Post-imatinib surgery in advanced/metastatic GIST: is it worthwhile in all patients?

BackgroundSurgical indication for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with imatinib is not yet established.Materials and methodsWe analyzed 80 patients who underwent surgery for metastatic GIST after imatinib therapy from July 2002 to October 2007. Patients were divided into those with surgery at best clinical response (group A, n = 49) and those with surgery at focal progression (group B, n = 31). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).ResultsTwo-year postoperative PFS was 64.4% in group A and 9.7% in group B (P < 0.01). In group A, median PFS was not reached; in group B, it was 8 months. Median DSS from the time of imatinib onset was not reached in either group. Five-year DSS was 82.9% in group A and 67.6% in group B (P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis confirmed a significantly shorter PFS and DSS in group B. Surgical morbidity occurred in 13 patients (16.3%).ConclusionsSurgery for focal progressive lesions could be considered as part of the second-line/third-line armamentarium in selected cases. Surgery of residual disease upon best clinical response seems associated with survival benefit compared with historical controls in similar patient collectives treated with imatinib alone. However, evidence from prospective randomized trials is needed to make definite recommendations.     

Relationship between imatinib trough concentration and outcomes in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours in a real-life setting

BackgroundImatinib has dramatically improved the prognosis of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Clinical trial data showed that patients with trough imatinib plasma concentrations (Cmin) below 1100 ng/ml (quartile 1) had shorter time to progression, but no threshold has been defined.The main objective of this study was to investigate in advanced GIST whether a Cmin threshold value associated with a longer progression-free survival (PFS) could be specified. This would be the first step leading to therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib in GIST.Patients and methodsAdvanced GIST patients (n = 96) treated with imatinib 400 mg/d (41 stomach, 34 small bowel, and 21 other primary site localisations) were prospectively included in this real-life setting study. Routine plasma level testing imatinib (Cmin) and clinical data of were recorded prospectively.ResultsSmall bowel localisation was associated with an increased relative risk of progression of 3.09 versus stomach localisation (p = 0.0255). Mean Cmin (±standard deviation) was 868 (±536) ng/ml with 75% inter-individual and 26% intra-patient variability. A Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml defined by log-rank test was associated with longer PFS for the whole population (p = 0.0256) and for both stomach (p = 0.043) and small bowel (p = 0.049) localisations when analysed separately. Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that Cmin above 760 ng/ml was associated with 65% reduction risk of progression (p = 0.0271) in the whole population independently of the anatomical localisation.ConclusionConcentration of imatinib significantly influences duration of tumour control treatment in GIST patients with a Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml associated with prolonged PFS in real-life setting.     

A phase 2 randomised study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B) with or without dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma

BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B; LY3009806), a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, alone and in combination with dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma (MM).MethodsEligible patients received ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) + dacarbazine (1000 mg/m²) (Arm A) or ramucirumab only (10 mg/kg) (Arm B) every 3 weeks. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response and safety.FindingsOf 106 randomised patients, 102 received study treatment (Arm A, N = 52; Arm B, N = 50). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median PFS was 2.6 months (Arm A) and 1.7 months (Arm B); median 6-month PFS rates were 30.7% and 17.9% and 12-month PFS rates were 23.7% and 15.6%, respectively. In Arm A, 9 (17.3%) patients had partial response (PR) and 19 (36.5%), stable disease (SD); PR and SD in Arm B were 2 (4.0%) and 21 (42.0%), respectively. Median OS was 8.7 months in Arm A and 11.1 months in Arm B. Patients in both arms tolerated the treatment with limited Grade 3/4 toxicities.InterpretationRamucirumab alone or in combination with dacarbazine was associated with an acceptable safety profile in patients with MM. Although the study was not powered for comparison between treatment arms, PFS appeared greater with combination therapy. Sustained disease control was observed on both study arm.     

Randomised phase III trial of trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in translocation-related sarcomas

AimThis randomised phase III trial evaluated first-line trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (DXCT) in patients with advanced/metastatic translocation-related sarcomas (TRS).MethodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive trabectedin 1.5 mg/m² 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 3 weeks (q3wk) (Arm A), or doxorubicin 75 mg/m² i.v. q3wk, or doxorubicin 60 mg/m² i.v. plus ifosfamide (range, 6–9 g/m²) i.v. q3wk (Arm B). Progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review was the primary efficacy end-point.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-one patients were randomised; 88 of them had TRS confirmed by central pathology review (efficacy population). Twenty-nine PFS events were assessed by independent review (16 with trabectedin; 13 with DXCT). PFS showed non-significant difference between arms (stratified log rank test, p = 0.9573; hazard ratio = 0.86, p = 0.6992). At the time of this analysis, 63.9% and 58.3% of patients were alive in trabectedin and DXCT arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival curves. Response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v.1.0 was significantly higher in DXCT arm (27.0% versus 5.9%), but response according to Choi criteria showed fewer differences between treatment arms (45.9% versus 37.3%). Safety profile was as expected for both arms, with higher incidence of severe neutropenia, alopecia and mucositis in the DXCT arm.ConclusionNeither trabectedin nor doxorubicin-based chemotherapy showed significant superiority in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced translocation-related sarcoma.     

Follow-up strategies for patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour treated with or without adjuvant imatinib after surgery

BackgroundPatients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) are often followed up after surgery with longitudinally repeated imaging examinations to detect recurrence early. Studies on follow-up of GIST patients are few, the optimal follow-up methods are unknown and the recommendations for follow-up vary in guidelines.MethodsWe reviewed the current evidence for follow-up of patients treated with surgery alone and of patients who were treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant imatinib.ResultsImaging of the abdomen and the pelvis with computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) usually suffices, since metastases are uncommon at other sites. The frequency of imaging may be adjusted with the risk of recurrence with time.Very low risk GISTs are very frequently cured with surgery and usually require no regular follow-up after complete surgery, and annual CT of the abdomen and the pelvis for 5 years suffices for most patients with a low to intermediate risk for recurrence. Most high-risk patients are treated with imatinib for at least 3 years after surgery. CT or MRI may be carried out 6-monthly during adjuvant imatinib, 3 to 4-monthly during the 2 years that follow discontinuation of imatinib when the risk of recurrence is high, and then at 6–12 month intervals to complete 10 years of follow-up. Recurrence after the first 10 years of follow-up is infrequent.ConclusionsThe follow-up schedules are best tailored with the risk of recurrence. The risk of recurrence should be estimated with the prognostic tools that consider the most relevant prognostic factors.     

A phase IIb multicentre study comparing the efficacy of trabectedin to doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic untreated soft tissue sarcoma: The TRUSTS trial

PurposeTo evaluate whether trabectedin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma prolongs progression-free survival (PFS), compared to doxorubicin and, in the phase IIb part here, to select the most appropriate trabectedin treatment schedule (3-hour or 24-hour infusion) in terms of safety, convenience and efficacy.Patients and methodsIn this randomised multicentre prospective dose-selection phase IIb superiority trial, 133 patients were randomised between doxorubicin (n = 43), trabectedin (3-hour infusion, T3h) (n = 47) and trabectedin (24-hour infusion, T24h) (n = 43). PFS was defined as time from random assignment until objective progression by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST 1.1), a global deterioration of the health status requiring discontinuation of the treatment, or death from any cause.ResultsThe study was terminated due to lack of superiority in both trabectedin treatment arms as compared to the doxorubicin control arm. Median PFS was 2.8 months in the T3h arm, 3.1 months in the T24h arm and 5.5 months in the doxorubicin arm. No significant improvements in PFS were observed in the trabectedin arms as compared to the doxorubicin arm (T24h versus doxorubicin: hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–1.90, P = .675; T3h versus doxorubicin: HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.91–2.48, P = .944). Only one toxic death occurred in the T3h arm, but treatment had to be stopped due to toxicity in 7 (15.2%) (T3h), 8 (19.5%) (T24h) and 1 (2.5%) doxorubicin patients.ConclusionDoxorubicin continues to be the standard treatment in eligible patients with advanced/metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Trabectedin 1.5 mg/m²/24-hour infusion is the overall proven approach to delivering this agent in the second-line setting for patients with advanced or metastatic STS.     

Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine alone or alternating with FOLFIRI.3 (irinotecan,leucovorin and fluorouracil) in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An AGEO randomised phase II study (FIRGEM)

BackgroundFluorouracil and irinotecan-based, and gemcitabine-based regimens, are the standard of care in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. New approaches are needed to improve survival and quality of life. Whether a sequential approach alternating irinotecan, fluorouracil and gemcitabine may be effective and tolerable in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer is unknown.MethodsIn this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status 0–1, and bilirubin levels <1.5 upper limit of normal values (ULN) were randomised 1:1 to receive as first-line treatment either FOLFIRI.3 (irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil) alternating with fixed-dose rate gemcitabine as 2-month periods (FIRGEM, arm A), or fixed-dose rate gemcitabine alone (arm B). Treatment was continued until disease progression or limiting toxicity. The primary end-point was the crude progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. The study is registered with EudraCT (N° 2006-005703-34).ResultsBetween October 2007 and March 2011, 98 patients were enroled. The observed 6-month PFS rate was 43.5% (95% confidence interval (CI), [28.6–58.4%]) in arm A reaching the Fleming decision rules criteria to reject H0 and 26.1% (95% CI [12.9–39.3%]) in arm B.Objective response rates were 37% (23–51%) in arm A and 10% (1–19%) in arm B. Median PFS (5.0 versus 3.4 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.59 [0.38–0.90]) and overall survival (11.0 versus 8.2 months, HR = 0.71 [0.46–1.10]) were higher in arm A compared to arm B. The most frequent grade 3–4 toxicities were neutropenia (49%/24%; febrile neutropenia, 4%/0% in arms A/B), diarrhoea (arm A, 12% and arm B, 0%), and nausea/vomiting (8%/4%). No toxic deaths occurred.ConclusionThe FIRGEM strategy appears to be effective and feasible in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.     

Development and validation of prognostic nomograms for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour treated with imatinib

PurposeMetastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is generally an incurable disease with variable response to imatinib. We aimed to develop prognostic nomograms to predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients treated with imatinib.MethodsNomograms were developed in a training cohort (n = 330) of patients treated in a randomised trial (EORTC-ISG-AGITG 62005 phase III study) using Cox regression models, and validated in patients (n = 236) treated in routine clinical care from six referral centres. Nomogram performance was assessed by calculating the c statistic. A classification based on the nomograms’ scores was generated to group patients according to risk.ResultsNomogram risk factors for OS and PFS were size of the largest metastasis, tumour genotype, primary tumour mitotic count, haemoglobin and blood neutrophil count at commencement of imatinib. The nomograms predicted survival with a c statistic of 0.75 (training) and 0.62 (validation) for OS, and 0.69 (training) and 0.62 (validation) for PFS. When tested in the validation cohort, the nomograms discriminated well the high and intermediate risk from low risk patients (hazard ratio [HR] for OS 3.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71–8.56; and 2.48, 95% CI 1.12–5.50; for PFS 2.84, 95% CI 1.66–4.87; and 1.45, 95% CI 0.87–2.41, respectively).ConclusionThe nomograms predicted the risk of GIST progression and death with good discrimination of risk groups, and may be of value for patient counselling and risk stratification.     

Sorafenib as third- or fourth-line treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour and pretreatment including both imatinib and sunitinib,and nilotinib: A retrospective analysis

BackgroundTyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improve the outcome of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST), but treatment failure is frequent, and prognosis then bleak. Smaller trials in this setting suggested activity for sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of receptor tyrosine kinases and RAF serine/threonine kinases.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of sorafenib, starting dose 400 mg twice daily, in a large community-based cohort of 124 patients treated in 12 European and one United States (U.S.) cancer centre. All but one patient had a WHO performance score 0–2. All had failed both imatinib and sunitinib, 68 patients nilotinib and 26 had failed investigational therapy, too.ResultsTwelve (10%) patients responded to sorafenib and 70 (57%) patients achieved disease stabilisation. Sorafenib was moderately tolerated, and toxicity reported in 56% of the patients. Rash, hand-foot-syndrome and diarrhea occurred frequently. Sorafenib dosage was reduced in a third of patients, but this did not have an impact on progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.15). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6–8.0 months) and median overall survival (OS) 13.5 months (95% CI, 10.0–21.0 months). Patients with a good performance status and those who responded to sorafenib had a significant better PFS.ConclusionWe conclude that sorafenib is active in GIST resistant to imatinib, sunitinib and nilotinib. These results warrant further investigation of sorafenib or similar molecules in GIST.     

Influence of imatinib interruption and rechallenge on the residual disease in patients with advanced GIST: results of the BFR14 prospective French Sarcoma Group randomised,phase III trial

BackgroundWe previously demonstrated that interruption of imatinib mesylate (IM) in responding patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) results in rapid reprogression. The impact of interruption on residual tumour, quality of response and secondary resistance has not been fully investigated.Patients and methodsWithin the BRF14 study, 71 non-progressing patients were randomly assigned in the interruption arms after 1, 3 or 5 years. IM was resumed in the case of progressive disease (PD). Tumour status at randomisation, relapse and after IM rechallenge, progression-free survival (PFS) and time to secondary resistance were analysed.ResultsAt data cut-off, 51 of 71 patients had restarted IM following documented PD. Eighteen patients (35%) progressed on known lesions only, while 33 patients (65%) had new lesions, with concomitant progression of known lesions in 17 patients. Only 8 (42%) of complete remission (CR) patients and 12 (52%) of partial response (PR) patients at randomisation achieved a new CR and PR. Patients progressing rapidly after interruption had a poorer prognosis. Tumour status at randomisation influenced time to progression after rechallenge.ConclusionIn advanced GIST patients interrupting IM, quality of response upon reintroduction did not reach the tumour status observed at randomisation. Rapid progression after imatinib interruption is associated with poor PFS after reintroduction.     

Multicentre randomised phase II trial of gemcitabine + platinum,with or without trastuzumab,in advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing Her2

AimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and platinum salt, with or without trastuzumab, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing Her2.MethodsThe main eligibility criterion was Her2 overexpression on immunohistochemistry (IHC 2+ or 3+) of primary tumour tissue confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH). Patients were randomised to Arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (days 1 and 8) plus either cisplatin (70 mg/m²) or carboplatin (AUC = 5) (day 1 every 3 weeks) or Arm B: added trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg every 21 days until progression). The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsAmong 563 screened patients, 75 (13.3%) were Her2 positive (IHC 2+/3+ and FISH+) and 61 met all eligibility criteria (median age, 64 years; 54/61 males; 50/61 baseline ECOG-PS 0-1; 11 locally advanced and 50 metastatic). There was no significant difference between Arms A and B in median PFS (10.2 versus 8.2 months, respectively, p = 0.689), objective response rate (65.5% versus 53.2%, p = 0.39), and median overall survival (15.7 versus 14.1 months, respectively, p = 0.684). In an exploratory analysis, trastuzumab-treated patients receiving cisplatin rather than carboplatin-based chemotherapy fared better (PFS: 10.6 versus 8.0; OS: 33.1 versus 9.5 months). Myelosuppression was the main grade 3/4 toxicity. A case of grade 3 cardiotoxicity and one death from febrile neutropenia occurred in arm B.ConclusionThe unexpectedly low incidence of Her2 overexpression precluded the detection of a significant difference in efficacy on addition of trastuzumab to platinum-based chemotherapy with gemcitabine. However, the satisfactory tolerance of the combination warrants further studies, especially of the cisplatin-based combination, in well-defined patient subsets.     

Phase II study of oral masitinib mesilate in imatinib-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastro-intestinal stromal tumour (GIST)

BackgroundMasitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with greater in vitro activity and selectivity for the wild-type c-Kit receptor and its juxtamembrane mutation than imatinib, without inhibiting kinases of known toxicities. This phase II study evaluated masitinib as a first-line treatment of advanced GIST.Patients and methodsImatinib-naïve patients with advanced GIST received oral masitinib at 7.5 mg/kg/d. Efficacy end-points included response rate (RR) at 2 months, best response according to RECIST, metabolic response rate, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rate (OS).ResultsThirty patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 34 months. The most frequent grade 3–4 toxicities were rash (10%) and neutropaenia (7%). Two patients withdrew due to treatment-related adverse events. At 2 months, RR was 20% according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) and 86% according to FDG-PET response criteria. Best responses were a complete response in 1/30 patient (3.3%), partial response in 15/30 patients (50%), stable disease in 13/30 patients (43.3%) and progressive disease in 1/30 patient (3.3%); (DCR: 96.7%). Median time-to-response was 5.6 months (0.8–23.8 months). Estimated median PFS was 41.3 months with PFS rate of 59.7% [37.9; 76.0] and 55.4 [33.9; 72.5] at 2 and 3 years, respectively. The OS at 2 and 3 years was stable at 89.9% [71.8; 96.6].ConclusionsMasitinib appears to be effective as a first-line treatment of advanced GIST with comparable results to imatinib in terms of safety and response. PFS and in particular OS data show promise that masitinib may provide sustainable benefits. There is sufficient compelling evidence to warrant a phase III clinical trial.     

Prognostic and predictive role of neutrophil/lymphocytes ratio in metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis of the TRIBE study by GONO

BackgroundNeutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), defined as absolute neutrophils count divided by absolute lymphocytes count, has been reported as poor prognostic factor in several neoplastic diseases but only a few data are available about unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts). The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of NLR in the TRIBE trial.Patients and methodsPts enrolled in TRIBE trial were included. TRIBE is a multicentre phase III trial randomizing unresectable and previously untreated mCRC pts to receive FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. A cut-off value of 3 was adopted to discriminate pts with low (NLR < 3) versus high (NLR ≥ 3) NLR, as primary analysis. As secondary analysis, NLR was treated as an ordinal variable with three levels based on terciles distribution.ResultsNLR at baseline was available for 413 patients. After multiple imputation at univariate analysis, patients with high NLR had significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 1.27 (95% CI 1.05–1.55), P = 0.017] and overall survival (OS) [HR 1.56 (95% CI 1.25–1.95), P < 0.001] than patients with low NLR. In the multivariable model, NLR retained a significant association with OS [HR 1.44 (95% CI 1.14–1.82), P = 0.014] but not with PFS [HR 1.18 (95% CI 0.95–1.46), P = 0.375]. No interaction effect between treatment arm and NLR was evident in terms of PFS (P for interaction = 0.536) or OS (P for interaction = 0.831). Patients with low [HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.64–1.08)] and high [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.54–0.97)] NLR achieved similar PFS benefit from the triplet and consistent results were obtained in terms of OS [HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.62–1.12) for low NLR; HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.59–1.12) for high NLR].ConclusionThis study confirmed the prognostic role of NLR in mCRC pts treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in the first line, showing the worse prognosis of pts with high NLR. The advantage of the triplet is independent of NLR at baseline.     

Comparison of performance of various tumour response criteria in assessment of regorafenib activity in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib

PurposeTo compare performance of various tumour response criteria (TRCs) in assessment of regorafenib activity in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) with prior failure of imatinib and sunitinib.MethodsTwenty participants in a phase II trial received oral regorafenib (median duration 47 weeks; interquartile range (IQR) 24–88) with computed tomography (CT) imaging at baseline and every two months thereafter. Tumour response was prospectively determined on using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1, and retrospectively reassessed for comparison per RECIST 1.0, World Health Organization (WHO) and Choi criteria, using the same target lesions. Clinical benefit rate [CBR; complete or partial response (CR or PR) or stable disease (SD) ⩾ 16 weeks] and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between various TRCs using kappa statistics. Performance of TRCs in predicting overall survival (OS) was compared by comparing OS in groups with progression-free intervals less than or greater than 20 weeks by each TRC using c-statistics.ResultsPR was more frequent by Choi (90%) than RECIST 1.1, RECIST 1.0 and WHO (20% each), however, CBR was similar between various TRCs (overall CBR 85–90%, 95–100% agreement between all TRC pairs). PFS per RECIST 1.0 was similar to RECIST 1.1 (median 44 weeks versus 58 weeks), and shorter for WHO (median 34 weeks) and Choi (median 24 weeks). With RECIST 1.1, RECIST 1.0 and WHO, there was moderate concordance between PFS and OS (c-statistics 0.596–0.679). Choi criteria had less favourable concordance (c-statistic 0.506).ConclusionsRECIST 1.1 and WHO performed somewhat better than Choi criteria as TRC for response evaluation in patients with advanced GIST after prior failure on imatinib and sunitinib.     

Phase II study of the HSP90-inhibitor BIIB021 in gastrointestinal stromal tumors

BackgroundHSP90 inhibition leads to proteosomal degradation of activated KIT and has in vitro activity against gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). BIIB021 is an oral non-ansamycin HSP90 inhibitor. We carried out a phase II study of BIIB021 in patients with GIST refractory to imatinib and sunitinib.Patients and methodsThe primary end-point was metabolic partial response (mPR) as assessed by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). The secondary end-points were pharmacokinetic assessments of BIIB021 and pharmacodynamic assessments of HSP70. Twenty-three patients were treated on two schedules: 12 pts received 600 mg twice a week (BIW) and 11 patients received 400 mg three times a week (TIW). All had prior imatinib and sunitinib but stopped >14 days before starting BIIB021.ResultsThe median age was 59 years (33–88 years), 61% male, 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1 (ECOG1). The best response was PR by FDG-PET for five patients (3/12 at 600 mg BIW and 2/9 at 400 TIW) for an overall response rate of 22%. The response duration was 25–138 days. Adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate. The mean C_max was 1.5 µmol and the mean AUC was 2.9 µmol h. C_max >1.5 µmol was associated with a decrease in standardized uptake value (SUV_max). HSP70 increased substantially following treatment.ConclusionsThis study met its primary end-point. BIIB021 leads to objective responses in refractory GIST patients. Pharmacodynamic studies confirmed HSP90 inhibition. Further evaluation of BIIB021 in GIST is warranted.     

Risk stratification models and mutational analysis: Keys to optimising adjuvant therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour

Imatinib is a standard of care in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST). Two important trials have shown a reduction in GIST recurrence rates for patients treated with imatinib 400 mg daily for 1 year; one of these trials also demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival for patients with GIST at high risk of recurrence who were treated for 3 years. However, not all patients will benefit from adjuvant treatment. Considering the patient types in both trials, treatment decisions must take into account a number of factors including risk of recurrence and mutational status. Tumour characteristics including tumour size, location and mitotic index are the main prognostic factors of recurrence-free survival (RFS) after surgical resection of GISTs. Research, much of it in the advanced/metastatic setting, shows that mutational analysis is definitely predictive of treatment efficacy and probably prognostic of RFS. Patients on imatinib whose tumours harbour mutations in exon 11 of the KIT gene tend to have superior RFS compared with patients with exon 9 mutations. In contrast, patients with wild-type GIST often have disease that follows an indolent course and has limited sensitivity to imatinib in most cases. As such, increased use of existing risk-stratification schemes and mutational analysis will be essential for optimising tailored treatment approaches. In this review, the development and prognostic/predictive utility of key risk stratification tools and mutational analysis of GIST are discussed herein with the goal of facilitating adjuvant treatment decisions for patients with GIST.     

Does aggressive local treatment have an impact on survival in children with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma?

PurposeDue to the extensive initial distant tumour spread in metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, the importance of local treatment is sometimes underestimated. A retrospective study was conducted to identify the prognostic value of aggressive local treatment in paediatric metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma.PatientsPatients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma aged 1–21 years treated in France from 1998 to 2011 according to European protocols MMT-4-89, 4-91, 98 and recent national guidelines were selected. Survival comparison were performed between patients with ‘aggressive local treatment’ (surgery and radiotherapy) and exclusive surgery or radiotherapy, after exclusion of patients with early progression. End-points were event-free and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 101 children, median age 9 years, with majority of primaries in unfavourable sites (73 patients, pts), T2 tumours (66 pts), alveolar subtypes (65 pts) and large tumours (>5 cm, 83 pts) received various chemotherapy regimens. On univariate and multivariate analyses, OS was better after ‘aggressive local treatment’ (49 pts; 44.3 ± 8%), than after exclusive surgery (10 pts; 18.8% ± 15.5%) or exclusive radiotherapy (29 pts; 16.1 ± 7.2%, P < 0.006). Moreover, OS was better in the case of surgery with complete resection (41.1 ± 10.2%) or microscopic residue (56.4 ± 14.9%) than macroscopic residue (20.0 ± 12.6%; P < 0.03).ConclusionsIn this large retrospective analysis, OS appeared to be better for patients receiving ‘aggressive local treatment’ even after adjustment for the initial patient and tumour characteristics. Isolated debulking surgery is associated with a very poor outcome and should be avoided. Aggressive local treatment in patients with rhabdomyosarcoma, even with metastasis, should be seriously considered.     

Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing primary surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with high tumour load (SCORPION trial): Final analysis of peri-operative outcome

ObjectiveTo establishing whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) is superior primary debulking surgery (PDS) in terms of clinical outcome as well as peri-operative morbidity in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) endowed with high tumour load (HTL).Material and methodsThis is a single-Institution, superiority, randomised phase III trial enrolling supposed AEOC women. Patients considered pre-operatively eligible were triaged to staging laparoscopy to assess the predictive index (PI) of tumour load. All AEOC women with PI ≥ 8 or ≤ 12 (considered as HTL) were included. They were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo either PDS followed by systemic adjuvant chemotherapy (arm A, standard), or NACT followed by IDS (NACT/IDS) (arm B, experimental). Co-primary outcome measures were postoperative complications (graded according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center surgical secondary events grading system) and progression free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall survival, and quality of life (QoL). QoL was assessed using the EORTC QoL questionnaires. A sample size of 110 patients was required for the analysis of the first co-primary end-point (major peri-operative morbidity) whereas recruitment is still on-going to achieve the statistical power on PFS.ResultsBetween October 2011 and November 2014, we registered 280 AEOC. Of the 110 eligible women, 55 were assigned to arm A and 55 to arm B. Despite different extension of surgery, rates of complete residual disease (residual tumour = 0 cm) were superimposable between the groups (45.5% versus 57.7%; p = 0.206). Twenty-nine patients (52.7%) in arm A experienced early grade III–IV complications versus three patients (5.7%) in IDS (p = 0.0001). The most common complication was grade III and consisted of symptomatic pleural effusion requiring thoracic drainage (17/55 women (30.9%) in arm A versus 1/52 (1.9%) in arm B, p = 0.0001). Three grade IV (5.4%) (i.e., two re-operations for postoperative haemorrhage and one septic multi-organ failure), and two grade V (3.6%) (two deaths for acute cardiopulmonary failure) early complications were observed in arm A only.Mean QoL scores of several scales/items were shown to ameliorate over time in both arms. Emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea, insomnia and hair loss were statistically and clinically better in NACT/IDS compared to PDS arm.ConclusionsPerioperative moderate/severe morbidity as well as QoL scores were shown to be more favourable in NACT/IDS arm than PDS in AEOC patients with very HTL. Completion of patient enrolment and analysis of survival data will clarify whether PDS with such a high rate of severe complications is an acceptable treatment in AEOC women with HTL.