Although checkpoint inhibitors have been approved in multiple cancers, they are still under investigation in soft tissue sarcoma (STS). We conducted a retrospective review to report the safety, efficacy, and prognostic factors related to checkpoint inhibitors in STS. A sequential cohort of metastatic STS patients from four institutions treated with checkpoint inhibitors was assembled. Logistic and Cox regression models were applied to determine the effect of patient characteristics, prior treatment, and baseline factors on achieving the best overall response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) as determined by the treating physician. Eighty-eight patients with two median prior therapies received checkpoint inhibitors. Treatments included pembrolizumab in 47, nivolumab in 6, ipilimumab in 1, combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in 27, and other combination immunotherapies in 7 patients. Immunotherapy was discontinued in 54 patients—72.2% for progression, 16.7% for toxicity, and 11.1% for other reasons. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.1 months and median overall survival was 19.1 months. One patient with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) achieved a CR, while 20 patients had a PR, including 7 UPS, 9 leiomyosarcoma (LMS), and 1 each with alveolar soft part sarcoma, fibroblastic sarcoma, sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma, and myxofibrosarcoma. Forty-five percent (9 of 20) of LMS patients achieved a PR. Twenty-eight patients had SD. Our results confirm the activity and safety of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic STS. A notable response rate was observed in UPS and LMS subtypes. This study expands the knowledge base beyond what is currently available from clinical trials involving checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic STS.

Background: Regorafenib is one of several FDA‐approved cancer therapies targeting multiple tyrosine kinases. However, there are few subtype‐specific data regarding kinase inhibitor activity in sarcomas. We report results of a single arm, phase II trial of regorafenib in advanced Ewing family sarcomas.Methods: Patients with metastatic Ewing family sarcomas (age ≥ 18, ECOG 0–2, good organ function) who had received at least one line of therapy and experienced progression within 6 months of registration were eligible. Prior kinase inhibitors were not allowed. The initial dose of regorafenib was 160 mg oral days 1–21 of a 28‐day cycle. The primary endpoint was estimating progression‐free rate (PFR) at 8 weeks employing RECIST 1.1.Results: Thirty patients (median age, 32 years; 33% women [10 patients]; bone primary, 40%; extraskeletal primary, 60%) enrolled at 14 sites. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities were hypophosphatemia (5 grade 3, 1 grade 4), hypertension (2 grade 3), elevated ALT (2 grade 3). Sixteen patients required dose reductions, most often for hypophosphatemia (n = 7 reductions in 6 patients); two stopped regorafenib for toxicity. There was one death unrelated to treatment in the 30‐day post‐study period. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 14.8 weeks (95% CI 7.3–15.9); PFR at 8 weeks by Kaplan–Meier analysis was 63% (95% CI 46–81%). The RECIST 1.1 response rate was 10%. Median OS was 53 weeks (95% CI 37–106 weeks).Conclusions: Regorafenib has modest activity in the Ewing family sarcomas. Toxicity was similar to that seen in approval studies.

We report a response to pazopanib in a 69-year-old man with heavily pre-treated metastatic extraosseous Ewing sarcoma in addition to molecular profiling of his tumor. To our knowledge, this case is the earliest to demonstrate activity of an oral multi-targeted kinase inhibitor in Ewing sarcoma. This case provides rationale for adding a Ewing sarcoma arm to SARC024, a phase II study of regorafenib, another multi-targeted kinase inhibitor, in patients with liposarcoma, osteosarcoma and Ewing and Ewing-like sarcomas (NCT02048371). This national multi-institutional study is ongoing.

Surgical treatment of pelvic sarcoma involving the bone is the standard of care but is associated with several sequelae and reduced functional quality of life (QOL). Treatment with photon and proton radiotherapy is associated with relapse. Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) may reduce both relapse rates and treatment sequelae. The PROSPER study is a tricontinental, nonrandomized, prospective, three-arm, pragmatic trial evaluating treatments of pelvic sarcoma involving the bone. Patients aged at least 15 years are eligible for inclusion. Participants must have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score of two or less, newly diagnosed disease, and histopathologic confirmation of pelvic chordoma, chondrosarcoma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma with bone involvement, rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) with bone involvement, or non-RMS soft tissue sarcoma with bone involvement. Treatment arms include (1) CIRT (n = 30) delivered in Europe and Asia, (2) surgical treatment with or without adjuvant radiotherapy (n = 30), and (3) proton therapy (n = 30). Arms two and three will be conducted at Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. The primary end point is to compare the 1-year change in functional QOL between CIRT and surgical treatment. Additional comparisons among the three arms will be made between treatment sequelae, local control, and other QOL measures.

Gemcitabine plus docetaxel is an effective treatment regimen for advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STSs). However, the prognosis for patients remains poor, and thus there is an urgent medical need for novel and effective therapies to improve long-term outcomes. The aim of the ANNOUNCE 2 trial was to explore the addition of olaratumab (O) to gemcitabine (G) and docetaxel (D) for advanced STS. Adults with unresectable locally advanced/metastatic STS, ≤2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0–1 were eligible. In Phase 2, patients were randomized 1:1 from two cohorts (O-naïve and O-pretreated) to 21-day cycles of olaratumab (20 mg/kg Cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, Days 1 and 8), gemcitabine (900 mg/m², Days 1 and 8), and docetaxel (75 mg/m², Day 8). The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population (α level = 0.20). Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated), other efficacy parameters, patient-reported outcomes, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. A total of 167 and 89 patients were enrolled in the O-naïve and O-pretreated cohorts, respectively. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. No statistically significant difference in OS was observed between the investigational vs. control arm for either cohort (O-naïve cohort: HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.64−1.40), p = 0.78, median OS, 16.8 vs. 18.0 months; O-pretreated cohort: HR = 0.67 (95% CI: 0.39−1.16), p = 0.15, median OS 19.8 vs. 17.3 months). Safety was manageable across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population, and therefore based on hierarchical evaluation no other outcomes in this study can be considered statistically significant. No new safety signals were observed.

Background/Objectives: Chordoma, a rare slow-growing malignant bone tumor, remains therapeutically challenging due to its invasive nature. We examined institutional outcomes comparing imatinib and brachyury-directed vaccines. Methods: We used data from three sites of our quaternary care academic institution to analyze demographics, time to progression, overall survival, and adverse events in chordoma patients treated with imatinib or enrolled in a brachyury vaccine trial. Results: We included a total of 52 patients (8 in the brachyury vaccine cohort and 44 in the imatinib cohort) in the analysis. As expected, sacrococcygeal location was the most predominant in both cohorts: 62.5% in the brachyury cohort and 45.5% in the imatinib cohort. No demographic differences were present between the cohorts. ECOG was similar in both groups (p = 0.796). The primary outcome, time to progression (TTP), was shorter in the brachyury compared to the imatinib cohort (5.6 vs. 13 months, p = 0.0589), almost reaching statistical significance. Overall survival (OS) was comparable, 211 vs. 212 months for the brachyury and imatinib cohorts, respectively (p = 0.277). Although the brachyury vaccine cohort presented a higher incidence of adverse events than the imatinib cohort (75% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.021), the severity was milder. Conclusions: Imatinib showed longer disease control than the brachyury vaccine, though overall survival was similar. Future studies and deeper molecular insights are essential to develop better therapies and improve patient quality of life.