Results of API-AI based regimen in osteosarcoma adult patients included in the French OS2006/Sarcome-09 study.

In the OS2006 study, patients younger than 18 years were treated with a methotrexate-based regimen (MTX), patients older than 25 years with a doxorubicin-cisplatin-ifosfamide-based regimen (API-AI), whereas patients aged 18-25 years received either API-AI or MTX. We herein report the prespecified subgroup analysis of the outcome of 106 patients treated with API-AI. Preoperative chemotherapy combined three doxorubicin-ifosfamide-cisplatin (API) and two doxorubicin-ifosfamide (AI) courses. Postoperative chemotherapy was assigned by risk group: localised patients with a good histological response (<10% viable cells) received two AI and two cisplatin-ifosfamide (PI) courses; patients with synchronous metastases, poor histological response or unresectable primary received five cycles of etoposide-ifosfamide (EI). Of the 106 patients, 61 were randomised to receive or not zoledronate. Median age was 30 years (range 18-67), 66 (62%) patients were >25 years. The primary tumours were axial in 28 patients (26%), and 28 (26%) presented with metastases. Ninety-six patients (91%) had surgery, conservative in 82 (85%); 36 patients (38%, 95% CI 28-48%) were good responders. Toxicity was manageable, with no significant difference in severe acute toxicity between patients aged >25 years and those younger. With a median follow-up of 4.8 years, the 5-year event-free survival and overall survival rates were 46% (95% CI 36-56) and 57% (95% CI 47-67), respectively. The primary tumour size and initial metastases correlated with a higher risk of event. In these 106 osteosarcoma adult patients, API-AI proved feasible with no excess of toxicity, and favourable activity despite poor-prognosis factors.

Prevalence and characteristics of HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer in France.

BACKGROUND: France has one of the highest incidence of head and neck cancers in Europe. Despite this, the epidemiological impact of high-risk human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) remains poorly investigated. METHODS: We prospective assessed the proportion of oropharyngeal cancers due to HR-HPV in 15 hospitals throughout France. HPV-status was determined by p16-immunohistochemistry, and by detection of HPV-DNA using in situ hybridization. Cancers were classified as HPV-driven if both p16-immunohistochemistry and HPV-DNA assays were positive. Demographical and clinical features were recorded. RESULTS: 291 patients with palatine-tonsil or tongue-base cancers were recruited from March-2011 to July-2012. Of these, 43.1% of samples were p16-positive and 37.7% were positive for both p16 and HPV-DNA. Prognosis was significantly better in patients with HPV-driven cancers, with smoking negatively impacting patients' oncological outcomes. CONCLUSION: In France, more than a third of tonsillar and tongue base cancers are HPV-driven. More research concerning the evolution of HPV-driven cancers over time is needed.

Sarcome-13/OS2016 trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase II trial of mifamurtide combined with postoperative chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed high-risk osteosarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: The controversial results on the mifamurtide efficacy associated with chemotherapy, issued from the American INT-0133-study, in localised osteosarcomas, and the underpowered analysis performed separately in metastatic patients, should be clarified to homogenise international use of this promising drug. The European Commission has granted a marketing authorisation to mifamurtide combined with postoperative chemotherapy in localised osteosarcomas but not in metastatic patients, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has denied this authorisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Sarcome-13/OS2016 trial is a multicentre randomised open-label phase II trial evaluating the survival benefit of mifamurtide administered during 36 weeks in combination with postoperative chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, in patients >2 and ≤50 years with newly diagnosed high-risk localised or metastatic osteosarcoma. The main objective is to evaluate the impact on event-free survival (EFS) of mifamurtide on intention-to-treat population. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the impact of mifamurtide on overall survival, to evaluate the feasibility and toxicity of the planned treatment, to correlate biology/immunology with the mifamurtide efficacy/toxicity. With a total of 126 enrolled patients and 51 events, the power is 80% if mifamurtide is associated with an 18% improvement of the 3-year EFS (52%vs70%, equivalent to an HR=0.55), with a one-sided logrank test alpha=10%. As relevant historical data are available (aggregate treatment effect from the INT-0133 trial and individual data from the control group of the Sarcome-09/OS2006 trial), a Bayesian analysis is also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the 'Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France I' (12/06/2018), complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and French laws and regulations, and follows the International Conference on Harmonisation E6 Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. The trial results, even if they are inconclusive, as well as biological ancillary studies will be presented at appropriate international congresses and published in international peer-review journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2017-001165-24, NCT03643133.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in adult patients with metastatic osteosarcoma: a non-comparative, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib has proven activity in patients with pretreated gastrointestinal stromal tumours and colorectal and hepatocellular carcinoma. We designed REGOBONE to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma and other bone sarcomas. This trial comprised four parallel independent cohorts: osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and chordoma. In this Article, we report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. METHODS: In this non-comparative, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, patients aged 10 years or older with histologically confirmed osteosarcoma whose disease had progressed after treatment with one to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral regorafenib (160 mg/day, for 21 of 28 days) or matching placebo. Patients in both groups also received best supportive care. Randomisation was done using a web-based system and was stratified (permuted block) by age at inclusion (<18 vs ≥18 years old). Investigators and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Patients in the placebo group, after centrally confirmed progressive disease, could cross over to receive regorafenib. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without disease progression at 8 weeks. Analyses were done by modified intention to treat (ie, patients without any major entry criteria violation who initiated masked study drug treatment were included). All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389244, and the results presented here are the final analysis of the osteosarcoma cohort (others cohorts are ongoing). FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and April 4, 2017, 43 adult patients were enrolled from 13 French comprehensive cancer centres. All patients received at least one dose of assigned treatment and were evaluable for safety; five patients were excluded for major protocol violations (two in the placebo group and three in the regorafenib group), leaving 38 patients who were evaluable for efficacy (12 in the placebo group and 26 in the regorafenib group). 17 of 26 patients (65%; one-sided 95% CI 47%) in the regorafenib group were non-progressive at 8 weeks compared with no patients in the placebo group. Ten patients in the placebo group crossed over to receive open-label regorafenib after centrally confirmed disease progression. 13 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (24%) of 29 patients in the regorafenib group versus none of 14 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events during the double-blind period of treatment included hypertension (in seven [24%] of 29 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (three [10%] vs none), fatigue (three [10%] vs one [3%]), hypophosphataemia (three [10%] vs none), and chest pain (three [10%] vs none). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity in adult patients with recurrent, progressive, metastatic osteosarcoma after failure of conventional chemotherapy, with a positive effect on delaying disease progression. Regorafenib should be further evaluated in the setting of advanced disease as well as potentially earlier in the disease course for patients at high risk of relapse. Regorafenib might have an important therapeutic role as an agent complementary to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy in the therapeutic armamentarium against osteosarcoma. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare.

Results of methotrexate-etoposide-ifosfamide based regimen (M-EI) in osteosarcoma patients included in the French OS2006/sarcome-09 study.

BACKGROUND: In most countries, reference chemotherapy for osteosarcoma is MAP regimen (M = high-dose methotrexate, AP = doxorubicin-cisplatinum). In France, the standard preoperative chemotherapy for children/adolescents combines M and etoposide-ifosfamide (EI), based on the OS94-trial. We report the safety and efficacy results of patients ≤25 years treated with preoperative M-EI regimen enroled in the French OS2006-study, between 2007 and 2014. METHODS: Treatment comprised preoperative chemotherapy with the 7 M-courses and 2 EI-courses, then surgery and postoperative chemotherapy assigned by risk's groups: standard-risk (good histological response without metastases) received 12 M-courses, 3 EI-courses; high-risk (poor histologic response, initial metastases or unresectable primary) received 5 M-courses alternated with 5 AP-courses. 253 patients were randomised to receive (n = 128) or not (n = 125) zoledronate. RESULTS: 409/522 patients enroled in the OS2006 study who received preoperative M-EI were analysed. Median age was 14.3 years (4.7-24.5), with 55 patients aged 18-25 years. Primary tumour location was limb in 383 patients (94%) and 85 (21%) presented metastases. Median chemotherapy duration was 37.4 weeks. 381 (96%) patients underwent surgery, 258 patients (65%) had a good histologic response. 187/324 patients (58%) with localised disease did not receive doxorubicin nor cisplatinum. Toxicity was evaluated in the randomised study: most patients experienced ≥1 severe toxicity (grade IV haematological or grade III/IV extra-haematological). Median follow-up was 4.8 years, and 168 patients had events. Five-year event-free survival was 56% (95% CI, 51-62%) and overall survival 71% (66-76%). CONCLUSION: M-EI regimen/strategy was feasible for patient aged ≤25 years with survival rates are comparable to those obtained with MAP regimen.