Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk soft tissue sarcomas: Results of the expanded cohort of myxoid liposarcoma of the randomized clinical trial from the Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG), the Spanish Sarcoma Group (GEIS), the French Sarcoma Group (FSG), and the Polish Sarcoma Group (PSG).

11508 Background: An ISG, GEIS, FSG and PSG randomized trial on 3 cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicine+ifosfamide (EI) versus a histology-tailored (HT) regimen in selected localized high-risk STS showed some superiority of EI in all histologies with the exception of Myxoid Liposarcoma (MLPS) where EI and HT regimens seemed equivalent (J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:2178-86). This MLPS cohort was expanded with the aim to assess the non-inferiority of the HT regimen compared to EI. Methods: This was a multicenter European randomized trial comparing EI versus a HT regimen. Patients (pts) had localized high-risk (grade = 3; size >5 cm; deeply seated) undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, synovial sarcoma or MLPS of extremities or trunk wall. Primary end-point was Disease Free Survival (DFS). Secondary end-point was Overall Survival (OS). The MLPS cohort was expanded after the results of the 3rd interim analysis (Lancet Oncol 2017; 18:812-22) in order to reject the hypothesis that HT regimen trabectedin is associated with a HR of relapse = 1.25 with a non-inferiority design. To this aim, a Bayesian monitoring approach was used until the probability that the true HR is higher than 1.25 was greater than 80% or smaller than 5%. Results: From May 2011 to June 2020, 101 pts affected by high-risk MLPS were randomized, 56 to EI and 45 to HT regimen. The median follow-up was 66 months (IQ range 37-89). Median size was 107 mm (IQ range 84-143), 108 mm (IQ range 86-150) in the EI and 106 mm (IQ range75-135) in the HT arm. The DFS and OS probabilities at 60 months were 0.86 and 0.73 (HR:0.60; 95%CI: 0.24-1.46; log rank p = 0.26 for DFS) and 0.88 and 0.90 (HR:1.20; 95%CI:0.37-3.93; log rank p = 0.77 for OS), in the HT and EI arm, respectively. 5-yr observed and Sarculator-predicted OS were 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97) and 0.80 in all patients (p = 0.020), 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00) and 0.79 in the EI arm (p = 0.049) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-1.00) and 0.81 in the HT arm (p = 0.204) respectively. Conclusions: In the expanded cohort of MLPS, the HT neoadjuvant therapy trabectedin was not inferior to EI. While survival in both arms was better than predicted by Sarculator, it is left to understand whether this patient population, who had on average a lower Sarculator-predicted risk of death compared with the rest of the trial population, may benefit from a neoadjuvant therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01710176.