The treatment of cancer patients has dramatically changed over the past decades with the advent of monoclonal antibodies, immune-checkpoint inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, and innovative T-cell therapy. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have also revolutionized the treatment of cancer. Several ADCs have already been approved in hematology and clinical oncology, such as trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, and enfortumab vedotin (EV) for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma. The efficacy of ADCs is limited by the emergence of resistance due to different mechanisms, such as antigen-related resistance, failure of internalization, impaired lysosomal function, and other mechanisms. In this review, we summarize the clinical data that contributed to the approval of T-DM1, T-DXd, SG, and EV. We also discuss the different mechanisms of resistance to ADCs, as well as the ways to overcome this resistance, such as bispecific ADCs and the combination of ADCs with immune-checkpoint inhibitors or tyrosine-kinase inhibitors.

The EORTC-STBSG coordinated two large trials of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in localized high-grade soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Both studies failed to demonstrate any benefit on overall survival (OS). The aim of the analysis of these two trials was to identify subgroups of patients who may benefit from adjuvant CT. Individual patient data from two EORTC trials comparing doxorubicin-based CT to observation only in completely resected STS (large resection, R0/marginal resection, R1) were pooled. Prognostic factors were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Patient outcomes were subsequently compared between the two groups of patients according to each analyzed factor. A total of 819 patients had been enrolled with a median follow-up of 8.2 years. Tumor size, high histological grade and R1 resection emerged as independent adverse prognostic factors for relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS. Adjuvant CT is an independent favorable prognostic factor for RFS but not for OS. A significant interaction between benefit of adjuvant CT and age, gender and R1 resection was observed for RFS and OS. Males and patients >40 years had a significantly better RFS in the treatment arms, while adjuvant CT was associated with a marginally worse OS in females and patients <40years. Patients with R1 resection had a significantly better RFS and OS favoring adjuvant CT arms. Adjuvant CT is not associated with a better OS in young patients or in any pathology subgroup. Poor quality of initial surgery is the most important prognostic and predictive factor for utility of adjuvant CT in STS. Based on these data, we conclude that adjuvant CT for STS remains an investigational procedure and is not a routine standard of care.

The optimal management of rare tumours (i.e. from accurate diagnosis to management in reference centres) is a public health challenge. In 2009, the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) identified and financially supported the two expert networks for pathological and clinical diagnosis and management of soft tissue tumours. The activities of both networks were prospectively collected using a nationwide database (rreps.org). Data describing the diagnosis management of 863 successive cases of desmoids tumours (DT) were prospectively collected from 2010 to 2013 and analysed. The number of confirmed DT constantly improved from January 2010 to December 2013 (from 173 to 273 cases per year); the expected incidence ranged from 132 to 330 cases/year. The rate of cases diagnosed with core-needle biopsies and CTNNB1 mutational status analysis increased from 30.6 to 40.7% and from 87.8 to 94.1%, respectively. The mean delay for pathological diagnosis confirmation constantly decreased from 107 to 47 d. Among the 846 adult patients, 414 (48.9%) patients were treated by reference centres. The rate of patients managed by reference centres constantly increased with time from 36.9 to 49.5% since 2010. The median management time of the referral centres constantly decreased from 440 to 67 d. The two expert networks worked synergistically and improved diagnosis modalities of rare desmoid tumours at a national level. The impact of management by expert networks on the outcome will be prospectively analysed in the future.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/ platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib ( KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION: Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib.