Clinical Trials Knowledge Base

Bone Sarcoma

35 trials · NCCN Bone V2.2026 · osteosarcoma + Ewing + chondrosarcoma + chordoma + GCTB · chronological · 40-year MAP plateau + rare-subtype precision wins + cross-subtype IO failure textbook

Osteosarcoma 13

MIOS 1986 established adjuvant chemo → MAP regimen stable 40 years → EURAMOS-1 2015/2016 intensification failed (HR 0.98) → relapse-era multi-TKI (SARC024 regorafenib / REGOBONE / CABONE) each delivers marginal PFS gain — OS still plateaued at ~60% EFS

MIOS

Adjuvant multi-agent chemotherapy (high-dose methotrexate, doxorubicin, bleomycin/cyclophosphamide/dactinomycin, cisplatin) vs Surgery alone (observation)

Landmark trial proving adjuvant chemotherapy is mandatory in osteosarcoma. Ended the 'historical controls are good enough' era and made surgery-alone unethical. Everything downstream assumes this baseline.

Population: Non-metastatic high-grade osteosarcoma of extremity, age 5-40, after definitive surgery

COSS-86

Intensified neoadjuvant with high-dose MTX + doxorubicin + cisplatin + ifosfamide (risk-adapted) vs Historical COSS-82 standard without ifosfamide (non-randomized)

Adding ifosfamide to the MAP backbone in high-risk patients did NOT meaningfully improve long-term EFS/OS versus historical COSS-82. Added toxicity without clear survival gain — earliest European signal that intensification has hit a wall.

Population: High-risk non-metastatic osteosarcoma of extremity (large tumor, axial, or young age), neoadjuvant then histology-adapted adjuvant

POG-8651

Pre-surgical (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy vs Immediate surgery followed by identical adjuvant chemotherapy

Neoadjuvant timing did NOT change survival — but it enabled limb-sparing surgery and histologic response assessment, which then became a prognostic and stratification tool. The 'neoadjuvant chemo is standard' dogma is based on surgical feasibility, not a survival RCT.

Population: Non-metastatic high-grade osteosarcoma of extremity, age <=30

INT-0133

MAP +/- ifosfamide and +/- MTP-PE (mifamurtide, muramyl tripeptide phosphatidylethanolamine) vs MAP alone in 2x2 factorial design

MTP-PE added to MAP improved OS by ~8 percentage points; ifosfamide addition failed. Interpretation controversial due to factorial interaction. FDA rejected mifamurtide; EMA approved it. Ifosfamide failure here was the first warning for EURAMOS-1.

Population: Newly diagnosed resectable non-metastatic high-grade osteosarcoma, age <30

SORAFENIB-ISG

Sorafenib 400 mg BID vs None

First positive TKI signal in osteosarcoma. Short duration of benefit — most patients progressed within 6 months — but reproducible activity established angiogenesis inhibition as a viable axis. Opened the door to regorafenib/cabozantinib trials.

Population: Unresectable relapsed osteosarcoma after standard chemotherapy

EURAMOS-1-GR

MAP + pegylated interferon alfa-2b maintenance vs MAP alone

Adding pegylated interferon maintenance to MAP in good responders did NOT significantly improve EFS or OS. IFN toxicity drove low completion (~40% completed planned therapy). Another negative EURAMOS arm.

Population: Resectable high-grade osteosarcoma, age <=40, GOOD histologic response (<10% viable tumor) to neoadjuvant MAP

SORAFENIB-EVEROLIMUS

Sorafenib + everolimus combination vs None (vs pre-specified PFS6 benchmark of 50%)

Adding mTOR inhibition to sorafenib did not clear the pre-defined futility bar, though numerically similar to sorafenib alone. Combination toxicity was substantial. Another example of 'add a drug, lose on tolerability'.

Population: Relapsed/refractory osteosarcoma progressing on standard chemo, age >=18

EURAMOS-1-PR

MAPIE post-op (MAP + ifosfamide + etoposide intensification) vs MAP continued post-op

Adding ifosfamide/etoposide to MAP for poor responders did NOT improve EFS/OS. Significant grade 3-4 toxicity and secondary AML excess. MAP backbone confirmed as unbeaten for 40+ years.

Population: Resectable high-grade osteosarcoma, age <=40, POOR histologic response (>=10% viable tumor) to neoadjuvant MAP

REGOBONE

Regorafenib 160 mg/d vs Placebo with crossover on progression

Independent European replication of SARC024. Regorafenib delayed progression but did not produce RECIST responses. Combined with SARC024 the result is as convincing as 80-patient data gets in this rare disease.

Population: Metastatic osteosarcoma progressing after >=1 prior chemo line, age >=10

SARC024

Regorafenib 160 mg/d 3-weeks-on/1-off vs Placebo with crossover at progression

Regorafenib significantly delayed progression in relapsed osteosarcoma adults. No RECIST responses — benefit is disease stabilization, not tumor shrinkage. Toxicity typical of multi-TKI (HFSR, hypertension, fatigue).

Population: Metastatic osteosarcoma progressing on >=1 prior therapy, age >=18

CABONE

Cabozantinib 60 mg/d vs None (single-arm, 6-month non-progression + ORR co-primary)

Cabozantinib active in both osteo and Ewing relapse, with actual RECIST responses (unlike regorafenib). Ewing ORR of 26% is one of the highest ever reported in relapsed Ewing. Tolerability issues typical of cabo.

Population: Advanced/metastatic osteosarcoma (n=45) or Ewing sarcoma (n=45) after >=1 prior therapy

PAZO-OSTEO

Pazopanib 800 mg/d vs None (vs historical 4-month PFS benchmark ~12%)

Small underpowered study. Pazopanib landed in the same narrow 4-month PFS ~40-50% band as sorafenib/regorafenib/cabozantinib, consistent with a class effect of VEGFR-directed TKIs. Publication also a methodological lesson on RECIST in pulmonary-only osteo.

Population: Metastatic osteosarcoma with lung metastases after standard chemotherapy

AOST1321

Denosumab (RANKL inhibitor) monotherapy vs None (single-arm, response/DCR primary)

Denosumab monotherapy failed as a single-agent anti-tumor drug in osteosarcoma despite strong preclinical rationale in the bone microenvironment. Retains role only as skeletal-related-event prophylaxis. PMID 41159913 indexed 2026 (Janeway KA, Clin Cancer Res); confirm exact year if citing.

Population: Pediatric/AYA recurrent or refractory osteosarcoma, two cohorts (measurable disease and surgically rendered NED)

Ewing Sarcoma 7

INT-0091 2003 VDC-IE backbone → AEWS0031 2012 interval-compression EFS 73% vs 65% (only clean win) → EURO-EWING-99 R1/R2 dual-risk stratification → rEECur 2024 first randomised head-to-head in relapsed Ewing — high-dose ifosfamide emerges as reference

INT-0091

Alternating VDC (vincristine/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) + IE (ifosfamide/etoposide) vs VDC alone

Adding ifosfamide/etoposide to VDC improved EFS and OS by ~10-15 percentage points in localized Ewing. Metastatic patients did not benefit. Established VDC/IE as the North American standard.

Population: Newly diagnosed localized or metastatic Ewing sarcoma family of tumors, age <30

VIT-WAGNER

Temozolomide + intravenous irinotecan (no vincristine in this original pilot — VIT triplet evolved later) vs None

Original pediatric signal that irinotecan + temozolomide is active in relapsed Ewing. The vincristine was added empirically by later groups, producing the VIT triplet. This small phase 2 is the historical seed of the entire VIT narrative.

Population: Children/AYA with advanced Ewing sarcoma family of tumors after >=1 prior regimen

AEWS0031

VDC/IE every 2 weeks (interval compression with G-CSF support) vs VDC/IE every 3 weeks (standard)

Simply giving the same chemotherapy more frequently improved EFS by 8 percentage points without increased toxicity. Established dose-dense VDC/IE q2w as the North American standard for localized Ewing.

Population: Newly diagnosed localized Ewing sarcoma family of tumors, age <50

VIT-RACIBORSKA

Vincristine + irinotecan + temozolomide (VIT) vs None (historical)

Consistent ~60-70% ORR in relapsed Ewing with outpatient-delivered triplet. One of several VIT cohorts (MSK, CHOP, Warsaw, Virginia) that collectively established VIT without ever running an RCT. rEECur 2024 is now superseding it with high-dose ifosfamide.

Population: Relapsed or refractory Ewing sarcoma across pediatric centers in Poland

EURO-EWING-99-R1

VAC consolidation (vincristine, actinomycin-D, cyclophosphamide) vs VAI consolidation (vincristine, actinomycin-D, ifosfamide)

In standard-risk patients, cyclophosphamide consolidation is non-inferior to ifosfamide consolidation with less renal toxicity. Allows de-escalation in good-prognosis Ewing.

Population: Standard-risk localized Ewing sarcoma after VIDE induction with good response / small tumor / complete resection

EURO-EWING-99-R2

High-dose busulfan-melphalan + autologous stem cell rescue vs Conventional VAI consolidation

BuMel + auto-HSCT improved EFS by ~14 percentage points in high-risk localized Ewing. One of few modern positive bone-sarcoma intensification RCTs. European standard for this subset.

Population: High-risk localized Ewing (poor histologic response post-induction, or large axial tumor)

REECUR

Three experimental arms — irinotecan+temozolomide (IT), gemcitabine+docetaxel (GD), ifosfamide high-dose (IFOS) — vs topotecan+cyclophosphamide (TC) vs Topotecan + cyclophosphamide (TC, the prior reference)

First ever randomized relapsed-Ewing trial. High-dose ifosfamide emerged as the new reference standard. Full primary publication not yet indexed in PubMed at time of writing — PMID to verify once the Lancet Oncology / NEJM paper is released. VIT regimen NOT directly in this trial but IT arm informative.

Population: First recurrence / primary refractory Ewing sarcoma, age 4-50

Rare-subtype precision (Chondro / Chordoma / GCTB) 11

Rare subtypes paradoxically see the cleanest wins: ivosidenib (Tap 2020 → 2025 long-term) IDH1 chondrosarcoma — first IDH-actionable tumour outside glioma · denosumab Thomas 2010 → Chawla 2013/2019 rewrote GCTB from unresectable to limb-preserving · imatinib + proton for chordoma

DENOSUMAB-GCTB-P2

Denosumab 120 mg SC on days 1, 8, 15, 29 then Q4W (anti-RANKL monoclonal antibody) vs none (single-arm)

Near-universal histologic response validating RANKL as the central driver in GCTB. Redefined the disease as biologically targetable rather than purely surgical.

Population: Recurrent or unresectable giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB), RANK-ligand–driven osteoclast-rich stromal tumor

IMATINIB-CHORDOMA-P2

Imatinib 800 mg PO daily continuous (PDGFR/KIT/BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor) vs none (single-arm)

Established imatinib as the first systemic therapy with demonstrable activity in chordoma — low RECIST response but meaningful disease stabilization in a disease with no cytotoxic option. Mechanism: PDGFRB pathway inhibition rather than oncogenic addiction.

Population: Advanced PDGFRB-positive unresectable/metastatic chordoma progressing after local therapy; all histologic subtypes allowed

DENOSUMAB-GCTB-INTERIM

Denosumab 120 mg SC Q4W with 120 mg loading doses on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1 vs none (parallel single-arm cohorts)

Confirmed in ~280 patients that denosumab provides durable disease control and enables surgical de-escalation in the majority of GCTB patients. Became the definitive registration dataset.

Population: Three parallel cohorts: surgically unsalvageable GCTB; GCTB with surgery associated with severe morbidity; previously enrolled from phase 2. Adults and skeletally mature adolescents.

IMATINIB-EVEROL-CHORDOMA

Imatinib 400 mg PO QD + everolimus 2.5 mg PO QD continuous vs none (single-arm)

Combination added modest incremental activity over imatinib alone, primarily in patients who had already progressed on single-agent imatinib — extended PFS by a few months. Supported mTOR co-inhibition hypothesis.

Population: Advanced chordoma progressing on imatinib monotherapy or with PDGFR pathway activation plus downstream mTOR pathway rationale

DENOSUMAB-GCTB-LT

Denosumab 120 mg SC Q4W long-term (often with treatment interruptions) vs none (long-term single-arm)

Durable, years-long disease control confirmed in the largest GCTB denosumab dataset. Safety signal (ONJ, atypical fractures) clarified for long-term dosing, informing current practice of treatment interruptions and holiday schedules.

Population: Combined pooled GCTB cohort (surgically unsalvageable + salvageable with severe morbidity) with extended follow-up through ~5 years of denosumab

IVOSIDENIB-CHONDRO-P1

Ivosidenib 500 mg PO QD continuous (oral IDH1 inhibitor, Tibsovo) vs none (single-arm phase 1)

First prospective evidence that a targeted therapy produces clinically meaningful disease stabilization in IDH1-mutant chondrosarcoma — a subtype historically refractory to cytotoxic chemo. Responses were not RECIST PRs but PFS and biomarker data supported a real on-target effect.

Population: Advanced unresectable/metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma with centrally confirmed IDH1 R132 mutation, progressed on prior therapy or no standard option

SARC-PAZO-CHONDRO

Pazopanib 800 mg PO QD continuous (multi-kinase VEGFR/PDGFR/KIT inhibitor) vs none (single-arm)

Modest but real disease-control signal in conventional chondrosarcoma with pazopanib — enough to justify the drug as a non-IDH option in a disease with no chemotherapy. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma fared worse.

Population: Surgically unresectable or metastatic chondrosarcoma (conventional, dedifferentiated, mesenchymal subtypes allowed), progressive disease required at entry

GI6301-CHORDOMA

GI-6301 (heat-inactivated yeast expressing brachyury) SC every 2 weeks x3 then monthly, combined with standard radiotherapy vs Placebo yeast + standard radiotherapy

Numerical response-rate advantage with brachyury vaccine plus radiotherapy but underpowered; toxicity mild. Demonstrated feasibility and immunogenicity of targeting the chordoma master transcription factor.

Population: Locally advanced unresectable chordoma scheduled for standard definitive radiotherapy; brachyury is the near-universal transcription-factor driver in chordoma

OLAPARIB-IDH-SARC

Olaparib 300 mg PO BID continuous (PARP inhibitor) vs none (single-arm)

PARP inhibition in IDH-mutant chondrosarcoma produced durable disease stabilization in the majority of patients, establishing a second biomarker-driven strategy after IDH1 inhibition. Small N but mechanistically coherent.

Population: Advanced IDH1- or IDH2-mutant mesenchymal sarcomas (chondrosarcoma dominant, plus cholangiocarcinoma excluded per design), refractory to standard therapy

REGOBONE-CHONDRO

Regorafenib 160 mg PO QD (3 weeks on / 1 week off) vs Placebo with optional crossover at progression

Regorafenib doubled short-term non-progression rate vs placebo and delayed PFS in advanced chondrosarcoma — again without objective responses, consistent with a disease-stabilization paradigm. Randomized placebo-controlled evidence is rare in this tumor.

Population: Metastatic or locally advanced progressive chondrosarcoma (conventional and dedifferentiated subtypes allowed), progressed on or intolerant to at least one prior systemic line

IVOSIDENIB-CHONDRO-LT

Ivosidenib 500 mg QD continuous, median treatment duration extended to multi-year for durable responders vs none

Long-term follow-up confirms durable disease stabilization in a meaningful minority of IDH1-mutant chondrosarcoma patients. Established ivosidenib as a reasonable biomarker-selected option in a setting with no standard therapy.

Population: Same cohort as NCT02073994 chondrosarcoma expansion: advanced IDH1-mutant conventional chondrosarcoma, long-term follow-up update

Cross-subtype IO failure 4

SARC028 2017 pembrolizumab single-arm cross-subtype failure (osteo ORR 5%, Ewing 5%, chondro 0%) · Alliance A091401 nivo±ipi no rescue · biology: low TMB + cold immune phenotype · bone sarcoma is the cautionary example for `IO is not universal`

CHORDOMA-IO-MIGLIORINI

Anti-PD-1 therapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) off-label compassionate-use dosing vs none (case series)

First report of any clinical response to immunotherapy in chordoma. Generated the hypothesis that chordoma — despite being a low-TMB tumor — has enough PD-L1 and infiltrating lymphocytes to sometimes respond to PD-1 blockade.

Population: Three relapsed advanced chordoma patients after failure of surgery, radiotherapy, and prior systemic therapy (including imatinib)

SARC028

Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W, single-arm vs none (single-arm phase 2)

Pembrolizumab monotherapy essentially inactive in bone sarcoma overall; only dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma showed any meaningful signal. The headline 'IO-in-bone-fails' trial that reset enthusiasm for checkpoint inhibitors in osteosarcoma and Ewing.

Population: Advanced unresectable or metastatic bone sarcoma (osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma; n=40) and soft-tissue sarcoma (n=40) after prior therapy

ALLIANCE-A091401

Arm A: nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W monotherapy; Arm B: nivolumab 3 mg/kg + ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W x 4 then nivolumab maintenance vs randomised non-comparative (no head-to-head p-value)

Combination nivo + ipi tripled response rate over nivo monotherapy but responses were soft-tissue-dominant. Bone sarcoma subtypes again contributed few responders — consistent with SARC028.

Population: Metastatic or unresectable sarcoma (bone and soft-tissue; included chondrosarcoma, dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, and bone sarcoma subtypes alongside predominant STS histologies) after prior systemic therapy

ALLIANCE-A091401-EXPANSION

Nivolumab 240 mg Q2W; or nivolumab 3 mg/kg + ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W x 4 then nivolumab maintenance vs randomised non-comparative

Expansion confirmed combination IO outperforms monotherapy in selected soft-tissue histologies but did not rescue bone-sarcoma activity. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma responses support 'dedifferentiated' as a candidate IO-sensitive bucket.

Population: Metastatic sarcoma expansion cohorts enriched for histologies signalling in original A091401: undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, dedifferentiated liposarcoma, and dedifferentiated/other chondrosarcoma