Evidence Hub

Systemic Treatment of Advanced Chordoma With Molecular Targeted Therapies: A Large Multicentre European Retrospective Case Series

Lipplaa A, Hindi N, Teterycz P, Young RJ, Boukonavis I, Cruz J, Martinez-Trufero J, Speetjens F et al.

Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026

57 participants

Abstract

Background: This retrospective series reports outcomes and prognostic factors for advanced chordoma (AC) treatment with molecular targeted therapies (MTTs) in different treatment lines.

Methods: This is a retrospective series of 57 patients with AC treated between 2004 and 2023 at one of seven participating sarcoma centres. Demographics, previous treatment, treatment details and outcomes were recorded.

Results: 57 patients were treated with 7 different MTTs. Treatment was received in first (n = 57), second (n = 16), third (n = 5) or fourth (n = 1) line. The most frequently administered agent in first line was imatinib (84.2%) and in second line imatinib + sirolimus (35.7%). Overall median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in first-line treatment was 6.5 (95% CI 4.0-9.0) and 29.5 months (95% CI 24.0-40.4) and in second-line 10.0 (95% CI 4.0-22.0) and 37.2 months (95% CI 9.4-45.9). Partial response according to RECIST 1.1 was seen in 5/79 treatments (6.3%). Dose reductions and interruptions were reported in 19.0% and 27.8% of treatments.

Conclusions: PFS and response rates with these MTTs were in line with previous phase II trials and retrospective series. Although the efficacy does not meet the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) criteria for single arm studies in orphan diseases, MTTs are frequently used off-label due to the high unmet need and lack of other systemic treatment options. The toxicity…

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: 57 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