Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals.

BackgroundA previous analysis of 113 National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recommendations reported that NCCN frequently recommends beyond Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (44 off-label recommendations) and claimed that the evidence for these recommendations was weak.MethodsIn order to determine the strength of the evidence, we carried out an in-depth re-analysis of the 44 off-label recommendations listed in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®).ResultsOf the 44 off-label recommendations, 14 were later approved by the FDA and/or are supported by randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. In addition, 13 recommendations were either very minor extrapolations from the FDA label (n = 8) or were actually on-label (n = 5). Of the 17 remaining extrapolations, 8 were for mechanism-based agents applied in rare cancers or subsets with few available treatment options (median response rate = 43%), 7 were based on non-RCT data showing significant efficacy (>50% response rates), and 2 were later removed from the NCCN Guidelines because newer therapies with better activity and/or safety became available.ConclusionOff-label drug use is a frequent component of care for patients with cancer in the United States. Our findings indicate that when the NCCN recommends beyond the FDA-approved indications, the strength of the evidence supporting such recommendations is robust, with a significant subset of these drugs later becoming FDA approved or supported by RCT. Recommendations without RCT data are often for mechanism-based drugs with high response rates in rare cancers or subsets without effective therapies

Phase II Trial of Dolastatin-10, a Novel Anti-Tubulin Agent, in Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Patients:Soft tissue sarcomas are uncommon malignancies with few therapeutic options for recurrent or metastatic disease. Dolastatin-10 (Dol-10) is a pentapeptide anti-microtubule agent that binds to tubulin sites distinct from vinca alkaloids. Based on the novel mechanism of action, limited activity of other anti-microtubular agents, and anti-neoplastic activity in pre-clinical screening of Dol-10, this multi-institutional phase II study was conducted to determine the objective response rate of Dol-10 in recurrent or metastatic soft tissue sarcomas that had not been treated with chemotherapy outside of the adjuvant setting

Imatinib Mesylate: Past Successes and Future Challenges in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Just over a decade ago, gastrointestinal tumours were a poorly understood mesenchymal neoplasm unsuccessfully treated with chemotherapy. Cytotoxic therapy for advanced disease yielded response rates of 10% and median survival of just 18 months. However, the discovery of KIT and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) mutations as oncogenic drivers of most gastrointestinal tumours, paved the way for targeted therapy. Imatinib mesylate, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, produces a clinical benefit rate (complete response, partial response, and stable disease) of more than 80% in metastatic setting and a median survival of 57 months. Imatinib is now also approved in adult patients following resection of KIT-positive GIST. Major insights into the mechanism of action of imatinib, unique pharmacokinetics, drug resistance, and management of low grade but chronic adverse effects continue to be made

Integrated Molecular Characterization of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST) Harboring the Rare D842V Mutation in PDGFRA Gene.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) carrying the D842V activating mutation in the platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) gene are a very rare subgroup of GIST (about 10%) known to be resistant to conventional tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and to show an indolent behavior. In this study, we performed an integrated molecular characterization of D842V mutant GIST by whole-transcriptome and whole-exome sequencing coupled with protein-ligand interaction modelling to identify the molecular signature and any additional recurrent genomic event related to their clinical course. We found a very specific gene expression profile of D842V mutant tumors showing the activation of G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling and a relative downregulation of cell cycle processes. Beyond D842V, no recurrently mutated genes were found in our cohort. Nevertheless, many private, clinically relevant alterations were found in each tumor (TP53, IDH1, FBXW7, SDH-complex). Molecular modeling of PDGFRA D842V suggests that the mutant protein binds imatinib with lower affinity with respect to wild-type structure, showing higher stability during the interaction with other type I TKIs (like crenolanib). D842V mutant GIST do not show any actionable recurrent molecular events of therapeutic significance, therefore this study supports the rationale of novel TKIs development that are currently being evaluated in clinical studies for the treatment of D842V mutant GIST

Avapritinib versus regorafenib in locally advanced unresectable or metastatic GI stromal tumor: A randomized, open-label phase III study

PURPOSE Primary or secondary mutations in KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) underlie tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance in most GI stromal tumors (GISTs). Avapritinib selectively and potently inhibits KIT- and PDGFRA-mutant kinases. In the phase I NAVIGATOR study (NCT02508532), avapritinib showed clinical activity against PDGFRA D842V–mutant and later-line KIT-mutant GIST. VOYAGER (NCT03465722), a phase III study, evaluated efficacy and safety of avapritinib versus regorafenib as third-line or later treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST. PATIENTS AND METHODS VOYAGER randomly assigned patients 1:1 to avapritinib 300 mg once daily (4 weeks continuously) or regorafenib 160 mg once daily (3 weeks on and 1 week off). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by central radiology per RECIST version 1.1 modified for GIST. Secondary end points included objective response rate, overall survival, safety, disease control rate, and duration of response. Regorafenib to avapritinib crossover was permitted upon centrally confirmed disease progression. RESULTS Four hundred seventy-six patients were randomly assigned (avapritinib, n 5 240; regorafenib, n 5 236). Median PFS was not statistically different between avapritinib and regorafenib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.57; 4.2 v 5.6 months; P 5 .055). Overall survival data were immature at cutoff. Objective response rates were 17.1% and 7.2%, with durations of responses of 7.6 and 9.4 months for avapritinib and regorafenib; disease control rates were 41.7% (95% CI, 35.4 to 48.2) and 46.2% (95% CI, 39.7 to 52.8). Treatment-related adverse events (any grade, grade $ 3) were similar for avapritinib (92.5% and 55.2%) and regorafenib (96.2% and 57.7%). CONCLUSION Primary end point was not met. There was no significant difference in median PFS between avapritinib and regorafenib in patients with molecularly unselected, late-line GIST

Ripretinib Versus Sunitinib in Patients With Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor After Treatment With Imatinib (INTRIGUE): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib (KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION: Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib