Complex maze symbolizing sarcoma clinical trials with a glowing path to effective treatment.

Fosfamides in Sarcoma Treatment: Why Phase III Trials are Shaking Up the Field

Avery Sinclair in Health & Wellness December 2025 • 4 min read.

"New research highlights the challenges of developing effective therapies for advanced soft tissue sarcoma and the crucial factors influencing clinical trial outcomes."

For decades, the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide has been a standard treatment for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). However, a 2014 study revealed that while this combination improved progression-free survival, it didn't extend overall survival and came with significant toxicity. This sparked a search for newer, less toxic alternatives, leading to the development of fosfamides like evofosfamide and palifosfamide.

These new fosfamides, designed with slightly different mechanisms of action and the potential for reduced toxicity, have recently undergone rigorous testing in phase III clinical trials. The results of these trials, known as TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III, have raised critical questions about the design and conduct of sarcoma clinical trials, prompting a re-evaluation of how we approach research in this challenging disease.

This article delves into the findings of these pivotal studies, examining the factors that influence trial outcomes and discussing the ongoing debate about the optimal strategies for advancing clinical research in STS. By understanding the complexities and nuances of these trials, we can pave the way for more effective and targeted treatments for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

The Fosfamide Fate: A Closer Look at Recent Phase III Trial Results

Complex maze symbolizing sarcoma clinical trials with a glowing path to effective treatment.

The TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III trials both compared doxorubicin, a standard chemotherapy drug, to doxorubicin in combination with either evofosfamide or palifosfamide, respectively. While both combination arms showed increased response rates – meaning the tumors shrank in more patients – this benefit came at the cost of increased toxicity. Crucially, neither trial demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of the fosfamide.

One unexpected finding was that patients in the control arms of these trials, who received only doxorubicin, appeared to live longer than expected compared to historical data. For example, the median overall survival in the PICASSO III trial was 16.9 months, and in TH CR-406/SARC021 it was 19.0 months, compared to 12.8 months in a previous study (EORTC 62012).

Increased Response Rates: Combination arms showed higher tumor shrinkage.
Higher Toxicity: The addition of fosfamides led to more side effects.
No Survival Benefit: Neither overall survival nor progression-free survival improved significantly.
Improved Control Arm Outcomes: Patients receiving standard doxorubicin lived longer than expected.

These seemingly contradictory results highlight the complexities of sarcoma research and raise several critical questions. Why didn't the addition of fosfamides translate into longer survival, despite shrinking tumors more effectively? And why did patients receiving standard treatment alone fare so well in these recent trials?

Re-evaluating the Research Landscape in Sarcoma

The journey to improving outcomes for sarcoma patients requires careful consideration of trial design, patient selection, and the evolving landscape of cancer care. By addressing these challenges and fostering collaboration, researchers can strive towards more effective and personalized treatments for this complex and challenging group of cancers. Future trials should focus on more homogenous patient groups, integrating biological understanding, and ensuring that the results truly reflect the potential of new therapies.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What are fosfamides, and why are they being investigated for soft tissue sarcoma?

Fosfamides, such as evofosfamide and palifosfamide, are a class of drugs developed as potential alternatives to ifosfamide in treating advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). They were designed with slightly different mechanisms of action and the potential for reduced toxicity compared to the traditional doxorubicin and ifosfamide combination. The goal was to improve treatment outcomes while minimizing side effects for patients with this challenging cancer. However, recent phase III trials have prompted a re-evaluation of their effectiveness.

What did the TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III trials reveal about the effectiveness of combining fosfamides with doxorubicin for soft tissue sarcoma?

The TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III trials assessed the efficacy of combining doxorubicin with either evofosfamide or palifosfamide, respectively, in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS). While the combination arms showed increased response rates (tumor shrinkage), this came at the cost of increased toxicity. Importantly, neither trial demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) compared to doxorubicin alone. This suggests that despite the ability of these combinations to shrink tumors, they did not translate into longer survival for patients, raising questions about their clinical utility.

Why were the outcomes in the control arms of the TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III trials considered unexpected, and what implications did this have for sarcoma research?

In both the TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III trials, patients in the control arms (receiving only doxorubicin) lived longer than anticipated based on historical data. For instance, the median overall survival in PICASSO III was 16.9 months, and in TH CR-406/SARC021, it was 19.0 months, compared to 12.8 months in the earlier EORTC 62012 study. This unexpected improvement in the control arms complicates the interpretation of the fosfamide arms and highlights the need to carefully consider patient selection, evolving standards of care, and other factors that might influence outcomes in sarcoma clinical trials. It prompts a re-evaluation of trial design and the interpretation of results in this disease.

What factors are now being re-evaluated in sarcoma clinical trials as a result of the TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III trial results?

The outcomes of the TH CR-406/SARC021 and PICASSO III trials have prompted a re-evaluation of several factors in sarcoma clinical trial design and conduct. These include patient selection criteria to ensure more homogenous groups, the integration of biological understanding to identify patients most likely to benefit from specific therapies, and the need to account for evolving standards of care in the control arms. Furthermore, there is a renewed focus on understanding why response rates did not translate into improved survival, prompting investigations into the underlying biology of sarcoma and the development of more effective and targeted treatments. Consideration is being given to how trial endpoints are defined, to make sure the results accurately reflect the potential of new therapies.

Given the challenges in sarcoma treatment, what are some potential strategies for improving future clinical trials and therapies?

To improve future clinical trials and therapies for soft tissue sarcoma (STS), several strategies are being considered. These include focusing on more homogenous patient populations to reduce variability, integrating biological understanding to personalize treatment approaches, and developing more targeted therapies based on the specific genetic and molecular characteristics of individual tumors. Additionally, there is a need for greater collaboration among researchers and institutions to facilitate larger and more comprehensive clinical trials. Furthermore, future trials should consider novel endpoints beyond traditional measures like overall survival and progression-free survival, to better capture the clinical benefit of new treatments, potentially incorporating quality-of-life measures or biomarkers of response. Addressing the complexities of sarcoma research will be essential for developing more effective and personalized treatments for this challenging group of cancers.