Pathogenesis and current treatment of osteosarcoma: Perspectives for future therapies

Osteosarcoma is the most common primary malignant bone tumor in children and young adults. The standard-of-care curative treatment for osteosarcoma utilizes doxorubicin, cisplatin, and high-dose methotrexate, a standard that has not changed in more than 40 years. The development of patient-specific therapies requires an in-depth understanding of the unique genetics and biology of the tumor. Here, we discuss the role of normal bone biology in osteosarcomagenesis, highlighting the factors that drive normal osteoblast production, as well as abnormal osteosarcoma development. We then describe the pathology and current standard of care of osteosarcoma. Given the complex heterogeneity of osteosarcoma tumors, we explore the development of novel therapeutics for osteosarcoma that encompass a series of molecular targets. This analysis of pathogenic mechanisms will shed light on promising avenues for future therapeutic research in osteosarcoma

Neoadjuvant ifosfamide and epirubicin in the treatment of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors

Background and Objectives. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) are aggressive soft tissue sarcomas with poor overall survival. Response to chemotherapy has been debated for these tumors. Methods. We performed a retrospective analysis of the patients at our institution with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of MPNST that underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to surgery. Results. We retrospectively identified five patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with epirubicin and ifosfamide that demonstrated a 30% reduction in tumor growth and a 60% response rate by RECIST criteria. Additionally, a metabolic response was observed in all three patients who received serial PET scans during neoadjuvant treatment. The clinical benefit rate, which includes stable disease, was 100%. Conclusions. Our data suggest that MPNSTs do respond to epirubicin and ifosfamide based chemotherapy and prospective studies are warranted to further define the clinical benefit

Systemic and local immunity following adoptive transfer of NY-ESO-1 SPEAR T cells in synovial sarcoma

BACKGROUND: Gene-modified autologous T cells expressing NY-ESO-1 METHODS: Four cohorts were included to evaluate antigen expression and preconditioning on efficacy. Clinical responses were assessed by RECIST v1.1. Engineered T-cell persistence was determined by qPCR. Serum cytokines were evaluated by immunoassay. Transcriptomic analyses and immunohistochemistry were performed on tumor biopsies from patients before and after T-cell infusion. Gene-modified T-cells were detected within the TME via an RNAish assay. RESULTS: Responses across cohorts were affected by preconditioning and intra-tumoral NY-ESO-1 expression. Of the 42 patients reported (data cut-off 4June2018), 1 patient had a complete response, 14 patients had partial responses, 24 patients had stable disease, and 3 patients had progressive disease. The magnitude of gene-modified T-cell expansion shortly after infusion was associated with response in patients with high intra-tumoral NY-ESO-1 expression. Patients receiving a fludarabine-containing conditioning regimen experienced increases in serum IL-7 and IL-15. Prior to infusion, the TME exhibited minimal leukocyte infiltration; CD163 CONCLUSIONS: Our studies elucidate some factors that underpin response and resistance to NY-ESO-1 SPEAR T-cell therapy. From these data, we conclude that a lymphodepletion regimen containing high doses of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide is necessary for SPEAR T-cell persistence and efficacy. Furthermore, these data demonstrate that non-T-cell inflamed tumors, which are resistant to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, can be treated with adoptive T-cell based immunotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01343043 , Registered 27 April 2011

Nirogacestat, a γ-secretase inhibitor for desmoid tumors

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumors are rare, locally aggressive, highly recurrent soft-tissue tumors without approved treatments. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of nirogacestat in adults with progressing desmoid tumors according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive the oral γ-secretase inhibitor nirogacestat (150 mg) or placebo twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: From May 2019 through August 2020, a total of 70 patients were assigned to receive nirogacestat and 72 to receive placebo. Nirogacestat had a significant progression-free survival benefit over placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.55; P\u3c0.001); the likelihood of being event-free at 2 years was 76% with nirogacestat and 44% with placebo. Between-group differences in progression-free survival were consistent across prespecified subgroups. The percentage of patients who had an objective response was significantly higher with nirogacestat than with placebo (41% vs. 8%; P\u3c0.001), with a median time to response of 5.6 months and 11.1 months, respectively; the percentage of patients with a complete response was 7% and 0%, respectively. Significant between-group differences in secondary patient-reported outcomes, including pain, symptom burden, physical or role functioning, and health-related quality of life, were observed (P≤0.01). Frequent adverse events with nirogacestat included diarrhea (in 84% of the patients), nausea (in 54%), fatigue (in 51%), hypophosphatemia (in 42%), and maculopapular rash (in 32%); 95% of adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. Among women of childbearing potential receiving nirogacestat, 27 of 36 (75%) had adverse events consistent with ovarian dysfunction, which resolved in 20 women (74%). CONCLUSIONS: Nirogacestat was associated with significant benefits with respect to progression-free survival, objective response, pain, symptom burden, physical functioning, role functioning, and health-related quality of life in adults with progressing desmoid tumors. Adverse events with nirogacestat were frequent but mostly low grade. (Funded by SpringWorks Therapeutics; DeFi ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785964.)

Unmet medical needs and future perspectives for leiomyosarcoma patients-A position paper from the National LeioMyoSarcoma Foundation (NLMSF) and Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN)

As leiomyosarcoma patients are challenged by the development of metastatic disease, effective systemic therapies are the cornerstone of outcome. However, the overall activity of the currently available conventional systemic treatments and the prognosis of patients with advanced or metastatic disease are still poor, making the treatment of this patient group challenging. Therefore, in a joint effort together with patient networks and organizations, namely Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN), the international network of sarcoma patients organizations, and the National LeioMyoSarcoma Foundation (NLMSF) in the United States, we aim to summarize state-of-the-art treatments for leiomyosarcoma patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and current unmet needs, thereby guiding the community to design innovative clinical trials and basic research and close these research gaps. This position paper arose from a leiomyosarcoma research meeting in October 2020 hosted by the NLMSF and SPAEN

Selinexor in advanced, metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma: A multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE: Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS: SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461). RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation o

Real-world outcomes of patients with locally advanced or metastatic epithelioid sarcoma

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the real-world effectiveness and safety of systemic therapies for advanced (surgically unresectable and/or metastatic) epithelioid sarcoma (ES). METHODS: A retrospective medical records review was conducted in patients with advanced ES who were initiating first-line or ≥2 lines of systemic therapy (2000-2017) at 5 US cancer centers. The real-world overall response rate (rwORR), the duration of response (rwDOR), the disease control rate (rwDCR) (defined as stable disease for ≥32 weeks or any duration of response), and progression-free survival (rwPFS) were assessed by radiology reports. Overall survival (OS), rwDOR, and rwPFS were estimated from the time therapy was initiated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Serious adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: Of 74 patients (median age at diagnosis, 33 years; range, 10.6-76.3 years), 72% were male, and 85% had metastatic disease. The median number of lines of therapy was 2 (range, 1-7 lines of therapy), and 46 patients (62%) received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. First-line regimens were usually anthracycline-based (54%) or gemcitabine-based (24%). For patients receiving first-line systemic therapy, the rwORR was 15%, the rwDCR was 20%, the median rwDOR was 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.1-5.2 months), the median rwPFS was 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.7, 6.9 months), and the median OS was 15.2 months (95% CI, 11.4-21.7 months). For those who received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy, the rwORR was 9%, the rwDCR was 20%, the median rwDOR was 4.5 months (95% CI, 0.7-5.6 months), and the median rwPFS was 6.0 months (95% CI, 3.2-7.4 months). Over one-half of patients (51.4%) experienced an adverse event, most frequently febrile neutropenia (14%), pain (10%), anemia, dyspnea, fever, thrombocytopenia, or transaminitis (5% each). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies demonstrate limited efficacy in patients with advanced ES and have associated toxicities