Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40632032›Full record

Trial reportClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2025

Cemiplimab in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Secondary Angiosarcomas (CEMangio): A Phase II Clinical Trial and Biomarker Analyses.

Stefan G van Ravensteijn, Jacco J de Haan, Hans Gelderblom, Maikel J L Nederkoorn, Melissa H S Hillebrandt-Roeffen, Mark A J Gorris, Tessa J J de Bitter, Annemarie Boleij, Alem Gusinac, Thomas H A Ederveen and 9 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How I treat soft tissue sarcomas.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Stefan G van RavensteijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4069-3932
Jacco J de HaanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1629-4715
Hans GelderblomDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9270-8636
Maikel J L NederkoornDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0003-8135-853X
Melissa H S Hillebrandt-RoeffenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0001-9887-8959
Mark A J GorrisDepartment of Medical BioSciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3621-226X
Tessa J J de BitterDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8669-3834
Annemarie BoleijDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4495-5880
Alem GusinacDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0006-1896-4176
Thomas H A EderveenDepartment of Medical BioSciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0068-1275
Uta E FluckeDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0315-4307
Johannes J BonenkampDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3608-4184
Frank M SpeetjensDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2065-9593
Suzanne E J KaalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8063-0074
Minke SmitsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1360-7285
Kalijn F BolDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4165-2040
Carla M L van HerpenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5130-5451
Yvonne M H Versleijen-JonkersDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7623-0505
Ingrid M E DesarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0945-8299

Funding

Sarcoma Foundation of America (SFA) 2022 SFA 02-22
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAngiosarcomas (AS) are rare vascular sarcomas. Secondary AS (sAS) arise from DNA-damaging factors such as radiotherapy and UV radiation (UV-AS) or due to chronic lymphedema. The prognosis for advanced AS is poor, with limited treatment options. Immune checkpoint inhibition is not approved for AS, but high intratumoral T-cell density and frequent mutations in sAS may support efficacy. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase II trial assessed the efficacy and safety of cemiplimab (350 mg, intravenously every 3 weeks) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic sAS using a Simon's two-stage design. The primary outcome was the best overall response rate within 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and predictive biomarkers for treatment response.

resultsEighteen patients (12 with AS from radiotherapy, 3 with UV-AS, and 3 with AS due to chronic lymphedema) were treated with cemiplimab. The best overall response rate was 27.8% (4 partial responses, 1 complete response), with a time to response of 2.6 months and a duration of response of 6.9 months. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, and the median overall survival was 13.1 months. Grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events occurred in 33.3% of patients. High tumor mutational burden was observed in three patients with UV-AS, two of whom showed a response. High intratumoral CD3+ (P = 0.019), CD4 (P = 0.046), CD8+ (P = 0.026), and FoxP3+ (P = 0.026) T-cell densities; low platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.026); and Colidextribacter abundance were associated with response.

conclusionsCemiplimab shows promising effectivity in sAS and warrants further investigation. Promising predictive blood and tissue biomarkers were identified, indicating potential for improved patient selection.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalBiomarkers, TumorHemangiosarcomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalBiomarkers, Tumorcemiplimab

Identifiers

PMID40632032
PMCPMC12402795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.