Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.
A phase 1b lead-in to a randomized phase 2 trial of lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin in leiomyosarcoma (LMS).
TPS11592 Background: Single agent or combination chemotherapy regimens, typically including doxorubicin or gemcitabine, represent standard of care options for first- and second-line therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic LMS. However, response rates (ORR) and progression-free (PFS)/overall survival (OS) remain poor. Lurbinectedin (PharmaMar S.A. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals) uniquely binds DNA, inducing DNA double strand breaks leading to apoptosis and delaying progression through phase S/G2 of the cell cycle. Lurbinectedin is a novel structural analog of trabectedin with improved toxicity profile, potency, and pharmacokinetics. In a prior pilot study, we showed that the combination of lurbinectedin and doxorubicin (L+D) was safe, with early signs of clinical activity, particularly in LMS. Thus, we designed this investigator-initiated/investigator-sponsored phase 1b lead-in to optimize doses of L+D, to be followed by a randomized (1:1) phase 2 study of L+D versus doxorubicin monotherapy in anthracycline-naïve LMS. Methods: Pts age > 18 years with locally advanced or metastatic, unresectable LMS (non-GIST soft-tissue sarcoma histologies allowed in Phase 1b), without prior anthracycline or lurbinectedin/trabectedin, ECOG PS < 3, measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, and normal organ function, are eligible. Phase 1b dosing will include a fixed dose of lurbinectedin and two dose levels of doxorubicin. The Phase 1b lead-in follows a standard 3+3 design where dose escalation will occur if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experience a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Tumor assessments are conducted every two cycles. Once the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is confirmed, Phase 2 will be initiated. Fifty pts will be randomized 1:1 including doxorubicin +/- lurbinectedin. Randomization will be stratified by uterine v. non-uterine origin of LMS. Pts progressing on single agent doxorubicin will be allowed to cross over to lurbinectedin monotherapy. The Phase 2 primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary endpoints include disease control rate, ORR, OS, PFS2 (for doxorubicin monotherapy patients who cross to lurbinectedin monotherapy). Archival tumor, germline DNA, and ctDNA will be collected for correlative studies exploring genomic markers of sensitivity/resistance. We will provide respective point estimate along with 90% confidence interval for each of the arms. Log-rank test will be performed to test the difference in survival (both PFS and OS) between groups. Regression analyses of survival data will be based on the Cox proportional hazards model. The first pt in dose-level 1 of the Phase 1b lead-in was enrolled in February 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05099666.
P10015/SARC033: A phase 2 trial of trametinib in patients with advanced epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE).
11503 Background: EHE is a rare vascular cancer arising in liver, lung, soft tissue and bone. The natural history of metastatic disease varies considerably from indolent growth over years to rapid growth with fatal outcome in months. Treatment of patients (pts) with metastatic EHE with antiangiogenic therapy induces tumor response in a minority of pts, and median PFS is 6-12 months. TAZ-CAMTA1 translocation results in activation of MAPK pathway and is an oncogenic driver in EHE. We sought to evaluate the effect of MEK inhibition using trametinib in pts with unresectable EHE. Methods: A phase 2 trial of trametinib 2 mg daily was conducted in pts with EHE though the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network supported by NCI in collaboration with SARC. Additional support was provided by the EHE Rare Cancer Charity and the EHE Foundation. Pts had to have evidence of objective tumor progression or EHE-related pain requiring narcotics for relief prior to enrollment. Presence of TAZ-CAMTA1 translocation was analyzed by fusion-FISH after enrollment. Primary trial endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST1.1 with at least 1 objective response required in the 1st 13 pts to expand enrollment to 27. The trial was amended after stage 1 to continue enrollment to 27 pts with TAZ-CAMTA1 detected by FISH with goal of >4 objective responses in this group. Secondary objectives were PFS and OS rates, safety and change in pt-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. Results: 43 pts were enrolled between 6/2017 – 9/2020 across 10 sites and 41 started therapy. TAZ-CAMTA1 fusion was detected in 26, not detected in 7, test failed in 5 and was not performed due to insufficient tumor in 5. Median pt age was 54 (range 22-81 yrs) and 11 were >65 yrs; 25 were female; ECOG was 0 in 23, 1 in 16 and 2 in 3 pts. Most pts experienced reduction in tumor size. ORR per RECIST was 7% (3/41); in pts with TAZ-CAMTA1 detected, the ORR was 0% (0/26). Mean pain intensity and interference scores had a statistically significant improvement and global quality of life scores did not statistically change after 4 weeks of therapy. 17 pts remained on treatment > 6 months and 7 > 12 months. 25 pts stopped trametinib due to EHE progression, 6 died during treatment, 6 withdrew from treatment, 3 stopped drug due to adverse event and 1 is on treatment. The most common AEs related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, alopecia and edema; Grade >3 AEs included anemia, dyspnea, hypoxia, hypotension, syncope and dermatitis. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest prospective clinical study focused on pts with EHE. Although the trial did not meet the ORR goal, stable disease > 6 months was seen in 40% of pts, and EHE-related pain improved on treatment. Trametinib was associated with expected cutaneous and GI adverse effects. Additional pt-reported outcomes and biomarkers of inflammation are undergoing analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT03148275.
Primary intra‐abdominal melanoma arising in association with extracutaneous blue naevus: a report of two cases
AimsBlue naevi are uncommon dermal melanocytic neoplasms characterised by GNAQ/GNA11 mutations, which very rarely progress to melanoma. Such melanomas also often have BAP1 mutations, and lack genetic events associated with conventional melanoma. Exceptionally, blue naevi arise in extracutaneous locations; one melanoma arising in this setting has been reported. We report the clinicopathological, immunohistochemical and molecular genetic features of two cases of melanoma arising in extracutaneous blue naevus.Methods and resultsBoth arose in males, aged 25 and 63 years, with no history of other melanocytic lesions, and presented as large, painful intra‐abdominal masses. The tumours were dark‐brown/black, multilobulated, involved small intestinal mesentery and consisted of a predominantly fascicular and spindled, but occasionally nested and epithelioid, proliferation of variably pigmented, relatively monotonous cells with pale cytoplasm and ovoid nuclei with mild to moderate atypia. Mitotic activity was variable but generally low. Both cases showed areas of conventional and cellular blue naevus. Recurrent tumour in one case showed predominantly epithelioid morphology and greater cytological atypia and mitotic activity. One case expressed Melan‐A, SOX10 and CD117, with absent expression of S100 protein and DOG1; the other expressed Melan‐A, HMB45 and S100 protein. Next‐generation sequencing identified GNAQ and BAP1 mutations in one case and GNA11 mutation in the other. Both patients developed widespread metastatic disease.ConclusionExceptionally rare, aggressive melanomas arising in extracutaneous blue naevi should be distinguished from metastatic melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumour and malignant melanotic nerve sheath tumour, especially given the significant therapeutic and prognostic differences between these different entities.