Abstract
Pazopanib was assessed prospectively in the GEIS-32 phase II study (NCT02066285) on advanced solitary fibrous tumour (SFT), resulting in a longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with historical controls treated with chemotherapy. A retrospective analysis of peripheral inflammatory indexes in patients enrolled into GEIS-32 was performed to evaluate their prognostic and predictive value. Patients received pazopanib 800 mg/day as the first antiangiogenic line. The impacts of baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and red cell distribution width (RDW) on PFS, OS, and Choi response were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. Metastasis-free interval (MFI), mitotic count, and ECOG were also included as potential prognostic factors. Sixty-seven SFT patients, enrolled in this study, showed a median age of 63 years and a female/male distribution of 57/43. The median follow-up from treatment initiation was 16.8 months. High baseline NLR, PLR, and standardised RDW were significantly associated with worse PFS and OS. NLR, RDW, MFI, and mitotic count were independent variables for PFS, while RDW and ECOG were independent for OS. Further, NLR and mitotic count were independent factors for Choi response. High baseline NLR and RDW values were independent prognostic biomarkers for worse outcome in advanced SFT patients treated with pazopanib.
Keywords:
NLR; PLR; RDW; inflammation; neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio; pazopanib; platelet/lymphocyte; red cell distribution width; solitary fibrous tumour.
Grants and funding
S.H.-R. and J.C.-G. report institutional research grants from PharmaMar and Karyopharm. D.S.M. reports institutional research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix Biopharma, and Novartis outside the submitted work and travel support from PharmaMar, Eisai, Celgene, Bayer, and Pfizer. N.H. reports grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from PharmaMar; research grants from Eisai, Immix Biopharma, and Novartis outside the submitted work; and re-search funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo. J.M.B. reports research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix Biopharma and Novartis outside the submitted work; honoraria for advisory board participation and expert testimony from PharmaMar; honoraria for advisory board participation from Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer, and Eisai; and research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo. X.G. reports research grant of AstraZeneca outside the submitted work; honoraria for advisory role and/or invited speaker from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Astellas Pharma, Roche, PharmaMar, Eisai, and EUSA Pharma. J.C.J. reports speaker honoraria from Glaxo, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eisai, Lilly, Pfizer, Seagen, Glaxo, Gilead, and Daiichi-Sankyo; consultant/advisory role from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eisai, Lilly, Pfizer, Seagen, Glaxo, Gilead, and Daiichi-Sankyo. D.B. declares proctor/consultancy role for Boston and speaker fees from PharmaMar. A.L.C. declares bureau fees from PharmaMar, Deciphera, and Bayer. A.R. reports research funding (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eisai, and Roche Farma outside the submitted work; honoraria for advisory board participation from PharmaMar, Clovis, GSK, AstraZeneca, and MSD; and honoraria for speaking from PharmaMar, Clovis, GSK, AstraZeneca, and MSD.