Ciara Kelly, MBBCh, BAO, discusses personalized treatment approaches for patients with soft tissue sarcoma.
Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) are a rare, heterogeneous collection of tumors with more than 100 histological tumor subtypes, some of which are associated with chromosomal translocations. Treatment for several cancer types follows a trend toward personalized therapy based on tumor molecular profiling. Only a small percentage of sarcoma subtypes, including perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComa) and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), currently have identified actionable driver alterations. Immune checkpoint blockade has recently been approved for a specific sarcoma subtype. In this article, Ciara Kelly, MBBCh BAO, explores recent advancements toward personalized treatment in sarcoma.
Kelly: The rarity of sarcomas pose significant diagnostic and management challenges, particularly to providers who do not see them frequently. The most important aspect of optimizing diagnosis and management is ensuring that patients are seen in a Sarcoma Center of Excellence. Sarcomas are complex tumors that require expert opinion and integration of molecular diagnostics with histomorphologic features for an accurate diagnosis. At expert sarcoma centers, incorporating molecular diagnostics into the pathology assessment of sarcomas has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy in up to 14% of cases.1
Kelly: Significant progress has been made, and we see this with the increasing use of molecular diagnostics, including RNA sequencing, looking particularly for translocation-associated tumor subtypes. The increasing role of next-generation sequencing (NGS) is also evident. A recent study examined NGS in 7500 sarcomas, identifying recurrent and subtype-specific alterations.2 In that study, 10.5% of cases had refinement or reassignment of their sarcoma diagnosis. A further 31.7% had actionable alterations, which may have led to potential treatment options.
Several studies showed that it is feasible to detect circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in sarcoma cases.3 However, the sensitivity and specificity vary based on the sarcoma subtype. A study presented at ASCO 2023 examined ctDNA as a marker of minimal residual disease (MRD) at diagnosis and postoperatively in patients with large, high-grade sarcomas who underwent neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, and follow-up.4 The study showed 80% of patients had detectable ctDNA at baseline, and 94% became MRD-negative after surgery. Also, patients who were ctDNA-positive during surveillance had an 18-fold higher chance of recurrence than ctDNA-negative patients. This study showed the potential of ctDNA, but more work is needed before this will become integrated into the management of sarcoma patients as a standard of care. There have been more GIST-specific studies that included sequenced ctDNA as a correlative assessment. The phase 3 INTRIGUE trial (NCT03673501) examined sunitinib versus ripretinib in the advanced GIST second-line setting. Ripretinib was not found to be superior to sunitinib in terms of progression-free survival. In an exploratory analysis of sequenced ctDNA obtained at baseline, patients with KIT exon 11-mutant GIST harboring secondary KIT exon 17 and/or 18 mutations derived a significant PFS benefit with ripretinib compared to sunitinib. Currently the INSIGHT, randomized, phase III clinical trial will evaluate the efficacy of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST that have progressed on imatinib and harbor KIT exon 11 mutations co-occurring with resistance mutation in KIT exon 17 and/or 18 confirmed via sequencing.5
Kelly: Chemotherapy remains the standard-of-care treatment for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. However, objective response rates to doxorubicin-based or gemcitabine and docetaxel regimens are approximately 20%.6 Response rates are lower in the second- and third-line settings. For example, pazopanib was approved based on an improvement in median progression-free survival in the PALETTE trial in soft-tissue sarcomas, excluding liposarcoma, where they demonstrated an objective response rate of 6%.7 Another example is trabectedin, which is approved for use in leiomyosarcoma, where the response rate was in the order of 10%.8 Despite very low response rates, our standard-of-care chemotherapy options can lead to stabilization of disease. But, on the whole, activity and objective responses to treatments are low and [this] underpins the importance of developing new treatment options for patients with sarcoma.
Kelly: We are using molecular information to guide selection of targeted therapies. For example, PEComa is a malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor that had no approved treatment until the FDA approved nab-sirolimus in November 2021 based on the results of a phase 2 single-arm study that demonstrated an objective response rate of 39%. Also, 89% of patients with a TSC2 mutation achieved a confirmed response; 13% of patients without a TSC2 mutation also had a response.9
Another recent approval was tazemetostat, an EZH2 inhibitor approved for epithelioid sarcoma with INI1/SMARCB1 loss, based on a 15% response rate in an open-label phase 2 basket study in the epithelioid sarcoma cohort of 62 patients.10
GIST is a poster child for the utility of molecular profiling in sarcoma. GIST is one of the most common sarcomas of the GI tract and up to 75% harbor mutations in KIT and around 10% to 15% of patients may have mutations in the PDGFRA gene.11 Another 10% to 15% will have other rare, molecularly defined GIST subtypes. With advances in molecular diagnostics and their increased use in GIST, the proportion of true wild-type GIST has been reduced. Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting KIT have been approved for the management of advanced GIST including imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib.12,13,14 Ripretinib was recently approved in the fourth-line setting for patients with advanced GIST based on a median progression-free survival of 6.3 months for the ripretinib arm compared with 1 month for placebo.15
Avapritinib was approved in January 2020 based on results from the NAVIGATOR trial, which showed that in patients with PDGFRA alpha D842V-mutant GIST—a very rare subtype of GIST for which there was previously no effective treatment—there was an objective response rate of 91% and a clinical benefit rate of 98%. All these studies emphasize the utility of molecular information to appropriately select patients for treatment.16
Kelly: Atezolizumab was FDA-approved in December 2022 based on a phase 2 study examining adult and pediatric patients with advanced ASPS—a translocation-associated sarcoma subtype.17 The study demonstrated an objective response of 37% in 52 patients, including 1 complete responder and 18 partial responders with a median time to response of 3.6 months and a median duration of response of 24.7 months. Currently, we do not understand exactly why we are seeing response to immune checkpoint blockade in this subtype, but it does clearly signify the merit of evaluating immunotherapy in sarcoma.
The SARC028 study looked at pembrolizumab monotherapy in both soft-tissue and bone sarcomas, demonstrating an objective response rate of 18% in soft-tissue sarcoma and 5% in bone sarcoma.18 In the Alliance study 091401, efficacy of nivolumab was evaluated alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma.19 The response rate for the nivolumab arm was 5%. For the combination, it was 16%. These results led to an expansion phase in specific subtypes where a response rate of 27% was observed in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS).
UPS, myxofibrosarcoma, and angiosarcoma are subtypes where we have consistently seen responders with respect to immune checkpoint inhibition. The DART trial evaluated nivolumab and ipilimumab in angiosarcoma and demonstrated a response rate of 25%. Notably, 3 out of the 4 responders had cutaneous angiosarcoma of the head and neck region.20 A study presented at the ASCO 2023 annual meeting explored nivolumab and cabozantinib in patients who have previously progressed on taxane-based treatment and an overall response rate of 62% was observed.21 In the cutaneous angiosarcoma population, an objective response rate of 58% was observed. In the non-cutaneous angiosarcoma population, the response rate was 67%. Cutaneous angiosarcomas have a high tumor mutational burden, which lends itself to being sensitive to immune checkpoint inhibition, so there is merit in evaluating immunotherapy in this space. There are some sarcoma subtypes that may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition, such as UPS/MFS, ASPS and angiosarcoma. But for the majority of sarcomas that have immune cold signatures, more novel combination approaches incorporating immunotherapy in addition to novel immunotherapeutics, chemotherapy, targeted therapies or radiation warrant further evaluation. How can we convert that immune-desert tumor into an immune-stimulated microenvironment?
Kelly: There have been several correlative-based studies that have been conducted in the sarcoma community. The SARC028 study suggested that PD-L1 expression on tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, but not on tumor cells, was associated with response to pembrolizumab.18 However, another study looking at NKTR-214, an IL-2 agonist in combination with nivolumab did not demonstrate this.22 In both of these studies, it was suggested that tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were more common in responders, but were not necessary or sufficient to generate response. There are also data looking at the role of gene expression profiling and developing an immune signature for sarcoma subtypes. Petitprez et al looked at gene expression profiling in 600 sarcomas and identified 5 distinct immune microenvironments representing a spectrum of immune infiltration.23 The immune-desert cohort had the worst prognosis and no responses to immune checkpoint blockade. The immune-high groups had a better prognosis and more responders to immune checkpoint inhibition. PD-L1 and CD8 T-cell expression were not prognostic here. However, investigators did suggest that tertiary lymphoid structures and expression of B-cell lineage genes were prognostic for outcomes and may be predictive of response to immune checkpoint blockade. There is difficulty in identifying one specific biomarker. It may be the interaction of several biomarkers and biomarkers outside of the tumor itself—looking at hematopoiesis within the bone marrow and myeloid cell makeup, for example—that are important.
Kelly: We are making some progress, but we have a lot more work to do. Many of the FDA approvals for sarcoma have been focused on more personalized therapy. One example of personalized immunotherapy is the evaluation of the safety and activity of autologous T cells expressing NY-ESO.24 Response rates in patients with synovial sarcoma have been in the order of 50%. Circulating NY-ESO T cells were present post infusion in all patients and persisted for at least 6 months. Unfortunately, we have not reached a point where we can provide personalized therapy for all sarcoma patients, but we are doing this successfully for some patients.
Afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) is another form of adoptive T-cell therapy being developed to treat HLA-A*02–restricted patients with advanced synovial sarcoma that is positive for the cancer testis antigen melanoma-associated antigen A4 (MAGE-A4).25 The long-term outcomespatients with advanced synovial sarcoma treated with afami-cel in SPEARHEAD-1 (NCT04044768), a phase 2, open-label, 2-cohort trial, were recently presented at the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) annual meeting in 2023. Among 44 heavily pretreated patients, 17 had a RECIST response by independent review. Responsive patients experienced promising survival probabilities; the 12-month OS probability was 90%, and the 24-month OS probability was 70%.
Kelly: Novel combination strategies — be that chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy—are on the horizon. On the chemotherapy side of things, an interesting study is currently ongoing to evaluate lurbinectedin and doxorubicin in patients with leiomyosarcoma.26 Phase 1 data that had a number of responders in leiomyosarcoma was presented at ASCO 2023. And now a larger trial is ongoing in leiomyosarcoma, specifically.
I am interested to see if novel immunotherapeutics and combination immunotherapy strategies under evaluation can stimulate the immune microenvironment in immune desert tumors. Other notable research efforts on the horizon are looking at treatment in the neoadjuvant sarcoma setting. Can neoadjuvant therapeutic strategies help to reduce the risk of recurrence and improve survival following optimal local control for localized sarcoma with high-risk features? Research in this area continues to evolve and the neoadjuvant setting in sarcoma lends itself nicely to intratumor-administered therapeutic approaches.
References
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Upon successful completion of this activity, you should be better prepared to:
Describe recent advances in targeted and immunotherapy in soft tissue sarcomas.
Identify remaining unmet needs in soft tissue sarcomas.
RELEASE DATE: January 1, 2024
EXPIRATION DATE: January 1, 2025
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPATION and HOW TO RECEIVE CREDIT
Read this activity in its entirety.
Go to https://gotoper.com/tpt23ast-sarcomasto access and complete the posttest
Answer the evaluation questions.
Request credit using the drop down menu.
YOU MAY IMMEDIATELY DOWNLOAD YOUR CERTIFICATE.
Faculty, Staff, and Planners’ Disclosures
In accordance with ACCME Guidelines, PER® has identified and resolved all COI for faculty, staff, and planners prior to the start of this activity by using a multistep process.
Disclosures (Dr Kelly): Grant/Research Support (paid to institution): Amgen, Curadev Pharma, Merck, Regeneron, Xencor; Consultant: ChemoCentryx, Kartos Therapeutics; Speaker: Deciphera; Advisory Board: Servier; Other (spouse): Daiichi Sankyo.
The staff of PER® have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
Off-label Disclosure and Disclaimer
This activity may or may not discuss investigational, unapproved, or off-label use of drugs. Learners are advised to consult prescribing information for any products discussed. The information provided in this activity is for accredited continuing education purposes only and is not meant to substitute for the independent clinical judgment of a health care professional relative to diagnostic, treatment, or management options for a specific patient’s medical condition. The opinions expressed in the content are solely those of the individual faculty members, and do not reflect those of PER® or any of the companies that provided commercial support for this activity.
This activity is funded by PER®.
Accreditation/Credit Designation
Physicians’ Education Resource®, LLC, is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. Physicians’ Education Resource®, LLC, designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians’ Education Resource, LLC, designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits.™ Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Activity Overview
Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) are a rare, heterogeneous collection of tumors. Only a small percentage of sarcoma subtypes, including perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComa) and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), currently have identified actionable driver mutations. Immunotherapy options have recently been approved for specific subtypes, suggesting new lines of inquiry in other STS subtypes. In this article, Ciara Kelly, MBBCh BAO, reviews the current standard of care and emerging therapies on the horizon in STS.
Acknowledgment of Support
This activity is funded by PER.®
Faculty
Ciara Kelly, MBBCh, BAO
Assistant Attending Physician
Sarcoma Oncologist
Department of Medicine
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Assistant Professor of Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College
New York, NY
This activity was written by PER editorial staff under faculty guidance and review. The Q&A portion of the activity was transcribed from a recorded interview with the faculty and edited by faculty and PER editorial staff for clarity.
Faculty, Staff, and Planners’ Disclosures
In accordance with ACCME Guidelines, PER has identified and resolved all COI for faculty, staff, and planners prior to the start of this activity by using a multistep process.
Disclosures
The staff of PER® have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
CME Provider Contact Information
Physicians’ Education Resource,® LLC
2 Clarke Drive, Suite 110
Cranbury, NJ 08512
Toll-Free: 888-949-0045
Local: 609-378-3701
Fax: 609-257-0705
info@gotoper.com
CME Activity Table of Contents
Pretest
Toward Personalized Treatment Approaches in Soft Tissue Sarcomas
Posttest
Activity
Pretest
Sarcoma Awareness Month 2023 with Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD
August 1st 2023Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD, speaks about several agents and combination regimens that are currently under investigation in the sarcoma space, and potential next steps in research including immunotherapies and vaccine-based treatments.