Should Patients with High‐Risk Soft Tissue Sarcoma Receive Adjuvant Chemotherapy?

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139941/1/onco1003.pd

Selection of Response Criteria for Clinical Trials of Sarcoma Treatment

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139995/1/onco0032.pd

The epidemiology of malignant giant cell tumors of bone: an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (1975–2004)

Malignant giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is a rare tumor with debilitating consequences. Patients with GCT of bone typically present with mechanical difficulty and pain as a result of bone destruction and are at an increased risk for fracture. Because of its unusual occurrence, little is known about the epidemiology of malignant GCT of bone. This report offers the first reliable population-based estimates of incidence, patient demographics, treatment course and survival for malignancy in GCT of bone in the United States. Using data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program, we estimated the overall incidence and determinants of survival among patients diagnosed with malignant GCT of bone from 1975–2004. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate demographic and clinical determinants of survival among malignant GCT cases. Based on analyses of 117 malignant GCT cases, the estimated annual incidence in the United States was 1.6 per 10,000,000 persons per year. Incidence was highest among adults aged 20 to 44 years (2.4 per 10,000,000 per year) and most patients were diagnosed with localized (31.6%) or regional (29.9%) disease compared to distant disease (16.2%). Approximately 85% of patients survived at least 5 years, with survival poorest among older patients and those with evidence of distant metastases at time of diagnosis. The current study represents the largest systematic investigation examining the occurrence and distribution of malignancy in GCT of bone in the general U.S. population. We confirm its rare occurrence and suggest that age and stage at diagnosis are strongly associated with long-term survival

Chordoma: The Nonsarcoma Primary Bone Tumor

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139965/1/onco1344.pd

Histologic Alterations from Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in High‐Grade Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Clinicopathological Correlation

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139918/1/onco0451.pd

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Expression and Mutational Analysis in Synovial Sarcomas and Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140003/1/onco0459.pd

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

Phase II Study of Sequential Gemcitabine Followed by Docetaxel for Recurrent Ewing Sarcoma, Osteosarcoma, or Unresectable or Locally Recurrent Chondrosarcoma: Results of Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration Study 003

Background.Gemcitabine and docetaxel have a broad spectrum of clinical activity in patients with carcinoma. The Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration conducted a phase II trial of gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel in children and adults with recurrent Ewing sarcoma (EWS), osteosarcoma (OS), or unresectable or recurrent chondrosarcoma. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).Methods.Gemcitabine (675 mg/m2 i.v. over 90 minutes on days 1 and 8) was administered in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 hour on day 8) every 21 days. All patients received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. A Bayesian formulation was used to determine the probability of achieving the target response rate for each subtype—0.35 for EWS and OS or 0.20 for chondrosarcoma. If the probability of achieving the target response rate was <0.05, the combination was considered inactive. Toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0.Results.Fifty‐three eligible patients were enrolled in the three subtype groups—OS (n = 14), EWS (n = 14), and chondrosarcoma (n = 25). Toxicities included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, dyspnea, bronchospasm, edema, neuropathy, and liver function abnormalities. Dose modification for toxicity was required for eight patients during cycle 1 and 16 patients in subsequent cycles. Seven patients withdrew from therapy as a result of toxicity. No complete responses were observed. Partial responses were observed in OS (n = 1), EWS (n = 2), and chondrosarcoma (n = 2) patients.Conclusion.Gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel was associated with a probability of reaching the target 35% response rate of <5% in OS patients and 5.6% in EWS patients; the probability of reaching a 20% response rate in chondrosarcoma patients was 14%.摘要背景. 吉西他滨与多西他赛对癌症患者有广谱的临床疗效。 肉瘤研究联盟协作组在复发的尤文肉瘤 （EWS）、 骨肉瘤 （OS）、 不可切除或复发的软骨肉瘤成人和儿童患者中开展了吉西他滨联合多西他赛的 II 期试验。 主要目的为通过实体瘤疗效评估标准 （RECIST） 确定客观缓解率。方法. 吉西他滨 （675 mg/m2， 静脉滴注 90 分钟以上， 第 1 和 8 天） 联合多西他赛 （75 mg/m2， 静脉滴注 1 小时以上， 第 8 天） 每 21 天给药 1 次。 全部患者均同时接受非格司亭或乙二醇化非格司亭。 利用贝叶斯公式来确定各个亚型达到目标缓解率的概率——EWS 和 OS 为 0.35， 软骨肉瘤为 0.20。 如果达到目标缓解率的概率 < 0.05， 则认为联合方案无效。 毒性反应根据不良事件通用术语标准 （CTCAE） 3.0 版来分级。结果. 53 例合格患者入组 3 个亚型组 ： OS （n=14）、 EWS （n=14）、 软骨肉瘤 （n=25）。 毒性反应包括中性粒细胞减少、 血小板减少、 乏力、 呼吸困难、 支气管痉挛、 水肿、 神经病变以及肝功能异常。 第 1 个周期有 8 例患者、 其后周期有 16 例患者因毒性反应而需要剂量调整。 7 例患者因毒性反应而撤出治疗。 未观察到完全缓解。 OS （n=1）、 EWS （n=2） 和软骨肉瘤 （n=2） 组均有患者达到部分缓解。结论. 吉西他滨联合多西他赛在 < 5% 的 OS 患者、 5.6% 的 EWS 患者中达到目标缓解率的概率为 35%； 14% 软骨肉瘤患者中达到目标缓解率的概率为 20%。讨论. 贝叶斯公式能够评估各个亚型在分别进行缓解率评估后预测达到目标缓解率的概率。 通过多角度来看这些数据， 在考量达到目标缓解率的概率以及入组率之后即能发现本研究设计方案阻碍了研究的继续开展。 因为这一设计方案并未设定判断治疗为 “有效” 的规则， 所以并不适合与标准的分 2 阶段进行的 II 期试验设计直接比较。 关闭 EWS 和软骨肉瘤亚组的决定， 某种程度上是基于入组缓慢， 另外达到目标缓解率的概率较低也支持这一决定。 入组率而不是统计设计， 对试验周期有显著影响。The Oncologist 2012;17:321‐e329Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/1/onco0321-sup-0002.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/2/onco0321-sup-0001.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/3/onco0321.pd

Health-related quality of life and pain with selinexor in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma

[Objective] Compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of selinexor versus placebo in patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma.[Materials & methods] HRQoL was assessed at baseline and day 1 of each cycle using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire. Results were reported from baseline to day 169 (where exposure to treatment was maximized while maintaining adequate sample size).[Results] Pain scores worsened for placebo versus selinexor across all postbaseline visits, although differences in HRQoL at some visits were not significant. Other domains did not exhibit significant differences between arms; however, scores in both arms deteriorated over time.[Conclusion] Patients treated with selinexor reported lower rates and slower worsening of pain compared with patients who received placebo.This study was funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. M Gounder: reports an institutional research grant from Karyopharm, personal fees from Karyopharm, Epizyme, Springworks, Daiichi, Bayer, Amgen, Tracon, Flatiron, Medscape, Physicians Education Resource, Guidepoint, GLG and UpToDate; and grants from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (P30CA008748) – core grant (CCSG shared resources and core facility). ARA Razak: consulting/Ad board: Merck & Adaptimmune Research support: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Pfizer, Adaptimmune, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medimmune, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Iterion Therapeutics. AM Gilligan: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. H Leong: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. X Ma: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. N Somaiah: consultant for Deciphera, Blueprint, Bayer Research Support from Ascentage, Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm and GSK. SP Chawla: consultant for Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC: Sarcoma Alliance for Research though Collaboration, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, NKMax, InhibRx. Grants or contracts from Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC: Sarcoma Alliance for Research though Collaboration, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, InhibRx, NKMax. G Grignani: consultant for Eli Lilly, Novartis, Glaxo, Pharmamar, EISAI, Bayer, Merck. SM Schuetze: consultant – NanoCarrier, UpToDate. Research funding to institution – Adaptimmune, Amgen, Blueprint, Glaxo-SmithKline, Karyopharm. B Vincenzi: Consultant for Pharmamar Eisai, Lilly, Abbott, Novartis, Accord AJ Wagner: consultant for Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, NovoCarrier, Mundipharma, and Research Support to My Institution from Aadi Bioscience, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm and Plexxikon. RL Jones: consultant for Adaptimmune, Athenex, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Lilly, Merck, Pharmamar, Springworks, Tracon, Upto Date. J Shah: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. S Shacham: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. M Kauffman: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. RF Riedel: ownership - Limbguard, LLC (Spouse); Institutional Clinical Research Support - AADi, AROG, Blueprint, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Glaxo-SmithKline, Karyopharm, Ignyta, Immune Design, NanoCarrier, Oncternal, Philogen, Plexxikon, Roche, Springworks, Tracon; Consultant/Advisor - Bayer, Blueprint, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Ignyta, NanoCarrier. S Attia: reports research funding from Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation and research funding to their institution from: AB Science, TRACON Pharma, Bayer, Novartis, Lilly, Immune Design, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Epizyme, Blueprint Medicines, Genmab, CBA Pharma, Merck, Philogen, Gradalis, Deciphera, Takeda, Incyte, Springworks, Adaptimmune, Advenchen Laboratories, Bavarian Nordic, BTG, PTC Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, FORMA Therapeutics. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.Peer reviewe