Mascarenhas, Leo

Abstract The Children's Oncology Group (COG) uses Clinical Group (CG) and modified Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) stage to classify rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). CG is based on surgicopathologic findings and is determined after the completion of initial surgical procedure(s) but prior to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. The modified TNM stage is based on clinical and radiographic findings and is assigned prior to any treatment. These systems have evolved over several decades. We review the history, evolution, and rationale behind the current CG and modified TNM classification systems used by COG for RMS. Data from the seven most recently completed and reported frontline COG trials (D9602, D9802, D9803, ARST0331, ARST0431, ARST0531, ARST08P1) were analyzed, and confirm that CG and modified TNM stage remain relevant and useful for predicting prognosis in RMS. We propose updates based on recent data and discuss factors warranting future study to further optimize these classification systems.

PURPOSE The primary aim of this phase III randomized trial was to test whether the addition of vincristine, topotecan, and cyclophosphamide (VTC) to interval compressed chemotherapy improved survival outcomes for patients with previously untreated nonmetastatic Ewing sarcoma. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard five-drug interval compressed chemotherapy (regimen A) for 17 cycles or experimental therapy with five cycles of VTC within the 17 cycles (regimen B). Patients were stratified by age at diagnosis (< 18 years and ≥18 years) and tumor site (pelvic bone, nonpelvic bone, and extraosseous). Tumor volume at diagnosis was categorized as < 200 mL or ≥ 200 mL. Local control occurred following six cycles. Histologic response was categorized as no viable or any viable tumor. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between randomized groups with stratified log-rank tests. RESULTS Of 642 enrolled patients, 309 eligible patients received standard and 320 received experimental therapy. The 5-year EFS and OS were 78% and 87%, respectively. There was no difference in survival outcomes between randomized groups (5-year EFS regimen A v regimen B, 78% v 79%; P = .192; 5-year OS 86% v 88%; P = .159). Age and primary site did not affect the risk of an EFS event. However, age ≥ 18 years was associated with an increased risk of death at 5 years (hazard ratio 1.84; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.96; P = .009). The 5-year EFS rates for patients with pelvic, nonpelvic bone, and extraosseous primary tumors were 75%, 78%, and 85%, respectively. Tumor volume ≥ 200 mL was significantly associated with lower EFS. CONCLUSION While VTC added to five-drug interval compressed chemotherapy did not improve survival, these outcomes represent the best survival estimates to date for patients with previously untreated nonmetastatic Ewing sarcoma.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft tissue sarcoma diagnosed in children and adolescents. Patients that are diagnosed with advanced or relapsed disease have exceptionally poor outcomes. The Children’s Oncology Group (COG) convened a rhabdomyosarcoma new agent task force in 2020 to systematically evaluate novel agents for inclusion in phase 2 or phase 3 clinical trials for patients diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma, following a similar effort for Ewing sarcoma. The task force was comprised of clinicians and basic scientists who collectively identified new agents for evaluation and prioritization in clinical trial testing. Here, we report the work of the task force including the framework upon which the decisions were rendered and review the top classes of agents that were discussed. Representative agents include poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in combination with cytotoxic agents, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors in combination with type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR1) inhibitors, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, and novel cytotoxic agents.

Abstract Trial Information Click here to access other published clinical trials. Lessons Learned The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist. Background Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recurrent and metastatic non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. We conducted a randomized, phase II study of regorafenib versus placebo in refractory liposarcoma patients. Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic, treatment-refractory liposarcoma were randomized 1:1 to receive regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off). Patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma only were excluded. Crossover for placebo was allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), according to RECIST version 1.1. Results Forty-eight subjects with liposarcoma (34 dedifferentiated, 12 myxoid/round cell, 2 pleomorphic) were enrolled. Median PFS was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92–3.67) months for regorafenib versus 2.07 (95% CI, 1.64–3.44) months for placebo; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 (95% CI, 0.46, 1.58), p = .62. No responses were seen on regorafenib. One PR was observed on placebo. Median overall survival was 6.46 (95% CI, 4.16–23.48) months for regorafenib and 4.89 (95% CI, 3.02–9.77) months for placebo, stratified HR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31–1.40), p = .28). Treatment-related adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of regorafenib. Conclusion Regorafenib did not appear to improve PFS in treatment-refractory liposarcoma. No new significant safety signals were observed.

11529 Background: Maximum tumor dimension > 8 cm. and large tumor volume have been reported to be adverse prognostic factors in patients with ES but have not been prospectively evaluated in the context of a phase 3 clinical trial with interval compressed chemotherapy. Methods: COG AEWS1031 (NCT01231906) was a randomized phase 3 clinical trial comparing interval compressed chemotherapy regimens in patients with newly diagnosed localized ES of bone and soft tissue. A correlative objective of AEWS1031 was to evaluate tumor size and volume as prognostic factors. Institution-reported dimensions of the primary tumor from baseline imaging were prospectively collected. For inclusion in this analysis, patients had to have at least 1 tumor dimension reported for tumor size analyses and dimensions in 3 axes for tumor volume analyses. Maximum dimension was dichotomized as less than vs. > / = 8cm. Tumor volume was dichotomized as less than vs. > / = 200 mL. Event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) from enrollment were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between groups using a two-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Cox model. Results: The 5-year EFS and OS of the 629 eligible patients was 78% (95% CI: 75-81%) and 87% (95% CI: 84-90%) respectively and there was no significant difference in both EFS and OS between the randomized interval compressed chemotherapy arms of AEWS1031. 590 of 629 (94%) patients were evaluable for maximum tumor dimension and 307 (52%) had tumors > / = 8 cm. Patients with tumors > / = 8 cm were at significantly increased risk for EFS events (p = 0.016) with estimated 5-year EFS of 73.7% (95% CI: 68.1 vs.78.4%) vs. 82.9% (95% CI 77.7-87.1%) for patients with tumors < 8 cm [HR: 1.53 (1.08-2.17)]. For tumor volume, 586 of 629 patients (93%) were evaluable and 180 (31%) had tumors > / = 200 mL. Patients with tumor volume > / = 200 mL were at significantly increased risk for EFS events (p = 0.003) with estimated 5-year EFS of 70% (95% CI: 62.3-76.4%) vs. 81.6% (95% CI: 77.2-85.2%) for patients with tumors < 200 mL [HR: 1.69 (1.2-2.39)]. Conclusions: Maximum tumor dimension and tumor volume as defined are both prognostic in patients with newly diagnosed localized ES treated with interval compressed chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01231906 .

Purpose. Osteosarcoma is a rare cancer and a third of patients who have completed primary treatment will develop osteosarcoma recurrence. The Src pathway has been implicated in the metastatic behavior of osteosarcoma; about 95% of samples examined express Src or have evidence of downstream activation of this pathway. Saracatinib (AZD0530) is a potent and selective Src kinase inhibitor that was evaluated in adults in Phase 1 studies. The primary goal of this study was to determine if treatment with saracatinib could increase progression-free survival (PFS) for patients who have undergone complete resection of osteosarcoma lung metastases in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Patients and Methods. Subjects with recurrent osteosarcoma localized to lung and who had complete surgical removal of all lung nodules were randomized within six weeks after complete surgical resection. Saracatinib, or placebo, was administered at a dose of 175 mg orally, once daily, for up to thirteen 28-day cycles. Results. Thirty-seven subjects were included in the analyses; 18 subjects were randomized to receive saracatinib and 19 to receive placebo. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated a median PFS of 19.4 months in the saracatinib treatment group and 8.6 months in the placebo treatment group (p=0.47). Median OS was not reached in either arm. Conclusions. Although saracatinib was well tolerated in this patient population, there was no apparent impact of the drug in this double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial on OS, and Src inhibition alone may not be sufficient to suppress metastatic progression in osteosarcoma. There is a suggestion of potential clinical benefit as evidenced by longer PFS in patients randomized to saracatinib based on limited numbers of patients treated.

TPS10591 Background: Osteosarcoma is a rare cancer and 33% of patients who have completed primary treatment will recur. The Src pathway has been implicated in the metastatic behavior of several tumors including osteosarcoma where 95% of samples express Src or have evidence of downstream activation of this pathway. Saracatinib (AZD0530) is a potent and selective Src kinase inhibitor. The recommended phase II dose in adults was found to be 175mg daily. The primary goal of this study is to determine if treatment with Saracatinib can increase progression free survival (PFS) for patients who have undergone complete resection of metastatic osteosarcoma nodules in the lung. Secondary goals are evaluation of overall survival, time to treatment failure, and evaluation of several biological correlatives. Methods: This is a multi-institutional, phase II.5, placebo-controlled study with an accrual goals of 88 randomized patients. Patients between 15 and 75 years, with histological confirmation of recurrent osteosarcoma, localized to the lung, who have potential for complete surgical resection, are eligible for enrollment. After complete resection, patients are randomized to treatment with saracatinib or placebo, of a daily oral dose of 175 mg, continuously for up to 1 year or until progression. Patients who recur in the lung while on-study and who are amenable to complete surgical resection will be un-blinded. Those patients who received placebo may have the option to undergo surgical resection. If fully resected, they will be offered therapy with saracatinib under the same treatment guidelines as above. As of January 2013, 38 patients have enrolled and 32 patients met the criteria to be randomized and began oral therapy with either saracatinib or placebo. An interim analysis is planned after 40 patients have been randomized. Clinical trial information: NCT00752206.

PURPOSE SARC024 is a phase II clinical trial of the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in specific sarcoma subtypes, including advanced osteosarcoma. We hypothesized that regorafenib would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with sarcoma and report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS This trial enrolled patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma with measurable disease by RECIST who had received at least one prior line of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to regorafenib or placebo. Crossover was allowed at time of disease progression. PFS was the primary end point of the study, which was powered to detect a difference of at least 3 months in median PFS. RESULTS Forty-two patients from 12 centers were enrolled between September 2014 and May 2018. Median age was 37 years (range, 18 to 76 years). Patients had received an average of 2.3 prior therapy regimens. Ten patients receiving placebo crossed over to active drug at time of progression. Study enrollment was stopped early, after a data safety monitoring committee review. Median PFS was significantly improved with regorafenib versus placebo: 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0 to 7.6 months) versus 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.85; P = .017). In the context of the crossover design, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival. Fourteen (64%) of 22 patients initially randomly assigned to regorafenib experienced grade 3 to 4 events attributed to treatment, including one grade 4 colonic perforation. CONCLUSION The study met its primary end point, demonstrating activity of regorafenib in patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma. No new safety signals were observed. Regorafenib should be considered a treatment option for patients with relapsed metastatic osteosarcoma.

Purpose Intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) includes patients with either nonmetastatic, unresected embryonal RMS (ERMS) with an unfavorable primary site or nonmetastatic alveolar RMS (ARMS). The primary aim of this study was to improve the outcome of patients with intermediate-risk RMS by substituting vincristine and irinotecan (VI) for half of vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) courses. All patients received a lower dose of cyclophosphamide and earlier radiation therapy than in previous trials. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at study entry to either VAC (cumulative cyclophosphamide dose, 16.8 g/m 2 ) or VAC/VI (cumulative cyclophosphamide dose, 8.4 g/m 2 ) for 42 weeks of therapy. Radiation therapy started at week 4, with individualized local control plans permitted for patients younger than 24 months. The primary study end point was event-free survival (EFS). The study design had an 80% power (5% one-sided α-level) to detect an improved long-term EFS from 65% (with VAC) to 76% (with VAC/VI). Results A total of 448 eligible patients were enrolled in the study. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years, the 4-year EFS was 63% with VAC and 59% with VAC/VI ( P = .51), and 4-year overall survival was 73% for VAC and 72% for VAC/VI ( P = .80). Within the ARMS and ERMS subgroups, no difference in outcome by treatment arm was found. Severe hematologic toxicity was less common with VAC/VI therapy. Conclusion The addition of VI to VAC did not improve EFS or OS for patients with intermediate-risk RMS. VAC/VI had less hematologic toxicity and a lower cumulative cyclophosphamide dose, making VAC/VI an alternative standard therapy for intermediate-risk RMS.