Synovial sarcoma (SS) and myxoid/round cell liposarcoma (MRCL) are ideal solid tumors for the development of adoptive cellular therapy (ACT) targeting NY-ESO-1, as a high frequency of tumors homogeneously express this cancer-testes antigen. Data from early phase clinical trials have shown antitumor activity after the adoptive transfer of NY-ESO-1-specific T cells. In these studies, persistence of NY-ESO-1 specific T cells is highly correlated with response to ACT, but patients often continue to have detectable transferred cells in their peripheral blood following progression. We performed a phase I clinical trial evaluating the safety of NY-ESO-1-specific endogenous T cells (ETC) following cyclophosphamide conditioning. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from treated patients were evaluated by flow cytometry and gene expression analysis as well as through ex vivo culture assays with and without IL-15. Four patients were treated in a cohort using ETC targeting NY-ESO-1 following cyclophosphamide conditioning. Treatment was well tolerated without significant toxicity, but all patients ultimately had disease progression. In two of four patients, we obtained post-treatment tumor tissue and in both, NY-ESO-1 antigen was retained despite clear detectable persisting NY-ESO-1-specific T cells in the peripheral blood. Despite a memory phenotype, these persisting cells lacked markers of proliferation or activation. However, in ex vivo culture assays, they could be induced to proliferate and kill tumor using IL-15. These results were also seen in PBMCs from two patients who received gene-engineered T-cell receptor-based products at other centers. ETC targeting NY-ESO-1 with single-agent cyclophosphamide alone conditioning was well tolerated in patients with SS and those with MRCL. IL-15 can induce proliferation and activity in persisting NY-ESO-1-specific T cells even in patients with disease progression following ACT. These results support future work evaluating whether IL-15 could be incorporated into ACT trials post-infusion or at the time of progression.

Purpose

Osteosarcoma is a rare cancer and a third of patients who have completed primary treatment will develop osteosarcoma recurrence. The Src pathway has been implicated in the metastatic behavior of osteosarcoma; about 95% of samples examined express Src or have evidence of downstream activation of this pathway. Saracatinib (AZD0530) is a potent and selective Src kinase inhibitor that was evaluated in adults in Phase 1 studies. The primary goal of this study was to determine if treatment with saracatinib could increase progression-free survival (PFS) for patients who have undergone complete resection of osteosarcoma lung metastases in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Patients and Methods. Subjects with recurrent osteosarcoma localized to lung and who had complete surgical removal of all lung nodules were randomized within six weeks after complete surgical resection. Saracatinib, or placebo, was administered at a dose of 175 mg orally, once daily, for up to thirteen 28-day cycles.

Results

Thirty-seven subjects were included in the analyses; 18 subjects were randomized to receive saracatinib and 19 to receive placebo. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated a median PFS of 19.4 months in the saracatinib treatment group and 8.6 months in the placebo treatment group (p=0.47). Median OS was not reached in either arm.

Conclusions

Although saracatinib was well tolerated in this patient population, there was no apparent impact of the drug in this double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial on OS, and Src inhibition alone may not be sufficient to suppress metastatic progression in osteosarcoma. There is a suggestion of potential clinical benefit as evidenced by longer PFS in patients randomized to saracatinib based on limited numbers of patients treated.

Background

Worse chemotherapy response for neurofibromatosis type 1- (NF1-) associated compared to sporadic malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) has been reported.

Methods

We evaluated the objective response (OR) rate of patients with AJCC Stage III/IV chemotherapy-naive NF1 MPNST versus sporadic MPNST after 4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 2 cycles of ifosfamide/doxorubicin, and 2 cycles of ifosfamide/etoposide. A Simon optimal two-stage design was used (target response rate 40%).

Results

34 NF1 (median age 33 years) and 14 sporadic (median age 40 years) MPNST patients enrolled. Five of 28 (17.9%) evaluable NF1 MPNST patients had a partial response (PR), as did 4 of 9 (44.4%) patients with sporadic MPNST. Stable disease (SD) was achieved in 22 NF1 and 4 sporadic MPNST patients. In both strata, results in the initial stages met criteria for expansion of enrollment. Only 1 additional PR was observed in the expanded NF1 stratum. Enrollment was slower than expected and the trial closed before full accrual.

Conclusions

This trial was not powered to detect differences in response rates between NF1 and sporadic MPNST. While the OR rate was lower in NF1 compared to sporadic MPNST, qualitative responses were similar, and disease stabilization was achieved in most patients.

Background

Cancer patients with advanced disease routinely exhaust available clinical regimens and lack actionable genomic medicine results, leaving a large patient population without effective treatments options when their disease inevitably progresses. To address the unmet clinical need for evidence-based therapy assignment when standard clinical approaches have failed, we have developed a probabilistic computational modeling approach which integrates molecular sequencing data with functional assay data to develop patient-specific combination cancer treatments.

Methods

Tissue taken from a murine model of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma was used to perform single agent drug screening and DNA/RNA sequencing experiments; results integrated via our computational modeling approach identified a synergistic personalized two-drug combination. Cells derived from the primary murine tumor were allografted into mouse models and used to validate the personalized two-drug combination. Computational modeling of single agent drug screening and RNA sequencing of multiple heterogenous sites from a single patient's epithelioid sarcoma identified a personalized two-drug combination effective across all tumor regions. The heterogeneity-consensus combination was validated in a xenograft model derived from the patient's primary tumor. Cell cultures derived from human and canine undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma were assayed by drug screen; computational modeling identified a resistance-abrogating two-drug combination common to both cell cultures. This combination was validated in vitro via a cell regrowth assay.

Results

Our computational modeling approach addresses three major challenges in personalized cancer therapy: synergistic drug combination predictions (validated in vitro and in vivo in a genetically engineered murine cancer model), identification of unifying therapeutic targets to overcome intra-tumor heterogeneity (validated in vivo in a human cancer xenograft), and mitigation of cancer cell resistance and rewiring mechanisms (validated in vitro in a human and canine cancer model).

Conclusions

These proof-of-concept studies support the use of an integrative functional approach to personalized combination therapy prediction for the population of high-risk cancer patients lacking viable clinical options and without actionable DNA sequencing-based therapy.

Purpose

Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents.

Methods

SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461).

Results

Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001).

Conclusion

Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.