A new journal... on spindle cells

Welcome to Clinical Sarcoma Research a new open access, online medical journal providing a forum for clinical knowledge on rare solid cancers - sarcomas. We believe there is a vacuum, which this effort may hope to fill at least in part. Indeed, we ought to share first-hand medical experience and clinically meaningful translational ideas much more within the sarcoma community worldwide. This journal is intended to be one of the many tools we need for this purpose

Is rare cancer care organized at national health system level? Multiple case study in six EU countries

Background: As a system of European Reference Networks (ERNs) emerges, we aimed to shed light on the processes through which reference centres (RCs) for rare cancers are embedded in national health systems, and to formulate hypotheses about which national care models favour equitable access for patients. Methods We used a multiple-case-study design based on the experiences of Czechia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania and Spain. Using sarcoma as an example of rare cancer, 52 semi-structured interviews were conducted during six on-site visits. Results The comparative analysis showed substantial heterogeneity in the processes for formalising RCs status and in their levels of integration in the different health systems, but two models, namely, the centre-based and the network-based, can be envisaged at national level. RCs for rare cancers were legally established only in France and Spain. Expert clinicians cooperate in a structured way, using network mechanisms, in France and Italy, and these countries, plus Finland and Lithuania, had a referral system to facilitate patients' access from non-expert centres to RCs. Comparative analysis of the cases enabled the identification of key healthcare planning principles in instituting RCs at the national level, among them the need to stipulate the involvement of expert professionals in steering the rare cancer care system

Corrigendum to "Mechanisms of responsiveness to and resistance against trabectedin in murine models of human myxoid liposarcoma" [Genomics Volume 113, Issue 5, September 2021, Pages 3439–3448]

n/

Current status and unanswered questions on the use of Denosumab in giant cell tumor of bone

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody to RANK ligand approved for use in giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone. Due to its efficacy, Denosumab is recommended as the first option in inoperable or metastatic GCT. Denosumab has also been used pre-operatively to downstage tumours with large soft tissue extension to allow for less morbid surgery. The role of Denosumab for conventional limb GCT of bone is yet to be defined. Further studies are required to determine whether local recurrence rates will be decreased with the adjuvant use of Denosumab along with surgery. The long term use and toxicity of this agent is unknown as is the proportion of patients with primary or secondary resistance. It is advised that complicated cases of GCT requiring Denosumab treatment should be referred and followed up at expert centres. Collaborative studies involving further clinical trials and rigorous data collection are strongly recommended to identify the optimum use of this drug

Biosimilars: a position paper of the European Society for Medical Oncology, with particular reference to oncology prescribers.

Biosimilars present a necessary and timely opportunity for physicians, patients and healthcare systems. If suitably developed clinically, manufactured to the correct standards and used appropriately, they can positively impact on the financial sustainability of healthcare systems. A critical consideration regarding the introduction of biosimilars into the clinic centres on the required information concerning all the respective procedures. This position paper aims to describe the issues revolving around biosimilars that are relevant to the field of oncology, especially the prescribers. More specifically, we discuss aspects related to definition, forms of biosimilars, labelling, extrapolation, interchangeability, switching, automatic substitution, clinical standards on safety and efficacy, responsibilities among prescribers and pharmacists, potential impact on financial burden in healthcare and the current scenario and future prospects of biosimilars in Europe and the rest of the world

Personalization of regorafenib treatment in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours in real-life clinical practice

Background: Regorafenib (REG) has now been approved as the standard third-line therapy in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients at the recommended dose and schedule of 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. However, it has a relevant toxicity profile that mainly occurs within the first cycles of therapy, and dose and schedule adjustments are often required to reduce the frequency or severity of adverse events and to avoid early treatment discontinuation. To date, large amounts of data on the use of REG in metastatic GIST patients in daily clinical practice are not available, and we lack information about how this treatment personalization really affects the quality of life (QoL) of patients. The aim of the present retrospective study is to build a comprehensive picture of all alternative REG strategies adopted in daily clinical practice for use in metastatic GIST patients. Methods: Metastatic GIST patients treated with dose adjustment or alternative schedules of REG at seven reference Italian centres were retrospectively included. Results: For a total of 62 metastatic GIST patients, we confirmed that REG treatment adjustment is common in clinical practice and that it is very heterogeneous, with approximately 20 different strategies being adopted. Independent of which strategy is chosen, treatment personalization has led to a clinical benefit defined as complete or partial resolution of side effects in almost all patients, affecting the duration of REG treatment. Conclusions: The personalization of REG, even if it is heterogeneous, seems to be crucial to maximize the overall treatment duration

Systemic therapies in advanced epithelioid haemangioendothelioma: A retrospective international case series from the World Sarcoma Network and a review of literature

[Background] This observational, retrospective effort across Europe, US, Australia, and Asia aimed to assess the activity of systemic therapies in EHE, an ultra-rare sarcoma, marked by WWTR1-CAMTA1 or YAP1-TFE3 fusions.[Methods] Twenty sarcoma reference centres contributed data. Patients with advanced EHE diagnosed from 2000 onwards and treated with systemic therapies, were selected. Local pathologic review and molecular confirmation were required. Radiological response was retrospectively assessed by local investigators according to RECIST. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.[Results] Overall, 73 patients were included; 21 had more than one treatment. Thirty-three patients received anthracyclines regimens, achieving 1 (3%) partial response (PR), 25 (76%) stable disease (SD), 7 (21%) progressive disease (PD). The median (m-) PFS and m-OS were 5.5 and 14.3 months respectively. Eleven patients received paclitaxel, achieving 1 (9%) PR, 6 (55%) SD, 4 (36%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were 2.9 and 18.6 months, respectively. Twelve patients received pazopanib, achieving 3 (25%) SD, 9 (75%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were.2.9 and 8.5 months, respectively. Fifteen patients received INF-α 2b, achieving 1 (7%) PR, 11 (73%) SD, 3 (20%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were 8.9 months and 64.3, respectively. Among 27 patients treated with other regimens, 1 PR (ifosfamide) and 9 SD (5 gemcitabine +docetaxel, 2 oral cyclophosphamide, 2 others) were reported.[Conclusion] Systemic therapies available for advanced sarcomas have limited activity in EHE. The identification of new active compounds, especially for rapidly progressive cases, is acutely needed.Peer reviewe

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

The sacral chordoma margin

[Objective]: Aim of the manuscript is to discuss how to improve margins in sacral chordoma. [Background]: Chordoma is a rare neoplasm, arising in half cases from the sacrum, with reported local failure in >50% after surgery. [Methods]: A multidisciplinary meeting of the “Chordoma Global Consensus Group” was held in Milan in 2017, focusing on challenges in defining and achieving optimal margins in chordoma with respect to surgery, definitive particle radiation therapy (RT) and medical therapies. This review aims to report on the outcome of the consensus meeting and to provide a summary of the most recent evidence in this field. Possible new ways forward, including on-going international clinical studies, are discussed. [Results]: En-bloc tumor-sacrum resection is the cornerstone of treatment of primary sacral chordoma, aiming to achieve negative microscopic margins. Radical definitive particle therapy seems to offer a similar outcome compared to surgery, although confirmation in comparative trials is lacking; besides there is still a certain degree of technical variability across institutions, corresponding to different fields of treatment and different tumor coverage. To address some of these questions, a prospective, randomized international study comparing surgery versus definitive high-dose RT is ongoing. Available data do not support the routine use of any medical therapy as (neo)adjuvant/cytoreductive treatment. [Conclusion]: Given the significant influence of margins status on local control in patients with primary localized sacral chordoma, the clear definition of adequate margins and a standard local approach across institutions for both surgery and particle RT is vital for improving the management of these patients