Building the Evidence for Systemic Treatment in Desmoid Fibromatosis: Is a New Metronomic Regimen Another Layer in the Foundation?

@Thalcin explains how a metronomic regimen for desmoid tumors fits in the current treatment landscape.

Safety And Efficacy Of Combination Lurbinectedin Plus Doxorubicin From A Phase 1b Trial In Patients With Advanced/Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: While cytotoxic chemotherapy is standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS), clinical outcomes remain suboptimal. Our prior study showed lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin is well-tolerated with promising clinical activity in STS. We designed this phase 1b trial to optimize dosing as the basis for a randomized trial in leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and to further explore the safety profile and efficacy signal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had advanced/metastatic STS and no prior anthracycline/lurbinectedin/trabectedin. Escalation followed a 3+3 design with 3-week cycles: lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 day 1) and two doxorubicin levels (DL1: 25 mg/m2 day 1; DL2 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8). The primary objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose for subsequent randomized trials. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled in a 6-month period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were grade (G) 2 fatigue and nausea, and G2 cytopenias with no febrile neutropenia events. There were 2 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at DL2 (day 8 [G2 ALT/AST increase, G3 neutropenia]), and 1 DLT in DL1 (G3 ALT increase). These were reversible and all patients continued the study. DL1 was chosen for further study. At the time of data cutoff, the estimated median PFS is 16.5 months (95%CI 6.0-ND). The ORR was 60% (6/10 confirmed partial responses [PR]). CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1b study, the recommended dose is lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 in combination with doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The study combination was well-tolerated and demonstrated intriguing clinical activity.

Survival in esophageal cancer with nonregional lymphadenopathy: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Survival among patients with esophageal cancer with stage IV nonregional lymphadenopathy treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection is not well described. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of patients with nonregional lymphadenopathy with a propensity-matched cohort of patients with locoregional disease. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database from a regional upper gastrointestinal cancer network in Quebec, Canada. From January 2010 to December 2022, patients with radiologically suspicious nonregional retroperitoneal or supraclavicular lymphadenopathy were identified. Using 1:1 propensity score matching, a control group without nonregional disease was created. RESULTS: Of the 1235 patients identified, 39 met the inclusion criteria and were allocated to the study group of whom 35 of 39 (89%) had adenocarcinoma. Retroperitoneal and supraclavicular lymphadenopathy occurred in 26 of 39 patients (67%) and 13 of 39 patients (33%). Of the 39 patients, 34 (87%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 5 (13%) received chemoradiotherapy. After resection, ypN0 of nonregional lymph node stations occurred in 21 of 39 patients (54%). When comparing the study group with a matched non-stage IV control group, the median overall survival was similar in patients with retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (21.0 months [95% CI, 8.0-21.0] vs 27.0 months [95% CI, 13.0-41.0]; P = .262) but not with supraclavicular disease (13.0 months; 95% CI, 8.0-18.0; P = .039). The median follow-up intervals were 40.1 months (95% CI, 1.0-83.0) for the study group and 70.0 (95% CI, 33.0-106.0) for the control groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with a matched cohort of patients with similar disease burden but not stage IV disease, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy did not negatively affect survival outcomes. Multimodal curative intent therapy may be appropriate in select cases.

Clinical impact of whole-body MRI in staging and surveillance of patients with myxoid liposarcoma: a 14-year single-centre retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical impact of regular whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) surveillance in myxoid liposarcoma patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of myxoid liposarcoma patients who underwent at least one WBMRI at our institution between October 2006 and December 2020. The effect of WBMRI on clinical management, namely treatment modification or additional diagnostic investigations was studied. A standardised WBMRI surveillance protocol was instituted in 2015. We compared patient outcomes for the metastatic patients who had and had not received regular WBMRI surveillance and performed survival analysis for both subgroups. RESULTS: Of the 56 patients (60.7% male, median age: 48.1 years) who underwent 345 WBMRI, 17 (30.3%) had metastases, and 168 WBMRI were performed in this group. The median imaging follow-up for the entire cohort was 35 months; the metastatic group had a median follow-up of 42 months. WBMRI changed the clinical management in 13 (76.5%) metastatic patients, with 33 instances of treatment modification. Thirty-five lesions were labelled 'indeterminate,' 16 (45.7%) had additional investigations/interventions, and 4 (11.4%) were confirmed to be metastatic. Twenty-one metastatic lesions were missed initially on WBMRI and confirmed on subsequent WBMRI, of which 5 (23.8%) were clinically significant. The 5-year survival since the detection of metastasis was better in the regular surveillance subgroup (85.7% vs. 45%), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.068). Five patients (8.9%) developed their first metastasis more than 5 years after diagnosing the primary lesion. CONCLUSION: Regular WBMRI surveillance of myxoid liposarcoma patients considerably impacts clinical management by frequently influencing treatment decisions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: WBMRI has been recently recommended as an imaging option for the staging and surveillance of myxoid liposarcoma patients. Our study highlights the impact of regular WBMRI surveillance on the clinical management of these patients and how it affects their survival.

Influence of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy-Chemotherapy on Perioperative Outcomes in Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the perioperative outcomes for patients who had locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy (IO) and chemotherapy versus a matched cohort of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) alone. METHODS: A single-center non-randomized phase 2 trial was undertaken with locally advanced (cT3-4 and/or N+) EAC, and 49 patients completed neoadjuvant avelumab + docetaxel, cisplatin, 5FU (DCF) and esophagectomy between February 2018 and February 2020. These patients were matched with contemporary patients (January 2018 to June 2020) who met the inclusion criteria but received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (NAC) with a comparable docetaxel-based therapy. The postoperative outcomes then were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: For this study, 99 patients with locally advanced EAC underwent esophagectomy and met the enrolment criteria. Of these patients, 50 received NAC alone and 49 received IO + NAC. Baseline characteristics such as age, gender, and clinical stage were comparable between the two groups. Operative approach and rate of minimally invasive esophagectomy (~ 60%) were similar in the two groups. For the NAC-alone and IO + NAC groups, the respective overall and major complication rates were similar between the two groups (50% vs. 51% [p = 0.91] and 20% vs. 26% [p = 0.44], respectively), with concordant rates for anastomotic leak (6 [12%] vs. 6 [12%]; p = 0.86) and respiratory complications (13 [26%] vs. 11 [22%]; p = 0.68). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of hospital length of stay or 30- and 90-day mortality rates. CONCLUSION: The addition of immunotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma does not appear to alter perioperative short-term outcomes significantly after esophagectomy.

Docetaxel-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by En Bloc Resection for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A 15-Year Retrospective Analysis from a Regional Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Network.

BACKROUND: Real-world, long-term survival outcomes of neoadjuvant, docetaxel-based therapy for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma are lacking. This study describes the long-term survival outcomes of patients with esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel-based chemotherapy and en bloc transthoracic esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database from a regional upper gastrointestinal cancer network in Quebec, Canada, was performed. From January 2007 to December 2021, all patients with locally advanced (cT3 and/or N1) esophageal/Siewert I/II adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant DCFx3 (Docetaxel/Cisplatin/5FU) or FLOTx4 (5FU/Leucovorin/Oxaliplatin/Docetaxel) and transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy were identified. Postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 236 of 420 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tumor location was esophageal/Siewert I/Siewert II (118/33/85), most were cT3-4 (93.6%) and cN+ (61.0%). DCF and FLOT were used in 127 of 236 (53.8%) and 109 of 236 (46.2%). All neoadjuvant cycles were completed in 87.3% with no difference between the regimens. Operative procedures included Ivor Lewis (81.8%), left thoraco-abdominal esophagectomy (10.6%) and McKeown (7.6%) with an R0 resection in 95.3% and pathological complete response in 9.7% (DCF 12.6%/FLOT 6.4%, p = 0.111). The median lymph node yield was 32 (range 4-79), and 60.6% were ypN+. Median follow-up was longer for the DCF group (74.8 months 95% confidence interval [CI] 4-173 vs. 37.8 months 95% CI 2-119, p <0.001. Overall survival was similar between the groups (FLOT 97.3 months, 78.6-115.8 vs. DCF 92.9, 9.2-106.5, p = 0.420). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant DCF and FLOT followed by transthoracic en bloc resection are both highly effective regimens for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma with equivalent survival outcomes despite high disease load.

Real-world experience of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in children, adolescents and adults with relapsed or refractory bone tumours: A Canadian Sarcoma Research and Clinical Collaboration (CanSaRCC) study.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to assess the real-world outcome of regorafenib (REGO) and cabozantinib (CABO) in recurrent/refractory bone tumours (BTs) including osteosarcoma (OST), Ewing sarcoma (EWS) and chondrosarcoma (CS)/extra-skeletal mesenchymal CS (ESMC). METHODS: After regulatory approval, data from patients with recurrent BT (11 institutions) were extracted from CanSaRCC (Canadian Sarcoma Research and Clinical Collaboration) database. Patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes were collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: From July 2018 to May 2022, 66 patients received REGO or CABO; 39 OST, 18 EWS, 4 CS and 5 ESMC. Median age was 27.8 years (range 12-76); median starting dose was 60 mg for CABO (n = 37, range 40-60) and 120 mg for REGO (n = 29, range 40-160). Twenty-eight (42.4%) patients required dose reduction: hand-foot syndrome 7 (10.6%), nausea/vomiting 1 (1.5%), diarrhoea 1 (1.5%), 2 elevated LFTs (3%), elevated bilirubin 1 (1.5%) and mucositis 1 (1.5%). The median OS for patients with OST, EWS, CS and ESMC was 8.5 months (n = 39, 95% CI 7-13.1); 13.4 months (n = 18, 95% CI 3.4-27.2), 8.1 (n = 4, 95% CI 4.1-9.3) and 18.2 (n = 5, 95% CI (10.4-na), respectively. Median PFS for OST, EWS, CS and ECMS was 3.5 (n = 39, 95% CI 2.8-5), 3.9 (n = 18, 95% CI 2.1-5.9), 5.53 (n = 4. 95% CI 2.13-NA) and 11.4 (n = 5, 95% CI 1.83-14.7), respectively. Age, line of therapy, REGO versus CABO, or time from diagnosis to initiation of TKI were not associated with PFS on univariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Our real-world data show that TKIs have meaningful activity in recurrent BT with acceptable toxicities when started at modified dosing. Inclusion of TKIs in earlier lines of treatment and/or maintenance therapy could be questions for future research.

Survival and perioperative outcomes of octo- and nonagenarians with resectable esophageal carcinoma.

The outcomes of different treatment modalities for patients aged 80 and above with locally advanced and resectable esophageal carcinoma are not well described. The aim of this study was to explore survival and perioperative outcomes among this specific group of patients. A retrospective, cohort analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained esophageal cancer database from the McGill regional upper gastroinestinal cancer network. Between 2010 and 2020, all patients ≥80 years with cT2-4a, Nany, M0 esophageal carcinoma were identified and stratified according to the treatment modality: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or chemoradiotherapy (nCRT); definitive CRT (dCRT); upfront surgery; palliative CT/RT; or best supportive care (BSC). Of the 162 patients identified, 79 were included in this study. The median age was 83 years (80-97), most were cT3 (73%), cN- (56%), and had adenocarcinoma (62%). Treatment included: nCT/nCRT (16/79, 20%); surgery alone (19/79, 24%); dCRT (12/29, 15%); palliative RT/CT (27/79, 34%); and BSC (5/79, 6%). Neoadjuvant treatment was completed in 10/16 (63%). Of the 35/79 who underwent surgery, major complications occurred in 13/35 (37%) and 90-day mortality in 3/35 (9%). Overall survival (OS) for the cohort at 1- and 3-years was 58% and 19%. Among patients treated with nCT/nCRT, this was 94% and 46% respectively. Curative intent treatment (nCT/nCRT/upfront surgery/dCRT) had significantly increased 1- and 3- year OS compared with non-curative treatment (76%/31% vs. 34%/3.3%). Multimodal standard of care treatment is feasible and safe in select octo/nonagenarians, and may be associated with improved OS. Age alone should not bias against treatment with curative intent.

Circulating Tumor DNA as a Predictive Biomarker for Clinical Outcomes With Margetuximab and Pembrolizumab in Pretreated HER2-Positive Gastric/ Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-based testing to identify patients with HER2 (encoded by ERBB2)-positive gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) who progressed on or after trastuzumab-containing treatments were treated with combination therapy of anti-HER2 and anti-PD-1 agents. METHODS: ctDNA analysis was performed retrospectively using plasma samples collected at study entry from 86 patients participating in the phase 1/2 CP-MGAH22-05 study (NCT02689284). RESULTS: Objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in evaluable ERBB2 amplification-positive vs - negative patients based on ctDNA analysis at study entry (37% vs 6%, respectively; P = .00094). ORR was 23% across all patients who were evaluable for response. ERBB2 amplification was detected at study entry in 57% of patients (all HER2 positive at diagnosis), and detection was higher (88%) when HER2 status was determined by immunohistochemistry fewer than 6 months before study entry. ctDNA was detected in 98% (84/86) of patients tested at study entry. Codetected ERBB2-activating mutations were not associated with response. CONCLUSIONS: Current ERBB2 status may be more effective than archival status at predicting clinical benefit from margetuximab plus pembrolizumab therapy. ctDNA testing for ERBB2 status prior to treatment will spare patients from repeat tissue biopsies, which may be reserved for reflex testing when ctDNA is not detected.

Nirogacestat, a γ-Secretase Inhibitor for Desmoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumors are rare, locally aggressive, highly recurrent soft-tissue tumors without approved treatments. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of nirogacestat in adults with progressing desmoid tumors according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive the oral γ-secretase inhibitor nirogacestat (150 mg) or placebo twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: From May 2019 through August 2020, a total of 70 patients were assigned to receive nirogacestat and 72 to receive placebo. Nirogacestat had a significant progression-free survival benefit over placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.55; P<0.001); the likelihood of being event-free at 2 years was 76% with nirogacestat and 44% with placebo. Between-group differences in progression-free survival were consistent across prespecified subgroups. The percentage of patients who had an objective response was significantly higher with nirogacestat than with placebo (41% vs. 8%; P<0.001), with a median time to response of 5.6 months and 11.1 months, respectively; the percentage of patients with a complete response was 7% and 0%, respectively. Significant between-group differences in secondary patient-reported outcomes, including pain, symptom burden, physical or role functioning, and health-related quality of life, were observed (P≤0.01). Frequent adverse events with nirogacestat included diarrhea (in 84% of the patients), nausea (in 54%), fatigue (in 51%), hypophosphatemia (in 42%), and maculopapular rash (in 32%); 95% of adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. Among women of childbearing potential receiving nirogacestat, 27 of 36 (75%) had adverse events consistent with ovarian dysfunction, which resolved in 20 women (74%). CONCLUSIONS: Nirogacestat was associated with significant benefits with respect to progression-free survival, objective response, pain, symptom burden, physical functioning, role functioning, and health-related quality of life in adults with progressing desmoid tumors. Adverse events with nirogacestat were frequent but mostly low grade. (Funded by SpringWorks Therapeutics; DeFi ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785964.).

INTEGRATE II: randomised phase III controlled trials of regorafenib containing regimens versus standard of care in refractory Advanced Gastro-Oesophageal Cancer (AGOC): a study by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

BACKGROUND: Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGOC) carries a poor prognosis. No standard of care treatment options are available after first and second-line therapies. Regorafenib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. Regorafenib 160 mg daily prolonged progression free survival compared to placebo (INTEGRATE, phase 2). Regorafenib 80 mg daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed promising objective response rates (REGONIVO). METHODS/DESIGN: INTEGRATE II (INTEGRATE IIa and IIb) platform comprises two international phase III randomised controlled trials (RCT) with 2:1 randomisation in favor of experimental intervention. INTEGRATE IIa (double-blind) compares regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle to placebo. INTEGRATE IIb (open label) compares REGONIVO, regorafenib 90 mg days 1 to 21 in combination with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg days 1 and 15 each 28-day cycle with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (control). Treatment continues until disease progression or intolerable adverse events as per protocol. Eligible participants include adults with AGOC who have failed two or more lines of treatment. Stratification is by location of tumour (INTEGRATE IIa only), geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitor and prior immunotherapy use (INTEGRATE IIb only). Primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, and safety. Tertiary/correlative objectives include biomarker and pharmacokinetic evaluation. DISCUSSION: INTEGRATE II provides a platform to evaluate the clinical utility of regorafenib alone, as well as regorafenib in combination with nivolumab in treatment of participants with refractory AGOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INTEGRATE IIa prospectively registered 1 April 2016 Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000420448 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02773524). INTEGRATE IIb prospectively registered 10 May 2021 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04879368.

Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations involving targeted therapies for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS: For human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (AC) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5, first-line therapy with nivolumab and chemotherapy (CT) is recommended. For HER2-negative patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) AC and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, first-line therapy with nivolumab and CT is recommended. First-line therapy with pembrolizumab and CT is recommended for HER2-negative patients with esophageal or GEJ AC and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 1%, nivolumab plus CT, or nivolumab plus ipilimumab is recommended; for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, pembrolizumab plus CT is recommended. For patients with HER2-positive gastric or GEJ previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic AC, trastuzumab plus pembrolizumab is recommended, in combination with CT. For patients with advanced gastroesophageal or GEJ AC whose disease has progressed after first-line therapy, ramucirumab plus paclitaxel is recommended. For HER2-positive patients with gastric or GEJ AC who have progressed after first-line therapy, trastuzumab deruxtecan is recommended. In all cases, participation in a clinical trial is recommended as it is the panel's expectation that targeted treatment options for gastroesophageal cancer will continue to evolve.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Pexidartinib Provides Modest Pain Relief in Patients With Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumor: Results From ENLIVEN.

BACKGROUND: The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of orally administered PLX3397 in patients with pigmented villonodular synovitis or giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath (ENLIVEN) showed that pexidartinib provides a robust objective tumor response in adults with tenosynovial giant cell tumors (TGCT) not amenable to improvement with surgery. Based on these results, in 2019, pexidartinib received accelerated approval in the United States in this population as a breakthrough therapy under an orphan drug designation. However, the ability of pexidartinib to relieve pain in ENLIVEN was not fully detailed, and the relationship between pain relief and objective tumor response was not described. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What level of pain relief was achieved by pexidartinib treatment in ENLIVEN? (2) How was pain relief related to objective tumor responses? (3) How durable was pain relief? METHODS: The current study included planned primary and exploratory assessments of patient-assessed worst pain at the site of the tumor in the ENLIVEN trial. ENLIVEN was a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which adults with TGCT not amenable to improvement with surgery received pexidartinib or placebo for 24 weeks, after which eligible patients could receive open-label pexidartinib. Of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 121 were randomized (50% [60] to placebo, 50% [61] to pexidartinib), and 120 were given either placebo or pexidartinib (59 received placebo and 61 received pexidartinib) and were included in an intent-to-treat analysis. Fifty-nine percent (71 of 120) of the overall treated population was female, and 88% (106 of 120) were White. Mean age was 45 ± 13 years. Tumors were mostly in the lower extremities (92% [110 of 120]), most commonly in the knee (61% [73 of 120]) and ankle (18% [21 of 120]). As a secondary outcome, patients scored worst pain at the site of the tumor in the past 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary definition of a pain response was a decrease of at least 30% in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score and increase of less than 30% in narcotic analgesic use between baseline and week 25. Planned exploratory assessments of pain included the frequency of a pain response using alternative thresholds, including a decrease in worst-pain NRS score of 50% or more and a decrease of at least 2 points (minimum clinically important difference [MCID]), the magnitude of pain reduction between baseline and week 25, correlation between worst-pain NRS score and tumor shrinkage by RECIST 1.1 criteria, and the durability of the pain response during the open-label extension. Pain responses during the randomized portion of the trial were compared according to intention-to-treat analysis, with a one-sided threshold of p < 0.025 to reduce the risk of false-positive results. Pain assessment was complete for 59% (35 of 59) of patients in the placebo group and 54% (33 of 61) of patients in the pexidartinib group. Demographic and disease characteristics did not differ between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: A difference in the primary assessment of a pain response was not detected between pexidartinib and placebo (response percentage 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 15% [9 of 59] [95% CI 8% to 27%]; one-sided p = 0.03). In the exploratory analyses, pexidartinib provided a modest improvement in pain (response percentage 26% [16 of 61] [95% CI 17% to 38%] versus 10% [6 of 59] [95% CI 5% to 20%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the 50% threshold and 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 14% [8 of 59] [95% CI 7% to 25%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the MCID threshold). The least-squares mean change in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score between baseline and week 25 was larger in patients treated with pexidartinib than placebo (-2.5 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.9] versus -0.3 [95% CI -0.9 to 0.3]; p < 0.001), although the mean difference between the two groups (-2.2 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.4]) was just over the MCID. Improvement in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score correlated with the reduction in tumor size (r = 0.44; p < 0.001) and tumor volume score (r = 0.61; p < 0.001). For patients in the open-label extension, the change in the worst-pain NRS score from baseline was similar to the change at the end of the randomized portion and just above the MCID (mean -2.7 ± 2.2 after 25 weeks and -3.3 ± 1.7 after 50 weeks of receiving pexidartinib). CONCLUSION: Based on the current study, a modest reduction in pain, just larger than the MCID, may be an added benefit of pexidartinib in these patients, although the findings are insufficient to justify the routine use of pexidartinib for pain relief. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

A Phase II Exploratory Study to Identify Biomarkers Predictive of Clinical Response to Regorafenib in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Who Have Failed First-Line Therapy.

Single-agent regorafenib is approved in Canada for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who have failed previous lines of therapy. Identifying prognostic biomarkers is key to optimizing therapeutic strategies for these patients. In this clinical study (NCT01949194), we evaluated the safety and efficacy of single-agent regorafenib as a second-line therapy for mCRC patients who received it after failing first-line therapy with an oxaliplatin or irinotecan regimen with or without bevacizumab. Using various omics approaches, we also investigated putative biomarkers of response and resistance to regorafenib in metastatic lesions and blood samples in the same cohort. Overall, the safety profile of regorafenib seemed similar to the CORRECT trial, where regorafenib was administered as ≥ 2 lines of therapy. While the mutational landscape showed typical mutation rates for the top five driver genes (APC, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and TP53), KRAS mutations were enriched in intrinsically resistant lesions. Additional exploration of genomic-phenotype associations revealed several biomarker candidates linked to unfavorable prognoses in patients with mCRC using various approaches, including pathway analysis, cfDNA profiling, and copy number analysis. However, further research endeavors are necessary to validate the potential utility of these promising genes in understanding patients' responses to regorafenib treatment.

Recurrent acute coronary syndrome caused by a primary aortic valve sarcoma: grand rounds and literature review.

Background: Malignant tumours of the aortic valve apparatus are extremely rare and difficult to diagnose. Their proximity to the coronary ostium may cause an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) either by infiltration or by embolization. Case summary: We report a case of primary aortic valve undifferentiated sarcoma causing recurrent episodes of ACS, and we provide a literature review for primary cardiac valve tumours. This case also highlights the need for further evaluation of other causes of ACS in patients with minimal coronary artery disease risk factors and recurrent ACS. Conclusions: The majority of valve tumours are fibroelastomas. Sarcomas are rare and lead to poor outcomes.

Selinexor in Advanced, Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

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.