Evidence Hub

Natural history and treatment efficacy in an ambispective case series of NTRK-rearranged mesenchymal tumors

A. Dufresne, D. Pissaloux, C. Ngo, N. Penel, A. Le Cesne, N. Macagno, H. Vanacker, C. Hénon et al.

ESMO Open, 2023

188 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

Background Apart for infantile fibrosarcoma (IFS), very little is known about NTRK-rearranged mesenchymal tumors (NMTs). The objective of this study is to describe the distribution, characteristics, natural history, and prognosis of NMT. Patients and methods This study was carried out as a translational research program, retrospectively from a cohort of 500 soft tissue sarcoma (STS; excluding IFS) and prospectively both in routine practice and from the RNASARC molecular screening program (N = 188; NCT03375437). Results Using RNA-sequencing, NTRK fusion was detected in 16 patient tumors diagnosed as STS: 8 samples of sarcoma with simple genomics (4 NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm, 3 ALK/ROS wild-type inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor, and 1 quadruple Wild-type gastrointestinal stromal tumor) and 8 samples of sarcomas with complex genomics (dedifferentiated liposarcoma, intimal sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, high-grade uterine sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor). Among the eight patients with simple genomics, four were treated with tyrosine receptor kinase inhibitor (TRKi) at different stages of the disease and all benefited from the treatment, including one complete response. Among the eight other patients, six evolved with metastatic spreading and the median metastatic survival was 21.9 months, as classically reported in these tumor types. Two of them received a first-generation TRKi without objective response. Conclusions…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 188 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free