across all mutational subsets in the trial. The investigators suggested the definitive role of MET and AXL inhibition in GIST be assessed further in future clinical trials.

SOURCE: Schöffski P, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 11006).

The study was sponsored by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

Presenting author, Patrick Schöffski, MD, of KU Leuven and Leuven Cancer Institute in Belgium, disclosed institutional relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies for consulting and research funding, including research funding from Exelixis, the developer of cabozantinib. No other abstract coauthor disclosed a relationship with Exelixis.

Larotectinib Effective in TRK Fusion Cancers

Pediatric patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusions involving NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 genes had a high response rate with durable responses and a favorable safety profile when treated with larotrectinib, according to a presentation at ASCO. In this pediatric subset of children and adolescents from the SCOUT and NAVIGATE studies, the overall response rate (ORR) was 94%, with a 35% complete response (CR), 59% partial response (PR), and 6% stable disease as of the data cutoff at the end of July 2018.

Investigators enrolled 38 children and adolescents younger than 18 years from the SCOUT (NCT02637687) and NAVIGATE (NCT02576431) studies of larotrectinib who had non-central nervous system (CNS) TRK fusion cancers. Not all patients had the recommended phase 2 dose, Dr. van Tilburg pointed out, but most did. Hence, 29 of the 38 patients received the 100 mg/m² twice-daily, phase 2 dose until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were young, with a median age of 2.3 years (range, 0.1 to 14.0 years). Almost two-thirds (61%) had prior surgery, 11% had prior radiotherapy, and 68% had prior systemic therapy. For 12 patients, larotrectinib was their first systemic therapy. The predominant tumor types were infantile fibrosarcoma (47%) and other soft tissue sarcoma (42%). And 47% of patients had NTRK3 fusions with ETV6, most of which were infantile fibrosarcoma.

Efficacy

Thirty-four patients were evaluable, and 32 had a reduction in tumor size, for an ORR of 94%, CR of 35%, and PR of 59%. Two patients with infantile fibrosarcoma had pathologic CRs—after treatment, no fibroid tissue in the tumors could be found. Median time to response was 1.8 months, median duration of treatment was 10.24 months, and 33 of 38 patients (87%) remained on treatment or underwent surgery with curative intent. As of the data cutoff of July 30, 2018, the secondary endpoints were not yet reached. However, 84% of responders were estimated to have a response duration of a year or more, and progression-free and overall survival looked very promising, according to Dr. van Tilburg.

Adverse events were primarily grades 1 and 2. The grades 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were quite few and consisted of increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased neutrophil count, and nausea. Longer follow-up of the patient safety profile is required, particularly since NTRK has multiple roles in neurodevelopment. The investigators recommended that routine testing for NTRK gene fusions in pediatric patients with cancer be conducted in appropriate clinical contexts.

In a discussion after the presentation, Daniel Alexander Morgenstern, MB BChir, PhD, of Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK, said that in many ways, the NTRK inhibitors have become the new poster child for precision oncology in pediatrics because of “these really spectacular results” with larotrectinib [and entrectinib]. One of the questions he raised regarding larotrectinib was the issue of CNS penetration, since patients with CNS cancer were not enrolled in the trial and preclinical data suggest limited CNS penetration for larotrectinib.

SOURCE: van Tilburg CM, et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 10010).

The studies were funded by Loxo Oncology, Inc., and Bayer AG.

Disclosures relevant to this presentation include consulting or advisory roles for Bayer for Drs. van Tilburg and Morgenstern. A few coauthors also had consulting/advisory roles or research funding from various companies, including Loxo and Bayer.

PARIS – Patients with angina who were also more than 3 months out from a prior MI had a significantly increased rate of subsequent cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in a study of nearly 33,000 patients, a finding that identified angina as a new red flag when following post-MI patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Angina and prior MI was a higher-risk subgroup that may warrant more intensive management. This is new,” Emmanuel Sorbets, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The finding came from review of 32,703 patients from 45 countries with stable coronary artery disease enrolled in the CLARIFY (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease) registry during 2009-2010, a population that appeared to uniformly meet the new definition of chronic chromic syndromes recently published by a task force of the society (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).

Among the CLARIFY patients, 60% had an MI more than 3 months prior to enrollment (the registry excluded patients with more proximate MIs), and in this subgroup angina at baseline was linked with a 3.6% absolute increase in the rate of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI compared with post-MI patients without angina at baseline during a median 5 year follow-up. This translated into a 44% relative increase that remained statistically significant after adjustment for several demographic and clinical factors, said Dr. Sorbets, a cardiologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France. The cumulative incidence of the combined endpoint was 11.8% among post-MI patients with baseline angina and 8.2% in those without angina. Among patients without a prior MI, the presence or absence of angina at entry into the registry had no link with the incidence of later outcomes. Concurrently with Dr. Sorbets’ report at the congress, the results appeared in an article published online (Eur Heart J. 2019 Sep 3;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz660).

This finding should immediately influence practice, said Sanjay Sharma, MD, professor of inherited cardiac diseases and sports cardiology at St. George’s University, London. “One of the messages from this study is that we now have a very easy way to measure a high-risk factor,” and that patients who present with angina more than 3 months after an MI “require intensive investigation and aggressive management,” he said. The new evidence identified post-MI patients with angina as having a “semi-urgent” condition that needs added anti-anginal treatment and, if symptoms persist, possible revascularization, especially patients without prior revascularization, he said in a video interview. Although the study did not analyze the type of MI linked with these poor outcomes, Dr. Sharma speculated that certain patients with a prior non ST-elevation MI may face the greatest danger it they did not undergo percutaneous coronary revascularization at the time of their MI.

CLARIFY is sponsored by Servier. Dr. Sorbets has received personal fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis. Dr. Sharma had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

PARIS – Patients with angina who were also more than 3 months out from a prior MI had a significantly increased rate of subsequent cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in a study of nearly 33,000 patients, a finding that identified angina as a new red flag when following post-MI patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Angina and prior MI was a higher-risk subgroup that may warrant more intensive management. This is new,” Emmanuel Sorbets, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The finding came from review of 32,703 patients from 45 countries with stable coronary artery disease enrolled in the CLARIFY (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease) registry during 2009-2010, a population that appeared to uniformly meet the new definition of chronic chromic syndromes recently published by a task force of the society (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).

Among the CLARIFY patients, 60% had an MI more than 3 months prior to enrollment (the registry excluded patients with more proximate MIs), and in this subgroup angina at baseline was linked with a 3.6% absolute increase in the rate of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI compared with post-MI patients without angina at baseline during a median 5 year follow-up. This translated into a 44% relative increase that remained statistically significant after adjustment for several demographic and clinical factors, said Dr. Sorbets, a cardiologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France. The cumulative incidence of the combined endpoint was 11.8% among post-MI patients with baseline angina and 8.2% in those without angina. Among patients without a prior MI, the presence or absence of angina at entry into the registry had no link with the incidence of later outcomes. Concurrently with Dr. Sorbets’ report at the congress, the results appeared in an article published online (Eur Heart J. 2019 Sep 3;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz660).

This finding should immediately influence practice, said Sanjay Sharma, MD, professor of inherited cardiac diseases and sports cardiology at St. George’s University, London. “One of the messages from this study is that we now have a very easy way to measure a high-risk factor,” and that patients who present with angina more than 3 months after an MI “require intensive investigation and aggressive management,” he said. The new evidence identified post-MI patients with angina as having a “semi-urgent” condition that needs added anti-anginal treatment and, if symptoms persist, possible revascularization, especially patients without prior revascularization, he said in a video interview. Although the study did not analyze the type of MI linked with these poor outcomes, Dr. Sharma speculated that certain patients with a prior non ST-elevation MI may face the greatest danger it they did not undergo percutaneous coronary revascularization at the time of their MI.

CLARIFY is sponsored by Servier. Dr. Sorbets has received personal fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis. Dr. Sharma had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

PARIS – Patients with angina who were also more than 3 months out from a prior MI had a significantly increased rate of subsequent cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in a study of nearly 33,000 patients, a finding that identified angina as a new red flag when following post-MI patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Angina and prior MI was a higher-risk subgroup that may warrant more intensive management. This is new,” Emmanuel Sorbets, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The finding came from review of 32,703 patients from 45 countries with stable coronary artery disease enrolled in the CLARIFY (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease) registry during 2009-2010, a population that appeared to uniformly meet the new definition of chronic chromic syndromes recently published by a task force of the society (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).

Among the CLARIFY patients, 60% had an MI more than 3 months prior to enrollment (the registry excluded patients with more proximate MIs), and in this subgroup angina at baseline was linked with a 3.6% absolute increase in the rate of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI compared with post-MI patients without angina at baseline during a median 5 year follow-up. This translated into a 44% relative increase that remained statistically significant after adjustment for several demographic and clinical factors, said Dr. Sorbets, a cardiologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France. The cumulative incidence of the combined endpoint was 11.8% among post-MI patients with baseline angina and 8.2% in those without angina. Among patients without a prior MI, the presence or absence of angina at entry into the registry had no link with the incidence of later outcomes. Concurrently with Dr. Sorbets’ report at the congress, the results appeared in an article published online (Eur Heart J. 2019 Sep 3;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz660).

This finding should immediately influence practice, said Sanjay Sharma, MD, professor of inherited cardiac diseases and sports cardiology at St. George’s University, London. “One of the messages from this study is that we now have a very easy way to measure a high-risk factor,” and that patients who present with angina more than 3 months after an MI “require intensive investigation and aggressive management,” he said. The new evidence identified post-MI patients with angina as having a “semi-urgent” condition that needs added anti-anginal treatment and, if symptoms persist, possible revascularization, especially patients without prior revascularization, he said in a video interview. Although the study did not analyze the type of MI linked with these poor outcomes, Dr. Sharma speculated that certain patients with a prior non ST-elevation MI may face the greatest danger it they did not undergo percutaneous coronary revascularization at the time of their MI.

CLARIFY is sponsored by Servier. Dr. Sorbets has received personal fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis. Dr. Sharma had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse may not significantly reduce treatment failure after 3 years, compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, according to randomized trial results.

Nevertheless, “the point estimate favored hysteropexy,” the study authors wrote in JAMA. The 36-month cumulative treatment failure outcomes – defined as retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms – were 33% for patients who underwent hysteropexy, compared with 42% for patients who underwent hysterectomy. In addition, mean operative time was 45 minutes less for patients who underwent hysteropexy.

The publication follows the Food and Drug Administration’s ruling in April 2019 that manufacturers must cease marketing transvaginal mesh kits for repair of anterior or apical compartment prolapse. The investigators plan to continue evaluating patient outcomes to 5 years, and they noted that longer follow-up may lead to different conclusions.

From a class II device to class III

Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse is common. Although vaginal hysterectomy is the procedure of choice for many surgeons, “uterine-sparing suspension techniques ... are increasing in usage,” wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors. However, few high-quality, long-term studies have compared apical transvaginal mesh with native tissue procedures.

The FDA first approved a mesh device for transvaginal repair of prolapse in 2002. In 2008, the agency notified clinicians and patients about an increase in adverse event reports related to vaginal mesh. It later advised that mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse does not conclusively improve clinical outcomes and that serious adverse events are not rare.

In 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse transvaginally as high risk, citing safety concerns such as severe pelvic pain and organ perforation. And in April 2019, the FDA ordered companies to stop selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse repair. “Even though these products can no longer be used in patients moving forward, [manufacturers] are required to continue follow-up” of patients in post–market surveillance studies, the FDA said in a statement.

An FDA panel had concluded that 3-year outcomes for prolapse repair with mesh should be better than the outcomes for repair with native tissue, and that the procedures should have comparable safety profiles.
 

The SUPeR trial

To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy, Dr. Nager and colleagues conducted the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized (SUPeR) trial.

Researchers enrolled 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing surgical intervention at nine sites between April 2013 and February 2015. Investigators randomized 93 women to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Hysteropexy used the UpholdLITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific). Uterosacral ligament suspension required one permanent and one delayed absorbable suture on each side. The primary analysis included data from 175 patients.

Compared with hysterectomy, hysteropexy resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio of treatment failure of 0.62 after 3 years, which was not statistically significant (P = .06). The 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.02 “was wide and only slightly crossed the null value,” the researchers said. “The remaining uncertainty is too great” to establish or rule out the benefit of vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

Mean operative time was about 45 minutes shorter in the hysteropexy group versus the hysterectomy group (111.5 minutes vs. 156.7 minutes). Adverse events in the hysteropexy versus hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs. 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs. 7%), excessive granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs. 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs. 21%).

“Both groups reported improvements in sexual function, and dyspareunia and pain and de novo dyspareunia rates were low,” Dr. Nager and colleagues wrote. “All other complications with long-term sequelae were not different between groups.”

“Patients in the current study are being followed up for 60 months and the results and conclusions at 36 months could change with extended follow-up,” they added.

A role for mesh?

“The report ... by Nager and colleagues is particularly timely and important,” Cynthia A. Brincat, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Brincat is affiliated with the division of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

Although the mesh exposures, granulation tissue, or suture exposures during the trial did not require reoperation, “management of these adverse events was not described,” the editorialist noted. “Clinically important differences could exist between the management of these reported adverse events.”

Based on the findings, gynecologic surgeons “will need to reconsider several important questions regarding the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. For instance, is hysterectomy a necessary component for the repair? What is the role of mesh, and can its use reduce the use of otherwise unnecessary procedures (i.e., hysterectomy) without increasing risk to patients?” she wrote. Other questions center on what constitutes operative failure and how surgeons should augment prolapse repair.

“This study also provides a potential new and well-defined role for the use of mesh in pelvic prolapse surgery, with no significant difference, and perhaps some benefit (i.e., no hysterectomy), compared with a native tissue repair,” Dr. Brincat wrote. “The study also provides useful information for shared decision-making discussions between patients and gynecologic surgeons with respect to selection of procedures and use of mesh for treatment of women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery.”

The trial was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Boston Scientific provided support through an unrestricted grant. One author reported stock ownership in a medical device company, and others reported grants from medical device companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Brincat reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Nager CW et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1054-65; Brincat CA. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1047-8.

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse may not significantly reduce treatment failure after 3 years, compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, according to randomized trial results.

Nevertheless, “the point estimate favored hysteropexy,” the study authors wrote in JAMA. The 36-month cumulative treatment failure outcomes – defined as retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms – were 33% for patients who underwent hysteropexy, compared with 42% for patients who underwent hysterectomy. In addition, mean operative time was 45 minutes less for patients who underwent hysteropexy.

The publication follows the Food and Drug Administration’s ruling in April 2019 that manufacturers must cease marketing transvaginal mesh kits for repair of anterior or apical compartment prolapse. The investigators plan to continue evaluating patient outcomes to 5 years, and they noted that longer follow-up may lead to different conclusions.

From a class II device to class III

Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse is common. Although vaginal hysterectomy is the procedure of choice for many surgeons, “uterine-sparing suspension techniques ... are increasing in usage,” wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors. However, few high-quality, long-term studies have compared apical transvaginal mesh with native tissue procedures.

The FDA first approved a mesh device for transvaginal repair of prolapse in 2002. In 2008, the agency notified clinicians and patients about an increase in adverse event reports related to vaginal mesh. It later advised that mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse does not conclusively improve clinical outcomes and that serious adverse events are not rare.

In 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse transvaginally as high risk, citing safety concerns such as severe pelvic pain and organ perforation. And in April 2019, the FDA ordered companies to stop selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse repair. “Even though these products can no longer be used in patients moving forward, [manufacturers] are required to continue follow-up” of patients in post–market surveillance studies, the FDA said in a statement.

An FDA panel had concluded that 3-year outcomes for prolapse repair with mesh should be better than the outcomes for repair with native tissue, and that the procedures should have comparable safety profiles.
 

The SUPeR trial

To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy, Dr. Nager and colleagues conducted the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized (SUPeR) trial.

Researchers enrolled 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing surgical intervention at nine sites between April 2013 and February 2015. Investigators randomized 93 women to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Hysteropexy used the UpholdLITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific). Uterosacral ligament suspension required one permanent and one delayed absorbable suture on each side. The primary analysis included data from 175 patients.

Compared with hysterectomy, hysteropexy resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio of treatment failure of 0.62 after 3 years, which was not statistically significant (P = .06). The 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.02 “was wide and only slightly crossed the null value,” the researchers said. “The remaining uncertainty is too great” to establish or rule out the benefit of vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

Mean operative time was about 45 minutes shorter in the hysteropexy group versus the hysterectomy group (111.5 minutes vs. 156.7 minutes). Adverse events in the hysteropexy versus hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs. 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs. 7%), excessive granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs. 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs. 21%).

“Both groups reported improvements in sexual function, and dyspareunia and pain and de novo dyspareunia rates were low,” Dr. Nager and colleagues wrote. “All other complications with long-term sequelae were not different between groups.”

“Patients in the current study are being followed up for 60 months and the results and conclusions at 36 months could change with extended follow-up,” they added.

A role for mesh?

“The report ... by Nager and colleagues is particularly timely and important,” Cynthia A. Brincat, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Brincat is affiliated with the division of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

Although the mesh exposures, granulation tissue, or suture exposures during the trial did not require reoperation, “management of these adverse events was not described,” the editorialist noted. “Clinically important differences could exist between the management of these reported adverse events.”

Based on the findings, gynecologic surgeons “will need to reconsider several important questions regarding the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. For instance, is hysterectomy a necessary component for the repair? What is the role of mesh, and can its use reduce the use of otherwise unnecessary procedures (i.e., hysterectomy) without increasing risk to patients?” she wrote. Other questions center on what constitutes operative failure and how surgeons should augment prolapse repair.

“This study also provides a potential new and well-defined role for the use of mesh in pelvic prolapse surgery, with no significant difference, and perhaps some benefit (i.e., no hysterectomy), compared with a native tissue repair,” Dr. Brincat wrote. “The study also provides useful information for shared decision-making discussions between patients and gynecologic surgeons with respect to selection of procedures and use of mesh for treatment of women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery.”

The trial was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Boston Scientific provided support through an unrestricted grant. One author reported stock ownership in a medical device company, and others reported grants from medical device companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Brincat reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Nager CW et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1054-65; Brincat CA. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1047-8.

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse may not significantly reduce treatment failure after 3 years, compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, according to randomized trial results.

Nevertheless, “the point estimate favored hysteropexy,” the study authors wrote in JAMA. The 36-month cumulative treatment failure outcomes – defined as retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms – were 33% for patients who underwent hysteropexy, compared with 42% for patients who underwent hysterectomy. In addition, mean operative time was 45 minutes less for patients who underwent hysteropexy.

The publication follows the Food and Drug Administration’s ruling in April 2019 that manufacturers must cease marketing transvaginal mesh kits for repair of anterior or apical compartment prolapse. The investigators plan to continue evaluating patient outcomes to 5 years, and they noted that longer follow-up may lead to different conclusions.

From a class II device to class III

Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse is common. Although vaginal hysterectomy is the procedure of choice for many surgeons, “uterine-sparing suspension techniques ... are increasing in usage,” wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors. However, few high-quality, long-term studies have compared apical transvaginal mesh with native tissue procedures.

The FDA first approved a mesh device for transvaginal repair of prolapse in 2002. In 2008, the agency notified clinicians and patients about an increase in adverse event reports related to vaginal mesh. It later advised that mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse does not conclusively improve clinical outcomes and that serious adverse events are not rare.

In 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse transvaginally as high risk, citing safety concerns such as severe pelvic pain and organ perforation. And in April 2019, the FDA ordered companies to stop selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse repair. “Even though these products can no longer be used in patients moving forward, [manufacturers] are required to continue follow-up” of patients in post–market surveillance studies, the FDA said in a statement.

An FDA panel had concluded that 3-year outcomes for prolapse repair with mesh should be better than the outcomes for repair with native tissue, and that the procedures should have comparable safety profiles.
 

The SUPeR trial

To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy, Dr. Nager and colleagues conducted the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized (SUPeR) trial.

Researchers enrolled 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing surgical intervention at nine sites between April 2013 and February 2015. Investigators randomized 93 women to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Hysteropexy used the UpholdLITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific). Uterosacral ligament suspension required one permanent and one delayed absorbable suture on each side. The primary analysis included data from 175 patients.

Compared with hysterectomy, hysteropexy resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio of treatment failure of 0.62 after 3 years, which was not statistically significant (P = .06). The 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.02 “was wide and only slightly crossed the null value,” the researchers said. “The remaining uncertainty is too great” to establish or rule out the benefit of vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

Mean operative time was about 45 minutes shorter in the hysteropexy group versus the hysterectomy group (111.5 minutes vs. 156.7 minutes). Adverse events in the hysteropexy versus hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs. 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs. 7%), excessive granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs. 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs. 21%).

“Both groups reported improvements in sexual function, and dyspareunia and pain and de novo dyspareunia rates were low,” Dr. Nager and colleagues wrote. “All other complications with long-term sequelae were not different between groups.”

“Patients in the current study are being followed up for 60 months and the results and conclusions at 36 months could change with extended follow-up,” they added.

A role for mesh?

“The report ... by Nager and colleagues is particularly timely and important,” Cynthia A. Brincat, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Brincat is affiliated with the division of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

Although the mesh exposures, granulation tissue, or suture exposures during the trial did not require reoperation, “management of these adverse events was not described,” the editorialist noted. “Clinically important differences could exist between the management of these reported adverse events.”

Based on the findings, gynecologic surgeons “will need to reconsider several important questions regarding the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. For instance, is hysterectomy a necessary component for the repair? What is the role of mesh, and can its use reduce the use of otherwise unnecessary procedures (i.e., hysterectomy) without increasing risk to patients?” she wrote. Other questions center on what constitutes operative failure and how surgeons should augment prolapse repair.

“This study also provides a potential new and well-defined role for the use of mesh in pelvic prolapse surgery, with no significant difference, and perhaps some benefit (i.e., no hysterectomy), compared with a native tissue repair,” Dr. Brincat wrote. “The study also provides useful information for shared decision-making discussions between patients and gynecologic surgeons with respect to selection of procedures and use of mesh for treatment of women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery.”

The trial was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Boston Scientific provided support through an unrestricted grant. One author reported stock ownership in a medical device company, and others reported grants from medical device companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Brincat reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Nager CW et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1054-65; Brincat CA. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1047-8.

Since its inception, the Sarcoma Foundation of America (SFA) has awarded research grants for the best, most promising research to cure sarcoma. This year SFA awarded $750,000 in research funds to 15 scientists as part of its 2019 SFA Research Grant program. The grants, worth $50,000 each, explore numerous sarcoma subtypes, multiple strategies, and different approaches to find effective treatments for many forms of the disease. Research projects are listed below alphabetically by investigator last name. More details are available on the SFA’s grant pages, available at https://www.curesarcoma.org/grant

Since its inception, the Sarcoma Foundation of America (SFA) has awarded research grants for the best, most promising research to cure sarcoma. This year SFA awarded $750,000 in research funds to 15 scientists as part of its 2019 SFA Research Grant program. The grants, worth $50,000 each, explore numerous sarcoma subtypes, multiple strategies, and different approaches to find effective treatments for many forms of the disease. Research projects are listed below alphabetically by investigator last name. More details are available on the SFA’s grant pages, available at https://www.curesarcoma.org/grant

Since its inception, the Sarcoma Foundation of America (SFA) has awarded research grants for the best, most promising research to cure sarcoma. This year SFA awarded $750,000 in research funds to 15 scientists as part of its 2019 SFA Research Grant program. The grants, worth $50,000 each, explore numerous sarcoma subtypes, multiple strategies, and different approaches to find effective treatments for many forms of the disease. Research projects are listed below alphabetically by investigator last name. More details are available on the SFA’s grant pages, available at https://www.curesarcoma.org/grant

Spindle cell sarcomas are part of a rare, heterogeneous family of connective tissue tumors. These tumors are primarily treated with surgery and have a high risk of recurrence and distant metastasis with elevated mortality rates.¹ Other than the evidence for first-line therapy with doxorubicin in advanced soft tissue sarcoma, little evidence exists to point to an optimal second-line therapy. This is due to the diversity of soft tissue sarcomas, which encompass approximately 70 different histologic subtypes that can each respond differently to treatment.² As such, newer strategies, including immunotherapy and targeted molecular drugs, are being developed.

Quiescent in most adult tissues, the Hedgehog signaling pathway, when inappropriately activated, has been implicated in the development of multiple types of cancers, including basal cell, breast, prostate, hepatocellular, pancreatic, and brain cancer.³ The Hedgehog signaling pathway is an important regulator of cell growth and differentiation in early development, but when inappropriately activated can lead to cell proliferation and increased angiogenic factors, decreased apoptosis, and breakdown of tight junctions promoting cancer growth and metastasis.⁴ Recent data reveal that the Hedgehog pathway plays a specific role in activation of satellite cells, proliferation of myoblasts, and differentiation of skeletal muscle.⁵ Activation of this embryonic pathway has been implicated in embryonal rhabdoymyosarcoma, osteosarcoma, and chondrosarcoma.^5-7

This pathway has recently been recognized as a therapeutic target, with the development of vismodegib, a targeted Hedgehog pathway inhibitor. This novel agent is in active use for treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma and is currently undergoing trials for various other malignancies. Recently, a phase 2a basket study, called MyPathway, evaluated the use of targeted therapies in 35 different advanced refractory solid tumors harboring specific molecular alterations. Out of 21 patients with mutations in the Hedgehog pathway, 3 had a partial response to vismodegib—one had an unknown primary tumor, another a squamous skin cancer, and the third a salivary gland cancer.⁸ Vismodegib (GDC-0449) was also evaluated in a phase 2 multicenter clinical trial in patients with progressive advanced chondrosarcoma.7 Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, the proportion of patients with non-progressive disease was 25.6% at 6 months. Investigators observed that the benefit occurred in the subset of patients with overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand. Genomic studies for mutations in SMO and PTCH genes were available for only 28 and 26 patients, respectively, of the 45 patients enrolled on the trial. While there were no mutations identified, expression data revealed that overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand was present in 65% of cases tested (13 out of 20 patients). In patients with stable disease at 6 months, all had overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand.⁷ These studies point to the potential use of vismodegib in both bone and soft tissue sarcomas, and more specifically, to the importance of genomic testing in these cases.

Case Presentation and Summary

This report describes the novel use of vismodegib, an oral Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor, in the treatment of a patient with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

An 18-year-old female with no particular previous illnesses was initially diagnosed with superficial soft tissue sarcoma overlying the right hip in 2013. Due to the complexity of pathology, a second opinion was requested and revealed atypical cellular spindle and epithelioid cells, morphologically and immunohistochemically suggestive of spindle cell sarcoma, not otherwise specified. She underwent negative-margin resection in January 2014. Her course was complicated by two recurrences in the right inguinal lymph nodes in July 2014 and July 2015. She was treated with lymph node dissection in 2014, followed by numerous right lymph node dissections and adjuvant radiation in 2015.

A routine computerized tomography (CT) scan of the thorax-abdomen and pelvis in August 2016 revealed recurrence of disease, with multiple lung nodules as well as metastases in the retroperitoneum. She received 6 cycles of gemcitabine and docetaxel with stability of disease. The patient was then started on a PI3K inhibitor as part of a clinical trial, as genotypic analysis of the tumor revealed an activating mutation of the PI3K gene. The patient’s course was complicated by acute obstructive renal failure requiring a double J stent for right-sided hydronephrosis.

Repeat imaging revealed disease progression, and the patient was then switched to liposomal doxorubicin alone for 4 months and then in combination with olaratumab. She received the combined treatment for a total of 3 months, which was then stopped when she was found to have new peritoneal implants and worsening ascites. At this time, tissue was sent for FoundationOne® next generation sequencing (NGS)-based genomic testing, and the patient received one dose of nivolumab.

In January 2018, 2 days after receiving her first dose of nivolumab, the patient required admission for worsening abdominal pain secondary to progression of her disease (FIGURE 1). She was found to have acute kidney injury on top of chronic kidney disease due to hydronephrosis requiring a left-sided double J stent. She also had transaminitis resulting from a common bile duct stricture treated with a biliary stent and worsening ascites requiring regular paracentesis. This was all in the context of new or growing metastatic implants.

At this time, the result of the FoundationOne genomic testing revealed PTCH1 loss of exons 1-24 and CDKN2A/B loss. Mutation of tumor suppressor gene PTCH1 leads to Hedgehog pathway activation and therefore the patient was started on vismodegib on January 22, 2018. She was discharged from the hospital in stable condition a day later, on January 23.

The patient’s clinical status subsequently improved, with significant reduction in her chronic abdominal pain and very minimal side effects. Clinically, the patient’s acute kidney injury resolved (from a creatinine of 272 μmol/L at discharge to 85 μmol/L after a week of treatment) and her liver enzymes normalized (from an alkaline phosphatase of 301 U/L to 83 U/L, and alanine transaminase of 111 U/L to 38 U/L). CT scan of her chest and abdomen, which was performed 1 month post treatment, revealed stability of disease with absence of ascites (FIGURE 2). The patient continued to have a good response to treatment for 6 months, with no recurrence of pain or ascites.

Six months later, in July 2018, the patient developed increasing pain and a CT scan revealed worsening of abdominopelvic carcinomatosis. In this context, vismodegib was discontinued on July 17. In the next 5 months, she went on to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and nivolumab consecutively with no response. She was admitted to hospital on December 30 for a pain crisis. She passed away on January 9, 2019, from fecal peritonitis.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first patient with metastatic sarcoma to receive vismodegib, a Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor. She achieved an excellent clinical response with progression- free disease for approximately 6 months after starting treatment.

There is no current standard second- line treatment for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. The choice of systemic therapy is histology-driven and therefore treatment is individualized for each patient. The future of oncology is heading towards an even more personalized approach with molecular profiling. Our case report highlights the relevance of genomic testing and targeted therapies, especially in cases of diverse clinical and biological disease behavior.

Molecular targeting is even more necessary in patients with advanced cancer who have failed multiple lines of treatment. As in our study, these patients can obtain a significant response with meaningful improvement in their quality of life. Future research is currently focusing on identifying new molecular targets in patients with advanced refractory cancers. Further studies will need to be done to determine whether these molecular targeting agents, such as vismodegib, lead to significant outcome changes in these patients.

Spindle cell sarcomas are part of a rare, heterogeneous family of connective tissue tumors. These tumors are primarily treated with surgery and have a high risk of recurrence and distant metastasis with elevated mortality rates.¹ Other than the evidence for first-line therapy with doxorubicin in advanced soft tissue sarcoma, little evidence exists to point to an optimal second-line therapy. This is due to the diversity of soft tissue sarcomas, which encompass approximately 70 different histologic subtypes that can each respond differently to treatment.² As such, newer strategies, including immunotherapy and targeted molecular drugs, are being developed.

Quiescent in most adult tissues, the Hedgehog signaling pathway, when inappropriately activated, has been implicated in the development of multiple types of cancers, including basal cell, breast, prostate, hepatocellular, pancreatic, and brain cancer.³ The Hedgehog signaling pathway is an important regulator of cell growth and differentiation in early development, but when inappropriately activated can lead to cell proliferation and increased angiogenic factors, decreased apoptosis, and breakdown of tight junctions promoting cancer growth and metastasis.⁴ Recent data reveal that the Hedgehog pathway plays a specific role in activation of satellite cells, proliferation of myoblasts, and differentiation of skeletal muscle.⁵ Activation of this embryonic pathway has been implicated in embryonal rhabdoymyosarcoma, osteosarcoma, and chondrosarcoma.^5-7

This pathway has recently been recognized as a therapeutic target, with the development of vismodegib, a targeted Hedgehog pathway inhibitor. This novel agent is in active use for treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma and is currently undergoing trials for various other malignancies. Recently, a phase 2a basket study, called MyPathway, evaluated the use of targeted therapies in 35 different advanced refractory solid tumors harboring specific molecular alterations. Out of 21 patients with mutations in the Hedgehog pathway, 3 had a partial response to vismodegib—one had an unknown primary tumor, another a squamous skin cancer, and the third a salivary gland cancer.⁸ Vismodegib (GDC-0449) was also evaluated in a phase 2 multicenter clinical trial in patients with progressive advanced chondrosarcoma.7 Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, the proportion of patients with non-progressive disease was 25.6% at 6 months. Investigators observed that the benefit occurred in the subset of patients with overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand. Genomic studies for mutations in SMO and PTCH genes were available for only 28 and 26 patients, respectively, of the 45 patients enrolled on the trial. While there were no mutations identified, expression data revealed that overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand was present in 65% of cases tested (13 out of 20 patients). In patients with stable disease at 6 months, all had overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand.⁷ These studies point to the potential use of vismodegib in both bone and soft tissue sarcomas, and more specifically, to the importance of genomic testing in these cases.

Case Presentation and Summary

This report describes the novel use of vismodegib, an oral Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor, in the treatment of a patient with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

An 18-year-old female with no particular previous illnesses was initially diagnosed with superficial soft tissue sarcoma overlying the right hip in 2013. Due to the complexity of pathology, a second opinion was requested and revealed atypical cellular spindle and epithelioid cells, morphologically and immunohistochemically suggestive of spindle cell sarcoma, not otherwise specified. She underwent negative-margin resection in January 2014. Her course was complicated by two recurrences in the right inguinal lymph nodes in July 2014 and July 2015. She was treated with lymph node dissection in 2014, followed by numerous right lymph node dissections and adjuvant radiation in 2015.

A routine computerized tomography (CT) scan of the thorax-abdomen and pelvis in August 2016 revealed recurrence of disease, with multiple lung nodules as well as metastases in the retroperitoneum. She received 6 cycles of gemcitabine and docetaxel with stability of disease. The patient was then started on a PI3K inhibitor as part of a clinical trial, as genotypic analysis of the tumor revealed an activating mutation of the PI3K gene. The patient’s course was complicated by acute obstructive renal failure requiring a double J stent for right-sided hydronephrosis.

Repeat imaging revealed disease progression, and the patient was then switched to liposomal doxorubicin alone for 4 months and then in combination with olaratumab. She received the combined treatment for a total of 3 months, which was then stopped when she was found to have new peritoneal implants and worsening ascites. At this time, tissue was sent for FoundationOne® next generation sequencing (NGS)-based genomic testing, and the patient received one dose of nivolumab.

In January 2018, 2 days after receiving her first dose of nivolumab, the patient required admission for worsening abdominal pain secondary to progression of her disease (FIGURE 1). She was found to have acute kidney injury on top of chronic kidney disease due to hydronephrosis requiring a left-sided double J stent. She also had transaminitis resulting from a common bile duct stricture treated with a biliary stent and worsening ascites requiring regular paracentesis. This was all in the context of new or growing metastatic implants.

At this time, the result of the FoundationOne genomic testing revealed PTCH1 loss of exons 1-24 and CDKN2A/B loss. Mutation of tumor suppressor gene PTCH1 leads to Hedgehog pathway activation and therefore the patient was started on vismodegib on January 22, 2018. She was discharged from the hospital in stable condition a day later, on January 23.

The patient’s clinical status subsequently improved, with significant reduction in her chronic abdominal pain and very minimal side effects. Clinically, the patient’s acute kidney injury resolved (from a creatinine of 272 μmol/L at discharge to 85 μmol/L after a week of treatment) and her liver enzymes normalized (from an alkaline phosphatase of 301 U/L to 83 U/L, and alanine transaminase of 111 U/L to 38 U/L). CT scan of her chest and abdomen, which was performed 1 month post treatment, revealed stability of disease with absence of ascites (FIGURE 2). The patient continued to have a good response to treatment for 6 months, with no recurrence of pain or ascites.

Six months later, in July 2018, the patient developed increasing pain and a CT scan revealed worsening of abdominopelvic carcinomatosis. In this context, vismodegib was discontinued on July 17. In the next 5 months, she went on to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and nivolumab consecutively with no response. She was admitted to hospital on December 30 for a pain crisis. She passed away on January 9, 2019, from fecal peritonitis.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first patient with metastatic sarcoma to receive vismodegib, a Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor. She achieved an excellent clinical response with progression- free disease for approximately 6 months after starting treatment.

There is no current standard second- line treatment for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. The choice of systemic therapy is histology-driven and therefore treatment is individualized for each patient. The future of oncology is heading towards an even more personalized approach with molecular profiling. Our case report highlights the relevance of genomic testing and targeted therapies, especially in cases of diverse clinical and biological disease behavior.

Molecular targeting is even more necessary in patients with advanced cancer who have failed multiple lines of treatment. As in our study, these patients can obtain a significant response with meaningful improvement in their quality of life. Future research is currently focusing on identifying new molecular targets in patients with advanced refractory cancers. Further studies will need to be done to determine whether these molecular targeting agents, such as vismodegib, lead to significant outcome changes in these patients.

Spindle cell sarcomas are part of a rare, heterogeneous family of connective tissue tumors. These tumors are primarily treated with surgery and have a high risk of recurrence and distant metastasis with elevated mortality rates.¹ Other than the evidence for first-line therapy with doxorubicin in advanced soft tissue sarcoma, little evidence exists to point to an optimal second-line therapy. This is due to the diversity of soft tissue sarcomas, which encompass approximately 70 different histologic subtypes that can each respond differently to treatment.² As such, newer strategies, including immunotherapy and targeted molecular drugs, are being developed.

Quiescent in most adult tissues, the Hedgehog signaling pathway, when inappropriately activated, has been implicated in the development of multiple types of cancers, including basal cell, breast, prostate, hepatocellular, pancreatic, and brain cancer.³ The Hedgehog signaling pathway is an important regulator of cell growth and differentiation in early development, but when inappropriately activated can lead to cell proliferation and increased angiogenic factors, decreased apoptosis, and breakdown of tight junctions promoting cancer growth and metastasis.⁴ Recent data reveal that the Hedgehog pathway plays a specific role in activation of satellite cells, proliferation of myoblasts, and differentiation of skeletal muscle.⁵ Activation of this embryonic pathway has been implicated in embryonal rhabdoymyosarcoma, osteosarcoma, and chondrosarcoma.^5-7

This pathway has recently been recognized as a therapeutic target, with the development of vismodegib, a targeted Hedgehog pathway inhibitor. This novel agent is in active use for treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma and is currently undergoing trials for various other malignancies. Recently, a phase 2a basket study, called MyPathway, evaluated the use of targeted therapies in 35 different advanced refractory solid tumors harboring specific molecular alterations. Out of 21 patients with mutations in the Hedgehog pathway, 3 had a partial response to vismodegib—one had an unknown primary tumor, another a squamous skin cancer, and the third a salivary gland cancer.⁸ Vismodegib (GDC-0449) was also evaluated in a phase 2 multicenter clinical trial in patients with progressive advanced chondrosarcoma.7 Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, the proportion of patients with non-progressive disease was 25.6% at 6 months. Investigators observed that the benefit occurred in the subset of patients with overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand. Genomic studies for mutations in SMO and PTCH genes were available for only 28 and 26 patients, respectively, of the 45 patients enrolled on the trial. While there were no mutations identified, expression data revealed that overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand was present in 65% of cases tested (13 out of 20 patients). In patients with stable disease at 6 months, all had overexpression of the Hedgehog ligand.⁷ These studies point to the potential use of vismodegib in both bone and soft tissue sarcomas, and more specifically, to the importance of genomic testing in these cases.

Case Presentation and Summary

This report describes the novel use of vismodegib, an oral Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor, in the treatment of a patient with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

An 18-year-old female with no particular previous illnesses was initially diagnosed with superficial soft tissue sarcoma overlying the right hip in 2013. Due to the complexity of pathology, a second opinion was requested and revealed atypical cellular spindle and epithelioid cells, morphologically and immunohistochemically suggestive of spindle cell sarcoma, not otherwise specified. She underwent negative-margin resection in January 2014. Her course was complicated by two recurrences in the right inguinal lymph nodes in July 2014 and July 2015. She was treated with lymph node dissection in 2014, followed by numerous right lymph node dissections and adjuvant radiation in 2015.

A routine computerized tomography (CT) scan of the thorax-abdomen and pelvis in August 2016 revealed recurrence of disease, with multiple lung nodules as well as metastases in the retroperitoneum. She received 6 cycles of gemcitabine and docetaxel with stability of disease. The patient was then started on a PI3K inhibitor as part of a clinical trial, as genotypic analysis of the tumor revealed an activating mutation of the PI3K gene. The patient’s course was complicated by acute obstructive renal failure requiring a double J stent for right-sided hydronephrosis.

Repeat imaging revealed disease progression, and the patient was then switched to liposomal doxorubicin alone for 4 months and then in combination with olaratumab. She received the combined treatment for a total of 3 months, which was then stopped when she was found to have new peritoneal implants and worsening ascites. At this time, tissue was sent for FoundationOne® next generation sequencing (NGS)-based genomic testing, and the patient received one dose of nivolumab.

In January 2018, 2 days after receiving her first dose of nivolumab, the patient required admission for worsening abdominal pain secondary to progression of her disease (FIGURE 1). She was found to have acute kidney injury on top of chronic kidney disease due to hydronephrosis requiring a left-sided double J stent. She also had transaminitis resulting from a common bile duct stricture treated with a biliary stent and worsening ascites requiring regular paracentesis. This was all in the context of new or growing metastatic implants.

At this time, the result of the FoundationOne genomic testing revealed PTCH1 loss of exons 1-24 and CDKN2A/B loss. Mutation of tumor suppressor gene PTCH1 leads to Hedgehog pathway activation and therefore the patient was started on vismodegib on January 22, 2018. She was discharged from the hospital in stable condition a day later, on January 23.

The patient’s clinical status subsequently improved, with significant reduction in her chronic abdominal pain and very minimal side effects. Clinically, the patient’s acute kidney injury resolved (from a creatinine of 272 μmol/L at discharge to 85 μmol/L after a week of treatment) and her liver enzymes normalized (from an alkaline phosphatase of 301 U/L to 83 U/L, and alanine transaminase of 111 U/L to 38 U/L). CT scan of her chest and abdomen, which was performed 1 month post treatment, revealed stability of disease with absence of ascites (FIGURE 2). The patient continued to have a good response to treatment for 6 months, with no recurrence of pain or ascites.

Six months later, in July 2018, the patient developed increasing pain and a CT scan revealed worsening of abdominopelvic carcinomatosis. In this context, vismodegib was discontinued on July 17. In the next 5 months, she went on to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and nivolumab consecutively with no response. She was admitted to hospital on December 30 for a pain crisis. She passed away on January 9, 2019, from fecal peritonitis.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first patient with metastatic sarcoma to receive vismodegib, a Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor. She achieved an excellent clinical response with progression- free disease for approximately 6 months after starting treatment.

There is no current standard second- line treatment for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. The choice of systemic therapy is histology-driven and therefore treatment is individualized for each patient. The future of oncology is heading towards an even more personalized approach with molecular profiling. Our case report highlights the relevance of genomic testing and targeted therapies, especially in cases of diverse clinical and biological disease behavior.

Molecular targeting is even more necessary in patients with advanced cancer who have failed multiple lines of treatment. As in our study, these patients can obtain a significant response with meaningful improvement in their quality of life. Future research is currently focusing on identifying new molecular targets in patients with advanced refractory cancers. Further studies will need to be done to determine whether these molecular targeting agents, such as vismodegib, lead to significant outcome changes in these patients.

STOCKHOLM – Just under half of a small cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who discontinued disease modifying therapy (DMT) showed signs of relapse or disease progression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who were younger had a higher probability of relapse, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Of 49 patients who had been on DMT for at least 5 years and had shown no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) during that time, 26 continued to have NEDA through at least 5 years of follow-up, explained Tobias Monschein, MD, of the department of neurology at the Medical University of Vienna.

The cohort of patients had all been taking either interferon beta or glatiramer acetate after a first clinical episode leading to an initial diagnosis of MS. Patients all met Barkhof criteria for MS diagnosis on MRI, and all but six patients had oligoclonal bands found on examination of cerebrospinal fluid.

All patients in the cohort thus met criteria for clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and MS under the 2017 revisions to the McDonald diagnostic criteria. “To our knowledge, this is the first study determining the risk of disease recurrence in a homogenous cohort of patients with CIS,” reported Dr. Monschein and collaborators.

Before stopping DMT, patients had to show at least 5 years of NEDA status; at that point, patients were offered the opportunity to discontinue medication. The decision to stop or continue taking a DMT was left to individual patient choice, Dr. Monschein said in an interview.

The cohort of patients who decided to discontinue DMT was seen yearly; they received a clinical examination that included expanded disability status scale (EDSS) rating. Patients also received an annual MRI.

Age at DMT discontinuation was predictive of remaining disease free, found Dr. Monschein and collaborators. The 26 patients who continued disease free after DMT discontinuation were a mean 29.7 years old, while patients who had disease recurrence were a mean 22.7 years old.

Looking at age as a dichotomous variable, the investigators found that the 16 patients who were 40 years or older when they stopped DMT had an 18.8% risk of MS recurrence, while the 33 patients younger than 40 years at the time of ceasing DMT had a 60.6% risk of recurrence.

Age, in fact, was the only patient, disease, or therapy characteristic that Dr. Monschein and colleagues found predictive of relapse: “Gender, type of DMT, treatment duration, and CIS symptom did not differ significantly between groups,” they reported.

The data “should not encourage patients to generally stop DMTs after a long NEDA period,” they noted.

In the context of shared patient decision-making, though, the data can inform discussion with patients who wish to discontinue DMTS after long disease-free periods, Dr. Monschein said.

“Physicians should encourage younger people to stay on DMTS despite long lasting NEDA status while in patients [older than] 40 years stopping DMTs together with regular clinical and radiological monitoring could be a reasonable option,” he and his colleagues advised.

Dr. Monschein reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Monschein T et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P654.

STOCKHOLM – Just under half of a small cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who discontinued disease modifying therapy (DMT) showed signs of relapse or disease progression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who were younger had a higher probability of relapse, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Of 49 patients who had been on DMT for at least 5 years and had shown no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) during that time, 26 continued to have NEDA through at least 5 years of follow-up, explained Tobias Monschein, MD, of the department of neurology at the Medical University of Vienna.

The cohort of patients had all been taking either interferon beta or glatiramer acetate after a first clinical episode leading to an initial diagnosis of MS. Patients all met Barkhof criteria for MS diagnosis on MRI, and all but six patients had oligoclonal bands found on examination of cerebrospinal fluid.

All patients in the cohort thus met criteria for clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and MS under the 2017 revisions to the McDonald diagnostic criteria. “To our knowledge, this is the first study determining the risk of disease recurrence in a homogenous cohort of patients with CIS,” reported Dr. Monschein and collaborators.

Before stopping DMT, patients had to show at least 5 years of NEDA status; at that point, patients were offered the opportunity to discontinue medication. The decision to stop or continue taking a DMT was left to individual patient choice, Dr. Monschein said in an interview.

The cohort of patients who decided to discontinue DMT was seen yearly; they received a clinical examination that included expanded disability status scale (EDSS) rating. Patients also received an annual MRI.

Age at DMT discontinuation was predictive of remaining disease free, found Dr. Monschein and collaborators. The 26 patients who continued disease free after DMT discontinuation were a mean 29.7 years old, while patients who had disease recurrence were a mean 22.7 years old.

Looking at age as a dichotomous variable, the investigators found that the 16 patients who were 40 years or older when they stopped DMT had an 18.8% risk of MS recurrence, while the 33 patients younger than 40 years at the time of ceasing DMT had a 60.6% risk of recurrence.

Age, in fact, was the only patient, disease, or therapy characteristic that Dr. Monschein and colleagues found predictive of relapse: “Gender, type of DMT, treatment duration, and CIS symptom did not differ significantly between groups,” they reported.

The data “should not encourage patients to generally stop DMTs after a long NEDA period,” they noted.

In the context of shared patient decision-making, though, the data can inform discussion with patients who wish to discontinue DMTS after long disease-free periods, Dr. Monschein said.

“Physicians should encourage younger people to stay on DMTS despite long lasting NEDA status while in patients [older than] 40 years stopping DMTs together with regular clinical and radiological monitoring could be a reasonable option,” he and his colleagues advised.

Dr. Monschein reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Monschein T et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P654.

STOCKHOLM – Just under half of a small cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who discontinued disease modifying therapy (DMT) showed signs of relapse or disease progression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who were younger had a higher probability of relapse, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Of 49 patients who had been on DMT for at least 5 years and had shown no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) during that time, 26 continued to have NEDA through at least 5 years of follow-up, explained Tobias Monschein, MD, of the department of neurology at the Medical University of Vienna.

The cohort of patients had all been taking either interferon beta or glatiramer acetate after a first clinical episode leading to an initial diagnosis of MS. Patients all met Barkhof criteria for MS diagnosis on MRI, and all but six patients had oligoclonal bands found on examination of cerebrospinal fluid.

All patients in the cohort thus met criteria for clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and MS under the 2017 revisions to the McDonald diagnostic criteria. “To our knowledge, this is the first study determining the risk of disease recurrence in a homogenous cohort of patients with CIS,” reported Dr. Monschein and collaborators.

Before stopping DMT, patients had to show at least 5 years of NEDA status; at that point, patients were offered the opportunity to discontinue medication. The decision to stop or continue taking a DMT was left to individual patient choice, Dr. Monschein said in an interview.

The cohort of patients who decided to discontinue DMT was seen yearly; they received a clinical examination that included expanded disability status scale (EDSS) rating. Patients also received an annual MRI.

Age at DMT discontinuation was predictive of remaining disease free, found Dr. Monschein and collaborators. The 26 patients who continued disease free after DMT discontinuation were a mean 29.7 years old, while patients who had disease recurrence were a mean 22.7 years old.

Looking at age as a dichotomous variable, the investigators found that the 16 patients who were 40 years or older when they stopped DMT had an 18.8% risk of MS recurrence, while the 33 patients younger than 40 years at the time of ceasing DMT had a 60.6% risk of recurrence.

Age, in fact, was the only patient, disease, or therapy characteristic that Dr. Monschein and colleagues found predictive of relapse: “Gender, type of DMT, treatment duration, and CIS symptom did not differ significantly between groups,” they reported.

The data “should not encourage patients to generally stop DMTs after a long NEDA period,” they noted.

In the context of shared patient decision-making, though, the data can inform discussion with patients who wish to discontinue DMTS after long disease-free periods, Dr. Monschein said.

“Physicians should encourage younger people to stay on DMTS despite long lasting NEDA status while in patients [older than] 40 years stopping DMTs together with regular clinical and radiological monitoring could be a reasonable option,” he and his colleagues advised.

Dr. Monschein reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Monschein T et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P654.