Lessons learned

The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist.

Background

Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recurrent and metastatic non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. We conducted a randomized, phase II study of regorafenib versus placebo in refractory liposarcoma patients.

Methods

Patients with advanced or metastatic, treatment-refractory liposarcoma were randomized 1:1 to receive regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off). Patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma only were excluded. Crossover for placebo was allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), according to RECIST version 1.1.

Results

Forty-eight subjects with liposarcoma (34 dedifferentiated, 12 myxoid/round cell, 2 pleomorphic) were enrolled. Median PFS was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-3.67) months for regorafenib versus 2.07 (95% CI, 1.64-3.44) months for placebo; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 (95% CI, 0.46, 1.58), p = .62. No responses were seen on regorafenib. One PR was observed on placebo. Median overall survival was 6.46 (95% CI, 4.16-23.48) months for regorafenib and 4.89 (95% CI, 3.02-9.77) months for placebo, stratified HR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31-1.40), p = .28). Treatment-related adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of regorafenib.

Conclusion

Regorafenib did not appear to improve PFS in treatment-refractory liposarcoma. No new significant safety signals were observed.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare malignancies of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Soft Tissue Sarcoma provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis and treatment of retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, outlines treatment recommendations, and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.

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.