Key result
Cediranib and sunitinib yielded low objective response rates of 6.7% and 7.1%, respectively, in patients with advanced metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma.
Why the study?
Alveolar soft part sarcoma is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options, prompting evaluation of the activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib or sunitinib in advanced metastatic disease.
Does cediranib or sunitinib improve objective response rate in patients with advanced metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma?
RCT (n=34)
randomized
Does cediranib or sunitinib improve objective response rate in patients with advanced metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma?
In patients with advanced metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma, neither cediranib nor sunitinib met the primary endpoint for objective response rate, though both provided some clinical benefit in terms of stable disease.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options. We designed a phase II randomized trial to determine the activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib or sunitinib in patients with advanced metastatic ASPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 16 years of age and older were randomized to receive cediranib (30 mg) or sunitinib (37.5 mg) in 28-day cycles. Patients could cross over to the other treatment arm at disease progression. The primary endpoint was to measure the objective response rate (ORR) for each agent. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the two arms was also determined. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 34 enrolled patients were evaluable for response. One patient on each of the initial two treatment arms had a partial response (ORR: 6.7% and 7.1% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). Twenty-four patients had a best response of stable disease (86.7% and 78.6% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). There were no significant differences in mPFS for the two treatment arms. Clinical benefit (i.e., objective response or stable disease for a minimum of four or six cycles of therapy) on the first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy did not predict benefit on the second-line TKI. Both drugs were well tolerated. As of August 2021, 1 patient (unevaluable for ORR) remains on study. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its endpoints for ORR. Although both TKIs provided clinical benefit, the outcomes may have been attenuated in patients who had progressed ≤6 months before enrollment, potentially accounting for the low response rates. See related commentary by Wilky and Maleddu, p. 1163.
Neither cediranib nor sunitinib met the primary ORR endpoint; leaves open the search for effective systemic therapies in advanced ASPS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in advanced metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma (n=34). Cediranib vs. Sunitinib was evaluated on objective response rate (ORR). Cediranib and sunitinib yielded low objective response rates of 6.7% and 7.1%, respectively, in patients with advanced metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: