Primary Cardiac Sarcoma: A Rare, Aggressive Malignancy with a High Propensity for Brain Metastases.

Introduction: Primary cardiac sarcoma (PCS) has a poor prognosis compared to other sarcomas due to late presentation, challenging resection, incidence of metastases, and limited efficacy of systemic therapies. Methods: A medical record search engine was queried to identify patients diagnosed with PCS from 1992 to 2017 at the University of Michigan. Results: Thirty-nine patients with PCS had a median age of 41 years (range 2-77). Common histologies were angiosarcoma (AS, 14), high-grade undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS, 10), and leiomyosarcoma (LMS, 5). Sites of origin were left atrium (18), right atrium (16), and pericardium (5). AS was the most common right-sided tumor; UPS was more common on the left. Eighteen patients presented with metastases involving lung (10), bone (7), liver (5), and brain (4). Twenty-five patients underwent resection, achieving 3 R Conclusions: PCS portends a poor prognosis, because of difficulty in obtaining complete resection of sarcoma, advanced stage at diagnosis, and high risk of brain metastases. Providers should be aware of the increased risk of brain metastases and consider brain imaging at diagnosis and follow-up

Systemic treatments in MDM2 positive intimal sarcoma: A multicentre experience with anthracycline, gemcitabine, and pazopanib within the World Sarcoma Network

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152621/1/cncr32508_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152621/2/cncr32508.pd

Development and validation of a unifying pre-treatment decision tool for intracranial and extracranial metastasis-directed radiotherapy

BackgroundThough metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has the potential to improve overall survival (OS), appropriate patient selection remains challenging. We aimed to develop a model predictive of OS to refine patient selection for clinical trials and MDT.Patients and methodsWe assembled a multi-institutional cohort of patients treated with MDT (stereotactic body radiation therapy, radiosurgery, and whole brain radiation therapy). Candidate variables for recursive partitioning analysis were selected per prior studies: ECOG performance status, time from primary diagnosis, number of additional non-target organ systems involved (NOS), and intracranial metastases.ResultsA database of 1,362 patients was assembled with 424 intracranial, 352 lung, and 607 spinal treatments (n=1,383). Treatments were split into training (TC) (70%, n=968) and internal validation (IVC) (30%, n=415) cohorts. The TC had median ECOG of 0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-1), NOS of 1 (IQR: 0-1), and OS of 18 months (IQR: 7-35). The resulting model components and weights were: ECOG = 0, 1, and > 1 (0, 1, and 2); 0, 1, and > 1 NOS (0, 1, and 2); and intracranial target (2), with lower scores indicating more favorable OS. The model demonstrated high concordance in the TC (0.72) and IVC (0.72). The score also demonstrated high concordance for each target site (spine, brain, and lung).ConclusionThis pre-treatment decision tool represents a unifying model for both intracranial and extracranial disease and identifies patients with the longest survival after MDT who may benefit most from aggressive local therapy. Carefully selected patients may benefit from MDT even in the presence of intracranial disease, and this model may help guide patient selection for MDT

The Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership: Bridging Academic and Community Networks in a Collaborative Approach to Sarcoma

The treatment of sarcoma necessitates a collaborative approach, given its rarity and complex management. At a single institution, multidisciplinary teams of specialists determine and execute treatment plans involving surgical, radiation, and medical management. Treatment guidelines for systemic therapies in advanced or nonresectable soft tissue sarcoma have advanced in recent years as new immunotherapies and targeted therapies become available. Collaboration between institutions is necessary to facilitate accrual to clinical trials. Here, we describe the success of the Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership (MWSTP) in creating a network encompassing large academic centers and local community sites. We propose a new model utilizing online platforms to expand the reach of clinical expertise for the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma

A phase III study (APROMISS) of AL3818 (Catequentinib, Anlotinib) hydrochloride monotherapy in subjects with metastatic or advanced synovial sarcoma

11505 Background: AL3818 (Catequentinib, Anlotinib) is a novel, orally administered, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The primary objective of this Phase 3 study is to evaluate the efficacy of AL3818 monotherapy in patients (pts) with synovial sarcoma (SS) comparing with dacarbazine in randomization setting. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of synovial sarcoma requiring second line or further line treatment were eligible for enrollment. The regimen was a 21-day cycle with oral AL3818 administered on 14 days on and 7 days off. This phase 3 trial is randomized in 2:1 ratio of AL3818 comparing to dacarbazine with option of crossover after PD of dacarbazine treatment. Progression free survival (PFS) with Log Rank test is the primary endpoint and this trial for SS is currently completed enrolled in US and Italy. Results: Total 79 pts initiated treatment and are evaluable, 52 received AL3818 as treatment arm (T), and 27 received dacarbazine (D) as control arm (C). Arms T/C median ages were 40.5/42.0 years (range: 18-70+) and 20/16 (38.5%/59.3%) were male. Overall, PFS was 2.89 months (95% CI: 2.73 – 6.87) for AL3818 and 1.64 (95% CI: 1.45 – 2.70) for D. The PFS of study met the primary endpoint with a p-value of 0.0015 and a HR of 0.449 (95% CI: 0.270– 0.744). At the month 4, 6, and 12, the percentages of progression free patients for AL3818 were 48.1%, 42.3% and 26.9%; and for D were 14.85%, 11.1% and 3.7%. For grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, 12(23.1%) of pts experienced for AL3818 and 7(25.9%) of pts experienced for D. The most common AL3818 related grade 3 AEs were diarrhea (5.8%) and hypertension (3.8%). Conclusions: This phase III trial demonstrates improved disease control and superior progression free survival for AL3818 vs dacarbazine in advanced SS. In addition, the study further confirms the acceptable benefit-risk profile of AL3818 from the prior randomized Phase 2b soft tissue sarcoma study (NCT02449343). AL3818 is a meaningful treatment option for pts with advanced SS. Clinical trial information: NCT 03016819 Clinical trial information: NCT03016819

ETCTN/NCI 10330: A phase 2 study of belinostat with SGI-110 (guadecitabine) or ASTX727 (decitabine/cedazuridine) for the treatment of unresectable and metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma

11531 Background: Conventional chondrosarcoma (cCS) is the 2nd most common primary bone tumor and is resistant to chemotherapy and radiation. IDH1/2 mutations (m) occur in 50% of cCS. Both IDHm and wild-type (wt) cCS harbor epigenetic dysregulation. In preclinical models of IDHm and wt cCS, combination treatment with HDAC and DNMT inhibitors (i) suppressed growth in vitro and in vivo by reversing the hypermethylated state and inducing tumor suppressors, interferon response genes and apoptosis (Sheikh T, Schwartz G. Mol Cancer Ther 2021;20). Methods: NCI 10330 is a single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study evaluating the HDACi belinostat (B) with the DNMTi SGI-110 (S) or ASTX727 (A). A replaced S due to drug availability (pts were replaced). Pts had advanced cCS, ECOG PS ≤ 2 and could be treatment naïve. Progression was required for grade 1 cCS. Pts received B 1000mg/m2 IV + S 45mg/m2 SC both days 1-5 or B (same dosing) + A (cedazuridine 100mg/decitabine 35mg) PO both days 1-5, in 28-day cycles. 1° endpoint was objective response. A Simon 2-stage design was used. If ≥ 2/13 responses occurred in stage 1, the study would proceed to full accrual. Design had 85% power with α = 0.05 to test ORR 8% vs 28%. 2° endpoints included safety, PFS and OS. A safety lead-in was performed. Paired biopsies were collected. Results: Stage 1 is complete. 19 pts were treated: 6 on B+S and 13 on B+A. Median age was 50 and 67 years, respectively. All pts had prior surgery. 17% (B+S) and 38% (B+A) had prior radiation. 33% (B+S) and 55% (B+A) were IDHm. 67% (B+S) and 75% (B+A) were histologic grade ≥ 2. There were no objective responses. Best response (at 8 weeks) was stable disease (SD) in 4/6 pts (67%) on B+S and 6/10 pts (60%) on B+A. mPFS was 4.2 mos (95% CI 1.97-NR) for B+S and 3.8 mos (95% CI 2.17-NR) for B+A. mOS has not been reached. For B+A, mPFS for IDHm vs wt pts was 4.7 and 3.1 mos, respectively (p=0.21). One pt with IDHm grade 2 cCS who progressed on FT-2102 (IDH1i) remains on B+A > 1 year. There were no DLTs during either safety lead-in. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 17% (B+S) and 69% (B+A). For B+A, the most common grade 3/4 TRAE was neutropenia (54%) and the most common all-grade TRAEs were nausea (69%), leukopenia (61%), neutropenia (54%), anemia (46%) and fatigue (46%). Paired tumor biopsies are being evaluated with whole exome sequencing, RNAseq, methylation array and multiplex IHC with results forthcoming. Conclusions: Combination HDACi + DNMTi was well-tolerated in advanced cCS. There were no objective responses; however, a subset of pts experienced prolonged SD with a trend towards improved mPFS in IDHm pts. Correlative work is ongoing with a focus on differential effects on IDHm tumors and whether modulation of the immune microenvironment might support combinations with immunotherapy. Support: UM1CA186689. Clinical trial information: NCT04340843

Ripretinib versus sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: ctDNA biomarker analysis of the phase 3 INTRIGUE trial

INTRIGUE was an open-label, phase 3 study in adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib and who were randomized to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or sunitinib 50 mg. In the primary analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) with ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib. In clinical and nonclinical studies, ripretinib and sunitinib have demonstrated differential activity based on the exon location of KIT mutations. Therefore, we hypothesized that mutational analysis using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) might provide further insight. In this exploratory analysis (N = 362), baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing-based assay. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%) samples with KIT mutations in 213/362 patients (59%). Imatinib-resistant mutations were found in the KIT ATP-binding pocket (exons 13/14) and activation loop (exons 17/18). Mutational subgroup assessment showed 2 mutually exclusive populations with differential treatment effects. Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 13/14 mutations (ripretinib, n = 21; sunitinib, n = 20) had better PFS with sunitinib versus ripretinib (median, 15.0 versus 4.0 months). Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations (ripretinib, n = 27; sunitinib, n = 25) had better PFS with ripretinib versus sunitinib (median, 14.2 versus 1.5 months). The results of this exploratory analysis suggest ctDNA sequencing may improve the prediction of the efficacy of single-drug therapies and support further evaluation of ripretinib in patients with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Tolerability in Patients Receiving Ripretinib versus Sunitinib After Treatment with Imatinib in INTRIGUE, a Phase 3, Open-Label Study

In the INTRIGUE trial, ripretinib showed no significant difference versus sunitinib in progression-free survival for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) previously treated with imatinib. We compared the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at Day (D)1, and D29 of all cycles until treatment discontinuation. Change from baseline was calculated. Time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) was estimated as the mean number of days without progression, death, or grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events per patient over one year of follow-up. Questionnaire completion at baseline was 88.1% (199/226) for ripretinib and 87.7% (199/227) for sunitinib and remained high for enrolled patients throughout treatment. Patients receiving sunitinib demonstrated within-cycle variation in self-reported HRQoL, corresponding to the on/off dosing regimen. Patients receiving ripretinib reported better HRQoL at D29 assessments than patients receiving sunitinib on all scales except constipation. HRQoL was similar between treatments at D1 assessments, following two weeks without treatment for sunitinib patients. TWiST was greater for ripretinib patients (173 versus 126 days). Patients receiving ripretinib experienced better HRQoL than patients receiving sunitinib during the dosing period and similar HRQoL to patients who had not received sunitinib for two weeks for all QLQ-C30 domains except constipation. Ripretinib may provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. •Health-related quality of life was evaluated in the INTRIGUE (NCT03673501) study•Patients with advanced GIST received ripretinib or sunitinib•Patients taking ripretinib generally reported less reduction in quality of life•Patients taking ripretinib reported more time without treatment toxicity•Ripretinib may provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced GIS