Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†

PurposeThis multicenter study, to our knowledge, is the first phase III trial to compare trabectedin versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after prior therapy with an anthracycline and at least one additional systemic regimen.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive trabectedin or dacarbazine intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were disease control—progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and duration of response—as well as safety and patient-reported symptom scoring.ResultsA total of 518 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either trabectedin (n = 345) or dacarbazine (n = 173). In the final analysis of PFS, trabectedin administration resulted in a 45% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with dacarbazine (median PFS for trabectedin v dacarbazine, 4.2 v 1.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.55; P < .001); b...

/pdf/efficacy-and-safety-of-trabectedin-or-dacarbazine-for-41tu96xn0g.pdf

Efficacy and Safety of Trabectedin or Dacarbazine for Metastatic Liposarcoma or Leiomyosarcoma After Failure of Conventional Chemotherapy: Results of a Phase III Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)01283-0.pdf

Eribulin versus dacarbazine in previously treated patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma: a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Olaratumab and doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone for treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma: an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial

Summary Background Effective targeted treatment is unavailable for most sarcomas and doxorubicin and ifosfamide—which have been used to treat soft-tissue sarcoma for more than 30 years—still have an important role Whether doxorubicin alone or the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide should be used routinely is still controversial We assessed whether dose intensification of doxorubicin with ifosfamide improves survival of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma compared with doxorubicin alone Methods We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial (EORTC 62012) at 38 hospitals in ten countries We included patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma, age 18–60 years with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 They were randomly assigned (1:1) by the minimisation method to either doxorubicin (75 mg/m 2 by intravenous bolus on day 1 or 72 h continuous intravenous infusion) or intensified doxorubicin (75 mg/m 2 ; 25 mg/m 2 per day, days 1–3) plus ifosfamide (10 g/m 2 over 4 days with mesna and pegfilgrastim) as first-line treatment Randomisation was stratified by centre, performance status (0 vs 1), age ( vs ≥50 years), presence of liver metastases, and histopathological grade (2 vs 3) Patients were treated every 3 weeks till progression or unacceptable toxic effects for up to six cycles The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population The trial is registered with ClinicalTrialsgov, number NCT00061984 Findings Between April 30, 2003, and May 25, 2010, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin and 227 to receive doxorubicin and ifosfamide Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 31–77) in the doxorubicin only group and 59 months (36–72) in the combination group There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median overall survival 12·8 months [95·5% CI 10·5–14·3] in the doxorubicin group vs 14·3 months [12·5–16·5] in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·83 [95·5% CI 0·67–1·03]; stratified log-rank test p=0·076) Median progression-free survival was significantly higher for the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group (7·4 months [95% CI 6·6–8·3]) than for the doxorubicin group (4·6 months [2·9–5·6]; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·60–0·90], stratified log-rank test p=0·003) More patients in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group than in the doxorubicin group had an overall response (60 [26%] of 227 patients vs 31 [14%] of 228; p vs 40 [18%] of 223 patients), neutropenia (93 [42%] vs 83 [37%]), febrile neutropenia (103 (46%) vs 30 [13%]), anaemia (78 [35%] vs 10 [5%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [33%]) vs one [ Interpretation Our results do not support the use of intensified doxorubicin and ifosfamide for palliation of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma unless the specific goal is tumour shrinkage These findings should help individualise the care of patients with this disease Funding Cancer Research UK, EORTC Charitable Trust, UK NHS, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Amgen

/pdf/doxorubicin-alone-versus-intensified-doxorubicin-plus-mi4itms3ab.pdf

Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Catherine Hermans

Papers

Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial