scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment in previously untreated advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (GeDDiS): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

TL;DR: This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma and found that the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population did not differ.
Abstract: Summary Background For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Methods The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009–014907–29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. Findings Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7–29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5–54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5–54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6–30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1–20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99–1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. Interpretation Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Funding Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

1,150 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Nivolumab alone does not warrant further study in an unselected sarcoma population given the limited efficacy, and combined with ipilimumab demonstrated promising efficacy in certain Sarcoma subtypes with a manageable safety profile comparable to current available treatment options.
Abstract: Summary Background Patients with metastatic sarcoma have limited treatment options. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4, respectively. We investigated the activity and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic sarcoma. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 study that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older and had central pathology confirmation of sarcoma with at least one measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, evidence of metastatic, locally advanced or unresectable disease, an ECOG performance status of 0–1, and received at least one previous line of systemic therapy. Patients were assigned to treatment in an unblinded manner, as this trial was conducted as two independent, non-comparative phase 2 trials. Enrolled patients were assigned (1:1) via a dynamic allocation algorithm to intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Thereafter, all patients received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma achieving a confirmed objective response. Analysis was per protocol. This study is ongoing although enrolment is closed. It is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500797. Findings Between Aug 13, 2015, and March 17, 2016, 96 patients from 15 sites in the USA underwent central pathology review for eligibility and 85 eligible patients, including planned over-enrolment, were allocated to receive either nivolumab monotherapy (43 patients) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (42 patients). The primary endpoint analysis was done according to protocol specifications in the first 76 eligible patients (38 patients per group). The number of confirmed responses was two (5% [92% CI 1–16] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab group and six (16% [7–30] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (four [10%] patients), decreased lymphocyte count (three [7%]), and dehydration, increased lipase, pain, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, secondary benign neoplasm, and urinary tract obstruction (two [5%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab group and anaemia (eight [19%] patients), hypotension (four [10%] patients), and pain and urinary tract infection (three [7%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (19%) of 42 patients receiving monotherapy and 11 (26%) of 42 patients receiving combination therapy, and included anaemia, anorexia, dehydration, decreased platelet count, diarrhoea, fatigue, fever, increased creatinine, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, hyponatraemia, pain, pleural effusion, and pruritus. There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Nivolumab alone does not warrant further study in an unselected sarcoma population given the limited efficacy. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab demonstrated promising efficacy in certain sarcoma subtypes, with a manageable safety profile comparable to current available treatment options. The combination therapy met its predefined primary study endpoint; further evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a randomised study is warranted. Funding Alliance Clinical Trials in Oncology, National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival.

433 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The latest evidence guiding the histiotype‐specific management of extremity/truncal and retroperitoneal STS with regard to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy is summarized.
Abstract: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare tumors that account for 1% of all adult malignancies, with over 100 different histologic subtypes occurring predominately in the trunk, extremity, and retroperitoneum. This low incidence is further complicated by their variable presentation, behavior, and long-term outcomes, which emphasize the importance of centralized care in specialized centers with a multidisciplinary team approach. In the last decade, there has been an effort to improve the quality of care for patients with STS based on anatomic site and histology, and multiple ongoing clinical trials are focusing on tailoring therapy to histologic subtype. This report summarizes the latest evidence guiding the histiotype-specific management of extremity/truncal and retroperitoneal STS with regard to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

226 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Anlotinib showed antitumor activity in several STS entities and the toxicity was manageable, and the most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher adverse events were hypertension, triglyceride elevation, and pneumothorax.
Abstract: Purpose: The prognosis for patients with refractory soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) is dismal. Anlotinib has previously shown antitumor activity on STS in preclinical and phase I studies.Patients and Methods: Patients 18 years and older, progressing after anthracycline-based chemotherapy, naive from angiogenesis inhibitors, with at least one measurable lesion according to RECIST 1.1, were enrolled. The main subtypes eligible were undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), liposarcoma (LPS), leiomyosarcoma (LMS), synovial sarcoma (SS), fibrosarcoma (FS), alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS), and clear cell sarcoma (CCS). Participants were treated with anlotinib. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate at 12 weeks (PFR12 weeks).Results: A total of 166 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, the PFR12 weeks was 68%, and objective response rate was 13% (95% confidence interval, 7.6%-18%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.6 and 12 months, respectively. The PFR12 weeks, median PFS and OS were: 58%, 4.1 and 11 months for UPS (n = 19); 63%, 5.6 and 13 months for LPS (n = 13); 75%, 11 and 15 months for LMS (n = 26); 75%, 7.7 and 12 months for SS (n = 47); 81%, 5.6 and 12 months for FS (n = 18); 77%, 21 and not reached for ASPS (n = 13); 54%, 11 and 16 months for CCS (n = 7); and 44%, 2.8 and 8.8 months for other sarcoma (n = 23), respectively. The most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher adverse events were hypertension (4.8%), triglyceride elevation (3.6%), and pneumothorax (2.4%). No treatment-related death occurred.Conclusions: Anlotinib showed antitumor activity in several STS entities. The toxicity was manageable. Clin Cancer Res; 24(21); 5233-8. ©2018 AACR.

191 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis and treatment of retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, outlines treatment recommendations, and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.
Abstract: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare malignancies of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Soft Tissue Sarcoma provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis and treatment of retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, outlines treatment recommendations, and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.

178 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions, and a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included.

20,760 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

1,150 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This phase 3 randomised controlled trial assessed whether dose intensification of doxorubicin with ifosfamide improves survival of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma compared with doxorbicin alone.
Abstract: 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

819 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Gemcitabine plus docetaxel is tolerable and highly active in treated and untreated patients with LMS, and Hematologic toxicity was common, but neutropenic fever and bleeding events were rare.
Abstract: PURPOSE: Few chemotherapy agents are active in leiomyosarcoma (LMS), particularly LMS that has progressed after doxorubicin treatment. We sought to determine the response to gemcitabine plus docetaxel among patients with LMS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable LMS of uterine (n = 29) or other (n = 5) primary sites who did not respond to zero to two prior chemotherapy regimens were enrolled onto a phase II study of gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 100 mg/m2 IV on day 8 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor given subcutaneously on days 9 to 15, delivered every 21 days. Patients with prior pelvic radiation received 25% lower doses of both agents. Gemcitabine was delivered over 30 or 90 minutes in cycles 1 and 2 and by 90-minute infusion in all subsequent cycles. Pharmacokinetic studies assessed in vivo differences in gemcitabine concentrations with different rates of infusion. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (median age, 55 years; range, 32 to 74 years)...

612 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Gem citabine as a single agent and the combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel have activity in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma are found to have activity.
Abstract: Purpose Gemcitabine as a single agent and the combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel have activity in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. To determine if the addition of docetaxel to gemcitabine improved clinical outcome of patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas, we compared a fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine versus a lower dose of gemcitabine with docetaxel. Patients and Methods In this open-label phase II clinical trial, the primary end point was tumor response, defined as complete or partial response or stable disease lasting at least 24 weeks. A Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure was used to produce an imbalance in the randomization in favor of the superior treatment, accounting for treatment-subgroup interactions. Results One hundred nineteen of 122 randomly assigned patients had assessable outcomes. The adaptive randomization assigned 73 patients (60%) to gemcitabine-docetaxel and 49 patients (40%) to gemcitabine alone, indicating gemcitabine-docetaxel was superior. ...

603 citations

Related Papers (5)