Benjamin, Robert S.

10522 Background: The limited therapeutic options and dismal prognosis for patients (pts) with angiosarcomas (AS) provide a strong rationale for the evaluation of new therapies. Preclinical studies in AS tumor models have shown antitumor effects of antiangiogenic agents. We conducted a phase II study to determine the antitumor effect of bevacizumab in AS. Methods: The study was a two-stage design in which patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory AS and epithelioid hemangioendotheliomas were treated with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed by RECIST criteria. Results: To date, of 29 pts enrolled, 28 received treatment. Baseline data on 29 pts are: M:F= 12:17 and median age 62 (range 18–94). Three pts are not evaluable (1 too early, 2 full treatment not given). Among 26 pts evaluable for response so far: 3 have PR (range 3–16 cycles), 13 have SD (3–32 cycles) and 10 have PD. ORR 3/26 (12%). After 141 cycles of therapy, only 1 grade 4 adverse event occurred (thrombocytopenia) and 5 patients experienced a grade 3 adverse event (anemia, pleural effusion, congestive heart failure, pain, headache, and nausea). Conclusions: Bevacizumab monotherapy for AS resulted in a response rate of 12% and tumor stabilization achieved by 62% of pts. Further studies with bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy should be explored in this disease. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9514 Background: We sought to compare the response of metastatic STS to G vs. G+D in a phase III study using a novel Bayesian adaptive randomization strategy. Methods: Entry criteria included non-GIST STS diagnosis, age > 10, measurable disease, ≤ 3 prior regimens, normal organ function, and Grade (Gr) ≤ 1 neuropathy. Pts were stratified by histology (leiomyosarcoma [LMS] vs. other), and history of prior pelvic radiation (PPR) or not, yielding 4 diagnostic subgroups. Therapy was G 1200 mg/m2 (over 120 min, d1+d8) or G 900 mg/m2 (over 90 min, d1+d8) and docetaxel (100 mg/m2 d8) q21d; all pts received (peg)-filgrastim starting d9. 25% dose reductions were employed for PPR or toxicity. The primary endpoint was tumor response (CR, PR, or 24+ weeks stable), using a double-blind Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure to incrementally assign more pts to the superior treatment arm, while accounting for possible treatment-subgroup interactions. Although this study is not based on a 1:1 randomized phase III design, enrolling ∼120 pts would show a difference between a response rate (RR) of 10% for G and 30% with G+D with a power of 0.8 and two-sided alpha of 0.05. Results: 122 pts were randomized; 119 pts had evaluable outcomes. Median number of prior regimens was 1; median number of cycles was 4 (range 1–26). 49 pts were adaptively randomized to G and 73 to G+D, indicating superiority of G+D. Of 119 evaluable pts, 27% (G) and 32% (G+D) showed response as defined. The odds of pts with LMS receiving G+D instead of G increased from 1:1 at the start of the study to ∼6:1 at its completion. RR was 10% (G) vs. 16% (G+D) (p=0.15, Fisher exact test). Consistent with the RR outcomes, progression free survival (PFS) was 6.2 m (G+D, K-M 95%CI 3.6–8.8) vs. 2.6 m (G, 95%CI 2.0–3.2). Overall survival (OS) was 18.0 m (G+D, K-M 95%CI 11.7–24.1) vs. 11.2 m (G, 95%CI 6.8–15.5). Pts receiving G+D had a higher rate of discontinuation due to toxicity than those receiving G (p<0.01, log rank). Conclusions: We observed substantial clinical activity in this pre-treated STS population. G+D yields superior PFS and OS to G, but at the price of increased toxicity. Adaptive randomization is an effective method that substantively reduces the number of pts receiving inferior therapy. [Table: see text]

Purpose Gemcitabine as a single agent and the combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel have activity in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. To determine if the addition of docetaxel to gemcitabine improved clinical outcome of patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas, we compared a fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine versus a lower dose of gemcitabine with docetaxel. Patients and Methods In this open-label phase II clinical trial, the primary end point was tumor response, defined as complete or partial response or stable disease lasting at least 24 weeks. A Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure was used to produce an imbalance in the randomization in favor of the superior treatment, accounting for treatment-subgroup interactions. Results One hundred nineteen of 122 randomly assigned patients had assessable outcomes. The adaptive randomization assigned 73 patients (60%) to gemcitabine-docetaxel and 49 patients (40%) to gemcitabine alone, indicating gemcitabine-docetaxel was superior. The objective Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response rates were 16% (gemcitabine-docetaxel) and 8% (gemcitabine). Given the data, the posterior probabilities that gemcitabine-docetaxel was superior for progression-free and overall survival were 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel and 3.0 months for gemcitabine alone; median overall survival was 17.9 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel and 11.5 months for gemcitabine. The posterior probability that patients receiving gemcitabine-docetaxel had a shorter time to discontinuation for toxicity compared with gemcitabine alone was .999. Conclusion Gemcitabine-docetaxel yielded superior progression-free and overall survival to gemcitabine alone, but with increased toxicity. Adaptive randomization is an effective method to reduce the number of patients receiving inferior therapy.