Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft tissue sarcoma diagnosed in children and adolescents. Patients that are diagnosed with advanced or relapsed disease have exceptionally poor outcomes. The Children’s Oncology Group (COG) convened a rhabdomyosarcoma new agent task force in 2020 to systematically evaluate novel agents for inclusion in phase 2 or phase 3 clinical trials for patients diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma, following a similar effort for Ewing sarcoma. The task force was comprised of clinicians and basic scientists who collectively identified new agents for evaluation and prioritization in clinical trial testing. Here, we report the work of the task force including the framework upon which the decisions were rendered and review the top classes of agents that were discussed. Representative agents include poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in combination with cytotoxic agents, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors in combination with type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR1) inhibitors, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, and novel cytotoxic agents.

Background: Strategies to optimize management in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) include risk stratification to assign therapy aiming to minimize treatment morbidity yet improve outcomes. This analysis evaluated the relationship between complete metabolic response (CMR) as assessed by¹⁸F‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography‐computed tomography (FDG‐PET) imaging and event‐free survival (EFS) in intermediate‐risk (IR) and high‐risk (HR) RMS patients.Methods: FDG‐PET imaging characteristics, including assessment of CMR and maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, were evaluated by central review. Institutional reports of SUVmax were used when SUVmax values could not be determined by central review. One hundred and thirty IR and 105 HR patients had FDG‐PET scans submitted for central review or had SUVmax data available from institutional report at any time point. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between these parameters and EFS.Results: SUVmax at study entry did not correlate with EFS for IR (p = 0.32) or HR (p = 0.86) patients. Compared to patients who did not achieve a CMR, EFS was not superior for IR patients who achieved a CMR at weeks 4 (p = 0.66) or 15 (p = 0.46), nor for HR patients who achieved CMR at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.28). Change in SUVmax at week 4 (p = 0.21) or 15 (p = 0.91) for IR patients or at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.61) for HR patients did not correlate with EFS.Conclusion: Based on these data, FDG‐PET does not appear to predict EFS in IR or HR‐RMS. It remains to be determined whether FDG‐PET has a role in predicting survival outcomes in other RMS subpopulations.

Purpose: Developing new therapeutics for any of the more than 100 sarcoma subtypes presents a challenge. After progression from standard therapies, patients with sarcoma may be referred for enrollment in early-phase trials. This study aimed to investigate whether enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase clinical trials leads to better outcomes for patients with advanced sarcoma. Experimental Design: In this retrospective analysis, investigational treatment characteristics and longitudinal survival outcomes were analyzed in patients with biopsy-confirmed sarcoma enrolled in early-phase trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center from May 2006 to July 2021. Results: Five hundred eighty-seven patients were included [405 soft tissue, 122 bone, 60 gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST); median of three prior lines of therapy]. Most common subtypes were leiomyosarcoma (17.2%), liposarcoma (14.0%), and GIST (10.2%). Molecular testing was available for 511 patients (87.1%); 221 patients (37.6%) were treated in matched trials. Overall response rate was 13.1% matched compared with 4.9% in unmatched (P < 0.001); the clinical benefit rate at 6 months was 43.9% vs. 19.9% (P < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients in matched trials (median, 5.5 vs. 2.4 months; P < 0.001), and overall survival was also superior for patients in matched trials (median, 21.5 vs. 12.3 months; P < 0.001). The benefit of enrollment in matched trials was maintained when patients with GIST were excluded from the analysis. Conclusions: Enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase trials is associated with improved outcomes in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic sarcoma. Molecular testing of tumors from patients with advanced sarcoma and enrollment in matched trials is a reasonable therapeutic strategy.