Chemotherapy in patients with localized angiosarcoma of any site: A retrospective european study.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively investigated the role of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma. METHODS: We selected all patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma, who had received radical surgery between January 2005 and December 2019 at 33 European sarcoma reference centers. The primary objective was to compare the outcome of patients who received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not, in terms of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). To reduce the risk of confounding due to imbalance, a propensity-score matching(PSM) was performed. Finally, subgroups analysis was performed according to tumor site, tumor size (< 50 mm or ≥ 50 mm) and patients predicted 10-years OS according to the nomogram sarculator (two different cutoff-values were applied: ≤ 33% or > 33% and < 60% or ≥ 60%). RESULTS: 362 patients were analyzed: 149 (41.2%; treated group) received (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy and 213 (58.6%; control group) did not. The median follow-up for the OS endpoint was 5.1 years (95% CI: 4.0-5.5). The OS-HR was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.40-0.83; p-value = 0.003) in the univariate analysis and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.38-1.43; p = 0.367) in the PSM analysis. The DFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57-0.98; p-value = 0.036) in the univariate analysis, and 0.91 (95% CI:0.56-1.48; p-value = 0.7) in the PSM analysis. The DMFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.55-1.02; p-value = 0.065) in univariate analysis and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.53-1.61; p-value = 0.769) in the PSM analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed no heterogeneity of results in strata of tumor site. On the contrary, there was a trend for heterogeneity according to tumor size and patient's risk of death. For all the endpoints analyzed, patients with tumors smaller than 50 mm or at lower risk of death seem to have no benefit from chemotherapy, while patients with larger tumors or at higher risk of death at 10 years seem to derive substantial benefit. CONCLUSION: This large, retrospective study suggests that patients affected by > 50 mm and/or high-risk primary, localized angiosarcoma could benefit from (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy.

The ENCCA-WP7/EuroSarc/EEC/PROVABES/EURAMOS 3rd European Bone Sarcoma Networking Meeting/Joint Workshop of EU Bone Sarcoma Translational Research Networks; Vienna, Austria, September 24-25, 2015. Workshop Report.

This report summarizes the results of the 3rd Joint ENCCA-WP7, EuroSarc, EEC, PROVABES, and EURAMOS European Bone Sarcoma Network Meeting, which was held at the Children's Cancer Research Institute in Vienna, Austria on September 24-25, 2015. The joint bone sarcoma network meetings bring together European bone sarcoma researchers to present and discuss current knowledge on bone sarcoma biology, genetics, immunology, as well as results from preclinical investigations and clinical trials, to generate novel hypotheses for collaborative biological and clinical investigations. The ultimate goal is to further improve therapy and outcome in patients with bone sarcomas.

Time to Definitive Failure to the First Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor in Localized GI Stromal Tumors Treated With Imatinib As an Adjuvant: A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Intergroup Randomized Trial in Collaboration With the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group, UNICANCER, French Sarcoma Group, Italian Sarcoma Group, and Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas.

PURPOSE: In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery patients with localized, high- or intermediate-risk GI stromal tumor (GIST). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 2 years of imatinib 400 mg daily or no further therapy after surgery. The primary end point was overall survival; relapse-free survival (RFS), relapse-free interval, and toxicity were secondary end points. In 2009, given the concurrent improvement in prognosis of patients with advanced GIST, we changed the primary end point to imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS), with agreement of the independent data monitoring committee. We report on a planned interim analysis. RESULTS: A total of 908 patients were randomly assigned between December 2004 and October 2008: 454 to imatinib and 454 to observation. Of these, 835 patients were eligible. With a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 5-year IFFS was 87% in the imatinib arm versus 84% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.79; 98.5% CI, 0.50 to 1.25; P = .21); RFS was 84% versus 66% at 3 years and 69% versus 63% at 5 years (log-rank P < .001); and 5-year overall survival was 100% versus 99%, respectively. Among 528 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathologist, 5-year IFFS was 79% versus 73%; among 336 centrally reviewed high-risk patients, it was 77% versus 73%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that adjuvant imatinib has an overt impact on RFS. No significant difference in IFFS was observed, although in the high-risk subgroup there was a trend in favor of the adjuvant arm. IFFS was conceived as a potential end point in the adjuvant setting because it is sensitive to secondary resistance, which is the main adverse prognostic factor in patients with advanced GIST.