Van Tine, Brian A

Abstract Purpose: Combined mTOR and MEK inhibition, critical components of the RAS effector pathway underlying the pathogenesis of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1)–related tumors, caused regression in a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) transgenic mouse model. The primary objective was to determine the clinical benefit rate in patients with unresectable/metastatic MPNST. Patients and Methods: The study design was a multi-institutional, open-label, Simon two-stage, phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib and mTOR inhibitor sirolimus. Patients ≥12 years with histologically confirmed MPNST received selumetinib 50 mg twice daily and sirolimus 4 mg once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles. Correlative studies evaluated patient-reported pain, immune signature in peripheral blood, and cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Results: A total of 21 heavily pretreated patients [seven females; median age, 41 years (range, 16–72); and 14 with NF1] with advanced disease enrolled at five participating sites. Clinical benefit was observed in only one of seven in stage 1 and one of 14 patients in stage 2. The median number of cycles was two (range, 1–6). Most common adverse events (AE) were grade ≤2 gastrointestinal toxicity, acneiform rash, hypertriglyceridemia, mucositis, and transaminase elevation. Unlike the preclinical model, early 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET scan performed during cycle 1 demonstrated partial metabolic responses in five patients (24%), but these did not correlate with objective responses after cycle 2. cfDNA was able to detect MPNST with the potential to be a biomarker of response. Conclusions: The combination was safe, with manageable and expected AEs, but did not meet study parameters for further evaluation in MPNST. Correlative studies were informative and may guide future therapeutic trials of MPNST.

Background In this open-label, randomized, non-comparative, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A091401) we report on three expansion cohorts treated with nivolumab (N) with and without ipilimumab (N+I) and provide a multi-omic correlative analysis of actionable biomarkers. Methods Patients were randomized (non-comparative) to receive either N or N+I. The primary endpoint was a 6-month confirmed response rate (CRR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Multi-omic correlative analyses were conducted using samples from both the primary and expansion cohorts. Results A total of 66 patients were evaluated for the primary endpoint with disease including gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST, n=18), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS, n=24), and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS, n=24). Neither N nor N+I achieved a complete or partial response in the GIST expansion cohort. In DDLPS and UPS, the primary response endpoint of CRR was met with N+I (both 16.6%, 2/12) but not with N alone (both 8.3%, 1/12). In the GIST cohort, TRAE was higher with N+I treatment, halting enrollment as required per protocol. In a correlative analysis of patients for the expansion cohort and the original cohort (n=86), traditional biomarkers of immunotherapy response were not correlated with response in any histological subtype. Markers of genomic instability including the presence of gene fusions and increased subclonal mutations correlated with improved clinical outcomes. Conclusions This expansion cohort reaffirms the outcomes of A091401. There remains a pressing need to determine the role of and predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy in sarcoma. Trial registration number NCT02500797.

AbstractBackgroundThis was a single‐arm, phase 2 clinical trial of Bavarian Nordic (BN)‐Brachyury vaccine plus radiotherapy (RT) designed to determine the objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), and safety of the combination in chordoma.MethodsA total of 29 adult patients with advanced chordoma were treated with two subcutaneous priming vaccine doses of modified vaccinia Ankara‐Bavarian Nordic (MVA‐BN)‐Brachyury and one vaccine dose of fowlpox virus (FPV)‐Brachyury before RT. After RT, booster vaccinations were given with FPV‐Brachyury every 4 weeks for 4 doses, then every 12 weeks (week 110). A minimum RT dose of >8 Gy in one fraction for each target was required. Response was evaluated by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 (mRECIST), where only radiated lesions were considered targets, and by standard RECIST 1.1 in a subset of patients.ResultsTwo of 26 evaluable patients experienced durable partial response (PR) (ORR of 7.7%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–20.8]) by mRECIST 1.1. A total of 21 patients (80.8%; 90% CI, 65.4–90.3) had stable disease, and three patients (11.5%; 90% CI, 4.7–25.6) had progressive disease as best response per mRECIST 1.1. Median PFS was not reached during the study.ConclusionsThis trial confirms the safety of BN‐Brachyury and RT. Although the study did not meet the predefined study goal of four responses in 29 patients, we did observe two PRs and a PFS of greater than 2 years. For a vaccine‐based study in chordoma, an ultra‐rare disease where response rates are low, a randomized study or novel trial designs may be required to confirm activity.

PURPOSE This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase Ib study was designed to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of unesbulin plus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma (LMS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult subjects with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic, relapsed or refractory LMS were treated with escalating doses of unesbulin orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) once every 21 days. The time-to-event continual reassessment method was used to determine the RP2D on the basis of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) assessed during the first two 21-day treatment cycles. All explored doses of unesbulin (200 mg up to 400 mg) were in combination with DTIC. An expansion cohort was enrolled to evaluate the safety and efficacy of unesbulin at the RP2D. RESULTS Unesbulin 300 mg administered orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 IV once every 21 days was identified as the RP2D. On the basis of data from 27 subjects who were deemed DLT-evaluable, toxicity was higher in the unesbulin 400 mg group, with three of four subjects (75%) experiencing DLTs versus one of four subjects (25%) in the 200 mg group and three of 19 subjects (15.8%) in the 300 mg group. The most commonly reported DLTs and treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. At the RP2D, seven subjects who were efficacy evaluable achieved partial response for an objective response rate of 24.1%. CONCLUSION Unesbulin 300 mg twice per week plus DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 once every 21 days was identified as the RP2D, demonstrating a favorable benefit-risk profile in a heavily pretreated population of adults with advanced LMS.

AbstractUnesbulin is being investigated in combination with dacarbazine (DTIC) as a potential therapeutic agent in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma (LMS). This paper reports the pharmacokinetics (PK) of unesbulin, DTIC, and its unreactive surrogate metabolite 5‐aminoimidazole‐4‐carboxamide (AIC) in 29 patients with advanced LMS. Drug interactions between DTIC (and AIC) and unesbulin were evaluated. DTIC (1000 mg/m2) was administered to patients with LMS via 1‐h intravenous (i.v.) infusion on day 1 of every 21‐day (q21d) cycle. Unesbulin dispersible tablets were administered orally twice weekly (b.i.w.), starting on day 2 of every cycle, except for cycle 2 (C2), where unesbulin was dosed either on day 1 together with DTIC or on day 2, 1 day after DTIC administration. The PK of DTIC, AIC, and unesbulin in cycle 1 (C1) and C2 were estimated using noncompartmental analysis. DTIC and AIC were measurable immediately after the start of infusion and reached maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) immediately or shortly after end of infusion at 1.0 and 1.4 h (time to Cmax), respectively. Co‐administration of unesbulin orally at 200 mg or above with DTIC inhibited cytochrome P450 (CYP)1A2‐mediated DTIC metabolism, resulting in 66.7% reduction of AIC exposures. Such inhibition could be mitigated when unesbulin was dosed the day following DTIC infusion. Repeated unesbulin dosing demonstrated evidence of clinical CYP1A2 induction and increased AIC Cmax by 69.4% and area under concentration‐time curve to infinity by 57.9%. No meaningful difference in unesbulin PK was observed between C2 and C1. The combination therapy of 1000 mg/m2 i.v. DTIC q21d and 300 mg unesbulin b.i.w. in a staggered regimen is well‐tolerated in patients with LMS.

The treatment of sarcoma necessitates a collaborative approach, given its rarity and complex management. At a single institution, multidisciplinary teams of specialists determine and execute treatment plans involving surgical, radiation, and medical management. Treatment guidelines for systemic therapies in advanced or nonresectable soft tissue sarcoma have advanced in recent years as new immunotherapies and targeted therapies become available. Collaboration between institutions is necessary to facilitate accrual to clinical trials. Here, we describe the success of the Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership (MWSTP) in creating a network encompassing large academic centers and local community sites. We propose a new model utilizing online platforms to expand the reach of clinical expertise for the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

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 P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). 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 of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

AbstractBackgroundSarcomas are rare diagnoses but are seen with relative frequency in adolescents and young adults and thus can present in pregnancy. We sought to study the administration of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide in pregnancy‐associated sarcomas.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a multi‐institutional retrospective study, identifying sarcoma patients who received anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide during pregnancy. Chart review identified variables related to demographics, cancer diagnosis, therapies, and outcome of the patient and fetus. Wilcoxon rank‐sum test compared two independent samples.ResultsWe identified 13 patients at seven institutions with sarcoma who received anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide during pregnancy, including four bone sarcomas and nine soft tissue sarcomas diagnosed at a mean gestational age of 16.7 ± 5.9 weeks. Only nine patients had live births (9/13, 69.2%), with mean gestational age of 30.8 ± 3.8 weeks at delivery. The four patients with pregnancy loss all received both doxorubicin and ifosfamide, with chemotherapy initiated at 15.5 weeks as compared with 21.3 weeks for those patients with live births (p = 0.016).ConclusionIn this multi‐institutional study of sarcoma chemotherapy regimens administered during pregnancy, we found a high rate of fetal demise that was seen only in patients receiving both doxorubicin and ifosfamide and statistically more likely with chemotherapy initiation earlier in the second trimester. While limited by a small sample size, our study represents the largest study of sarcoma patients that received anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide in pregnancy thus far reported and supports development of an international registry to study concerns raised by our study.

PURPOSE CMB305 is a heterologous prime-boost vaccination regimen created to prime NY-ESO-1–specific CD8 T-cell populations and then activate the immune response with a potent TLR-4 agonist. This open-label randomized phase II trial was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of adding the CMB305 regimen to atezolizumab (anti–programmed death ligand-1 therapy) in comparison with atezolizumab alone in patients with synovial sarcoma or myxoid liposarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with locally advanced, relapsed, or metastatic synovial sarcoma or myxoid liposarcoma (any grade) were randomly assigned to receive CMB305 with atezolizumab (experimental arm) or atezolizumab alone (control arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Safety and immune responses were assessed. RESULTS A total of 89 patients were enrolled; 55.1% had received ≥ 2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Median PFS was 2.6 months and 1.6 months in the combination and control arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.3). Median OS was 18 months in both treatment arms. Patients treated with combination therapy had a significantly higher rate of treatment-induced NY-ESO-1–specific T cells ( P = .01) and NY-ESO-1–specific antibody responses ( P < .0001). In a post hoc analysis of all dosed patients, OS was longer (36 months) in the subset who developed anti-NY-ESO-1 T-cell immune response (hazard ratio, 0.3; P = .02). CONCLUSION Although the combination of CMB305 and atezolizumab did not result in significant increases in PFS or OS compared with atezolizumab alone, some patients demonstrated evidence of an anti-NY-ESO-1 immune response and appeared to fare better by imaging than those without such an immune response. Combining prime-boost vaccines such as CMB305 with anti–programmed death ligand-1 therapies merits further evaluation in other clinical contexts.

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.