Learning Objectives: After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Classify the chondrosarcoma subtypes.Engage in the diagnostic process of chondrosarcoma.Evaluate the treatment options for chondrosarcoma. CME Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ at CME.TheOncologist.com This review provides an overview of the histopathology, classification, diagnostic procedures, and therapy of skeletal chondrosarcoma. Chondrosarcomas that arise de novo are primary chondrosarcomas, whereas chondrosarcomas developing superimposed on pre-existing benign cartilage neoplasms such as enchondromas or osteochondromas are referred to as secondary chondrosarcomas. Conventional chondrosarcomas can be categorized according to their location in bone into central, peripheral, and juxtacortical chondrosarcomas. Histological grading is related to prognosis; however, it is also subject to interobserver variability. Rare subtypes of chondrosarcoma, including dedifferentiated, mesenchymal, and clear cell chondrosarcoma, are discussed as well. Magnetic resonance imaging is necessary to delineate the extent of the intraosseous and soft tissue involvement preoperatively. Computed tomography is especially recommended in the pelvis and other flat bones where it may be difficult to discern the pattern of bone destruction and the presence of matrix mineralization. Wide, en-bloc excision is the preferred surgical treatment in intermediate- and high-grade chondrosarcoma. In low-grade chondrosarcoma confined to the bone, extensive intralesional curettage followed by local adjuvant treatment and filling the cavity with bone graft has promising long-term clinical results and satisfactory local control. Chondrosarcomas are relatively radiotherapy resistant; therefore, doses >60 Gy are needed in attempts to achieve local control after incomplete resection. Irradiation with protons or other charged particles seems beneficial in this curative situation. Chemotherapy is only possibly effective in mesenchymal chondrosarcoma, and is of uncertain value in dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. Potential new systemic treatment targets are being discussed.

Purpose: Sabatolimab (MBG453) and spartalizumab are mAbs that bind T-cell immunoglobulin domain and mucin domain-3 (TIM-3) and programmed death-1 (PD-1), respectively. This phase I/II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of sabatolimab, with or without spartalizumab, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Primary objectives of the phase I/Ib part were to characterize the safety and estimate recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for future studies. Dose escalation was guided by a Bayesian (hierarchical) logistic regression model. Sabatolimab was administered intravenously, 20 to 1,200 mg, every 2 or 4 weeks (Q2W or Q4W). Spartalizumab was administered intravenously, 80 to 400 mg, Q2W or Q4W. Results: Enrolled patients (n = 219) had a range of cancers, most commonly ovarian (17%) and colorectal cancer (7%); patients received sabatolimab (n = 133) or sabatolimab plus spartalizumab (n = 86). The MTD was not reached. The most common adverse event suspected to be treatment-related was fatigue (9%, sabatolimab; 15%, combination). No responses were seen with sabatolimab. Five patients receiving combination treatment had partial responses (6%; lasting 12–27 months) in colorectal cancer (n = 2), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), malignant perianal melanoma, and SCLC. Of the five, two patients had elevated expression of immune markers in baseline biopsies; another three had >10% TIM-3–positive staining, including one patient with NSCLC who received prior PD-1 therapy. Conclusions: Sabatolimab plus spartalizumab was well tolerated and showed preliminary signs of antitumor activity. The RP2D for sabatolimab was selected as 800 mg Q4W (alternatively Q3W or Q2W schedules, based on modeling), with or without 400 mg spartalizumab Q4W.

DNA mismatch repair-deficient (MMR-d) cancers present an abundance of neoantigens that is thought to explain their exceptional responsiveness to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)^1,2. Here, in contrast to other cancer types^3–5, we observed that 20 out of 21 (95%) MMR-d cancers with genomic inactivation of β2-microglobulin (encoded by B2M) retained responsiveness to ICB, suggesting the involvement of immune effector cells other than CD8⁺ T cells in this context. We next identified a strong association between B2M inactivation and increased infiltration by γδ T cells in MMR-d cancers. These γδ T cells mainly comprised the Vδ1 and Vδ3 subsets, and expressed high levels of PD-1, other activation markers, including cytotoxic molecules, and a broad repertoire of killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors. In vitro, PD-1⁺ γδ T cells that were isolated from MMR-d colon cancers exhibited enhanced reactivity to human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-class-I-negative MMR-d colon cancer cell lines and B2M-knockout patient-derived tumour organoids compared with antigen-presentation-proficient cells. By comparing paired tumour samples from patients with MMR-d colon cancer that were obtained before and after dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade, we found that immune checkpoint blockade substantially increased the frequency of γδ T cells in B2M-deficient cancers. Taken together, these data indicate that γδ T cells contribute to the response to immune checkpoint blockade in patients with HLA-class-I-negative MMR-d colon cancers, and underline the potential of γδ T cells in cancer immunotherapy.

We provide an overview of imaging, histopathology, genetics, and multidisciplinary treatment of giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB), an intermediate, locally aggressive but rarely metastasizing tumor. Overexpression of receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL) by mononuclear neoplastic stromal cells promotes recruitment of numerous reactive multinucleated giant cells. Conventional radiographs show a typical eccentric lytic lesion, mostly located in the meta-epiphyseal area of long bones. GCTB may also arise in the axial skeleton and very occasionally in the small bones of hands and feet. Magnetic resonance imaging is necessary to evaluate the extent of GCTB within bone and surrounding soft tissues to plan a surgical approach. Curettage with local adjuvants is the preferred treatment. Recurrence rates after curettage with phenol and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA; 8%–27%) or cryosurgery and PMMA (0%–20%) are comparable. Resection is indicated when joint salvage is not feasible (e.g., intra-articular fracture with soft tissue component). Denosumab (RANKL inhibitor) blocks and bisphosphonates inhibit GCTB-derived osteoclast resorption. With bisphosphonates, stabilization of local and metastatic disease has been reported, although level of evidence was low. Denosumab has been studied to a larger extent and seems to be effective in facilitating intralesional surgery after therapy. Denosumab was recently registered for unresectable disease. Moderate-dose radiotherapy (40–55 Gy) is restricted to rare cases in which surgery would lead to unacceptable morbidity and RANKL inhibitors are contraindicated or unavailable.