For epithelioid sarcoma, the timeline of metastatic recurrence dictates treatment sequencing. Rapid progression (e.g., within three months of local therapy) indicates aggressive biology requiring fast-acting cytotoxic chemotherapy. The epigenetic drug tazometastat takes much longer to work and is better suited for slower-growing, asymptomatic disease.
There's a growing recognition that the molecular profile of a primary tumor can differ significantly from its metastases. To guide treatment more accurately, the preferred practice is to biopsy an accessible metastatic lesion when possible, as this better reflects the biology of the active disease being treated.
Lurbinectedin's effectiveness in second-line SCLC is highly dependent on the chemotherapy-free interval after first-line treatment. Patients with a longer interval (>90 days) show significantly better response rates and disease control, reinforcing that "platinum sensitivity" acts as a proxy for broader cytotoxic drug sensitivity.
With pirtobrutinib, time to next treatment often exceeds progression-free survival. This discrepancy exists because disease progression is frequently slow and asymptomatic, meaning clinicians do not need to switch therapies immediately upon seeing radiographic changes, allowing for longer treatment duration.
A key investigational strategy for epithelioid sarcoma involves combining EZH2 inhibitors like tazometastat with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. The biological rationale is that these drugs can alter the tumor microenvironment, potentially converting immunologically "cold" tumors to "hot" ones, making them more susceptible to immunotherapies.
An expert argues the path to curing metastatic cancer may mirror pediatric ALL's history: combining all highly active drugs upfront. Instead of sequencing treatments after failure, the focus should be on powerful initial regimens that eradicate cancer, even if it means higher initial toxicity.
In metastatic breast cancer, approximately one-third of patients are unable to proceed to a second line of therapy due to disease progression or declining performance status. This high attrition rate argues for using the most effective agents, such as ADCs, in the first-line setting.
Experts express strong confidence in the effectiveness of radiation therapy for epithelioid sarcomas, noting the tumors are very sensitive to it. In difficult locally advanced cases, radiation is a key modality for gaining disease control and managing pain, with growing interest in combining it with immunotherapy to enhance its effects.
Frontline treatment selection hinges on histology. Non-epithelioid mesothelioma responds poorly to chemotherapy, making dual immunotherapy (Nivo/Ipi) the clear choice. For epithelioid cases, chemo-immunotherapy is a strong option, especially for symptomatic patients, due to its higher and faster response rate.
A key lesson in bladder cancer is that patient attrition is rapid between lines of therapy; many who relapse from localized disease never receive effective later-line treatments. This reality provides a strong rationale for moving the most effective therapies, like EV-pembrolizumab, to earlier settings to maximize the number of patients who can benefit.
The decision to test Enfortumab Vedotin/Pembrolizumab (EVP) in early-stage muscle-invasive bladder cancer was directly driven by its "flabbergasting" results in the metastatic setting. This highlights a strategy where overwhelming late-stage efficacy signals a therapy should be rapidly moved to earlier, curative-intent settings.