Open Access

Background: Alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare sarcoma often occurring in young patients that is characterized by the unbalanced translocation der(17)t(X;17) (p11;q25). Although itusuallyshowsan indolent clinical course, the prognosis is usually poor in advanced disease. Since standard chemotherapy regimens used in soft-tissue sarcomas lack efficacy in ASPS, new therapeutic options are needed. We investigated the efficacy of trabectedin, which has demonstrated activity in a variety of cancer types including some of the most prevalent translocation-related sarcomas. Patients and Methods: 7 patients with metastatic or advanced ASPS treated with trabectedin in the Sarcoma Center Berlin-Brandenburg and the University Hospital of Greifswald were analyzed for median progression-free survival (mPFS), overall survival (OS), and therapy-related toxicity. Results: In 6 patients with documented disease progression, disease stabilization was reached with trabectedin; only 1 patient experienced progressive disease. The mPFS and OS were 7 months and 21 months, respectively, since the start of trabectedin treatment. Overall, no severe Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 3 or 4 toxicity was observed. Conclusions: The poor prognosis of patients with ASPS has so far been due to the unavailability of effective systemic treatments. Trabectedin can be considered the only currently registered drug with clinical activity in this disease.

Simple Summary Active therapeutic options in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS), able to induce durable objective responses, are limited beyond first-line chemotherapy. Although results obtained in clinical trials suggest there is a high probability for patients with STS to benefit from treatment with trabectedin (Yondelis®), there is still a paucity of robust real-life data in more diverse patient populations. The prospective, non-interventional phase IV YON-SAR trial (NCT02367924) was designed to evaluate treatment effects of trabectedin in patients with advanced STS in real-life clinical practice across Germany. The efficacy results of this trial, conducted in 128 patients from 19 sites across Germany, further support trabectedin as a standard of care for a second- or further-line treatment of patients with advanced STS in routine clinical practice (median progression-free survival: 5.2 months; median overall survival: 15.2 months). The safety profile of trabectedin was manageable and in line with those observed in previous studies. Abstract This non-interventional, prospective phase IV trial evaluated trabectedin in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in real-life clinical practice across Germany. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 3 and 6 months, as defined by investigators. Overall, 128 patients from 19 German sites were evaluated for efficacy and 130 for safety. Median age was 58.5 years (range: 23–84) and leiomyosarcoma was the most frequent histotype (n = 45; 35.2%). Trabectedin was mostly used as second/third-line treatment (n = 91; 71.1%). Median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI: 3.3–6.7), with 60.7% and 44.5% of patients free from progression at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 15.2 months (95% CI: 9.6–21.4). One patient achieved a complete and 14 patients a partial response, conferring an objective response rate of 11.7%. Decreases in white blood cells (27.0% of patients), platelets (16.2%) and neutrophils (13.1%) and increased alanine aminotransferase (10.8%) were the most common trabectedin-related grade 3/4 adverse drug reactions. Two deaths due to pneumonia and sepsis were considered trabectedin-related. Trabectedin confers clinically meaningful activity in patients with multiple STS histotypes, comparable to that previously observed in clinical trials and other non-interventional studies, and with a manageable safety profile.

Abstract The RADPAC trial evaluated paclitaxel with everolimus in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) who have progressed after therapy with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum‐containing regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) on day 1, 8 and 15 plus everolimus (10 mg daily, arm B) d1‐d28 or placebo (arm A), repeated every 28 days. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy was assessed in the intention‐to‐treat population and safety in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248403. Between October 2011 and September 2015, 300 patients (median age: 62 years; median lines prior therapy: 2; 47.7% of patients had prior taxane therapy) were randomly assigned (arm A, 150, arm B, 150). In the intention to treat population, there was no significant difference in progression‐free survival (PFS; everolimus, 2.2 vs placebo, 2.07 months, HR 0.88, P = .3) or OS (everolimus, 6.1 vs placebo, 5.0 months, HR 0.93, P = .54). For patients with prior taxane use, everolimus improved PFS (everolimus, 2.7 vs placebo 1.8 months, HR 0.69, P = .03) and OS (everolimus, 5.8 vs placebo 3.9 months, HR 0.73, P = .07). Combination of paclitaxel and everolimus was associated with significantly more grade 3‐5 mucositis (13.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001). The addition of everolimus to paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in pretreated metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Activity was seen in the taxane pretreated group. Additional biomarker studies are planned to look for subgroups that may have a benefit.

Purpose Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (2010) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment. Methods We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013), was administered to group A. Results We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs. Conclusion Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.