No abstract

Metastatic soft tissue sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of relatively rare malignancies. Most patients are treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted therapy in the form of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Response rates are relatively low, and there is a need for better therapies. This clinical trial demonstrates that combining a cytotoxic therapy (dacarbazine) with an antiangiogenic small molecule (sorafenib) is feasible and associated with favorable disease-control rates; however, it also increases the potential for significant toxicity.

Lessons Learned Our results highlight some of the challenges in the management of soft tissue sarcomas, which requires close cooperation between surgeons and medical oncologists and a careful selection of patients. The incidence of hepatotoxicity was a concerning finding and had been previously reported in patients treated with pazopanib. Although pharmacokinetic analysis was not part of this study, concomitant treatment with pazopanib has been recently reported to increase docetaxel exposure, which may explain the increased toxicity of combination regimens. It remains possible that lower doses of combined gemcitabine, docetaxel, and pazopanib may be tolerable. However, caution should be exercised in future trials investigating similar combinations. Background. For extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS), surgical resection remains the standard of care, and the addition of chemotherapy is controversial. This was a phase Ib/II trial of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with STS. Methods. Patients with high grade, extremity STS of >8 cm and amenable to definitive resection were treated with up to four 21‐day cycles of 900 mg/m2 gemcitabine on days 1 and 8, 75 mg/m2 docetaxel on day 8, and 400 mg of pazopanib daily (GDP), followed by surgery and, if indicated, radiation therapy. Primary and secondary endpoints (phase Ib portion) were the safety and rate of pathologic response. Results. The trial was discontinued because of slow accrual after inclusion of five patients (leiomyosarcoma: two; undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma: three). Two patients completed four treatment cycles: one underwent surgery and one had insufficient response and received additional therapies. Three patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity. Grade 3 adverse events included hypertension, fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation, hoarseness, and myelotoxicity. There were no complete or partial responses. One patient had ≥90% pathologic response. Among four patients who underwent resection, three remain free of disease, and one patient eventually relapsed. Conclusion. GDP combination used in the neoadjuvant setting resulted in significant toxicity; despite pathologic responses, no objective responses occurred.

Purpose The objective of this study was to determine whether differences in patients’ race/ethnicity, preferred language, and other factors were associated with patient enrollment in oncology research studies. Patients and Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of all adults (>18 and ≤90) seen at a large, metropolitan cancer center from 2005 to 2015, examining if enrollment to a research study, varied by race/ethnicity, preferred language, comorbidities, gender, and age. Results A total of 233 604 patients were available for initial analysis. Of these, 93 278 (39.9%) were enrolled in a research protocol (therapeutic and non-therapeutic studies). Patients who self-reported their race/ethnicity as Native, Other, Unknown, or Refuse to Answer were less likely to be enrolled on a study. Patients with one or more comorbidities, and those whose preferred language was English, were more likely to be enrolled on a research study. A logistic regression model showed that, although Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have one or more comorbidities and had a higher proportion of their subset selecting English as their preferred language, they were less likely to be enrolled on a study, than our largest population, Non-Hispanic/White patients. Conclusions We identified differences in research study enrollment based on preferred language, and within race/ethnicity categories including Native-Populations, Other, Unknown or Refuse to Answer compared to Non-Hispanic/White patients. We also highlighted the lower odds of enrollment among Non-Hispanic/Black patients, in the setting of factors such as comorbidities and English language preference, which were otherwise found to be positive predictors of enrollment. Further investigation is needed to design targeted interventions to reduce disparities in oncology research study enrollment, with particular focus on language diversity.