Aldoxorubicin Improves PFS in Some Relapsed/Refractory Sarcomas

Article

Aldoxorubicin yielded significantly better progression-free survival over investigator’s choice of various chemotherapy options in patients with relapsed or refractory leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma, according to updated results of a phase III trial.

Aldoxorubicin yielded significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) over investigator’s choice of various chemotherapy options in patients with relapsed or refractory leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma, according to updated results of a phase III trial.

“This data represents a major step forward for soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], a rare, highly complex and very difficult to treat group of cancers,” said study lead investigator Sant Chawla, MD, of the Sarcoma Oncology Center in Santa Monica California, in a press release.

The trial, a phase III randomized study, included a total of 433 patients with STS. Patients received either aldoxorubicin, which combines doxorubicin with a novel linker molecule that binds to circulating albumin, or investigator’s choice of gemcitabine plus docetaxel, or dacarbazine, pazopanib, doxorubicin, or ifosfamide.

Among the 246 patients with leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma, the study drug resulted in a significantly improved PFS, with a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44–0.88; P = .007). For the full study population, there was a trend toward better PFS with aldoxorubicin, with an HR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.64–1.06; P = 0.12). There was also a significantly better PFS specifically among the 312 patients treated in North America, with an HR of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.53–0.97; P = .028).

The company that manufactures the drug, CytRx, reports they will likely submit a New Drug Application for aldoxorubicin to the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017, specifically for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory STS.

The disease control rate (defined as objective response or stable disease for at least 4 months) was significantly better with aldoxorubicin in the full 433-patient cohort, at 29.4% vs 20.5% with investigator’s choice (P = .030). The benefit was again more pronounced in North American patients, with a control rate of 32.9% with aldoxorubicin compared with 19.2% (P = .007). The objective response rate was 8.7% in North American patients, compared with 3.3% with investigator’s choice (P = .058).

The study is ongoing, with overall survival data likely to be reported in 2017. The most common adverse events included neutropenia and anemia in the full study population; 61% of aldoxorubicin patients and 46% of investigator’s choice patients experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event. Treatment-emergent adverse events that led to therapy discontinuation occurred in 4.2% of aldoxorubicin patients and in 6.3% of investigator’s choice patients.

Related Videos
The difference in adverse effect profiles between sorafenib and nirogacestat may make one treatment more appealing than the other for certain patients with desmoid tumors, says Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD.
The August CancerNetwork Snap Recap takes a look back at key FDA news updates, as well as expert perspectives on the chemotherapy shortage.
Future developments in the sarcoma space may also involve research on circulating tumor DNA and metabolic therapies, according to Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD.
Current research in the sarcoma space includes the development of treatment options such as T-cell therapies, and combinations such as TKIs/immunotherapy, according to Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD.
Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD, states that sitravatinib appears to be active and well tolerated among patients with dedifferentiated or well-differentiated liposarcoma.
Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD, also discusses how the treatment of desmoid tumors has evolved following data supporting the use of sorafenib in this population.
CAR T-cell therapies and immunotherapy agents may offer up new options and even become standard of care in certain sarcoma subtypes.
There are several novel treatments that may be beneficial in several sarcoma subtypes including CAR T-cell therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to Sandra P. D’Angelo, MD.
Data from a ctDNA analysis of the phase 3 INTRIGUE study indicate that KIT mutational status may be associated with response to certain Tyrosine kinase inhibitors in GIST, according to an expert from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Massachusetts.