Anna Maria Frezza1, Robin L Jones2, Salvatore Lo Vullo3, Naofumi Asano4, Francesca Lucibello5, Eytan Ben-Ami6, Ravin Ratan7, Pawel Teterycz8, Kjetil Boye9, Mehdi Brahmi10, Emanuela Palmerini11, Alexander Fedenko12, Bruno Vincenzi13, Antonella Brunello14, Ingrid M E Desar15, Robert S Benjamin7, Jean Yves Blay10, Javier Martin Broto16, Paolo G Casali1,17, Hans Gelderblom18, Giovanni Grignani19, Alessandro Gronchi20, Kirsten Sundby Hall9, Olivier Mir5, Piotr Rutkowski8, Andrew J Wagner6, Olga Anurova21, Paola Collini22, Angelo P Dei Tos23,24, Uta Flucke25, Jason L Hornick26, Ingvild Lobmaier27, Terrier Philippe28, Piero Picci29, Dominique Ranchere30, Salvatore L Renne22, Marta Sbaraglia23, Khin Thway2, Michal Wagrodzki31, Wei-Lien Wang32, Akihiko Yoshida33, Luigi Mariani3, Akira Kawai4, Silvia Stacchiotti1. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy. 2. Sarcoma Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/ Institute of Cancer Research, Chelsea, London, United Kingdom. 3. Unit of Clinical Epidemiology and Trial Organization, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy. 4. Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France. 6. Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Sarcoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 8. Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. 9. Department of Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France. 11. Department of Cancer Medicine, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy. 12. Department of Medical Oncology, N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research, Moscow, Russian Federation. 13. Department of Medical Oncology, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Roma, Italy. 14. Department of Clinical and Experimental Oncology, Medical Oncology 1 Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. 15. Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 16. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio and LAB 215 IBIS, Sevilla, Spain. 17. University of Milan, Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Milan, Italy. 18. Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 19. Sarcoma Unit, Division of Medical Oncology Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO, IRCCS Candiolo, Torino, Italy. 20. Sarcoma Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy. 21. Department of Pathology, N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research, Moscow, Russian Federation. 22. Department of Diagnostic Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 23. Department of Pathology, Treviso Regional Hospital, Treviso, Italy. 24. Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padova, Italy. 25. Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 26. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 27. Department of Pathology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 28. Department of Pathology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France. 29. Department of Pathology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy. 30. Department of Pathology, Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France. 31. Department of Pathology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. 32. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 33. Department of Pathology and Clinical Laboratories, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
Importance: Epithelioid sarcoma (ES) is an exceedingly rare malignant neoplasm with distinctive pathologic, molecular, and clinical features as well as the potential to respond to new targeted drugs. Little is known on the activity of anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, and pazopanib in this disease. Objective: To report on the activity of anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, and pazopanib in patients with advanced ES. Design, Setting, and Participants: Seventeen sarcoma reference centers in Europe, the United States, and Japan contributed data to this retrospective analysis of patients with locally advanced/metastatic ES diagnosed between 1990 and 2016. Local pathological review was performed in all cases to confirm diagnosis according to most recent criteria. Exposures: All patients included in the study received anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, or pazopanib. Main Outcome and Measures: Response was assessed by RECIST. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were computed by Kaplan-Meier method. Classic and proximal subtypes were defined based on morphology (according to 2013 World Health Organization guidelines). Results: Overall, 115 patients were included, 80 (70%) were men and 35 (30%) were women, with a median age of 32 years (range, 15-77 years). Of the 115 patients with ES, 85 were treated with anthracycline-based regimens, 41 with gemcitabine-based regimens, and 18 with pazopanib. Twenty-four received more than 1 treatment. Median follow-up was 34 months. Response rate for anthracycline-based regimens was 22%, with a median PFS of 6 months. One complete response (CR) was reported. A trend toward a higher response rate was noticed in morphological proximal type (26%) vs classic type (19%) and in proximal vs distal primary site (26% vs 18%). The response rate for gemcitabine-based regimens was 27%, with 2 CR and a median PFS of 4 months. In this group, a trend toward a higher response rate was reported in classic vs proximal morphological type (30% vs 22%) and in distal vs proximal primary site (40% vs 14%). In the pazopanib group, no objective responses were seen, and median PFS was 3 months. Conclusions and Relevance: This is the largest retrospective series of systemic therapy in ES. We confirm a moderate activity of anthracycline-based and gemcitabine-based regimens in ES, with a similar response rate and PFS in both groups. The value of pazopanib was low. These data may serve as a benchmark for trials of novel agents in ES.
Importance: Epithelioid sarcoma (ES) is an exceedingly rare malignant neoplasm with distinctive pathologic, molecular, and clinical features as well as the potential to respond to new targeted drugs. Little is known on the activity of anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, and pazopanib in this disease. Objective: To report on the activity of anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, and pazopanib in patients with advanced ES. Design, Setting, and Participants: Seventeen sarcoma reference centers in Europe, the United States, and Japan contributed data to this retrospective analysis of patients with locally advanced/metastatic ES diagnosed between 1990 and 2016. Local pathological review was performed in all cases to confirm diagnosis according to most recent criteria. Exposures: All patients included in the study received anthracycline-based regimens, gemcitabine-based regimens, or pazopanib. Main Outcome and Measures: Response was assessed by RECIST. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were computed by Kaplan-Meier method. Classic and proximal subtypes were defined based on morphology (according to 2013 World Health Organization guidelines). Results: Overall, 115 patients were included, 80 (70%) were men and 35 (30%) were women, with a median age of 32 years (range, 15-77 years). Of the 115 patients with ES, 85 were treated with anthracycline-based regimens, 41 with gemcitabine-based regimens, and 18 with pazopanib. Twenty-four received more than 1 treatment. Median follow-up was 34 months. Response rate for anthracycline-based regimens was 22%, with a median PFS of 6 months. One complete response (CR) was reported. A trend toward a higher response rate was noticed in morphological proximal type (26%) vs classic type (19%) and in proximal vs distal primary site (26% vs 18%). The response rate for gemcitabine-based regimens was 27%, with 2 CR and a median PFS of 4 months. In this group, a trend toward a higher response rate was reported in classic vs proximal morphological type (30% vs 22%) and in distal vs proximal primary site (40% vs 14%). In the pazopanib group, no objective responses were seen, and median PFS was 3 months. Conclusions and Relevance: This is the largest retrospective series of systemic therapy in ES. We confirm a moderate activity of anthracycline-based and gemcitabine-based regimens in ES, with a similar response rate and PFS in both groups. The value of pazopanib was low. These data may serve as a benchmark for trials of novel agents in ES.
Authors: Robin L Jones; Anastasia Constantinidou; David Olmos; Khin Thway; Cyril Fisher; Omar Al-Muderis; Michelle Scurr; Ian R Judson Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Laila Chbani; Louis Guillou; Philippe Terrier; Anne Valérie Decouvelaere; Fleur Grégoire; Marie José Terrier-Lacombe; Dominique Ranchère; Yves Marie Robin; Françoise Collin; Paul Fréneaux; Jean-Michel Coindre Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Daniel Pink; Stephan Richter; Sebastian Gerdes; Dimosthenis Andreou; Per-Ulf Tunn; Christoph Busemann; Gerhard Ehninger; Peter Reichardt; Markus K Schuler Journal: Oncology Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Monica Brenca; Sabrina Rossi; Erica Lorenzetto; Elena Piccinin; Sara Piccinin; Francesca Maria Rossi; Alberto Giuliano; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos; Roberta Maestro; Piergiorgio Modena Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Sheri L Spunt; Nadine Francotte; Gian Luca De Salvo; Yueh-Yun Chi; Ilaria Zanetti; Andrea Hayes-Jordan; Simon C Kao; Daniel Orbach; Bernadette Brennan; Aaron R Weiss; Max M van Noesel; Lynn Million; Rita Alaggio; David M Parham; Anna Kelsey; R Lor Randall; M Beth McCarville; Gianni Bisogno; Douglas S Hawkins; Andrea Ferrari Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Michael Esser; Cristopher Kloth; Wolfgang M Thaiss; Christian P Reinert; Mareen S Kraus; Gabriel Cc Gast; Marius Horger Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Anneke Alves; Anastasia Constantinidou; Khin Thway; Cyril Fisher; Paul Huang; Robin L Jones Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2021-07-18 Impact factor: 2.328