Hindi, Nadia

ABSTRACT Introduction Sinonasal sarcomas are exceedingly rare entities, constituting less than 7% of head and neck sarcomas. Their complex histology needs specialized treatment, which is often based on multimodal approaches including surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. This manuscript aims to gather expert opinions to establish common management principles for sinonasal sarcomas. Methods This international consensus followed a modified Delphi method in seven steps, including statements definition by the core group, expert panel recruitment, and a two‐round survey. Sixty‐two statements on sinonasal sarcoma management were developed. Experts from multiple continents participated, and results were anonymized and analyzed between March and May 2025. Results A total of 44 invited experts were recruited, 43.2% otorhinolaryngologists/head and neck surgeons, 31.8% medical oncologists, and 25% radiation oncologists. Participants varied in age and experience, representing Europe (70.5%), North America (18.2%), South America (6.8%), and Asia (4.5%). Among all histologies, biphenotypic sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and myofibrosarcoma are principally treated with an upfront surgical management, differently from Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma in which chemotherapy, eventually associated with radiotherapy, is often chosen. In the remaining histologies (angiosarcoma, liposarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor [MPNST], osteosarcoma, and synovial sarcoma), a precise multimodal treatment is less standardized and needs to be discussed on a case‐by‐case basis. Conclusion Sinonasal sarcomas require a histology‐driven approach to determine upfront treatment, whether surgical, medical, or multimodal. Despite this structured strategy, prognosis remains highly variable across subtypes. Multidisciplinary evaluation and individualized management in referral centers are crucial to address the biological diversity and anatomical complexity of these rare malignancies.

Gemcitabine plus docetaxel is an effective treatment regimen for advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STSs). However, the prognosis for patients remains poor, and thus there is an urgent medical need for novel and effective therapies to improve long-term outcomes. The aim of the ANNOUNCE 2 trial was to explore the addition of olaratumab (O) to gemcitabine (G) and docetaxel (D) for advanced STS. Adults with unresectable locally advanced/metastatic STS, ≤2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0–1 were eligible. In Phase 2, patients were randomized 1:1 from two cohorts (O-naïve and O-pretreated) to 21-day cycles of olaratumab (20 mg/kg Cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, Days 1 and 8), gemcitabine (900 mg/m2, Days 1 and 8), and docetaxel (75 mg/m2, Day 8). The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population (α level = 0.20). Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated), other efficacy parameters, patient-reported outcomes, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. A total of 167 and 89 patients were enrolled in the O-naïve and O-pretreated cohorts, respectively. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. No statistically significant difference in OS was observed between the investigational vs. control arm for either cohort (O-naïve cohort: HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.64−1.40), p = 0.78, median OS, 16.8 vs. 18.0 months; O-pretreated cohort: HR = 0.67 (95% CI: 0.39−1.16), p = 0.15, median OS 19.8 vs. 17.3 months). Safety was manageable across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population, and therefore based on hierarchical evaluation no other outcomes in this study can be considered statistically significant. No new safety signals were observed.

Management of patients with advanced sarcoma has been evolving in recent decades, from a one-fit-all perspective to a more refined, personalized, and multidisciplinary approach. In parallel, the evolution of local therapies (radiotherapy, surgical and interventional radiology techniques) has contributed to the improvement of survival of patients with advanced sarcoma. In this article, we review the evidence regarding local treatments in advanced sarcoma, as well as its integration with systemic therapies, to provide the reader a wider and deeper perspective on the management of patients with metastatic sarcoma.

11517 Background: Doxorubicin (doxo) remains standard first-line therapy for advanced STS. Doxo in combination with olaratumab (O) demonstrated superior clinical activity compared to doxo alone in a Ph 2 trial (NCT01185964), although this was not confirmed in the subsequent Ph 3 trial (NCT02451943). Gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) is a second line therapy for advanced STS. Here, we report a concurrent Ph 2 study that explored a second-line addition of O to G and D for advanced STS (ANNOUNCE 2 NCT02659020). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, ≤ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0-1 were eligible. Pts were enrolled from 2 cohorts: O-naïve and O-pretreated. In both cohorts, pts were randomized 1:1 to either O, G plus D or placebo (PBO), G plus D. Pts received 21-day cycles of O (20 mg/ kg cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, day (d) 1 and d8), G (900 mg/m2, d1 and d8) and D (75 mg/m2, d8). Pts continued treatment until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by histology (leiomyosarcoma [LMS] vs non-LMS), prior systemic therapy, ECOG PS, and prior pelvic radiation. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population using an alpha level of 0.20. Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated) and other efficacy parameters, as well as safety and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 167 pts were enrolled in the O-naïve cohort and 89 pts in the O-pretreated cohort. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. OS for O-naïve pts was 16.8 vs 18.0 months (m) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.64-1.40; p = 0.78) for the investigational vs control arm, respectively. Other efficacy outcomes are presented in the table. Safety was manageable across treatment arms. PK parameter estimates for O were consistent with previous studies. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population. However, while not statistically significant, the combination of O, G and D demonstrated favorable OS in the O-pretreated cohort, and PFS and objective response rate (ORR) in both cohorts. For O-naïve pts, a clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement was observed. Further investigations in specific histological subtypes are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02659020. [Table: see text]