Clinical development and evaluation of a VEGF-D assay in plasma from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the RAISE study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-D was identified as a potential predictive biomarker for ramucirumab efficacy in second-line metastatic colorectal cancer using a research use only (RUO) assay. We describe results with a new assay for detecting VEGF-D in human plasma. METHODS: In RAISE (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01183780), 1072 patients were randomized 1:1 to ramucirumab or placebo plus FOLFIRI. All patients were then randomized 1:2 to marker exploratory (ME) and marker confirmatory (MC) groups, and those with plasma samples were analyzed accordingly. A new assay validated for investigational use only (IUO) was used to measure VEGF-D levels in plasma, which were analyzed for correlation with overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS). IUO assay data were compared with historical RUO assay data. RESULTS: ME subset analyses determined the optimal cutpoint of 5.4 ng/mL for defining high/low VEGF-D subgroups. In the combined ME/MC placebo arms, OS/PFS were numerically greater for patients with low vs high VEGF-D (OS: 12.8 vs 11.1 months; PFS: 5.6 vs 4.2 months). In patients with high VEGF-D, ramucirumab vs placebo demonstrated a numerically greater improvement in OS and PFS. Differential efficacy by VEGF-D level was statistically significant for PFS, but not OS. CONCLUSION: In patients with high VEGF-D, ramucirumab demonstrated a greater improvement in OS and PFS vs placebo; however, baseline VEGF-D level was not predictive of ramucirumab OS benefit using VEGF-D assay for IUO. The RAISE intent-to-treat results remain valid.

Soft tissue sarcoma in Italy: From epidemiological data to clinical networking to improve patient care and outcomes.

Sarcomas are rare malignant neoplasms that develop from mesenchymal cells and include a heterogeneous and large group of histological subtypes that may occur at any anatomical site. Soft tissue sarcomas (STS), the focus of this review, account for ≈70‒80% of sarcomas and represent <1% of all cancers. The heterogeneity of STS applies to both their topography and morphology, and 5-year survival can vary widely depending on disease stage and the complex interplay between anatomical site and histology for different STS subtypes. The rarity and heterogeneity of STS, together with other factors, such as the lack of clinical expertise often lead to difficulties and delays in making an accurate diagnosis and to the inappropriate management of each STS subtype. Therefore, this group of cancers requires special attention and approaches to diagnosis and treatment. Epidemiological data on STS are limited, and concerns have been raised regarding accurate registration of STS in cancer registries, including issues related to details of the histotypes. This review provides an overview of the epidemiology of STS in Italy, focusing on data from the Italian Association of Cancer Registries (AIRTUM), and compares findings with those from other European countries. Based on these data, and considering that STS is among the most common group of rare cancers, the relevance of multidisciplinary care for STS patients through reference centres, clinical networks and collaborative disease-specific groups is discussed.

Working to improve the management of sarcoma patients across Europe: a policy checklist.

BACKGROUND: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients. MAIN BODY: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources. CONCLUSION: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level.