Angiosarcomas are rare soft-tissue sarcomas of endothelial cell origin that have a poor prognosis. They can arise anywhere in the body, most commonly presenting as cutaneous disease in elderly white men, involving the head and neck and particularly the scalp. They can be caused by therapeutic radiation or chronic lymphoedema and hence secondary breast angiosarcomas are an important subgroup. Recent work has sought to establish the molecular biology of angiosarcomas and identify specific targets for treatment. Interest is now focused on trials of vascular-targeted drugs, which are showing promise in the control of angiosarcomas. In this review we discuss angiosarcoma and its current management, with a focus on clinical trials investigating the treatment of advanced disease.

Denosumab was noninferior (trending to superiority) to ZA in preventing or delaying first on-study SRE in patients with advanced cancer metastatic to bone or myeloma. Denosumab represents a potential novel treatment option with the convenience of subcutaneous administration and no requirement for renal monitoring or dose adjustment.

SummaryWhile several lung cancer susceptibility loci have been identified, much of lung cancer heritability remains unexplained. Here, 14,803 cases and 12,262 controls of European descent were genotyped on the OncoArray and combined with existing data for an aggregated GWAS analysis of lung cancer on 29,266 patients and 56,450 controls. We identified 18 susceptibility loci achieving genome wide significance, including 10 novel loci. The novel loci highlighted the striking heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across lung cancer histological subtypes, with four loci associated with lung cancer overall and six with lung adenocarcinoma. Gene expression quantitative trait analysis (eQTL) in 1,425 normal lung tissues highlighted RNASET2, SECISBP2L and NRG1 as candidate genes. Other loci include genes such as a cholinergic nicotinic receptor, CHRNA2, and the telomere-related genes, OFBC1 and RTEL1. Further exploration of the target genes will continue to provide new insights into the etiology of lung cancer.

SummaryBackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.MethodsThe CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.FindingsBetween April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) an...

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundFor many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.MethodsThe GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009–014907–29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry.FindingsBetween Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7–29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5–54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5–54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6–30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1–20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99–1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 ...

In this exploratory analysis, denosumab was associated with improved overall survival compared with ZA, in patients with metastatic lung cancer.

Purpose Bone complications of metastatic disease, including skeletal-related events (SREs), impair patients' functioning and quality of life. In a randomized, phase 3 trial of 1,776 patients with metastases from solid tumors (except breast or prostate) or multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in delaying or preventing SREs. This ad hoc analysis reports outcomes in the subgroup of 1,597 patients with solid tumors, excluding patients with multiple myeloma. Methods Patients received monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg or intravenous ZA 4 mg, adjusted for creatinine clearance, with calcium and vitamin D supplementation recommended. Endpoints included times to first on-study SRE, first-and-subsequent SREs, and pain worsening. Results Denosumab significantly delayed time to first onstudy SRE compared with ZA (HR, 0.81; 95 % CI, 0.68-0.96) and time to first-and-subsequent SREs (RR, 0.85; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.00). Denosumab also significantly delayed time to development of moderate or severe pain (HR, 0.81; 95 % CI, 0.66-1.00), pain worsening (HR, 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.71-0.97), and worsening pain interference in patients with no/mild baseline pain (HR, 0.77; 95 % CI, 0.61-0.96). Adverse event rates were 96 % in both groups. Grade 3 or 4 hypocalcemia, mostly without clinical sequelae, was more frequent in denosumab-treated patients (denosumab 4 %, ZA 2 %). Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred infrequently (denosumab 0.8 %, ZA 1.1 %). Conclusions Denosumab was more effective in delaying or preventing SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and also prevented pain progression compared to ZA in this ad hoc analysis.