TRAbectedin in adVanced rEtroperitoneal well differentiated/dedifferentiated Liposarcoma and Leiomyosarcoma (TRAVELL): results of a phase II study from the Italian Sarcoma Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
•Medical treatment in the advanced setting for retroperitoneal LPS and LMS is scarce.•A subgroup of patients treated with trabectedin, median PFS and TTP1 were 6 months and 7.5 months, respectively.•GMI was >1.33 in 52% of patients.•A subgroup of patients with low-grade LPS had a GMI >5, thus suggesting a peculiar sensitivity to trabectedin for this histotype. BackgroundThis is a multicentre, single-arm, phase II study aimed at further exploring the activity of trabectedin as second-/further-line treatment in retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma (LPS).Materials and methodsThe primary endpoint was the growth modulation index (GMI) defined as the ratio between PFS under trabectedin (PFS) and during previous chemotherapy treatment: time to progression (TTP-1). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and PFS. As per protocol, patients were considered responders if the GMI was >1.33, non-responders if <0.75 and neither if 0.76-1.32.ResultsOverall 91 patients were assessable for the primary endpoint (32 patients with LMS and 59 patients with LPS): the median number of cycles received was 6.0 (Q1-Q3 3.0-12.0), and the main reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression in 72% of patients. The median PFS was 6.0 months, while the median TTP1 was 7.5 months (8.1 and 6.4 months for LMS and LPS, respectively). Thirty-three patients [52%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 36% to 58%, P = 0.674, odds of response 1.1] had a GMI >1.33 (LMS 46%, 95% CI 26% to 67%, odds of response 0.85; LPS 56%, 95% CI 40% to 72%, odds of response 1.3). Overall, in LPS we observed 15/47 patients with a GMI <0.5 and 15/47 patients with a GMI >2. Among LMS patients, 9/26 had a GMI <0.5 and 10/26 had a GMI >2. Overall, ORR (complete response + partial response) was 16% (24% for LMS and 12% for LPS).ConclusionsWhile the primary endpoint of the study was not met, we noticed a subgroup of patients with a markedly discrepant TTP with trabectedin in comparison to previous therapy (GMI <0.5 or >2, the latter including some patients with a long TTP with trabectedin). A mismatch between PFS and overall survival was observed, possibly due to the natural history of the two different histologies and the availability of further lines in LMS. This is a multicentre, single-arm, phase II study aimed at further exploring the activity of trabectedin as second-/further-line treatment in retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma (LPS). The primary endpoint was the growth modulation index (GMI) defined as the ratio between PFS under trabectedin (PFS) and during previous chemotherapy treatment: time to progression (TTP-1). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and PFS. As per protocol, patients were considered responders if the GMI was >1.33, non-responders if <0.75 and neither if 0.76-1.32. Overall 91 patients were assessable for the primary endpoint (32 patients with LMS and 59 patients with LPS): the median number of cycles received was 6.0 (Q1-Q3 3.0-12.0), and the main reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression in 72% of patients. The median PFS was 6.0 months, while the median TTP1 was 7.5 months (8.1 and 6.4 months for LMS and LPS, respectively). Thirty-three patients [52%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 36% to 58%, P = 0.674, odds of response 1.1] had a GMI >1.33 (LMS 46%, 95% CI 26% to 67%, odds of response 0.85; LPS 56%, 95% CI 40% to 72%, odds of response 1.3). Overall, in LPS we observed 15/47 patients with a GMI <0.5 and 15/47 patients with a GMI >2. Among LMS patients, 9/26 had a GMI <0.5 and 10/26 had a GMI >2. Overall, ORR (complete response + partial response) was 16% (24% for LMS and 12% for LPS). While the primary endpoint of the study was not met, we noticed a subgroup of patients with a markedly discrepant TTP with trabectedin in comparison to previous therapy (GMI <0.5 or >2, the latter including some patients with a long TTP with trabectedin). A mismatch between PFS and overall survival was observed, possibly due to the natural history of the two different histologies and the availability of further lines in LMS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".