Imatinib in combination with everolimus in patients with progressive advanced chordoma: results form an Italian phase 2 clinical trial

n/

2018 ESMO Sarcoma and GIST Symposium: take-home messages' in soft tissue sarcoma

The 7th edition of the ESMO Sarcoma and GIST Symposium' was held in Milan in February 2018. For the first time, the Symposium brought together representatives from the European Reference Network on rare adult solid cancer (EURACAN) joined by sarcoma experts from the USA, Japan and patient advocacy groups, to share insights and discuss future directions in this rare condition. This commentary will summarise the highlights in soft tissue sarcomas

Fibroblastic growth factor receptor 1 amplification in osteosarcoma is associated with poor response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy.

Osteosarcoma, the most common primary bone sarcoma, is a genetically complex disease with no widely accepted biomarker to allow stratification of patients for treatment. After a recent report of one osteosarcoma cell line and one tumor exhibiting fibroblastic growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) gene amplification, the aim of this work was to assess the frequency of FGFR1 amplification in a larger cohort of osteosarcoma and to determine if this biomarker could be used for stratification of patients for treatment. About 352 osteosarcoma samples from 288 patients were analyzed for FGFR1 amplification by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. FGFR1 amplification was detected in 18.5% of patients whose tumors revealed a poor response to chemotherapy, and no patients whose tumors responded well to therapy harbored this genetic alteration. FGFR1 amplification is present disproportionately in the rarer histological variants of osteosarcoma. This study provides a rationale for inclusion of patients with osteosarcoma in clinical trials using FGFR kinase inhibitors

Imatinib dose escalation versus sunitinib as a second line treatment in KIT exon 11 mutated GIST : a retrospective analysis

We retrospectively reviewed data from 123 patients (KIT exon 11 mutated) who received sunitinib or dose-escalated imatinib as second line. All patients progressed on imatinib (400 mg/die) and received a second line treatment with imatinib (800 mg/die) or sunitinib (50 mg/die 4 weeks on/2 offor 37.5 mg/day). Deletion versus other KIT 11 mutation was recorded, correlated with clinical benefits. 64% received imatinib, 36% sunitinib. KIT exon 11 mutation was available in 94 patients. With a median follow-up of 61 months, median time to progression (TTP) in patients receiving sunitinib and imatinib was 10 (95% CI 9.7-10.9) and 5 months (95% CI 3.6-6.7) respectively (P = 0.012). No difference was found in overall survival (OS) (P = 0.883). In imatinib arm, KIT exon 11 deletions was associated with a shorter TTP (7 vs 17 months; P = 0.02), with a trend in OS (54 vs 71 months P = 0.063). No difference was found in patients treated with sunitinib (P = 0.370). A second line with sunitinib was associated with an improved TTP in KIT exon 11 mutated patients progressing on imatinib 400 mg/die. Deletions in exon 11 seemed to be correlated with worse outcome in patients receiving imatinib-based second line

Ultra-rare sarcomas: a consensus paper from the Connective Tissue Oncology Society community of experts on the incidence threshold and the list of entities

Background Among sarcomas, which are rare cancers, many types are exceedingly rare; however, a definition of ultra-rare cancers has not been established. The problem of ultra-rare sarcomas is particularly relevant because they represent unique diseases, and their rarity poses major challenges for diagnosis, understanding disease biology, generating clinical evidence to support new drug development, and achieving formal authorization for novel therapies.Methods The Connective Tissue Oncology Society promoted a consensus effort in November 2019 to establish how to define ultra-rare sarcomas through expert consensus and epidemiologic data and to work out a comprehensive list of these diseases. The list of ultra-rare sarcomas was based on the 2020 World Health Organization classification, The incidence rates were estimated using the Information Network on Rare Cancers (RARECARENet) database and NETSARC (the French Sarcoma Network's clinical-pathologic registry). Incidence rates were further validated in collaboration with the Asian cancer registries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.Results It was agreed that the best criterion for a definition of ultra-rare sarcomas would be incidence. Ultra-rare sarcomas were defined as those with an incidence of approximately <= 1 per 1,000,000, to include those entities whose rarity renders them extremely difficult to conduct well powered, prospective clinical studies. On the basis of this threshold, a list of ultra-rare sarcomas was defined, which comprised 56 soft tissue sarcoma types and 21 bone sarcoma types.conclusions Altogether, the incidence of ultra-rare sarcomas accounts for roughly 20% of all soft tissue and bone sarcomas. This confirms that the challenges inherent in ultra-rare sarcomas affect large numbers of patients.Experimentele farmacotherapi

Analisi preliminare dell’ittiofauna dell’insediamento dell’età del Bronzo di Canàr

Collana Padusa - Quaderni,

Networking in rare cancers : what was done, what&apos;s next

Rare cancers represent approximately one fourth of all cancers. Despite being a heterogeneous group of diseases, they share similar problems including lack of expertise, issues in quality of care, discrepancies in outcome and limitations in research. Traditionally, centralization of rare cancer patients to dedicated reference centres has been recommended to ensure expertise, multidisciplinarity and access to innovation. However, centralization entails health migration, rationing of resources and a potential failure in routine care. By ensuring appropriate care to all patients regardless the point of access, networking seems the most appropriate answer to the problem of rare cancers. The launch of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers as well as the recent establishment of the European Reference Networks represent for the first time a concrete opportunity to make networking a reality and ultimately reduce disparities and improve outcome in these diseases

Pazopanib in advanced desmoplastic small round cell tumours: a multi-institutional experience

Contains fulltext : 136490.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: We retrospectively reviewed data from nine pre-treated metastatic desmoplastic small round cell tumour (DSRCT) patients who received pazopanib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three patients received pazopanib within the EORTC phase II 62043, three in the EORTC phase III 62072, and three in the context of UK named patient program. RESULTS: Nine patients were retrieved from the databases, the median age was 30 years (range: 21-47), they were all males. All had received prior chemotherapy. At the time of treatment start, 4 patients (44%) had ECOG PS 0, 4 (44%) PS 1, 1 (11%) PS 2. Best response was partial response (PR) in 2/9 (22%) patients, stable disease (SD) in 5/9 (56%) and progressive disease (PD) in 2/9 (22%) with a clinical benefit rate (PR + SD > 12 weeks) of 78%. Median PFS and OS were 9.2 (95%CI: 0-23.2) and 15.4 (95%CI: 1.5-29.3) months respectively. With a median follow-up of 20 months, 2/9 (22%) patients are still alive, all progressed. The most common toxicities included neutropenia (G1-2 45%; G3-4 11%), anaemia (G1-2 45%), fatigue (G1-2 67%), diarrhoea (G1-2 45%; G3-4 11%), nausea (G1-2 45%), hypertension (G1-2 45%) and increase in liver enzymes (G1-2 34%; G3-4 11%). Three patients (34%) required a dose reduction. One of the patients discontinued treatment because of persistent increase in total bilirubin level, one due to patient's choice. CONCLUSION: In this series, pazopanib showed interesting activity in DSRCT patients who progressed after prior chemotherapy without major toxicity

Survival of adults with cancers of bone or soft tissue in Europe&#8212;Report from the EUROCARE-5 study

Background: Five-year relative survival (RS) of adults with bone and soft-tissue cancers in Europe was still <60% by 1995-1999. There was large geographical survival variability, mainly for bone tumours, and survival decreased with increasing age at diagnosis. Methods: Data from 87 population-based cancer registries in 29 countries, extracted from the EUROCARE-5 database, were used to provide updated estimates of survival and describe trends in survival of adults with cancers of these sites across Europe. We calculated 5-year RS for patients diagnosed in 2000\u20132007. We estimated 5-year RS by the period approach to assess changes in survival between 1999\u20132001, 2002\u20132004 and 2005\u20132007, and provide reliable predictions for recently diagnosed patients. Results: Five-year RS was 60% for adults diagnosed with soft-tissue cancer in 2000\u20132007 and 53% for those with bone cancer. RS declined with increasing age at diagnosis, especially for bone cancer. Survival from bone cancer varied widely between European regions, from 63 to 62% in Northern and Central Europe to 39% in Eastern Europe. Inter-regional variation was much less for soft-tissue cancer. For both site groupings, there was little evidence of change in five-year RS up to 2002\u20132004, followed by increases of 3\u20134% during 2005\u20132007. Conclusions: Outcomes for adults with bone and soft-tissue cancer in Europe began to improve around 2005; new therapeutic developments are expected to result in further progress. Survival improvements already achieved must be brought more fully to elderly patients and those in Eastern Europe. European Reference Networks on rare cancers will have a vital role in future progress

Adequate Local Control in High-Risk Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremity Treated with Surgery Alone at a Reference Centre : Should Radiotherapy Still be a Standard?

BACKGROUND: Established practice for the management of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity and trunk wall combines perioperative radiotherapy (RT) with limb-preserving surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore whether high-quality surgery at high-volume centers may offer equivalent local control in selected cases, when RT needs to be avoided. METHODS: All consecutive adult cases of primary, high-risk STSs treated in a high-volume reference center over a 12-year timeframe were included, and, on retrospective analysis, were divided into two groups. Group A received RT with surgery, and Group B received surgery alone. The primary endpoint was local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). RESULTS: Overall, 390 patients were included (318 in Group A and 72 in Group B), with a median follow-up of 53 months. The main reasons for avoiding RT were patient choice and technical considerations (vascular bypass or flap reconstruction). No difference in R0 resection was seen between the groups (79% vs. 70%; p = 0.18), but Group A had more G3 tumors (80.5% vs. 68%; p = 0.021). No difference in 5-year LRFS was evident (84% vs. 81%; p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: LRFS did not differ between patients with high-risk STSs receiving perioperative RT and those treated with surgery alone. The study was retrospective and omission of RT was largely uncontrolled with inherent bias. Nonetheless, data suggest that in experienced centers, the omission of RT did not diminish local disease outcome. Future studies on a selective approach to RT administration are awaited