Purpose:

Standard treatment for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (LA/M STS) is chemotherapy based on anthracyclines, but patient tolerance of chemotherapy is limited. The present trial (NCT03792542) investigated the use of anlotinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced STS, in particular liposarcoma.

Patients and Methods:

Eligible patients were previously untreated, pathologically confirmed, unresectable LA/M STS cases. Anlotinib was given orally at a dose of 12 mg once daily from days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AE) occurred. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and disease control rate (DCR). The safety profile was also evaluated.

Results:

Forty patients were enrolled from April 2019 to June 2022 and are included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median PFS was 6.83 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.17–8.71] and the median OS 27.40 months (95% CI, 16.43–not evaluable); 1 patient reached partial response and 26 attained stable disease, with a DCR of 67.5% (27/40). Median PFS and OS times for liposarcoma patients were 8.71 and 16.23 months, respectively. Ten (25.0%) patients had treatment-related AEs ≥ grade 3, with in particular a higher incidence of hypertension (15.0%) and proteinuria (7.5%).

Conclusions:

The findings suggest a potential benefit in using front-line anlotinib to treat patients with STS, who are not eligible for cytotoxic chemotherapy. Of note, the clinical outcomes for the liposarcoma subgroup of patients were encouraging.

See related commentary by Napolitano et al., p. 4257

Translational Relevance

Chemotherapy based on anthracyclines and ifosfamide is at present the conventional first-line treatment regimen for patients with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), but some patients do not tolerate chemotherapy well. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib inhibits tumor cell proliferation and antitumor angiogenesis by simultaneously targeting VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR, and c-Kit. These findings came from a phase 2b clinical trial on anlotinib after approval in China for second-line treatments of STS in 2019. On the basis of data obtained for anlotinib as second-line therapy of STS, this phase 2 clinical trial was designed to evaluate anlotinib as first-line therapy without chemotherapy for the treatment of different subtypes of locally advanced or metastatic STS (LA/M STS). The results showed that first-line anlotinib monotherapy was noninferior to conventional first-line chemotherapies for patients with LA/M STS, with manageable and acceptable toxicity, and its use warrants further extensive clinical trials.

Soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) is a mesenchymal malignancy with approximately 70 histopathological subgroups (1), with liposarcoma being the most common subtype accounting, for about 15% of all STS cases (2). Most patients with STS undergo surgery as the primarily treatment. However, for locally advanced or metastatic STS (LA/M STS), systemic treatment is considered to be the only therapeutic approach, with chemotherapy based on anthracyclines and ifosphamide the usual first-line treatment regimen (3, 4). However, patients with LA/M STS have poor prognosis, with a reported 5-year survival rate of only 27.2% for advanced STS in a large Korean cohort, though it should be noted that 65.6% of these patients received chemotherapy (5). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of first-line chemotherapy was limited to 5 to 7 months and the median overall survival (OS) was around 20 months (6, 7). In addition to unsatisfactory first-line treatments, there have always been cases of patients refusing chemotherapy on first diagnosis or of doctors judging that they would not be able to tolerate chemotherapy. New drugs with a better efficacy and safety profile are urgently needed to treat these patients. In recent years, treatment options for advanced STS have focused on anti-angiogenic therapy, with multikinase inhibitors becoming the major drug class, based on the results of preliminary studies (811).

Anlotinib inhibits tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis as well as inducing apoptosis by simultaneously targeting VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR, and c-Kit (1215). Previous studies reported median PFS times of 6.27 and 5.6 months for patients with advanced STS who received anlotinib after failure of standard therapy (16, 17). In a trial of second-line treatment, a retrospective analysis encompassing approximately 30 pathological subtypes revealed that the median PFS, OS, and objective response rate (ORR) of patients who received anlotinib monotherapy were 6.1, 16.4, and 13.4%, respectively (18). On the basis of the ALTER0203 trial (17), a phase 2b clinical trial of anlotinib for the treatment of advanced STS, the National Medical Products Administration in June 2019 gave approval for the use of anlotinib, an innovative drug independently developed in China, for second-line treatment of STS. In 2021, the sarcoma expert group of the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology raised the recommendation and evidence levels of anlotinib to a grade I recommendation and Class 1A evidence, respectively.

On the basis of reliable clinical data on the use of anlotinib for second-line therapy of STS, a phase 2 clinical trial was designed with the aim of using anlotinib to treat different subtypes of LA/M STS but without chemotherapy. The aims were to establish prospectively the efficacy and safety of first-line treatment of LA/M STS subtypes with anlotinib, thereby providing a more precise and optimized treatment regimen for prolonging the survival of these very ill patients.

Design of the trial and patients

This was a single-arm, multicenter, prospective trial conducted between April 2019 and June 2022. A total of patients with 40 LA/M STS who were chemotherapy-naive or likely to be intolerant to chemotherapy as judged by the investigators, were selected from the Departments of Bone and Soft Tissue Oncology in 7 hospitals across China.

The major criteria for inclusion in the trial were: (i) Patients of age 18 to 70 years regardless of gender; (ii) LA/M STS diagnosed by pathology according to the 2016 WHO classification of STS. Pathological types included: hemangiosarcoma (HSA), liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma (LMS), synovial sarcoma (SS), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), and other sarcomas [specifically, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), fibrosarcoma (FS), clear cell sarcoma (CCS) and others], except for the following: Alveolar soft part sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, osteosarcoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, Ewing sarcoma/primary neuroectodermal tumor, inflammatory myofibroblastoma and malignant mesothelioma; (iii) had not received antitumor drug therapy or patients were >6 months after previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ceased; (iv) patients who refused chemotherapy or were unlikely to tolerate chemotherapy as judged by the investigators based upon age or co-morbidities; (v) measurable lesions according to RECIST ver. 1.1 criteria (19); and (vi) an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score between 0 and 2, and expected time of survival >3 months. Physical examinations included vital signs, routine blood chemistries and hematological tests, 12-lead ECG, and echocardiography.

The major exclusion criteria were: (i) qualified for cytotoxic chemotherapy and willing to accept chemotherapy; (ii) a previous history of STS chemotherapy before enrollment (patients could be enrolled if the adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy had been completed >6 months before enrollment); (iii) had previously received anlotinib or other small-molecule anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor drugs, or various anti-angiogenic mAb drugs; (iv) had antitumor treatment within the first 4 weeks of enrollment; (v) had other malignancies within the previous 5 years; and (vi) known central nervous system metastasis. Supplementary File S1 lists all of the inclusion and exclusion criteria in detail.

Treatment and evaluations

Anlotinib was given orally at a dose of 12 mg once daily from days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks. Medication continued until disease progression (PD) that was evaluated on the basis of efficacy assessment criteria, poor compliance with medication use outside the range 80% to 120% of the prescribed dose, patient withdrawal of informed consent, treatment with other antitumor drugs that may have affected the efficacy assessment (e.g., chemotherapy, targeted therapy or biotherapy), unexpected pregnancy, intolerable adverse events (AE) or serious AEs confirmed by the investigator or termination of treatment as deemed appropriate by the treating physician in the best interest of the patient. Protocol-recommended dose modifications were made in response to AEs.

Before treatment, all patients underwent tumor baseline and safety indicator examinations. Efficacy evaluation (CT/MRI) was performed initially 3 weeks after treatment and efficacy was confirmed at 6 weeks. CT/MRI was performed every 2 cycles after medication. The time of determination of the ECOG PS and quality of life scores were consistent with imaging examinations. AEs were documented for ≥30 days after the last medication and follow-up was conducted until AEs were relieved or stabilized. Follow-up of any subsequent treatment and the survival status of patients were conducted every 8 weeks through outpatient visits or telephone calls after the last drug administration.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint was PFS evaluated by investigators, with PFS being the time from patient enrollment to PD or death.

Secondary endpoints were OS (time from the initiation of anlotinib treatment to death), ORR defined as the sum of the complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) proportions, disease control rate (DCR) [sum of CR, PR, and stable disease (SD) proportions]. Treatment efficacy was assessed once every 2 treatment cycles according to RECIST ver. 1.1 criteria (19).

AEs were rated according to NCICTCC ver. 4.0 guidelines during the trial, and ultimately the investigators decided whether they were treatment-related.

Trial oversight

This phase 2 trial was performed in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, and was approved by the institutional review boards of the participating hospitals. All patients provided signed written informed consent before enrollment. The trial was registered at clinicatrials. gov (NCT03792542).

Statistical analysis

According to an analysis of the published literature, the reference value for PFS for first-line doxorubicin treatment of STS is 4.60 months (6, 20). Assuming that anlotinib was superior to doxorubicin treatment, PFS was extended by 40% and the PFS in the anlotinib group was 6.44 months, α = 0.15, β = 0.8, analyzed using PASS15 software, with the sample size being 39 cases enrolled in the anlotinib group. This trial aimed to enroll 44 patients considering a 10% drop-out rate, and a required endpoint event of 33. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS ver. 19.0 (IBM, RRID:SCR_002865) at a 95% confidence interval (CI), with a P value of <0.05 being regarded as statistically significant. Categorical data are expressed as percentages, and normally distributed variables as the mean ± standard deviation. Kruskal–Wallis H and χ2 tests were used to compare continuous variables and categorical data across the two groups, respectively. The log-rank test was used to compare the survival occurrences among the various groups. An evaluation of the AEs detected during the trial was performed using a descriptive statistical technique. On the basis of the full analysis set (FAS), an efficacy analysis was conducted. The median PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, yielding bilateral 95% CIs. Percentages are given for DCR and ORR, together with 95% CIs.

The safety analysis was based on the safety analysis set. Treatment-related AEs (TRAE) are described in frequency tables and as percentages.

Data availability

The data generated in this trial are not publicly available due to restrictions of information that could compromise patient privacy and/or consent but are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. Please contact the corresponding authors for requests of deidentified raw data.

Demographic baseline and clinical characteristics of patients

Between April 2019 and June 2022, of 43 patients assessed a total of 40 were enrolled in the trial. The median age of patients was 57.5 years with 60.0% (n = 24) being male. The subtypes included liposarcoma (n = 10), UPS (n = 8), FS (n = 8), SS (n = 4), MPNST (n = 3), LMS (n = 3), CCS (n = 1), HSA (n = 1), and others (n = 2). Most patients were in stage IV (85.0%) and had a surgical history (95.0%) as well as 85.0% patients who had ≤ 2 metastatic organs. In this trial, a total of 10 patients with liposarcoma were included, comprised of 5 high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (MLPS) and 4 dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) cases and 1 well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS) case. Among them, the WDLPS individual dropped out before completing one cycle of treatment (Table 1 ).

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics and demographics of the participating patients.

CharacteristicsFAS population (n = 40)
Age (y), median (range) 57.5 (23.0–69.0) 
Gender, n (%)  
 Male 24 (60.0) 
 Female 16 (40.0) 
ECOG PS, n (%) 
 0 8 (20.0) 
 1 29 (72.5) 
 2 3 (7.5) 
Histology, n (%) 
 LPS 10 (25.0) 
  Myxoid 5 (50.0) 
  Dedifferentiated 4 (40.0) 
  Well differentiated 1 (10.0) 
 UPS 8 (20.0) 
 FS 8 (20.0) 
  Adult fibrosarcoma 5 (62.5) 
  Myxofibrosarcoma 2 (25.0) 
  Malignant solitary fibrous tumor 1 (12.5) 
  SS 4 (10.0) 
  MPNST 3 (7.5) 
  LMS 3 (7.5) 
  CCS 1 (2.5) 
  HSA 1 (2.5) 
 Othersa 2 (5.0) 
Stage, n (%)  
 IA 1 (2.5) 
 IB 2 (5.0) 
 II 2 (5.0) 
 IIIA 1 (2.5) 
 IV 34 (85.0) 
Number of metastatic organs, n (%) 
 ≤2 34 (85.0) 
 >2 6 (15.0) 
Brain metastasis, n (%) 
 Yes 0 (0.0) 
 No 40 (100.0) 
Surgical history, n (%) 
 Yes 38 (95.0) 
 No 2 (5.0) 
Previous radiotherapy, n (%) 
 Yes 10 (25.0) 
 No 30 (75.0) 
Previous targeted therapy, n (%) 
 Yes 0 (0.0) 
 No 40 (100.0) 
CharacteristicsFAS population (n = 40)
Age (y), median (range) 57.5 (23.0–69.0) 
Gender, n (%)  
 Male 24 (60.0) 
 Female 16 (40.0) 
ECOG PS, n (%) 
 0 8 (20.0) 
 1 29 (72.5) 
 2 3 (7.5) 
Histology, n (%) 
 LPS 10 (25.0) 
  Myxoid 5 (50.0) 
  Dedifferentiated 4 (40.0) 
  Well differentiated 1 (10.0) 
 UPS 8 (20.0) 
 FS 8 (20.0) 
  Adult fibrosarcoma 5 (62.5) 
  Myxofibrosarcoma 2 (25.0) 
  Malignant solitary fibrous tumor 1 (12.5) 
  SS 4 (10.0) 
  MPNST 3 (7.5) 
  LMS 3 (7.5) 
  CCS 1 (2.5) 
  HSA 1 (2.5) 
 Othersa 2 (5.0) 
Stage, n (%)  
 IA 1 (2.5) 
 IB 2 (5.0) 
 II 2 (5.0) 
 IIIA 1 (2.5) 
 IV 34 (85.0) 
Number of metastatic organs, n (%) 
 ≤2 34 (85.0) 
 >2 6 (15.0) 
Brain metastasis, n (%) 
 Yes 0 (0.0) 
 No 40 (100.0) 
Surgical history, n (%) 
 Yes 38 (95.0) 
 No 2 (5.0) 
Previous radiotherapy, n (%) 
 Yes 10 (25.0) 
 No 30 (75.0) 
Previous targeted therapy, n (%) 
 Yes 0 (0.0) 
 No 40 (100.0) 

Abbreviations: CCS, clear cell sarcoma; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; FAS, full analysis set; FS, fibrosarcoma; HSA, hemangiosarcoma; LMS, leiomyosarcoma; LPS, liposarcoma; MPNST, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor; SS, synovial sarcoma; UPS, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma.

a

Others refers to myofibroblastic sarcoma and extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma.

The representativeness of the patients is shown in Supplementary Table S1.

Forty patients were subsumed in the FAS and safety analysis sets. Median follow-up of PFS was 12.81 months (95% CI, 4.11–37.22) and 36.04 months (95% CI, 27.53–38.31) for OS. From the data cutoff date of August 2023, 9 patients withdrew their informed consent, 3 withdrew due to AEs, 23 were discontinued due to PD, 1 visit exceeded the scheduled window due to COVID-19, 2 died for reasons unrelated to PD, and 2 withdrew based on the investigator’s assessment. In addition, there were 18 patient deaths and 4 patients who were lost to contact, whereas 18 patients were under survival follow-up (Fig. 1). Finally, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 32 patients declined chemotherapy and 8 were deemed not suitable for chemotherapy. The Multidisciplinary Team assessed and concluded that these 8 individuals were unable to tolerate first-line chemotherapy.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the trial. AEs, adverse events; PD, disease progression.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the trial. AEs, adverse events; PD, disease progression.

Close modal

Efficacy

The median PFS was 6.83 months (95% CI, 4.17–8.71; Fig. 2A ). For subgroups, the median PFS was 8.71 months (95% CI, 1.48–8.71) and 6.83 months (95% CI, 4.17–9.69), respectively, for liposarcoma and other subtypes (Table 2 , Fig. 2B ). In terms of secondary endpoints, the median OS was 27.40 months [95% CI, 16.43–not evaluable (NE); Fig. 2C ]. For subgroups, the median OS was 16.23 months (95% CI, 1.54–NE) for patients with liposarcoma and not reached (NR) for other subgroups (95% CI, 16.89–NE; Table 2 , Fig. 2D ).

Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves. A, Overall PFS; B, PFS times of LPS and other subgroup patients; and overall OS (C); D, OS times of LPS and other subgroup patients. CI, confidence interval; LPS, liposarcoma; NE, not evaluable; NR, not reached; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves. A, Overall PFS; B, PFS times of LPS and other subgroup patients; and overall OS (C); D, OS times of LPS and other subgroup patients. CI, confidence interval; LPS, liposarcoma; NE, not evaluable; NR, not reached; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

Close modal
Table 2.

Efficacy analysis stratified by subtypes.

LPS (n = 10)Other subtypes (n = 30)
PFS 
 Censor, n (%) 7 (70.0) 10 (33.3) 
 Median (95% CI) 8.71 (1.48–8.71) 6.83 (4.17–9.69) 
 Log-rank P 0.672  
OS 
 Censor, n (%) 5 (50.0) 17 (56.7) 
 Median (95% CI) 16.23 (1.54–NE) NR (16.89–NE) 
 Log-rank P 0.422  
ORR (%; 95% CI) 0.0 3.3 (0.1, 17.2) 
DCR (%; 95% CI) 50.0 (18.7–81.3) 73.3 (54.1–87.7) 
LPS (n = 10)Other subtypes (n = 30)
PFS 
 Censor, n (%) 7 (70.0) 10 (33.3) 
 Median (95% CI) 8.71 (1.48–8.71) 6.83 (4.17–9.69) 
 Log-rank P 0.672  
OS 
 Censor, n (%) 5 (50.0) 17 (56.7) 
 Median (95% CI) 16.23 (1.54–NE) NR (16.89–NE) 
 Log-rank P 0.422  
ORR (%; 95% CI) 0.0 3.3 (0.1, 17.2) 
DCR (%; 95% CI) 50.0 (18.7–81.3) 73.3 (54.1–87.7) 

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DCR, disease control rate; LPS, liposarcoma; NE, not evaluable; NR, not reached; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

The time to response and the duration of treatments are shown in Fig. 3A. Among the 40 patients in the FAS, PR occurred in 1 patient (2.5%) and 26 (65.0%) attained SD. Confirmed ORR was 2.5% (95% CI, 0.1%–13.2%) and DCR 67.5% (95% CI, 50.9%–81.4%; Table 3 ). The greatest changes in lesion sizes among the 37 patients are shown in Fig. 3B , whereas 13 patients exhibited a tumor shrinkage range from 0% to 50%. Figure 3C  displays the percentage changes over time, with 1 patient showing a range between 0% and 10% for up to 37 months. For liposarcoma and the other subgroups, ORRs were 0.0% and 3.3%, and DCRs 50.0% and 73.3%, respectively (see Table 2 ).

Figure 3.

Best tumor response using different analysis models. A, Time to the response and the duration of therapy. The bar represents the therapy duration for individual patients. B, Waterfall plot of the best percentage of change from baseline in the target lesion magnitude. C, Lesion diameters (% change) with time. Dashed line at the ‒30% change indicates the cutoff value for PR or SD as defined by RECIST ver. 1.1. The dashed line at 20% change represents the cutoff value for SD or PD per RECIST ver. 1.1. FS, fibrosarcoma;LMS, leiomyosarcoma; LPS, liposarcoma; MPNST, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor; NE, not evaluable; PD, disease progression; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; UPS, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma.

Figure 3.

Best tumor response using different analysis models. A, Time to the response and the duration of therapy. The bar represents the therapy duration for individual patients. B, Waterfall plot of the best percentage of change from baseline in the target lesion magnitude. C, Lesion diameters (% change) with time. Dashed line at the ‒30% change indicates the cutoff value for PR or SD as defined by RECIST ver. 1.1. The dashed line at 20% change represents the cutoff value for SD or PD per RECIST ver. 1.1. FS, fibrosarcoma;LMS, leiomyosarcoma; LPS, liposarcoma; MPNST, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor; NE, not evaluable; PD, disease progression; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; UPS, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma.

Close modal
Table 3.

Best overall responses during treatment.

EvaluationFAS population (n = 40)
PR, n (%) 1 (2.5) 
SD, n (%) 26 (65.0) 
PD, n (%) 8 (20.0) 
NE, n (%) 5 (12.5) 
ORR (%; 95% CI) 2.5 (0.1–13.2) 
DCR (%; 95% CI) 67.5 (50.9–81.4) 
EvaluationFAS population (n = 40)
PR, n (%) 1 (2.5) 
SD, n (%) 26 (65.0) 
PD, n (%) 8 (20.0) 
NE, n (%) 5 (12.5) 
ORR (%; 95% CI) 2.5 (0.1–13.2) 
DCR (%; 95% CI) 67.5 (50.9–81.4) 

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DCR, disease control rate; FAS, full analysis set; NE, not evaluable; ORR, overall response rate; PD, disease progression; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

Safety

Thirty-seven (92.5%) patients experienced at least one TRAE, the most common being hyperthyroidism (47.5%), hypertension (45.0%), proteinuria (37.5%), hypertriglyceridemia (25.0%), hand-foot skin reaction (22.5%), and fatigue (20.0%; Supplementary Table S2). Ten (25.0%) patients had ≥ grade 3 or 4 TRAEs, with 6 (15.0%) cases of hypertension, 3 (7.5%) of proteinuria and others that only occurred once (2.5%). No deaths occurred due to the treatment regimen. Six (15.0%) patients had to stop treatment due to AEs and the incidence of AEs led to dose reductions in 3 (7.5%) patients.

Anthracycline chemotherapy is the gold standard first-line treatment for LA/M STS (21). The median PFS time for patients receiving first-line chemotherapy was 5 to 7 months and the median OS circa 20 months (22, 23). In the present trial, anlotinib monotherapy was chosen as the alternative first-line treatment for anthracycline-naive adults with LA/M STS, which led to a median PFS of 6.83 months and OS of 27.40 months, whereas ORR and DCR were 2.5% and 67.5%, with no new TEAEs identified. When compared with doxorubicin alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced STS, a median PFS of 5.5 months has been reported (24).

In another study about first-line treatments for metastatic STS, pazopanib and doxorubicin were administered to 81 and 39 patients, respectively, and the PFS was non-inferior (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65–1.53) in the pazopanib group. The ORR for pazopanib and doxorubicin were 12.3% and 15.4%, with PFS under doxorubicin treatment 5.3 month (95% CI, 1.7–8.2), and PFS under pazopanib treatment 4.4 month (95% CI, 2.7–6.0; ref. 25). In a study of pazopanib as monotherapy for first-line treatment of LA/M STS the median PFS reached 3.67 months, with a median OS of 14.16 months (26). The phase 3 PALETTE trial evaluated pazopanib in the second-line setting and found a median PFS of 4.6 months and an OS of 12.5 months (27).

Assessing the results together, anlotinib monotherapy as first-line STS treatment, with a PFS time of 6.83 months was shown to be noninferior to the historical use of first-line agents, including doxorubicin with a 5 to 7 months PFS (22, 23) and ifosfamide with a 2.52 month PFS, as well as pazopanib with a 3.67 month PFS. In a previous trial, the median PFS was 3.7 months for dedifferentiated advanced liposarcoma after first-line combination therapy with anlotinib and epirubicin (28). In the present phase 2 trial, the median PFS and OS of patients with liposarcoma (n =10) reached 8.71 and 16.23 months under first-line monotherapy treatment, respectively, that implied the promising efficacy of anlotinib for the treatment of liposarcoma. The findings were superior to that of the liposarcoma subgroup (n = 13) in a phase 2 trial of second-line treatment with anlotinib for LA/M STS (median PFS and OS were 5.6 and 13.0 months, respectively; ref. 16), which was similar to the 4.5 months PFS of patients with WDLPS or DDLPS treated with the CDK4 inhibitor palbociclib as first and second-line therapies. It should be noted that all patients in that trial were CDK4 amplification positive (29). In addition, STS that are rare malignancies of mesenchymal origin, in the present trial revealed 15% of patients having ≥2 metastatic organs, but it is not clear whether the number of metastatic organs of STS was related to the survival outcomes with anlotinib; but patients with three or more sites of metastases exhibited shorter median PFS (3.1 vs. 3.6 months) and OS (5.7 vs. 23.8 months) compared with only one metastatic site when patients with STS treated with trabectedin (30).

Most of the common TRAEs were consistent with the phase 1 trial results of anlotinib therapy against advanced refractory solid tumors (31). They included hypertension, triglyceride, and cholesterol elevation, hand and foot skin reactions, and fatigue. Grade 3–4 TRAEs, including hypertension, proteinuria, hand and foot skin reactions and fatigue were also in line with the common specific AEs elicited by anlotinib monotherapy in patients with advanced STS (32). In the presence of close monitoring of lipid level and blood pressure, these TRAEs were considered to be manageable and alleviated with appropriate clinical interventions. In contrast, the commonly used doxorubicin combined with ifosfamide treatments of STS led to essential myelosuppression, with high incidences of grade 4 leukopenia in addition to anemia and thrombocytopenia. There was a discontinuation rate of 27.1% and also cases of toxic death (33).

There were some limitations to the present trial. First, selection bias cannot be ruled out in single arm, non-randomized trials, and considering that patients were from a Chinese population, the results might not be generalizable to other ethnic populations. Second, due to the small cohort of patients enrolled, the power of the statistical tests may have been limited. Nevertheless, the results of this trial provide preliminary promising evidence for the use of first-line therapy with anlotinib for patients with LA/M STS. Third, the preliminary results of anlotinib as first-line treatment for selective STS were intriguing, but a randomized trial, including an SS cohort, may be needed in the near future to validate our tentative conclusions. Of note, the results of this trial also found significant tumor shrinkage for this histological subtype. The fourth limitation lies in our use of 4.6 months as a baseline reference point for efficacy, which was derived from Dr. Judson’s study (EORTC 62012; ref. 20). Despite several later-phase 3 studies [ANNOUNCE (7), PICASSO (34), and SARC021 (35)] that demonstrated prolonged PFS with doxorubicin alone, due to the consideration of a potentially small sample size in our trial, we still opted to use the PFS 4.6 months value as a reference for efficacy. Although the PFS of our trial results is longer than that reported in the current literature, we recognize this limitation and intend to address it in further research by conducting a more comprehensive randomized clinical trial. Our particular focus will be on comparing the efficacy of anlotinib as first-line treatment for highgrade liposarcoma, LMS, and SS.

After a median 29.1 month follow-up time, the median OS was found to be 27.4 months. More data will be reported after obtaining long-term survival information in the near future. Taken together, despite the limited number of patients with liposarcoma participating in the trial, the results still provides some promising preliminary data.

Conclusions

First-line anlotinib monotherapy demonstrated favorable efficacy in the treatment of LA/M STS, comparing with conventional chemotherapies, whereas particularly for patients with liposarcoma who are generally difficult to treat, the prolongation of median PFS was encouraging. Toxicity was also manageable and acceptable.

No disclosures were reported.

The funders had no role in the trial design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

T. Li: Conceptualization, data curation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, design of the work. Y. Dong: Data curation, writing–review and editing. Y. Wei: Data curation, writing–review and editing. S. Wang: Data curation, writing– review and editing. Y. Liu: Data curation, writing–review and editing. J. Chen: Data curation, writing–review and editing. W. Xiong: Data curation, writing–review and editing. N. Lin: Data curation, writing–review and editing. X. Huang: Data curation, writing–review and editing. M. Liu: Data curation, writing–review and editing. X. Yan: Data curation, writing–review and editing. Z. Ye: Conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, design of the work. B. Li: Conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, design of the work.

This trial was supported by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Physician Elite in Training Scholarship of Zhejiang University (grant number 171132002), National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81802684 and 82172688, to B. Li), and Key Project of Zhejiang Provincial Medical Science Program (grant number WKJ-ZJ-2308, to Z. Ye).

Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

1.
Sbaraglia
M
,
Bellan
E
,
Dei Tos
AP
.
The 2020 WHO classification of soft tissue tumours: news and perspectives
.
Pathologica
2021
;
113
:
70
84
.
2.
De Vita
A
,
Mercatali
L
,
Recine
F
,
Pieri
F
,
Riva
N
,
Bongiovanni
A
, et al.
Current classification, treatment options, and new perspectives in the management of adipocytic sarcomas
.
Onco Targets Ther
2016
;
9
:
6233
46
.
3.
Liu
W
,
Jiang
Q
,
Zhou
Y
.
Advances of systemic treatment for adult soft-tissue sarcoma
.
Chin Clin Oncol
2018
;
7
:
42
.
4.
Besiroglu
M
,
Dane
F
,
Ciltas
A
,
Benekli
M
.
Systemic chemotherapy of advanced soft tissue sarcomas
.
J Oncol Sci
2017
;
3
:
66
70
.
5.
Kim
HS
,
Nam
CM
,
Jang
SY
,
Choi
SK
,
Han
M
,
Kim
S
, et al.
Characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma in Korea
.
Cancer Res Treat
2019
;
51
:
1380
91
.
6.
Meyer
M
,
Seetharam
M
.
First-line therapy for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma
.
Curr Treat Options Oncol
2019
;
20
:
6
.
7.
Tap
WD
,
Wagner
AJ
,
Schöffski
P
,
Martin-Broto
J
,
Krarup-Hansen
A
,
Ganjoo
KN
, et al.
Effect of doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs. doxorubicin plus placebo on survival in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: the ANNOUNCE randomized clinical trial
.
JAMA
2020
;
323
:
1266
76
.
8.
Martin-Liberal
J
,
Judson
I
,
Benson
C
.
Antiangiogenic approach in soft-tissue sarcomas
.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther
2013
;
13
:
975
82
.
9.
Cren
PY
,
Lebellec
L
,
Ryckewaert
T
,
Penel
N
.
Anti-angiogenic agents in management of sarcoma patients: overview of published trials
.
Front Oncol
2020
;
10
:
594445
.
10.
Mir
O
,
Brodowicz
T
,
Italiano
A
,
Wallet
J
,
Blay
JY
,
Bertucci
F
, et al.
Safety and efficacy of regorafenib in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (REGOSARC): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2016
;
17
:
1732
42
.
11.
Fuchs
JW
,
Schulte
BC
,
Fuchs
JR
,
Agulnik
M
.
Targeted therapies for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma
.
Front Oncol
2023
;
13
:
1122508
.
12.
Song
F
,
Hu
B
,
Cheng
J-W
,
Sun
Y-F
,
Zhou
K-Q
,
Wang
P-X
, et al.
Anlotinib suppresses tumor progression via blocking the VEGFR2/PI3K/AKT cascade in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Cell Death Dis
2020
;
11
:
573
.
13.
Xie
C
,
Wan
X
,
Quan
H
,
Zheng
M
,
Fu
L
,
Li
Y
, et al.
Preclinical characterization of anlotinib, a highly potent and selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 inhibitor
.
Cancer Sci
2018
;
109
:
1207
19
.
14.
Lin
B
,
Song
X
,
Yang
D
,
Bai
D
,
Yao
Y
,
Lu
N
.
Anlotinib inhibits angiogenesis via suppressing the activation of VEGFR2, PDGFRβ and FGFR1
.
Gene
2018
;
654
:
77
86
.
15.
Shen
G
,
Zheng
F
,
Ren
D
,
Du
F
,
Dong
Q
,
Wang
Z
, et al.
Anlotinib: a novel multitargeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor in clinical development
.
J Hematol Oncol
2018
;
11
:
120
.
16.
Chi
Y
,
Fang
Z
,
Hong
X
,
Yao
Y
,
Sun
P
,
Wang
G
, et al.
Safety and efficacy of anlotinib, a multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with refractory metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2018
;
24
:
5233
8
.
17.
Chi
Y
,
Yao
Y
,
Wang
S
,
Huang
G
,
Cai
Q
,
Shang
G
, et al.
Anlotinib for metastasis soft tissue sarcoma: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and multicentered clinical trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2018
;
36
:
11503
.
18.
Zhang
RS
,
Liu
J
,
Deng
YT
,
Wu
X
,
Jiang
Y
.
The real-world clinical outcomes and treatment patterns of patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma treated with anlotinib in the post-ALTER0203 trial era
.
Cancer Med
2022
;
11
:
2271
83
.
19.
Eisenhauer
EA
,
Therasse
P
,
Bogaerts
J
,
Schwartz
LH
,
Sargent
D
,
Ford
R
, et al.
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
.
Eur J Cancer
2009
;
45
:
228
47
.
20.
Judson
I
,
Verweij
J
,
Gelderblom
H
,
Hartmann
JT
,
Schöffski
P
,
Blay
JY
, et al.
Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2014
;
15
:
415
23
.
21.
von Mehren
M
,
Kane
JM
,
Bui
MM
,
Choy
E
,
Connelly
M
,
Dry
S
, et al.
NCCN guidelines insights: soft tissue sarcoma, version 1.2021
.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
2020
;
18
:
1604
12
.
22.
Pautier
P
,
Italiano
A
,
Piperno-Neumann
S
,
Chevreau
C
,
Penel
N
,
Firmin
N
, et al.
Doxorubicin alone versus doxorubicin with trabectedin followed by trabectedin alone as first-line therapy for metastatic or unresectable leiomyosarcoma (LMS04): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2022
;
23
:
1044
54
.
23.
Bilici
A
,
Koca
S
,
Karaagac
M
,
Aydin
SG
,
Eraslan
E
,
Kaplan
MA
, et al.
Realworld outcomes of pazopanib in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a retrospective Turkish oncology group (TOG) study
.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
2023
;
149
:
8243
53
.
24.
Martin-Broto
J
,
Pousa
AL
,
de Las Peñas
R
,
García Del Muro
X
,
Gutierrez
A
,
Martinez-Trufero
J
, et al.
Randomized phase II study of trabectedin and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a Spanish group for research on sarcoma study
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
2294
302
.
25.
Grünwald
V
,
Karch
A
,
Schuler
M
,
Schöffski
P
,
Kopp
HG
,
Bauer
S
, et al.
Randomized comparison of pazopanib and doxorubicin as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma age 60 years or older: results of a German intergroup study
.
J Clin Oncol
2020
;
38
:
3555
64
.
26.
Hirbe
AC
,
Eulo
V
,
Moon
CI
,
Luo
J
,
Myles
S
,
Seetharam
M
, et al.
A phase II study of pazopanib as front-line therapy in patients with non-resectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas who are not candidates for chemotherapy
.
Eur J Cancer
2020
;
137
:
1
9
.
27.
van der Graaf
WT
,
Blay
JY
,
Chawla
SP
,
Kim
DW
,
Bui-Nguyen
B
,
Casali
PG
, et al.
Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial
.
Lancet
2012
;
379
:
1879
86
.
28.
Wang
ZM
,
Zhuang
RY
,
Guo
X
,
Zhang
CL
,
You
Y
,
Chen
LS
, et al.
Anlotinib plus epirubicin followed by anlotinib maintenance as first-line treatment for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma: an open-label, single-arm, phase II trial
.
Clin Cancer Res
2022
;
28
:
5290
6
.
29.
Dickson
MA
,
Schwartz
GK
,
Keohan
ML
,
D’Angelo
SP
,
Gounder
MM
,
Chi
P
, et al.
Progression-free survival among patients with well-differentiated or dedifferentiated liposarcoma treated with CDK4 inhibitor palbociclib: a phase 2 clinical trial
.
JAMA Oncol
2016
;
2
:
937
40
.
30.
Simetić
L
,
Blažičević
K
,
Ladenhauser
T
,
Golčić
M
,
Majnarić
T
,
Herceg
D
.
Analysis of clinical factors associated with survival in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma receiving trabectedin
.
Anticancer Drugs
2021
;
32
:
1058
66
.
31.
Sun
Y
,
Niu
W
,
Du
F
,
Du
C
,
Li
S
,
Wang
J
, et al.
Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor properties of anlotinib, an oral multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors
.
J Hematol Oncol
2016
;
9
:
105
.
32.
Tian
Z
,
Liu
H
,
Zhang
F
,
Li
L
,
Du
X
,
Li
C
, et al.
Retrospective review of the activity and safety of apatinib and anlotinib in patients with advanced osteosarcoma and soft tissue sarcoma
.
Invest New Drugs
2020
;
38
:
1559
69
.
33.
Wang
BC
,
Kuang
BH
,
Xiao
BY
,
Lin
GH
.
Doxorubicin/adriamycin monotherapy or plus ifosfamide in first-line treatment for advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a pooled analysis of randomized trials
.
Front Oncol
2021
;
11
:
762288
.
34.
Ryan
CW
,
Merimsky
O
,
Agulnik
M
,
Blay
JY
,
Schuetze
SM
,
Van Tine
BA
, et al.
PICASSO III: a phase III, placebo-controlled study of doxorubicin with or without palifosfamide in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
3898
905
.
35.
Tap
WD
,
Papai
Z
,
Van Tine
BA
,
Attia
S
,
Ganjoo
KN
,
Jones
RL
, et al.
Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2017
;
18
:
1089
103
.
This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.