Users Online: 1317
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: SARCOMAS AND SKIN CANCER
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 258-259

Advances in soft-tissue sarcoma – There are no mistakes, onlylessons to learn!


1 Department of Medical Oncology, New Delhi, India
2 Sachin Sarcoma Society, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Radiation Oncology, AIIMS, NCI, Jhajjar, Haryana, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sameer Rastogi
Department of Medical Oncology, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sajc.sajc_215_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: In this decade the treatment of advanced sarcoma has seen many highs and lows in terms of successful trials and failed trials. This is possible due to great collaborations, newer therapies and histology focused trials. Methods: In ASCO 2019 many sarcoma trials were presented and we chose 3 challenging clinical trials that widen our perspective on soft tissue sarcoma. We have critically analyzed the data and have discussed the implications of these trials on current practice. First trial was ANNOUNCE trial which was done to confirm the efficacy of olaratumab after its dramatic success in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in a phase 2 trial. Another trial STRASS trial, which was unique because of being first successfully conducted randomized trial addressing preoperative radiotherapy in retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Third trial was phase 2 trial SARC 028 trial exploring the role of immunotherapy in pleomorphic undifferentiated sarcoma and liposarcoma subgroup. Result: ANNOUNCE trial failed to show OS benefit in olaratumab/doxorubicin arm as compared to doxorubicin/placebo arm . Based upon this FDA has revoked the approval of olaratumab leading to nihilism and disappointment amongst oncologists. In STRASS trial failed to meet the primary end point though there was a benefit in the liposarcoma subgroup in terms of abdominal recurrence free survival. There are several reasons that this trial might have failed. First, RPSs are not homogeneous population. RPSs might behave very differently as per the histopathology ranging from well differentiated LPS to leiomyosarcoma. Since the event rate in well-differentiated liposarcoma might happen late, the median follow-up of 43 months might not be sufficient. In SARC trial ORR in pleomorphic undifferentiated sarcoma (PUS) cohort was 9/40 (22.5%), while response rates in liposarcoma cohort were 4/39 (10.2%). There was poor correlation between the response and the tumor cells' PD-L1 positivity. Simultaneously, we must not take for granted the role of pembrolizumab in PUS as the previous study (PEMBROSARC) had also showed dismal outcomes with immunotherapy. Conclusion: In this paper we discuss the intricacies of these trials and how they affect the rapidly changing landscape in advanced soft tissue sarcoma.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed234    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal